Scottish Labour leader doubling down on Self ID

[Laladybird]

What do you make of this?
www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/08/starmer-should-back-gender-change-16-scottish-labour-leader/

One theory is that Humza's doing it to distract us all from the SNP's financial <ahem> woes.

Never going to work.

Yes, but why does the Scottish Labour lead feel the need to take this position? Is he trying to distract from other things too or is he truly captured and so blind to the political downsides?

SLab proving they're eternally useless.

All of the major parties in Scotland are captured.

Wouldn't be surprised if they've each been lobbied and bunged a couple of quid for the pleasure.

Scottish Conservatives have consistently opposed GRR

@readsalotgirl63 Scottish Conservatives had a free vote. Most against, 2 in favour, 2 abstained.

SLab whipped to vote in favour. Two women rebelled

I guess that's my question. Why on earth?

I suspect the cowardly Labour MSPs liked being whipped to vote for it. All the Labour amendments were defeated, but still they voted for legislation that enabled Adam Graham/Isla Bryson to claim a bunk in a women's prison.

Yes 26 Conservatives sensibly voted against out of 30 and 2 voted for and 2 abstained.
Scottish Labour are missing a golden opportunity to pick up disgruntled votes from SNP voters who don't like the genderwoo. If they continue to support genderwoo and it looks like they will (Starmer too), the only difference between them and SNP is 'independence'.
The only sensible anti-genderwoo vote remains Scottish Conservative.

Sadly because it is riddled with misogynists. They are beyond useless up there. Scottish Labour used to have some very clever players . Now they have some that are not fit to be local councillors. I know ,I was a member for nearly 30 years and it makes me sad . Especially as the SNP and Greens are creepy weirdos and I would never vote Tory. Scottish Tories are of that crazy unionist bunch anyway . ( There's some of that in Labour too) . It's just a basket case my friends . A bloody mess . My hope is that the people - and there are decent people like there are in England , Wales and NI make their feelings very clear somehow . I used to support PR - not now when you get characters like Maggie Chapman in power!

I often wondered if something would come to light after a journalist investigated.

If Labour persist with their silly bumbling attack ads, the Tories will just fight back with pictures of a smiling Keir Starmer and the phrase "he wants to make it easier for rapists to be housed in women's prisons".
And despite being a catastrophically shit pile of disaster upon disaster as a government, they'll win next time. Because Labour only wins if enough people get out and vote for them.

Two Labour women MSPs voted against Anas Sarwar's whip. So there is the beginnings of a rebellion.

Johann Lamont was a smart woman who saw this misogynist nonsense for what it is. But unfortunately she's retired as an MSP.

@cheekymaw couldn't agree with you more. People who think PR is a progressive, power to the people option need to look at the Scottish Greens.

But as SNP royalty, Fergus Ewing pointed out, there's no need for the SNP to share power with the odious Greens.

Centre left women have been disenfranchised. By our own parties.

Perhaps the SNP wants to share power with the Greens.

"Look how progressive we are!!! Getting all cuddly with the progressive Greens! Look! Look!"

Same as in England - hard, intensive lobbying. Scottish Stonewall, although tiny compared to the UK version are still influential and have also adopted TRA demands as the new civil rights.

Vic thingy who's the media go to on this at the moment is another non-threatening transman, perfect for not scaring the horses a la James Morton and Stephen Whittle.

They rock up at whatever public sector/third sector meeting/conference and say the teens will all kill themselves if they dont get their way.

Easy feel-good rainbow wash - you're literally(not literally) saving lives! There's no downside (except for those horrid women but they don't matter)! It'll make you look new/relevant/interesting/different to Yoof.

Yes, but why does the Scottish Labour lead feel the need to take this position? Is he trying to distract from other things too or is he truly captured and so blind to the political downsides?

Anas Sarwar is one of my MSPs; I suspect that the current tangle suits him fine. Labour are the third party (out of five) at Holyrood, out of Government since 2007 and replaced as the official Opposition by the Cons in 2016. They need to win seats from Cons (portrayed by Sarwar as playing culture war games re the GRR) and SNP (portrayed as wasting taxpayer money and as hurting individual trans people and fostering an atmosphere of uncertainty/fear by dragging out the Section 35 as a constitutional issue rather than compromising with the UK to amend GRR and get a modified version into law ASAP).

He possibly DOES believe that his position is ethical - he's from a privileged background (his dad was a Labour MP) and anyone he cares about will be well insulated from the worst effects of misogynistic legislation. Most of all, though, he'll do what UK Labour tells him to do and swear publicly (whatever private doubts he may have) that whatever course the UK Lab leader sets is right.

I used to support PR - not now when you get characters like Maggie Chapman in power! Labour benefit a lot from PR (the regional list system) as well. Of their current 22 MSPs, only two were elected by their constituencies. Sarwar is not one of them; his would-be constituency voted for Nicola Sturgeon. ScotLab is also very guilty of recycling the same unqualified and unappealing candidates in some areas - so you vote against someone for the local council, then against them as an MP candidate, then against them as a constituency candidate for Holyrood ... and you STILL get them as an MSP when they get in on the regional list.

PR is still viable and I'd say necessary, but I'd like to see an STV system similar to Stormont's, where each constituency contains multiple seats and they're filled via a ranked preference system. That could get rid of the corruptible and manipulable list system and still allow constituents a much higher chance of having representation not just from the party they wanted but from the specific candidate they preferred.

Just saw a piece in the Guardian by Maggie Chapman confirming that the Greens would have walked away if the SNP had not pursues Section 35.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/13/scottish-greens-gender-reforms-legal-challenge-was-potential-deal-breaker

Called here, if I remember correctly, some days ago.

Aye but so what? The SNP produces very little actual legislation. The bills it does put through are things like the crackpot Hate Crime (women excluded) Act or Offensive Behaviour at Football which is lapped up by Labour and Libdems anyway.

Sure they need support for a budget, but it's only ever a shopping list.

The last time the SNP overreached themselves and got slapped down was Named Persons. In the end it was defeated by the Supreme Court, not the opposition parties. SLab was keen for every child in Scotland to have a state guardian prying in their family's affairs.

@SageHoney you think Starmer is telling Sarwar to push self ID? I can believe that was the case six months ago. But why now?

The closest parallel I can think of is Named Persons which was unpopular even with SNP members but Labour backed Sturgeon to the bitter end. I think they tried to frame that one as a Tory culture war too.

No, I don't think Starmer is pushing it harder now; more that Sarwar took up the self-ID issue so strongly and whipped for it at Holyrood because UK Lab leadership wanted it rather than because Sarwar himself naturally loved the idea or would have ever championed it on his own. But I do think he'll be expected to keep pushing it as long as UK Lab want it; he won't be allowed to tone it down much even if he sees that it's a vote loser in Scotland.

I did find it interesting that Sarwar was saying earlier that he and Starmer were in complete agreement when they weren't -- Starmer disagreed with the age limit of 16 rather than 18 and agreed with the Section 35 in principle, while Sarwar was upset about the UK interference. Now he does seem have come around to exactly Starmer's line, saying ScotGov should compromise with the UK to get the majority of the provisions in place quickly.