Brigitte Phillipson blocking EHRC guidance

[lcakethereforeIam]

I'm not sure if there's anything new here though

Phillipson blocks trans guidance after landmark Supreme Court ruling https://share.google/P91PBE5Cy4ROwsdA1

It's a very stark article in the Telegraph.

Labour are going to take serious punishment in London, and they'll be leaking support in all sorts of directions.

I haven't had any leaflets yet, but it seems to me that locally (long term Labour area) they'll lose to the Greens in the more hipster wards, and they'll lose to Gaza independents in the mostly Muslim wards. Reform will stand and I think might surprise people by how well they do.

So maybe bait and switch for the TRAs?

We shouldn't have to divine which political signals are false and which are true. We shouldn't need to second-guess what Labour are up to. It should be pretty obvious what a Party stands for and which way it will fall on most issues. If it isn't, then we are all being played.

Turn out for local elections is usually woeful. It tends to be the older people that bother round where I live. I don't know what it might be like in university towns.

Tim Montgomery revealed that after the May elections, Reform start running the biggest public consultation exercise to contribute to the Reform policy platform. Behind the scenes will be the likes of Kruger and Orr doing the deep work on a great restoration.
Farage will not allow any momentum to dissipate.
The Q is, how will the Tories keep up, delineate enough, find their own policy path forwards?
We certainly know that the only ideas on the left are wealth taxes, PR, tacking to the EU/negotiating a Customs Union (ahead of a plan to Rejoin) etc.

I don't think anyof those ideas are bad ones, although I'd add in property and unearned income taxation too. As for rejoining, I don't think the people who advocate it have thought too much about how keen the EU would be, and what conditions they would insist on (the euro?). All in the middle distance, I think. And bloody Gaza MPs! What is the point? What can any British MP do to improve the position of the Palestinians? Force the govt to accept a Palestinian state? Only a gesture, hasn't France already done it?

Hi, can anyone give me the section in the judgement that addresses minors/boys in the ladies with their mum? I need it urgently in a debate.

I think when voters get to know how bare the cupboard is with Polanski and Davey, and how awful just the one term of Labour has been, the country will return a centre right govt.
I think the culture war didn't have a bearing in 2024, but really could in 2029.
Which brings things back around to Labour and the SC ruling...

Just to get back to the OP topic (how many threads do we need to have speculating about political parties!) a PP said or asked whether it had been "illegal" to published their guidelines.

On one level no, so long as there had been a clear heading that it wasn't yet law because the next stage would be for it to be presented to HoC within 40 days.

And in publishing it, it gives the public the opportunity to read and consider their proposed guidelines. Surely the public have as much right to comment as a lone Government Minister saying it is okay or it is not okay, or we are looking for any excuse not to rubber stamp if throught the HoC.

But I suppose there was the danger that having them on the web site meant people might assume they were saying this is now the law.

But then that never stopped Stonewall implying their interpretation of the law was the law.

I think it should be in the public domain.

It not being available is that the only narrative are all the niggles that Philipson is drip feeding to the media.

Labour is behaving like any other lanyard-class captured organisation. Not even top tier - the BBC's capture was impressive in its ability to create a coherent narrative out of incoherence - Labour's capture is just the political version of the National Library of Scotland. People pointing out that it was already behaving that way before the election are quite right and the election by all accounts have increased the TRA cohort so it shouldn't be a surprise.

But I am surprised and bitterly disappointed. Starmer is highly intelligent; he understands the contours of the GI debate perfectly well. The fact that after his 99.9% of women of course haven't got a penis comment, he has never once allowed himself to be put in that sort of ridiculous position again proves it. He also understands systems and politics. His disposal of Corbyn and his coteries was a master class in how to effect a ruthless reset of party politics - efficient, inexorable and tidy. His management of the 2024 election was likewise a work of electoral elegance - how to let an unpopular party win a landslide election for you by not saying exactly the right things.

