Starmer in favour of clarifying Equalities Act

[Apollo441]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/05/keir-starmer-backs-rishi-sunak-rewrite-equality-laws-women/

Behind a pay wall but basically says he backs Rishi Sunak in clarifying that sex means biological sex in the 2010 act. That's it isn't it? Game over for the Gender ideology crowd if they can't misrepresent the law and sow confusion.

Perhaps someone has reminded him that Local Government elections are on 4 May. Not the time to enrage your activists, especially in woke places like Brighton.

As I have said before from my canvassing gender does not seem to be a voting issue. However lack of trust in Keir does seem to be. You don't need to read much of this board to understand why the two are related.

Starmer backs the change because he knows it will sound good to the majority of do gooder virtue signallers who believe in equality and have no idea what the issues really are. The Equality Act = Good you see. "We can sell improving the Equality Act to the masses" says Starmer.

It also gets him out of a bind. If the current government changes the equality it's no longer Starmers issue to deal with. It would be much harder to roll back on women's rights from that position. It's toxicity means he wouldn't go there.

It's a way to dodge to subject if he wins election. He gets to support equality and say some women have a penis. It's merely playing both sides for electoral purposes and so he can kick the subject into touch if he becomes PM.

True. They can stick their fingers in their ears and say women aren’t talking about this and constantly obfuscate on the issue, it only lowers what people think of him.

He can’t be trusted and uses opaque and deflecting language to get away from problems.

He can’t be trusted and uses opaque and deflecting language to get away from problems.

Yes.

And based on those observations, that makes him not really someone you'd want to ask to run a country.

Hi, Keir or any of your people who are on here:

It's 100% of women are biological women or don't waste my time. Anyone who is not a biological woman is a man.

More than happy for my taxes to be spent on safe third spaces. But men do not belong in women's single sex spaces. If men don't like this, this is men's problem to fix not women's.

100% agree. And this is what we need to keep on saying.

Yes this exactly. Be clear on this or you don't get my vote.

It should be "game over" @Apollo441. But the Tories aren't going to introduce any legislation to protect women's spaces for KS to back. Even with their sizable majority the party that knows what a woman is doesn't think they can pass it.

Or maybe they just can't be arsed because they don't give a shit about the women whose rights they have destroyed.

A few points you may want to consider in your analysis of the Tories:

Firstly, while the Tories have a theoretical majority of 70+, their MPs have got into the habit of rebelling on a large scale and plenty would ignore the whip just to irritate Rishi.

Secondly, there are a large number of MPs who are either leaving the HoC at the next GE or who's seat has disappeared. How much leverage will the whips have over them?

Thirdly, whipping your MPs through the lobbies on a "matter of conscience" isn't a particularly good look. Ask the Scots about voting on the GRR?

Finally, a SI has to be adopted by both houses. How confident do you think Rishi is of getting it though the Lords?

There's a petition in circulation to not change the Equalities Act. It has quickly gained over 100,000 signatures, and has more signatures than petition to change the Equality Act (which has been running for longer and has been shared by JK Rowling to millions of people).

And?

Have you actually looked at the map distribution on this? It's rather telling in terms of limited demographics. Or are you aware how easily gamed government petitions are?

Meanwhile lots of women have said they are too scared to put their name on the other petition out of fear and that STILL has over 100k. The national distribution is much more even and has a clear pattern in Scotland.

It is fascinating to look at.

Of course, we need to protect women from those who might seek to abuse them and where that means biological women, yes, it must mean biological women primarily

No not primarily as that implies a secondary, solely is the word you were looking for.

You can choose for your name to not be publicly visible on petitions.

I don't see why anyone would be "scared" to sign either petition either way?

I must say I thought twice before signing because TRAs are in all kinds of roles where they can access sensitive data eg the TRA intern who leaked Mumsnet data, and we have heard of cases where letters/emails to MPs about women’s rights don’t seem to have been passed on. If the question is about why people might wish to be assured of anonymity, just look at the way women who spoke up have been treated.

I don't think there would be a problem getting it through the HoL who have tried to push back the Tory TRA agenda before. I'm well aware that that Tories don't give a shit about women so asking them to vote to restore the rights they ceded to their TRAs, on a matter of conscience wouldn't work.

However, they have a sizable majority. The DUP and some others in the Commons would vote with them and SF abstain on everything. Is Rishi's grasp on the party really that feeble?

