Page 2 | Janice Turner calls on Keir Starmer to get off the fence re the EA

Musomama1 · 08/04/2023 14:12

I fear that this anti change to the equality act petition from trans activists will be used by those within Labour to denounce any clarifications and it will influence KS.

I don't think KS personally feels strongly enough about it and would rather not think about it at all.

Floisme · 08/04/2023 19:14

I don't care who started this, I'm interested in who will fix it. But I do think that Tory members / voters can play their part just like Labour supporters can, by putting the fear of god into their respective parties. It seems to me that politicians on both sides of the House aren't nearly worried enough about pissing off women, and it's time that changed.

RealityFan · 08/04/2023 20:55

This is the business end of the deal. People need to be counted. People need to stand up.

I mean Tory MPs. Labour MPs. And all the other jokers in the Commons.

Badenoch needs to come thru on this, and whoever's up to it on the other side.

I mean if Parliament can't get this right, a so-called CONSERVEative GOVERNment can't pass the most logical and straightforward of laws, and/or Labour blocks it, then we can assume our lords and masters have chosen not to represent 51% of the population, and are taking the piss out of the other 49%.

And I'll repay the compliment by never ever voting again.

MarshaBradyo · 08/04/2023 21:01

RealityFan · 08/04/2023 20:55

This is the business end of the deal. People need to be counted. People need to stand up.

I mean Tory MPs. Labour MPs. And all the other jokers in the Commons.

Badenoch needs to come thru on this, and whoever's up to it on the other side.

I mean if Parliament can't get this right, a so-called CONSERVEative GOVERNment can't pass the most logical and straightforward of laws, and/or Labour blocks it, then we can assume our lords and masters have chosen not to represent 51% of the population, and are taking the piss out of the other 49%.

And I'll repay the compliment by never ever voting again.

It does feel like crunch time

Good luck to Kemi as if we see Labour in without change it’s 99.9% aren’t talking about this land

All over red rover

RealityFan · 08/04/2023 21:13

Today, Labour got in the mud and slung it at the Tories re going soft on serious crime, basically accusing Sunak personally of stopping any number of major crims doing time.

The Tories need to do the same, but here go for the jugular on Starmer's infamous 99.9% stat, and the fact that the vast majority of the shadow cabinet and activists believe TWAW.

And promise to lock down the EHRC recommendations.

And get the job done.

The country will not stand for politicians procrastinating, backing down, or delaying for pure party political calculations.

Mrsorganmorgan · 08/04/2023 22:30

Has anyone seen Ben Bradshaw's Tweet. What an absolute knobhead!

GingerbreadBaking · 08/04/2023 22:34

Is Penny Mordant blocking business, is she still leader of the house of commons or is someone else?

DemiColon · 08/04/2023 22:41

fromorbit · 08/04/2023 09:34

Bear in mind there are two options to change the Equality Act.

1 -Putting forward a bill to rewrite the Equality Act in detail. Takes a lot of time, can be amended.

2 - Or the Tories can issue a Statutory Instrument saying sex in Equality ACT means biological sex as in the original intention. Far quicker, cannot be amended only choice is a Parliamentary vote Yes or No, Abstain. Statutory Instruments are used all the time for this kind of thing to fix acts with loopholes, bad wording.
This is what Sex Matters has argued for. It is the best option by far.

Option 2 The Tories can definitely do, they have time for it. They would almost certainly win the vote bearing in mind so far Labour Front benchers have all said clarifying the Act is a good idea. Remember the vote on Activating clause 35 to stop the Scottish GRA went through easily. With an 80 majority and Labour probably abstaining that is an easy win.

What this article is saying is the Tories might do option 3 - do nothing and use it as an election weapon to say they will do it next time. That would be cynical, but obviously could get them votes. However, it is risky because do the Tories really want to extend this? After all it was the Tories who put male rapists and murderers in women's jails, allowed mixed sex wards to continue, changing rooms etc. Just using women as props underlines the Tories own sexist ideas. Option 2 still puts Labour on the spot and every other party. Because either you vote that biological sex exists YES, doesn't NO, or ABSTAIN - that this question isn't a big deal. Anything but yes makes you look stupid. The Lib Dems/SNP might be stupid enough to vote NO two major threats the Tories made to look like clowns. Labour will probably have a huge row about it and abstaining is still dumb.

Having the Vote for 2 early in 2023 is a great way to start off a campaign for a May election. Starmer abstains = he is confused about what a women is or isn't look how he voted. Or if Labour go for Yes = the internal Labour war shows their party as divided and the Greens/Lib Dems/SNP might go crazy attacking Labour over this. The debate continues, more culture war drama. The SNP break down further Sunak has saved the Union. The attacks and Tory puff piece articles write themselves. Because whatever happens in the UK this argument is going to continue in a much worse way in the US and the Tories can use that as a backdrop to undermine any left leaning party that doesn't say genderism is daft.

