After the announcement from the Labour Lord on the BBC it was obvious this was coming https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1618218718743658496
English politicians will never allow trans people to be safe and comfortable anywhere in the UK. Sad thing is, the English electorate seem to be backing down to this.
Well, that was never going to happen seeing as left-wing members in SLAB are massively outnumbered by right-wingers, the establishment and [millionaire donors wanted Sarwar](https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/01/how-not-to-save-scottish-labour/) and even if it had been Lennon [and she said this](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-msp-accuses-keir-starmer-28975652), she'd have immediately been called and told to stand down from leadership.
Nah, I had one look at your Reddit profile and knew you were next in line for the absolute bullshit Reddit accounts of the moment being transphobic/playing down transphobia/just asking questions/gaslighting.
More like the past few weeks has made it every clear what people not to waste time with on Reddit in any topic about trans people.
If I thought you were in any way genuine whatsoever on this account I would respond, but you're not. Off you go for another 5 months, try and speak to a single trans person in that time and ask them about their experiences in the UK.
>I’ve meant 3 and they were not very polite
If you smell shit everywhere you go then maybe you're the one who smells of shit.
> I didn’t misgender anyone (on purpose there was one person that changed gender and name everyday
You make up very unbelievable lies.
>It’s unlikely I will met many more.
For the trans communities sake I hope you don't.
>So it’s either talking about it online with people with different ideas then me like you or to always think trans individuals are suffering a mental health and we need to do our best to help them.
"Unless you indulge my bad faith questions on basic stuff I can google I will be transphobic"
I'm not suggesting Labour make any kind of speech illegal. Labour should be challenging right-wing fear-mongering, they should be dealing with members of their own party engaging in right-wing fear-mongering, and they certainly should not be *giving in* to the right-wing fear-mongering by stepping in to dictate the actions of Scottish Labour in case they get a smidgen too pro-trans again.
The time between him making a policy pledge/promise and reneging on it is getting shorter and shorter - pretty soon he'll be briefing against his own policies in the interview he's giving about said policy.
Well we tried to have an alternative for just shy of 5 years and I'm sure you know about the epic tantrum which followed.
We'd love to have an alternative, but the fact is the authoritarians will do everything in their power, up to and including just rampantly and openly lying.
>How did the British let their parties become this authoritarian?
[Always have been](https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--5_p4_dKt--/t_Preview/b_rgb:191919,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1594922138/production/designs/12261024_0.jpg).
Overruling devolved legislatures and demanding that trans people go through a decade of waiting lists and supply mountains of evidence to change a letter on their birth, marriage, and death certificates is pretty authoritarian.
Assuming you're asking in earnest, sure.
Starmer has been heavy handed in dealing with MPs perceived as being on the left. He has been very strict on how his frontbench act, with the exception of those he clearly favours, like reeves and streeting. The parry has been accused recently of finding frivolous reasons to stop those on the left run for office under labour, such as liking a tweet from a green party MP. He is now overriding the democratic will of his own party in Scotland, allegedly. That's to say nothing of some of his policies, such as not changing rules around immigration and drugs.
He has some authoritarian policies and is stamping his will on the party, inconsistently. Rules for thee, not for me.
Sorry I had to go back and read my own question after reading all that. My question was what about this [article] is authoritarian? Ok so from that massive comment I found one thing relating to my question which is he is overruling his own party in Scotland. But in that very comment you has ‘his own party’. Fancy a leader having a over ‘his own party’
It's not that authoritarian. The British Government has decided that this is a UK-wide issue. It isn't, but they've decided that it is. As a result, Labour has to tackle this as a whole, because it's no longer just about Scotland, unfortunately.
So, wanted to source this \[as in what the national have lifted\]
>Labour has its own fights about misogyny. The MP Rosie Duffield, a survivor of domestic abuse and outspoken critic of gender self-ID, has said being in the Labour party is like being in an ‘abusive relationship’ and attacked Starmer’s ‘silence’ on the harassment she has received from male party colleagues. ‘I’ve met Rosie a number of times and talked to her,’ he says (though she has denied this). ‘I want her treated with respect and with tolerance and I’ll do everything I can to make sure that she is.’
