Starmer: "trans-inclusive" conversion therapy ban, "modernise" the GRA, all hate crime to be aggravated offences as part of making every child "proud and confident"

[ResisterRex]

Exclusive in Diva, following a reception at a LGBT+ Labour event in Parliament on 29 Jan:

https://diva-magazine.com/2024/01/29/exclusive-keir-starmer-lgbtqia-rights/

"“We’ll strengthen the law, so every category of hate crime is treated as an aggravated offence,” Starmer said. “We’ll cut NHS waiting lists for LGBT+ people waiting for urgent physical and mental health care. We’ll modernise the Gender Recognition Act. We’ll implement a full, trans-inclusive, ban on all forms of conversion therapy. We fully support the view that conversion therapy is psychologically damaging abuse.”

“We are committed to a decade of national renewal and will work with all the organisations in this room tonight so every child can feel proud and confident in who they are, to stand up for LGBT+ rights at home and abroad and to get Britain’s future back.”

The mention of children is unclear but must have a background to the full speech? LGBT Labour hasn't tweeted about it but others have. Rayner and Dodds also in attendance.

https://x.com/djrm94/status/1752057964767101041?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

https://x.com/stevenatkins/status/1752256944843162016?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

x.com/anuox/status/1752094930074325420?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

I’m going to vote for the party that I believe will be the least bad for women and children and that isnt Labour

What is the point of worrying about women in poverty when the sex class is about to cease to have any meaning or be identifiable either? We won't be able to identify the group or the need, it'll just be a virtue signal back at the old days when that was possible. If you doubt it, look at the shit show of the census which might as well have been written by Roald Dahl at this point. (Would have been cheaper.) And I can't imagine a government that has no fucks to give about vulnerable women losing services, resources, being raped in prisons and on hospital wards yada yada is suddenly going to have a rush of compassion for women in poverty. Doesn't add up, does it?

Schools are under no illusion things would be better under Labour, Labour have said, there is no more money. CAMHS actually working and doing their job successfully, many additional SEND schools and units staffed with experienced staff, people actually wanting to work in schools instead of living to escape from them, waiting lists for referrals being weeks instead of years and leading to actual action, kids having the funded support needed in schools..... it's much of the root of the crisis and a few shiny documents and initiatives and glossy packs sent out will make fuck all difference. The only thing that would change it now is massive, massive increases in funding.

The UK will remain on the bones of its arse however you vote. Which is why all the parties have to talk about is gender crap. You can have foot dragging insanity or yippee charge that iceberg at full speed insanity.

Or maybe on the basis Sunak doesn't hang out with this kinda fella:

x.com/genderreceipts/status/1751923337381417260?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Or that they stay awake during briefings on CSE:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-68151789

I mean, if you're stooping as low as tit for tat and shaming people for choosing how to vote.

Labour don’t want our votes Adam how many times does it need to be said

Why do you find it so hard to get your head around the fact that the answer to that question is YES.

Lots of us ARE going to vote Tory because we feel Sunak, Badenoch etc know what a woman is and we believe we have a better chance with them than with Starmer and co. And no amount of scolding from you is going to change that.

And no amount of scolding from you is going to change that.

The scolding has had one impact, I previously spoilt my vote, I won’t be doing that anymore.

Starmer and Dodds could sort this out in a heartbeat if they chose, for example a statement along the lines of: 'When we passed the GRA and EQA it was with the best of intentions, but it was never envisaged that we would see rapists referred to as 'she' and sent to women's prisons, or men competing in women's sport. This was not what we intended and we will fix it.'

Even now it's not too late.

Are you sure? Given they need a record swing, I'm not sure it's nailed on.

This a million times over. The die hard Labourites cannot believe that this matters to women so much.

And I agree with this too. I have spoiled my ballot several times - not now. Fuck the LP if they cannot even bring themselves to say that women do not have penises and that women and little girls deserve their own spaces - I mean FFS.

IT IS NOT MUCH TO ASK!

It saddens me that you are not a squirrel!

There probably will be a record swing to Labour, a lot of people are going to want change - and then be disappointed when nothing much happens because the economy is fucked. That means Labour will throw women further under the bus so they can claim to have done something when it comes to the election after next.

My vote can help deny legitimacy for removing women's rights.

Seriously if they get in and LGBTQ+EVERYOTHERLETTEROFTHEALPHABET go to the top of the health care queue then that night that involved two bottles of rum and a husband and wife back in 1992 is going to be my trump card to get into the B category.I

Edited to correct the year of my debauchery

Yep this

pmsl

I don't think the electorate is so enamoured by Labour that they'll get a larger swing than Blair did. It doesn't feel anything like 1997 did, IMO.

Boundary changes always seem to hurt Labour more, and the next election will be no exception.

So you are terrified about those things, but you are going to vote for them on the basis Sunak says women don't have penises?

No - on the basis that Starmer says that women can have penises.

Knowing that men aren't women really isn't a very high bar for someone seeking public office to clear.

If Starmer can't clear that bar, and cedes sanity to the Tories, it's on him.

If Starmer and Labour really care that much about getting the Tories out of power, why are they so determined to self-sabotage by beclowning themselves?

Because they're scared of offending Stonewall?

THIS.
It's not difficult. There are countless ways of acknowledging the unintended consequences of all this. The electorate aren't stupid. They see what's happening to the NHS, they're horrified that children are being gaslit into believing they can change sex. The steady stream of court cases - both those evidencing the bullying of women out of institutions and the criminal cases where the Isla Brysons, Andrew Miller/Amy George & Abbi Taylor's of the world expose male crimes attributed to women, expose massive anti social behaviours.

The fact that Labour with their collective intelligence haven't been able to find the language to clearly separate them from all this is truly astounding.

A rough guide to the swing Labour need. This is the version from the BBC.

"The next election will be fought on new constituency boundaries, redrawn to reflect population changes and to try to even out voter numbers in each area.

An analysis of these changes for BBC News, ITV News, Sky News and the Press Association suggests Labour needs a national swing of 12.7% to win with just a small majority.

That's considerably higher than the 10.2% achieved by Tony Blair in 1997 and higher even than the 12% achieved by Clement Attlee in 1945."

The research was by election experts Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher along with David Denver in Scotland and Nicholas Whyte in Northern Irelannd.

That's interesting. I'm not sure Keir 'Bread Pudding' Starmer is going to be inspiring enough to achieve that swing.

Me neither!

Well, if he doesn't, you know who'll get the blame, don't you? 😃

If he was to do a complete reverse ferret I just wouldn't buy it now. Another hoping for a GC independent.