Labour's candidate for Uxbridge election

[Imnobody4]

https://twitter.com/MarkHazard2020/status/1668600384275849216?t=uXmmS3st--x0AXDfLBs1MQ&s=19

Team Starmer has had Danny Beales, Labour's candidate in the #UxbridgeByElection and an enthusiastic Trans Rights Activist delete Tweets like the one in which he proudly announces spending £40,000 on a trans zebra crossing.

They know this ideology's an electoral liability.

Let's hope someone has kept copies other Labour politicians ready for the General election and the rewriting of history. Jess Philips is already doing it.

cough Ben Cooper cough

I'm ginger. He is not representative of my recessive gene.

He's one of my local Councillors, I have seen the rainbow crossing abomination. I hope he gets elected so we can get rid of him

"A woman is an adult female. There are also trans people. "

Sounds a bit vague, like he is also suggesting there is another kind of woman

Can you point us at the actual document. I'm curious by what you mean by "spousal veto". I would be very surprised if a spouse can actually block their partner from legally changing their gender and I suspect it means something like it providing grounds for divorce. In which case I think that's entirely fair is it not? If you marry someone and they declare they're a different sex that's a very fundamental thing that affects the basis of the marriage.

JP is talking about the 2016 report from the Women and Equalities Committee, where they took zero oral evidence from women’s groups and totally fell for the TRA line - https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/328/women-and-equalities-committee/news/102121/women-and-equalities-committee-calls-for-equality-for-trans-people/

We do have to allow people to change their minds though- Jess Phillips unequivocally defended single sex spaces and the importance of biology in the debate the other week. The fact she wasn’t doing that in 2016 and 2020 doesn’t invalidate her taking that position now. That’s what winning an argument looks like- people change their minds.

I think I'mnobody was quoting Philips, there.

I'm sorry. I genuinely don't know the background on this "spousal veto" and what it is. I don't believe there's law that says a spouse can stop someone seeking a GRC; and I consider doing so being acceptable grounds for divorce the right thing. What is being contested here?

Yeah that’s because the campaigning around it is disingenuous. The spousal veto just says that when someone gets a GRC their spouse has the choice of whether to continue in the marriage or not. The ‘veto’ is over the marriage continuing, not the GRC. But TRAs make it sound like the spouse has a veto over whether someone gets a GRC. It’s annoying.

Thanks for the explanation. Well then "spousal veto" is a loaded, no - innaccurate, term. I think the best response is an immediate "there is no spousal veto".

It's not quite that...

The GRC can't be granted unless the spouse agrees. If the spouse won't agree and the transitioning party wants the GRC more than the marriage, an interim GRC is granted, which (becomes? opens a fast track for?) a full GRC once the marriage is over.

So if the marriage cannot be ended eg for religious reasons, technically the spouse could veto a GRC indefinitely.

That said, in the UK it is possible for one spouse to unilaterally end the marriage, albeit not as simply/quickly/cheaply as if both agree, so the only way the transitioning spouse is really prevented by the veto is because they chose not to take the routes open to them to end the marriage and gain a GRC. They want to have their cake and eat it.

In other words, while yes, the law allows the transitioned against spouse to veto the GRC it does not force the transitioning spouse to stay in the marriage. That's on them.

Underneath all of this is of course yet another of those inconsistencies underpinning trans ideology : attempting to change someone's gender identity or sexuality against their will is abhorrent unless it's rewriting the sexual identity and sexual history of a spouse or partner in support of a trans person's identity, in which case it's abhorrent not to.

The only people who consider the spousal veto unreasonable are those who consider a trans person's wants, needs and feelings automatically have more legitimacy than those of the people the trans person's needs affect.

@FlirtsWithRhinos Ah - thank you for that. So it kind of is a spousal veto. But also what I thought. Good to understand.

There is a little more to 'spousal veto' than that. If the spouse doesn't agree with the continuation of the marriage, only an interim GRC will be issued until the marriage has been annulled. This is to ensure that the names on the annulment documents match those on the marriage certificate. Otherwise, Jane Doe would end up having her marriage to Mary Newname annulled rather than her marriage to Martin Oldname annulled.

@JanesLittleGirl that's what I said isn't it? Only an interim GRC until the marriage is ended.

No way is this guy not getting in. Uxbridge ready to spank the memory of Boris, and this govt of 13 lost years.

I'm as GC as the next MNer, but I can see zero chance of trans/women's issues having any bearing on this outcome.

He seems a lovely boy, but naive as Hell if he thinks shenanigans like the Pride crossing are palatable to the majority.

Alas, the Tories are due a good kicking, and so is the memory of Boris. This is the guy to provide that opportunity.

Sorry, crossposted.

It looked to me as though Jess had her wake up moment during the leadership election. It was around then that someone patiently explained to her what the spousal veto actually meant. She withdrew shortly afterwards.
I think she realised she couldn’t stand until she’d done some re-evaluation and hard thinking.

As for Starmer, he’s made his party electable again and he got rid of Johnson.
He knows about the gender id trap the Conservatives have set. I’m sure he knows exactly how he’ll deal with it if they’re stupid enough to spring it during the election.

Can you expand your theory on Starmer?

He didn’t do much to get rid of Johnson. It was partygate that did that. He’s lucky I’ll give him that.

I don’t get the love for the Labour tactic of refusing to state their position that some seem to like though.

Will he tell us all again about the 0.1% of women who have penises? Or perhaps he’ll treat us again to the “things that shouldn’t be said” gem.
Starmer is a grade an ocean-going world class bell end. On this and every other issue.

Trans Widows Voices call it the Spousal Exit Clause and explain it at https://www.transwidowsvoices.org/gra-reform-guidance.

IcakethereforeIam · Yesterday 16:49
Are they cloning them?

Beales is on the.....? I want to say.....right? [2 pictures shown in 16:49 yesterday]

Exactly what I thought.

So catching up on the Uxbridge election then.

It's not quite the spanking you were so sure about! Ulez and identity madness. There's growing conservative animosity to the reaminer corporate class. This far outweighs any Boris effect.

Yes, I'm no John Curtice it seems, lol.

Uxbridge was about ULEZ not identity or anything else (Johnson certainly isn't loved - he is a joke in the constituency). ULEZ is a huge issue in the constituency and in many other outer London boroughs where its causing real hardship to low and lower middle earners on top of the current cost of living crisis. It should have swung to Labour but ULEZ meant it was balanced.

The TFL figures for affected owners are inaccurate but even if you take their optimistic numbers of 10% the people affected are those who can least afford it - not the new EV owners living around the University area.

Khan was asked for more transitional help/a delay (or at least to ask for those) and his response was to double down and tell people they were baby killers. The reality is that in most of the outer London boroughs the air quality is good on most days against the WHO standards.

Khan could have made a point of this and lobbied government for more transitional support for those affected, provided some from taxes the outer London boroughs pay and pushed the blame back onto government. Instead we get fatuous advertising campaigns, train line renaming and random virtue signalling.

I'm not surprised Starmer is pissed off with him.