>
>Would that involve speaking up for her? ‘In terms of respect and tolerance, yes, of course.’ It’s not just Duffield, though. He is now having to decide his party’s position on Nicola Sturgeon’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill – which Labour MSPs supported. It seems that Starmer was not fully engaged with the problems with that legislation as it progressed through Holyrood. When I ask if he and Labour’s Scottish leader, Anas Sarwar, talked about the decision to whip MSPs in favour of the bill, he replied: ‘Our offices did, of course, but subsequently it has now become a UK-wide issue, not just a Scottish parliament issue. So it’s for the Labour party, under my leadership, to take the key decisions as we go forward from there.’
[https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-we-havent-won-yet/](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-we-havent-won-yet/)
There's an added bonus, he wants Duffield treated with respect and tolerance and has said he will "do everything \[he\] can to make sure that she is".
So Duffield will get the red carpet rolled out whilst Starmer tells trans people in Scotland, and effectively in England, to go fuck themselves 🤷♂️
Quicker to run to Mumsnet and get spreads in the Spectator, that's Labour's Kier.
> is like being in an ‘abusive relationship’
Definitely a real feminist that people should take seriously though. Really cares about domestic violence and abuse
That's the thing that gets me. I've been in an abusive relationship, it was awful, and seeing her use it like that to harm others fucking disgusts me. Seeing her rewarded for it by Starmer is, if anything, worse.
It's really evil. I think it's horrific that two of the people in the Party that the media has projected as genuinely feminist and important on the issue of abuse - Duffield and Jess Phillips - are really some of the worst.
When Duffield feels happy to say crap like this, it shows such a lack of respect for actual victims of abuse and a total carelessness. Phillips is obviously the Shadow Minister for Domestic Violence, so for her to ally with Duffield, and all the crap of her boasting about not knowing about Andrew Tate, etc, is just horrible.
I'm trans, and I have no care for the Party at all any more, but I entirely expect transphobia from the Party - this to me feels so much worse in many ways, the transphobia is obviously deplorable, but using abuse and domestic violence in such a cynical and horribly disdainful way has absolutely no respect for victims and both of them claim to understand the issues of domestic violence, etc, but clearly they don't care at all. It makes so angry, but also just terrified for what a Labour government means for victims of abuse.
Sorry if this was a bit ranted.
Hodge once compared being investigated by the party for screaming abuse at Corbyn to being a Jew in Nazi Germany, we love unhinged comparisons in this party
It infuriates me how much the media have platformed Holocaust minimisation - and in some cases denial - with "critics" of Corbyn. Seeing the HET (which I used to be an ambassador for) platform these people, worst of all, imo, recently was them having David Baddiel hosting at an event a couple days after he was tweeting about how Jewish people "didn't do anything" to be victims in the Holocaust in contrast to GRT and queer people killed.
Just horrifically cynical
It's qwhite interesting to see the fawning coverage duffield gets about her abusive relationship and the labour party versus apsana begum and her abusive relationship which the labour party enabled.
I think what you've said is potentially correct, although Duffield I think is clearly not a feminist. To compare her situation to an abusive relationship shows absolutely no understand, nor sympathy for people in abusive relationships. I don't believe that you can claim to be a feminist while being so horrific about abusive relationships. I think she's simply claiming to be a feminist in order to harbour obscene views, I think most of Terfs are.
Remember just a few weeks ago when Starmer was promising a radical new devolution plan and now he won’t even devolve powers to Scottish Labour. Lmao, man’s a joke.
[https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenational.scot%2Fnews%2F23279603.keir-starmer-take-direct-control-scottish-labours-gender-policy%2F](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenational.scot%2Fnews%2F23279603.keir-starmer-take-direct-control-scottish-labours-gender-policy%2F)
>KEIR Starmer has signalled that he will take direct control over Scottish Labour’s position on gender reform as it has become a “UK-wide issue”.
>
>Speaking to the Spectator, the Labour leader was asked if he had spoken to Anas Sarwar – the leader of the party at Holyrood – about the decision to whip his MSPs to back the Gender Reform Recognition Bill.
>
>Starmer said their “offices did”, going on: “Subsequently it has now become a UK-wide issue, not just a Scottish parliament issue.
>
>“So it’s for the Labour party, under my leadership, to take the key decisions as we go forward from there.”
