Burnham - does he know what a woman is?

[Dragonasaurus]

Just that really - we’ve had Starmer prevaricating, fence sitting, “most women don’t have a penis” in fact women don’t have a penis’ but somehow I’m going to let Phillipson sit on the guidance which would ensure women’s single sex spaces (some of them anyway)…..

Would Burnham be any better? Does anyone know what his position is?

Interesting times ....

And every time life isn’t going well, one MP can just step down, call a by election and vote a new party leader in? It’s manipulative and shoddy politics.

I must say, I've never understood how this can be "constitutional " (for lack of a better term). And it's happening more and more frequently now, when it hardly ever used to happen. Perhaps some political bods can explain the phenomenon (without derailing the thread, please!)

Plus, it probably takes a year to settle into the role

Just another excuse for Bridget, cronies, and Parliament to shift the EHRC Guidance down the road, as well...

HOL already questioning the guidance:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5544624-peers-raise-questions-about-equality-act-2010-code-of-practice

Yes, but also those hard realities include a commonsense, widely held and realistic view around 'sex' and around women's protections. Starmer had already suggested he would not oppose the SC ruling, and all of his cabinet have also had to sing from that same hymn sheet. Why would Burnham want to disrupt that status quo? It is not a priority of his.

He's already said he'd keep Shabana Mahmood in position ( which will not please those TRA backbenchers), and he's being heavily advised not to put 'Net Zero zealot', Ed Milliband, in as Chancellor. He's going to be looking for people to steady the ship - not up-end it.

I'm beginning to think that Starmer will come out and say that there will be a gradual transfer of power that will end after the party conference in September. The guidance becoms statutory in a couple of weeks, although, that, of course, won't make resistance disappear....but it will be the new standard for most establishments and workplaces going forward.

Lets's hope that Starmer also suggests there needs to be some kind of hustings and an open debate about the future of the Government - rather than just handing power over to an un-elected unknown. With an open debate we'll get a clearer picture of who is actually proposing what. Andy Burnham will have to come up with something definitive on the SC ruling and the guidance - even if he'll try his best to wiggle out of that.

He can't change the guidance....he'll have to reject it completely, or accept it. If he rejects it the government will be wilfully breaking the law and thereby creating a need for a total re-write of the Equality Act - as it relates to 'Sex'. That would not be electorally popular at all, and furthermore would take up a lot of time.

They need to read the original ruling; all of their queries and questions are dealt with in detail - giving examples of the law in operation.

Most places just need to add in one additional gender neutral facility - in the same way they have had to do for many years when it comes to disability access, inclusion and protections. There was a lot of fuss about that at the start too........but now it is standard practice.

Good luck to Burnham getting a year.
This isn't 1997 let alone 2019.
This is 2026.
His ratings have already tanked from +11 to -9, and that's before he's PM.
Let's see how he deals with the first riots of the summer.

His ratings have already dropped? I fear the next few months is not going to look pretty. The decline has been gradual over decades. Any ‘quick’ solution will cost money. But from where?

Just reported we've over-borrowed...by £5bn...for one month...alone.
Try and take that in, we've already borrowed way too much for way too long.
And now £5bn...for a single month.
Yes, I realise that might be it for 12 months.
But the point still stands.
The gilt markets are waiting for PM Burnham...and watching...Defcon 1.

He can't change the guidance

I wish I shared your optimism, about this and about the direction of travel with Starmer and Labour.

Burnham doesn't have to change the guidance. He can just preach "confusion " about it, without changing a thing. Or add confusing and /or unlawful bits to it, thinking we won't notice, increasing faux confusion and division (that's what Bridget has done). Whatever it is, it won't be done out in the open. It never is.

They need to read the original ruling

That was my point in the other thread.

They haven't and they won't, not if pointing to the guidance and saying "it's too confusing" gets them where they want to be. And I must admit that, between them, Bridget and the EHRC have made it as easy as possible for people to claim "confusing " or "misunderstanding " because the guidance is a mess.

It's going to take a long haul through the courts before any of what was normal 20 years ago becomes the norm again.

