Labour ‘must fix its trans stance to win the next election’ - party needs to clarify its policies to be closer to the public’s views on the debate

[IwantToRetire]

Labour is trying to position itself as the party of the centre-ground of British politics. It has identified middle-aged, suburban women as a target demographic to win over ahead of the general election.

Labour strategists have studied polling that shows how a gender gap in voting has emerged since 2010, whereby women are on average more likely to vote Labour.

But the polling notes that Labour’s advantage is “specifically among women under 50”, while the Tories lead in women over 50.

It comes as a network of Labour activists and staffers prepares to relaunch itself next month as a think tank that will produce monthly reports on how the party can appeal to its target voters.

The organisation, called Labour Together, aims to come up with a raft of policy recommendations that reposition the party as “socially to the Right and economically to the Left”.

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/03/18/labour-must-fix-trans-stance-win-next-election/

I don’t think that having gay or trans relatives is the issue here. Lots of individuals got caught up in the groundswell of support for LGBTQ++ visibility and rights, without any real thought as to what that meant. Young “trans” children were presented to us like puppies, and a lifetime of dangerous drugs and surgery was not considered. fairy wings on a long haired little boy is as cute as a sleeping puppy in a basket and both bear little relationship to reality. I am quite happy for individual politicians to believe whatever the fuck they like, but I want policy to be carefully considered and if thousands of life long lefties are saying they are worried about something, I want the party to listen.

Labour currently bans Karen Ingala Smith and many other women speaking on DV from basic party membership.

Labour currently bans Karen Ingala Smith and many other women speaking on DV from basic party membership

When you have banned Karen I-S, and sacked Joan Smith- one of the country's foremost experts on VAWG - for wanting to centre VAWG (then refused to meet her, despite many promises to do so) then, guess what, Keir Starmer?

They are not left-wing or they would be advocating nationalisation of utilities and repossession of the infrastructure (e.g. resevoirs and half the Lake District) which were sold off in their privatisation.

It's all very well saying 'But the bad things have been happening under a Tory government', but that's a narrow view of the issue.

Visible changes in the past decade, yes - that's under the Tories. And some of it has been done by the Government - guidance to schools on RSE content (although they are now undoing that), MoJ guidance on where to house and how to assess prisoners (ditto), Annex B (sort of). But a lot of it isn't under government control - changing room or crisis centre policies, the Equal Treatment Bench Book, all the organisations following Stonewall law. Those are down to unions, pressure groups, individual councils ... all of whom build on the GRA and the poor wording of the EA - both Labour pieces of legislation.

So the choice is between 2 parties that hate women. One of them manages to do so while also claiming we don't exist.

(Of course policies other than gender come into play when making the impossible choice, but Labour display similar cognitive dissonance and detachment from reality on multiple issues. So do you pick the party that will do awful things because they believe in them; or the one that will do awful things because the polls/lobbyists/activists tell them to and they don't know what's real?)

And the distinction between bad (Tory) guidance and bad (Labour) legislation is important - one is a lot easier to undo.

And the Tories have actually listened to women (purely out of self-interest, I'm not suggesting that - as a party - they give a flying fuck about women's rights, tho some individuals do). That gives me hope that we can roll back Stonewall law.

Where is the hope of that from Labour?

I will never apologise for centring self-ID above all other issues because self ID would render all other women's rights meaningless.

This is essential, but I can’t see the Labour Party making any serious move to achieve it. Ever since Blair broke his 1997 election promise to renationalise the railways, I’ve seen creeping privatisation unopposed or even enabled by Labour.

Well put. This is an essential difference.

I agree. There’s nothing leftwing about them.

Also, it’s ludicrous that genderists claim to be left-wing, when their ideology forces the many to obey the few, for fear of violence or losing their jobs. It enshrines an individual’s ‘right’ to remove other people’s rights, eg men in women’s single-sex spaces. That’s the opposite of leftwing.

We can compare what local authorities have done for women.

We can consider authorities which have removed funding from refuges and rape crisis centres who want to retain just some single sex provision for women as an option where such provision does exist for other groups.

We can look at guidance and allocation of funding to organisations dealing locally with women and children in local services for health and leisure to see which prohibit single sex provision even where it should be covered under the EA as legitimate

We can look at the tone and language being used locally by party activists and the general prioritising of funding in local areas and how they use their influence on the governing bodies of local organisations including schools.

The bar to getting into local politics is quite low. In many areas the challenge is finding people to stand to be councillors or representatives on governing bodies. If a party is going through a period of entryism those are the people who end up in these slots and some of them then make it onto local party lists with help from the support of external organising groups such as momentum (Tory equivalents do the same).

Cressida "its just a bad apple" Dick was appointed by Priti Patel. That post is always appointed by the Home Secretary, the Mayor can only make "suggestions".

Its a long standing political fudge whereby the Mayor is accountable for an appointee of the government. In practice this has resulting in both claiming credit for successes and both finger pointing when it goes wrong.

Meanwhile Londoners just want a bloody police force which won't dick around for ten more years and then look shocked when yet another report makes the same findings they have been making since the late 90s.

Police phoning in radio stations defending the institution are doing what every government inquiry and serious case review saud happens. All people are interested in doing is safeguarding and serving themselves, they want to retain the financial compensation and status they are used to, they don't want to be unemployed so will throw everyone else under the bus, it's the sane with Teachers showing children anti science and porn in schools and nurses pimping out patients in Annexe B, they are selfish, very few said anything in order to stop it and nobody strikes over it.

Sacred castes who don't go to prison like the rest of the population, in a job creation scheme, not doing their job properly, running around wasting time and taxpayers resources causing harm.