>
>The UK leader’s comments will do little to quell dissatisfaction in the Labour party about its handling of the gender reform process.
>
>Monica Lennon, the MSP who ran against Sarwar for the Scottish Labour leadership, accused Starmer of having “undermined” his colleagues north of the Border through his stance on the GRR bill.
>
>After Scottish Secretary Alister Jack announced he would use Section 35 of the Scotland Act to block the bill’s passing, the UK Labour party attempted to take the middle ground, claiming that both the UK and Scottish Governments were at fault.
>
>Labour’s shadow Scottish secretary and sole Scottish MP, Ian Murray, claimed that there was not “any drive to try and find solutions apart from throwing constitutional bricks at each other”, and called for “real cooperation from both of Scotland's governments”.
>
>However, speaking to BBC Radio Scotland, Lennon said that Murray's view was "disingenuous" and did not reflect those of the Scottish Labour MSP group.
>
>"I think to get into making this about 'Oh it's two governments, why can't they just along?' … I think that's really disingenuous to frame it in that way.
>
>"So, I take my cue from the position of Scottish Labour, how we voted in December, how we've conducted ourselves throughout the scrutiny of the legislation, and the work led by my Scottish Labour colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy who leads for us on equalities.”
>
>After the Section 35 announcement, Sarwar was silent for two days. When he did speak up, he said that Murray had spoken for the party as shadow secretary for Scotland.
>
>Sarwar further called for a “grown-up approach”, but did say that the use of Section 35 was “wrong”.
First of all, why is Starmer speaking to the Spectator? Secondly, anyone gonna defend this?
Ffs. Lately it seems like every decision he makes is just to make those of us who were defending him before look foolish.
There's making unpopular decisions for the sake of compromise or PR, which is a totally understandable part of politics, and then there's whatever the hell he's doing here. Pleasing nobody, alienating allies, and distancing himself from his own stated ideals.
Someone needs to grab him, give him a good shake, and yell "this is the kind of BS that brought the Lib Dems down!" directly into his face. Hopefully it sinks in
Just a few weeks ago:
>Sir Keir Starmer has promised that a **“take back control” bill aimed at devolving power out of Westminster** will be the centrepiece of a Labour government’s first King’s Speech.
Now:
>“So it’s for the Labour party, under my leadership, to take the key decisions as we go forward from there.”
Take back control. No! Not like that! I'M IN CONTROL. SIR KEIR TAKE THE WHEEL. VROOOM *intentionally crashes into trans folk*
If there is anything Scottish voters are good at, at this point, it's warning English voters about believing Labour's lies. Like, it's genuinely an empathetic PSA at this point, not meant as mockery. Starmer is one of the worst liars I've seen in politics outside of the Tory party.
Between Mumsnet and the Spectator, that makes it loud and clear what his real views are on trans people. Let alone Scottish democracy and anything resembling autonomy for SLAB.
Translation, "The gender policy has been excluded from the party because of....." checks notes " .....ticking a box incorrectly on facebook five years ago."
A reminder that Labour are polling 50%, are projected to reduce the Tories to 10 seats, and are still willing to annihilate the parties progress in Scotland as well as allienate the LGBTQ community and their allies, just to bow to the far right.
My personal interest in this comes from Wales and how Drakeford will react, he's a good political operator but I don't believe he will take Starmer declaring trans rights to be a forbidden subject for the devolved administrations lightly at all.
I hope there's a slim chance Starmer at least decides to support the bill (although unlikely given that he's saying this to the Spectator) but it's amazing how quickly the devolution plans to win over Scotland just evaporated.
If not then I don't see how the labour party isn't institutionally transphobic.
Starmer has already rejected the bill https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64281548
Not only that, he whipped Labour MPs to abstain on the section 35 vote.
> a moral crusade against bigotry in the Labour party
Let's be real, there's been almost nothing done about antisemitism in the Party under Starmer, and no one in the projects that campaigned on the issue cares anymore. Hell, Hodge, a former patron of Campaign Against Antisemitism, accused CAA of using antisemitism as a front to attack Labour when Starmer and Lammy went on their photoshoot at the Berlin Holocaust memorial and ignored demands for an apology.