Show quote history

I can see why, for strategic reasons, a party might think that the best thing is to make it an election issue. IN some instances that kind of approach can be very effective.

My gut feeling though is that it would be a mistake here. Not just in terms of actually governing well, but strategically. I think they have more to gain by saying, look what we actually accomplished on this, see, we are committed to seeing this gender business off.

Because there is a lot more to do in terms of turning around the civil service and arms length bodies, and that will by necessity take years. If they can show they will do what needs to be done, they may gain votes from people who want that seen through, rather than whatever Labour might do. If they try and faff around with it they will just look weak and those same voters might saw, well, there are other issues I like Labour on, so I will maybe give those more weight.

RealityFan · 08/04/2023 23:13

For me, this is single issue politics.

After 40 years of voting Tory, if they do not get this settled now, but deliberately play party politics and only make it an election campaign pledge, I'll vote Labour.

Simply because if they can't get it thru a 60 seat majority in 2023, they'll have no chance post GE 2024 where their majority, if they suprise everyone and get that, will be even smaller.

If they say they can get it thru in a year, then they can get it thru now.

I thought the low point of Brexit in 2018/19 couldn't be topped. I was wrong.

Floisme · 08/04/2023 23:33

I understand the temptation for the government to use this as an election issue - it's not as if they've got many strong cards to play. But it would be outrageous to use the legal rights of half the population as an election ploy.

It reminds me of how the Democrats never bothered to codify abortion rights in federal law because it was too convenient to leave it hanging over women's heads - and we know how that ended.

None of the mainstream parties are in this for women, none of them. The government need their feet holding to the fire until they start thinking, 'If we don't sort this out before the election, we're toast.'

RealityFan · 08/04/2023 23:35

Floisme · 08/04/2023 23:33

I understand the temptation for the government to use this as an election issue - it's not as if they've got many strong cards to play. But it would be outrageous to use the legal rights of half the population as an election ploy.

It reminds me of how the Democrats never bothered to codify abortion rights in federal law because it was too convenient to leave it hanging over women's heads - and we know how that ended.

None of the mainstream parties are in this for women, none of them. The government need their feet holding to the fire until they start thinking, 'If we don't sort this out before the election, we're toast.'

+1000.

MarshaBradyo · 08/04/2023 23:46

RealityFan · 08/04/2023 23:13

For me, this is single issue politics.

After 40 years of voting Tory, if they do not get this settled now, but deliberately play party politics and only make it an election campaign pledge, I'll vote Labour.

Simply because if they can't get it thru a 60 seat majority in 2023, they'll have no chance post GE 2024 where their majority, if they suprise everyone and get that, will be even smaller.

If they say they can get it thru in a year, then they can get it thru now.

I thought the low point of Brexit in 2018/19 couldn't be topped. I was wrong.

Why is Labour a better option on this though?

They don’t even want to talk about the issue. They don’t think anyone else is either.

A GE on it is better than Labour just going ahead. As long as we get to vote on something over nothing.

I’d be happy if it goes through beforehand but Labour is NZ territory

RealityFan · 09/04/2023 00:04

MarshaBradyo · 08/04/2023 23:46

Why is Labour a better option on this though?

They don’t even want to talk about the issue. They don’t think anyone else is either.

A GE on it is better than Labour just going ahead. As long as we get to vote on something over nothing.

I’d be happy if it goes through beforehand but Labour is NZ territory

Show quote history

Oh, no love for Labour here. But the Tories are in charge, and it's up to them to lead.

I'll be most disappointed with Badenoch here, if it comes to pass that she's complicit in this critical issue becoming a wedge tactic purely for electoral advantage at the GE.

Floisme · 09/04/2023 07:33

Why should we settle for being used as a general election ploy when it can be fixed now?

MarshaBradyo · 09/04/2023 07:39

I can see from Labour’s perspective best outcome is it’s changed now and it means they just ignore it, as they already are.

I don’t mind voting on it. It wasn’t in the manifesto, but sex v gender is a big deal.

If they do it before then great. If it becomes an issue for the electorate at a GE fine. Let’s vote on it.

ResisterRex · 09/04/2023 08:02

On the other thread I posted the idea the government won't clarify runs counter to all other things that have been reported. And this from the same paper:

SNP ‘forced Tory moves on trans self-ID law’

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6fce707c-d4b6-11ed-b5c3-54651fc826e9?shareToken=3ff415c72f478e6c90468b62a6fcd17c

"Rachael Hamilton, the party’s equalities spokeswoman, said the reforms which accelerated the process for trans people to change gender and lowered the age threshold to 16 were a potential danger to women.

She said: “I warned the SNP that their reckless gender recognition reforms would risk the safety of women and girls in Scotland by opening up single-sex spaces to predatory men seeking to exploit the system. The SNP ignored these legitimate concerns and railroaded this flawed legislation through parliament so I welcome these steps being taken by the UK government which will protect the rights of women and girls.”