Lets look what Burnham actually said on this most recently:

However, at his campaign launch on Friday he said: “I think the time has come to take the Supreme Court ruling and the guidance, and implement it, but to do it in a way that protects those spaces but does not marginalise already marginalised communities, that’s my view.
“My mum and dad brought me up to live and let live. I think Britain needs to get back to a more live-and-let-live approach to life, not where we’re constantly arguing with each other, being judgmental about each other.
“Let’s implement the guidance, but do it in the fairest and most compassionate way possible.”
He also said he thought Britain had done too much re-running of arguments.
“We’ve got to stop arguing with each other. We’ve got to start by finding some common ground and start pulling together,” he said.

Andy Burnham has backed single-sex space guidance and said the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman should be implemented
https://archive.is/VHOdW#

What do we see here.

Burnham thinks like Starmer that this is all a fuss about nothing fundamentally. He doesn't care about women's rights BUT neither does he care about the trans line. That is why he has reversed his position. He never cared in the first place he was going along with TA stuff as it seemed the easiest course. The biggest emotional cue is -

HE WANTS IT ALL GO AWAY.

So I don't think we can look to him for an ardent defence of women, but also do not underestimate how little he wants to be arguing with Kemi and Farage what a woman is. He also can see trying to fight women on this issue is not going to be easy. Given he never cared why spend the effort on it.

Of course Burnham may be hiding his fanatical supports for gender issues, but the stuff he said years back has no substance it .is just repeated TA lines. We are not talking someone like Whittome who clearly believes it.

His change is because a bunch of people mainly women have defeated the TAs in court again and again. Burnham can see women have taken their power back, he is in no hurry to fight them. He admires the biggest gender crit in government Shabana Mahmod by all accounts.

Look what has just happened to the SNP they lost their 4th court case against women. Why would Burnham want to try something so dumb?

Plus accepting the court judgement and letting the guidance be enacted puts a safe distance between Labour and the Greens/Lib Dems/Plaid/ SNP who still want to continue trying to take women's rights away.

The Manchester mayoral election will be Labour vs Greens and Reform. We can expect Burnham to move against Greens heavily during that. I think sex/gender may come up in the mayoral race.

It doesn't mean we trust Labour. There are still TAs in there. Especially with the so called conversion bill coming up. However we will fight that battle when we get to it. Yet we also need to recognise the landscape has permanently changed. We have won many battles, pushed the TAs back, many more to fight.

Truly hope your take is right.

HE WANTS IT ALL GO AWAY.

The problem here is that "I want it all to go away" can manifest itself very easily as "just ignore it and it will go away." And what happens when politicians ignore the problems? The activists (within and without the Labour Party) take over and run roughshod over women's rights, and our only recourse then is legal action.

do not underestimate how little he wants to be arguing with Kemi and Farage what a woman is.

I'm actually more worried about how little he wants to be arguing with the activist Labour backbenchers. Starmer has caved time and time again in order to keep his majority. Spineless avoidance does nothing to shore up women's rights.

Burnham will say whatever is needed right now to get him into Number 10. I personally am highly suspicious (and contemptuous) of someone who would run for office to become an MP then immediately use that to leapfrog himself into a PM spot without a public vote. I would say that's despicable, but it's just politics, and if the people who voted for him didn't realize that, then they had no business voting at all.

I do hope you are right, but I'm tired of words from our politicians. I want to see action, positive action. Not sitting in the middle of things, hoping that it all goes away so he doesn't have to deal with it. There's no hope in hell that the TRAs are going to just melt away and let this happen. If Burnham becomes PM, he needs to address it, not wish it all away.

When Burnham says my mum and dad brought me up to believe X, I'm afraid I just get flashbacks to Joe Biden, because every time Sleepy Joe talked about his dad imparting wisdom, you knew you were about to hear an outrageous lie.

"My dad and I were going down to the ice cream parlor in Wilmington in 1959, and we saw two guys kissing, and my dad said, 'Joey, their love is just as valid as straight folks', and I never forgot that lesson, and that's why I want to say, if your 8 year old wants to be trans, as your president I will protect that right."