The mayor is responsible for crime and policing policy. He has a whole office dedicated to it, their aims are in the link and I'm not convinced any have been achieved, or are even close. https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/mayors-office-policing-and-crime-mopac?ac-10461=10456We shouldn't turn a blind eye to failings, just because of political allegiances.

Its nothing to do with political allegiances.

The head of the Met has two masters and is responsible to both. S/he is appointed by the Home Secretary, and accountable to the Home Secretary not just the mayor.

The mayor has no control over the appointment or its tenure (Patel extended Dick long after there were many issues reported), but is supposed to be accountable for their delivery. It doesn't matter how big his office is (and it has raised issues about the met) - he doesn't control the appointment and when he did ask her to step down (and he can only ask) he was widely attacked for so doing.

Its bonkers and was just as bonkers and failing throughout Johnson's tenure and was a problem before that. He simply didn't care and any police failure was responded to with more "look at my garden bridge" bullshit. The problems have been formally reported on multiple times now since the late 90s.

The Met is too big and institutionally resistant to change. and the portion responsible for day to day policing of London should be accountable to the elected mayor who also determines the appointment. Irrespective of which party is in which seat.

Oh please. I'm more prepared to listen to Labour than some (more fool me) and even I know they have stated they will bring in self ID - and said so in their last manifesto. All Starmer has said lately to qualify this intention is that he won't make it a priority.
If this is nothing but a Tory smear then Labour could fix it in an heartbeat

Nope, because the majority of the posters on here have already made their minds up "too late for me, wont be getting my vote" whilst never having any intention to vote Labour or consider it.

When i said i would wait until the next Labour manifesto ie have an open mind, i get hit with a series of its too late blah blah blah.

Even the collapse of the Met and its not just the Met force, gets blamed on Labour, whilst exonerating the previous Mayor - wonder why that would be?

@NotHavingIt Self ID is happening right now, you can get it all signed off without surgery (NHS has opened up several more GD clinics)
The Tories have had 13 years to amend the GRA or better still get rid but nope, Labours fault (even though they haven't even published a Manifesto yet)

https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate/who-can-apply#:~:text=You%20can%20still%20apply%20through,had%20any%20gender%20affirmation%20surgery.

I'm not just talking about the appointment of the commissioner. The mayors office has committed to priorities including improving trust in the police, making London safer, and supporting victims. It's clear from today's report none of that has been achieved. The whole system has failed, including the Mayor's office, which is currently Labour controlled.

The Macpherson report (on Steven Lawrence murdered in 1993) was in 1997, it could have been written today.

The Met gets its officers from society, who raises the children of tomo? us.

We can blame Mayors, Home sec's and Tory/Labour Governments but ultimately we raise the children, mainly male, who grow up to be such bastards.

The issues in todays Police forces go back decades, long before Johnson or Khan but one thing Govt can do is proper funding, training and change the law so that Police who do break the law go to jail and/or dismissed.

Nope, because the majority of the posters on here have already made their minds up "too late for me, wont be getting my vote" whilst never having any intention to vote Labour or consider it.
If that's what you believe then why are you wasting your time and your breath berating them?
Why not focus on posters like me who have stated - more than once -that we will wait until the next manifesto?

Why not have a go at convincing someone like me why I should trust them?
Hint: a persuasive argument will avoid 1) insulting my intelligence and credulity 2) attempts to guilt trip me and 3) Whatabout the Tories.

You don't have to wait for the manifesto to hear what has already been said, nor to take seriously what your local Labour MP has said they intend to do if elected to government. They cannot have made it clearer. That they are now fudging slightly is down to the fact they do not want for this issue to distract in their pre-election campaign - the way it did for Nicola Sturgeon.

Self Id is not enshrined in law. If it should be we would have an even worse situation on our hands.

Nope, because the majority of the posters on here have already made their minds up "too late for me, wont be getting my vote" whilst never having any intention to vote Labour or consider it

And while Labour have that attitude, their chances of winning are precarious.

Of course they haven't lost any women supporters with their attitude or policies. Of course, all those notorious hard-right crypto-Tories like Karen Ingala-Smith and Joan Smith were just longing for an excuse to vote Conservative. Of course, any women who say that they are lifelong Labour supporters, now unable to back them, are liars.

So much easier to lie to yourselves, than to face up to why you have lost women, let alone to try to win them back, isn't it? Well, I hope all the blue-haired genderists turn up for you in 2024. Because you don't deserve our vote.

You can apply if you meet all of the following requirements:

you’re aged 18 or over
you’ve been diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the UK
you’ve been living in your affirmed gender for at least 2 years
you intend to live in this gender for the rest of your life

If you do not have a gender dysphoria diagnosis
You might still be able to apply, but only if you meet all of the following requirements:

you currently live in England, Wales or Scotland
you were in a marriage or a civil partnership on 10 December 2014 and living in England or Wales, or on 15 December 2014 and living in Scotland
you had been living in your affirmed gender for at least 6 years before those dates, and you have evidence of that
you have had gender affirmation surgery

Legal Self ID effectively removes all of the above safeguards.
The campaign has now moved on to demanding that the equality act makes clear that single sex exemptions mean single sex.

Nope, because the majority of the posters on here have already made their minds up "too late for me, wont be getting my vote" whilst never having any intention to vote Labour or consider it

What is with Labour supporters thinking they know the minds of other women. It’s bizarre.

And agree Lucy

This is getting increasingly like those "yes your MiL burned the house down and ate the goldfish, but you dont like her do you? No wonder she's horrible to you!" kind of threads.

Yes, there are consequences to behaviour and treating people badly. I don't plan to be the bigger person and give a hopeful one last chance before Mummy means it vote to a group who don't believe in reality, women's equality, child safeguarding, or fair and impartial policing.

"You just don't like them!"

No. At the moment, I really don't.