Starmer is intelligent enough to see the political, ideological and ethical folly of GI. He was powerful enough in the party to prevent capture and has the tool set and temperament even know to roll it back if he wanted. I truly expected that when push came to shove he'd step in and nip this in the bud and I'm aghast at how it has unfolded otherwise. Just so profoundly disappointed.

Exactly this. I vastly overestimated the intelligence and political acumen of Labour party leaders.

The guidance isn't the law, it's to support people in complying with the law. Statutory guidance cannot change or create law.

The SC judgment is already law.

For me, Starmer has only one guiding light, one consistency. His belief in Rule Of Law, The Rules Based Order. All else is far right, anti liberal.
Yet he's happy to allow the SC ruling to be totally obfuscated. Meaning something very deep is going on.

I don't think the problem with Starmer is lack of intelligence. He's highly intelligent in a narrow field, while believing his expertise is broader than it really is. This is common with barristers. He's also got very poor political instincts.

I see no reason not to think that he's a TRA true believer. However he's got to that destination, that's where he is, and he is stubborn and arrogant enough that nobody will shift him from his position. (See also, Nicola Sturgeon)

As for Bridget Phillipson, you need only look at the way she played silly buggers with the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act to know that this isn't her first use of sharp practice for political ends. She knows the 40 day clock starts ticking once the guidance is laid before Parliament. But there's no ticking clock that applies to her. She can, if so minded, sit on the guidance indefinitely, and I believe she will do so until sitting on the guidance becomes more trouble than it's worth.

It’s in the telegraph link - the ‘infant son’ comment was regarding changing rooms I think and the toilet one was a pregnant woman going into the men’s (presumably the woman would be too embarrassed to ask the horrid women if she could jump the queue).

Hmm so this very interesting and worrying question seems to have descended into a right wing talking shop

I honestly cannot wrap my head round the pregnant woman dilemma/

I cannot imagine the women in the queue not letting her go to the front.

What are we, feral?

Thanks, but others on here said the judge specifically covered minors. No where in that article does it refer to any such thing. I need the specific paragraph in the judgement where the judge specifically actually refers to an exemptions for boys say 8 and under.

I see no reason not to think that he's a TRA true believer.

This could be the case. One of Starmer genuine political abilities is being perceived to believe what people want him to believe.

I read the Morning Star

I love threads like this - so many informed and politically wise women - most but not all on the left - sharing insights and knowledge with those of us who haven't kept up and even abandoned politics when the Left abandoned women.

Such good reading

👍 @TheAutumnCrow

It is good reading but also depressing. The political class across the aisle is very poor in quality these days. I never shared the high opinion of Starmer that some posters have, so I am less surprised by his behaviour. He has remarkably poor political antennae for a PM.

There's also the issue of self interest to consider? Many of these politicians - even at the very top - have children / young people caught up in this and so only see the issues only through the lens of their poor mental health, vulnerabilities and demands. Thus ignoring the deeply dubious motivations of the men running all the lobby groups and embedded in the political classes.

What’s the interesting question? You can still comment on that.

This is neither left nor right wing.
Both Theresa May and Penny Mordaunt are TWAW and pro Self ID.
Mark Serwotka and Rosie Duffield are TWANW and anti-Self ID.
The problem is on the whole it's the professional lanyard class left who believe in this fiction, left leaning working classes see right thru it.
And it was Starmer who procured a thread thru the eye of a needle approach to this area that placated many GC women after his "99% of women don't have a penis" statement.
So, seeing this bait and switch, especially where you know in any other area of settled law, the SC no less, he would be all over other politicians who obfuscated on the law (his defence of ECHR and it's role in forcing us to keep foreign criminals and terrorists, eg, opposed by Farage), means not only did he fool GC women voters last year, but he's shown his true colors, forcing people to consider voting for the first time Tory or Reform.
If you're complaining this is a right wing furore, blame Starmer/Phillipson, and them alone.