Strangely, the Biden stories that turned out to be true were the fictional-sounding ones about his clashes with his sitcom arch-nemesis Corn Pop. Maybe Burnham needs some similar stories about this bloke called Reggie who used to give him grief down the Hacienda.

I agree, it is still a long way to go yet, with more, and inevitable, legal rulings and test cases - but you have to grab the wins when they come your way. Step by step. The SC ruling was a win, and once the next two weeks are up, the guidance will become statutory. That's a win too.

Yes, he'll evade, waffle and spread vague warm words- but the ruling is clear, it is how the equality act was meant to operate, and the guidance is clear too.

Pretty much sums up how I perceive the situation with Burnham as a potential PM.

I realise now that I misread Starmer's taciturn deflection, obfuscation and ambiguity. I fall into the camp (a bit out of step with MN) that believes the UK's primary governing crisis is institutional misalignment and lack of democratic accountability. This results in low efficiency, poor service delivery and idealogical capture where institutions feel their primary job is pursuing various social engineering objectives rather than efficient and effective governance.

In Blairitese: institutional systems are structurally misaligned, over‑constrained, and incapable of reconciling competing objectives.

What was needed was for Starmer to act before tory/reform did to save UK institutionalism. Fundamentally, I thought he would apply his cold-blooded ruthlessness that he used in political manoeuvring to the administrative state. It's now clear that Starmer's political instincts and acumen are narrowly confined to UK politics and not to the broader act of governing. And that his strategic ambiguity was actually an internal lack of clarity. In that respect the trans issue was really a case in point -- I convinced myself that Starmer knew full well that TWANW and was determined to put an end to the nonsense once he got in government. He was handed the solution on golden platter by the SC FWS ruling and the effective guidance that Falkner came out with. He could have just said that his hands were tied, institutions were functioning as they should. Instead he fired Falkner improperly and delayed guidance, turning would should have been a Labour political win (from a political perspective) into an embarrassment and liability. And engaging in shameful activity that undermines the entire thesis of Starmer's theory of government: using the impartial rule of law to raise the standard of government and howe we're governed.

I still think the Starmer that I imagined cold have been effective and in fact is the only way for Labour to save itself. Burnham seems to clearly not have an idea of what needs to be done, not the personal capacity to deal with the massive institutional resistance he'll receive if he were to try it.

With respect to the EHRC guidance I'm a bit concerned. Updating the EA 2010 (at least with respect to trans rights) is unlikely because the pulling on any specific piece, like trying to broaden the cases where TWAW, will cause massive contradictions as pointed out in the FWS SC judgement. But I think it's possible that a last minute attempt to halt EHRC guidance could still succeed. And we've already seen that not having the guidance in effect has largely nullified the effect of the judgement itself.

But surely the guidance cannot be pulled without defined alternative measures to tackle the issues at hand -which would, surely, involve a lot of time given over to going back to ground zero all over again in the attempt to debate and re-write the equalities act to include some men as women. I just can't see it, myself.

Most people will choose the path of least resistance. They went along with yay trans rights while it was The Current Thing but they will not risk their necks on a subject that threatens to morph back into a pumpkin.

But we will notice. That’s the problem for him. Court cases will continue.

I know Andeh is not a details man, but surely he must have noticed that Manchester Pride is bankrupt. It is one of the city's biggest tourist draws after all.

How it's bankrupt I don't know - it can't be that expensive to put up a stage and book Sophie Ellis-Bextor and H from Steps - but it is.

He's got a very Boris-like tendency to think he can solve all problems with good vibes.

He's got a very Boris-like tendency to think he can solve all problems with good vibes.

Oh god, we’ve been here before. Starmer = May and Burnham = Johnson. And we all know how well that turned out. Fucking MPs just worrying about losing their cushy jobs, looking for a saviour. Worse than Joe citizen.

Another one?!

Because he can change what he says but not what he believes.

Leopards don't change their spots.

Ooh, staff are readying the street outside no 10 for an announcement (according to the BBC)...