And anyway, what about the Conservatives knowing what a woman is? Has the penny finally dropped that they no more know what a woman is than any other party and don't give a shit about us either way?

I thought that was the whole point of Kemi looking into biological sex issue

They’re going in direction of making changes

I think that was just more Tory lip service, lies and manipulation Marsha.

I don’t expect this to be fast though. It’s a huge societal issue.

Do we split by gender or by sex? It’s a massive deal with so many ramifications as we’re finding out.

So I’d expect some one to consider it before proposing changes. But also I expect there’s some testing of public opinion before going ahead. So the Kemi articles are to get a sense of backlash or approval.

It’s a million times better than Starmer 99.9% of people aren’t talking about this. Doofus

Of course people are

But the opinion from the public needs to be gauged and yes it is better to take people on the journey from considering to doing.

There is a significant difference apparent in the comments on the papers, the average person in the street, the consultations and the surveys, to that of Twitter.

Over and over again the polls and consultations come back : no one wants to see TQ+ people suffer, they want them to have freedom from harassment and discrimination, legal protection in employment etc, needed health care,

AND

they want single sex spaces particularly for women, and caution with children.

It's hardly an unreasonable stance.

If it does not go through this time, it will keep on coming back until it does. More and more Isla Bryson incidents will happen, more court cases are in the pipeline, the mob violence is escalating. It will eventually have to be re balanced from the mess that bad law and a lot of nervous faffing and political capture have created. It does not harm any TQ+ male person to accept that female people also have needs and to tolerate them also having accessible provision.

I would not celebrate yet. The Tories are people who say and don't do much, so no guarantee they will make the change, and secondly, I don't see given voter ID and boundary changes that a Labour majority in 2024 is a certainty.

No celebrating yet here. We have a chance now but if Labour get in before it changes we’re probably fucked.

If we go fully NZ, Canada etc it’s likely game over.

Suppression and violence to silence.

I suppose one difference is not all the media is captured. The Guardian yes, BBC too but still some upstarts who wouldn’t go along with it.

Plus people said the same of the NI issue and Rishi got the votes when many predicted not, so we’ll see.

I read that the debate on this will be in Westminster Hall, not the House of Commons, why would that be the case? Does anyone know?

https://twitter.com/benwansell/status/1644741199268388866

This is a FASCINATING thread on where political parties sit, and where various groups of the public sit.

The premise and the purpose of the thread is this:

Ben Ansell AT benwansell
But let's be honest. The last week has been all about a 'new woke elite' OUTSIDE of politics but still apparently influential. And their views our counterposed to those of the public. So is this right? 6/n

Its worth reading the whole thread, but there is something super interesting here: the outliers are the political parties themselves.

AND THAT, has implications for Starmer. Significant ones. On the one had he has to keep students happy. But we know that students are unreliable voters. And the most socially liberal are those who earn over £70k - is that a sign of an insulated life?

But in electoral terms most groups who are the economically most likely to be affect by the cost of living, are also much more socially conservative - look at where renters both social and private sit on this. Generally speaking most of these groups identified are more social conservative. And even the Conservative Party aren't THAT socially conservative.

And here's a little thought. Who are Labour's main donors? Same for the LDs. Is THAT why they are taking a TWAW style line, which doesn't reflect the majority of the public? TWAW certainly doesn't look to sit close to the general population in terms of political alignment. Look at how MASSIVELY out of touch with the population students are. (Hence that second government petition looking the way it does on the map....)

Which begs the question for me. Who is 'manufacturing' a culture war? Who are much closer to a similar social position of the general population?

Starmer is going to have to sell policies which are significantly different to the general population AND social policies which are significantly different to the general population if he continues to court the TWAW vote. One or the other might be doable, but both? Thats a harder sell. That really DOES leave things more open to the Conservatives regaining significant ground before a GE, unless Starmer starts to commit. I note that the SNP is MORE socially conservative than the Labour Party according to this too.

The LP will be looking at stuff like this atm and pondering...

This is hardly the stuff of Nazis. Not by a long shot.

These debates always are AFAIK.

Do we split by gender or by sex? It’s a massive deal with so many ramifications as we’re finding out.

If politicians want us to be split by gender, they're going to have to define it and be honest.

Because its not feminine people over here and masculine people over there, its really 'women and girls and whichever men want to be here' and men over there.