This week Rishi Sunak, the prime minister, pledged to change the Equality Act to create a legal distinction between people born female and those who transition to become women. The move could bar trans women from accessing single-sex spaces such as women-only hospital wards and from competing against “biological” women in sports.

Kemi Badenoch, the women and equalities minister, asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission to consider the “benefits or otherwise” of changing the legal definition of sex.

She said the need had become more pressing following moves in Scotland to try to make it easier for transgender people to gain legal recognition, which the UK government claims is at odds with the UK-wide Equality Act."

Plus Kemi's own tweet praising a Times article about this issue:

twitter.com/kemibadenoch/status/1643551638760693761?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

I like Janice. But I've never had the impression she's got much in the way of insiders. And she got the Clapham Common story wrong with the TWAW protestor - easily discoverable if you did your due diligence - and missed a bigger story in so doing. The Times really stuck like glue to that picture as well. They don't always call it right.

Floisme · 09/04/2023 10:42

I hope you're right ResisterRex. I also hope that Conservative Women put a rocket up their party's arse if they show any signs of thinking this way.

As RealityFan said:
if they can't get it thru a 60 seat majority in 2023, they'll have no chance post GE 2024 where their majority, if they suprise everyone and get that, will be even smaller.

The other possible scenarios::

Labour wins a comfortable majority. Now this might give Starmer the confidence to face down his trans lobby, and in my more optimistic moments, I dare to think this could happen... but equally he still might want to avoid antagonising them.
Labour doesn't win a clear majority and Starmer ends up leading a centre left coalition, in which case we're toast.

I can't see us ever having a better chance to fix this as now.

RealityFan · 09/04/2023 10:49

As a four decades long Tory voter, they won't buy my vote if they offer only to sort it if re elected ahead of the GE.

No, they need to sort it now, and then state they're the party to protect the already established law post-GE.

It's also the best opportunity to give Starmer political cover to tack back to the middle on this.

I'd say 2023/24 is more existentially critical than the Brexit crunch period of 2018/19.

MarshaBradyo · 09/04/2023 10:54

People will just have to decide

If one party is is offering biological reality and the other gender ideology it’s a no brainer imo

However people vote they’ll have to take ownership of outcome. It’ll be a clear split in direction.

Cycleorrun · 09/04/2023 10:57

Yes the Tories need to fix this now. If they do then even as a left-wing Labour voter I will vote Tory. I looked at Keir Starmers face when he said, angrily, that it should never be said that only women have a cervix in that LBC interview. It wasn't the face of a man trying to keep his party happy, afraid to face them down, it was tha face of a man who believed every word of what he was saying.
However, if the Tories don't play this fairly for women by getting this through now I'll probably vote for an independent candidate. They need to do this now to show they are serious about protecting women's rights.

PaterPower · 09/04/2023 12:21

There are sitting Tory MPs who are TWAW / ‘Be Kind’ so it wouldn’t be a guaranteed 60 majority, even with whipping. My local MP, for instance, is captured and has announced a decision to step down at the next GE, so very unlikely to be influenced by the whips’ office.

SunnieShine · 09/04/2023 12:25

Whatever he does now, it will be too little too late for me. The man is a lost cause.

MarshaBradyo · 09/04/2023 12:25

However, if the Tories don't play this fairly

Is voting on an issue at the GE unfair?

We usually vote on a manifesto and it wasn’t part of 2019 election manifesto

It’s a risk to do it at the GE rather than just put it through, but I can’t see it lacks fairness

Floisme · 09/04/2023 12:44

But what's being proposed - at least as I understand it - isn't a new law but a rewording to clarify the original intention of the existing law. This, I believe, is well within the powers of the minister concerned so doesn't need to be in the manifesto.

That's my take on everything I've read about it. If I've got it wrong then fair enough. But if it's correct and, if the government is trying to prevaricate, then as far as I'm concerned it's yet another version of 'After the revolution, Love' and they need the mother and father of all bollockings.

Cycleorrun · 09/04/2023 13:19

Floisme · 09/04/2023 12:44

But what's being proposed - at least as I understand it - isn't a new law but a rewording to clarify the original intention of the existing law. This, I believe, is well within the powers of the minister concerned so doesn't need to be in the manifesto.

That's my take on everything I've read about it. If I've got it wrong then fair enough. But if it's correct and, if the government is trying to prevaricate, then as far as I'm concerned it's yet another version of 'After the revolution, Love' and they need the mother and father of all bollockings.

That's my understanding too. Since the original meaning of sex as biological sex has been allowed to be fudged under the Conservatives' watch it only seems fair they should put this right whilst they are in power. If they don't then as far as I'm concerned they are not much better than Labour on women's rights.