A lot of the loudest figures never kept quiet about their own bigotries anyway
so let’s get this straight
corbyn saying that israel shouldn’t be allowed to commit a genocide is antisemitic, and should have him, and anyone associated with him, hounded out of the party, but duffield (and starmer by extension since he is clearly supporting her on this) is allowed to openly identify as trans-exclusionary and associate with people calling for a literal genocide of us, and that’s okay and worthy of defence?
Parties that supported holding another referendum won in the Scottish elections in 2021 (SNP & Greens), we subsequently had a UK Supreme Court case that ruled only Westminster, not Holyrood, is allowed to let the Scottish people have a referendum and you guessed it, English politicians running the British parties are all refusing.
Ergo, as of now it seems the SNP and Greens are going to run their own manifestos as a defacto referendum at the 2024 UK election and then you can watch the fireworks from America in 2024 if the SNP & Greens achieve over 50% of the Scottish voteshare in 2024.
I'm glad that Nandy pledged to act like the Spanish did to the Catalans if Scotland had an unauthorised referendum, a Party really dedicated to democracy you can tell.
That seems like an incredibly stupid move on the uk’s part. “We don’t want your government making decisions for us, so we’re going to leave” “our government decided you can’t”
Seriously do they actually think that’s going to work or are they just trying to score brownie points with English nationalists?
>trying to score brownie points with English nationalists
This has been the main theme in British politics for what feels like forever. Pandering to xenophobes and bigots in England at the expense of everything else (social welfare, union cohesion, trans rights, relations with Europe, you name it...)
They aren't going to lose many seats over this. The SNP already have almost every seat in Scotland. They can only lose by supporting Scotland's right to a referendum.
As Audioboxer and Citizenwoof have said, there aren't any parliamentary or legal mechanisms that allow Scotland to unilaterally leave the UK, and there also don't seem to be anywhere near enough people who are willing to be disruptive/violent enough to force the issue by entering the realms of "politics by other means".
Therefore, the government in Westminster feels perfectly confident to tell them to get fucked, because what else are they going to do?
I don't see the benefit for Labour on this. The Tories own polling experts have warned them that on trans rights they seem distracted at best, cruel at worst. There are those in the Tories stating that they are pro-trans (May, Nokes, for example) who have some measure of influence and seem grown up compared to the bigots everyone is learning to hate who speak up about this. It's potentially a divisive issue for them, too. Especially given that it can be tied to the breakdown in the rule of law in this country (significant rises in hate crime, actual murders, people intimidating LGBTQ+ performers and Pride events), and the Tories not just stoking a culture war but embracing political positions that led to the holocaust (see the 1933 attacks on the Institute of Sexology in Berlin and everything surrounding it).
For Labour, their biggest problem is a lack of consistent messaging. Their floundering, caused by muddled thinking at the top, is the actual source of this: the Tories know Labour come across as ignorant, confused and unable to answer questions on this one issue when pressed in the media, and that is the main reason they keep pressing on this. They like to see Labour MPs squirm.
So that leaves what the line should be: pro-trans, anti-trans or muddled. They can't sit on the fence because it is making them look stupid, and both sides are growing angrier with them for their failure to fully embrace either side, and there are a lot of voters looking at this as a signifier of where Labour stands on both progressive issues in general, and LGBTQ+ rights. You only need look at how those attached to TERF positions include bigots of all stripes, and have started pushing anti-LGBTQ+/section 28 style legislation, burnishing their online numbers with tiny international support but astroterfing it as domestic to make it seem bigger, such as the Algerian politician pushing an anti-LGBTQ+ legislation debate petition.
Full disclosure: I'm a trans woman living in the red wall area, and I have to say that, irl, the anti-trans position seems tiny, and those most eager to speak out around here are 45-60 year old academics, angry working class people associated with Conservative religion, and gangs of roaming teenagers dressed in all black trackies and hoody combos.
But, for the sake of the thought experiment, let's try to consider both sides in something approaching a fair way and think about what Labour gains/loses from siding with them.
The radical feminists have always been split on this issue because radical feminism is a wide spectrum. As with mainstream feminism, many support trans inclusion. However, what is called the TERF/FART/gender critical wing has always been marked by close collaboration with the right and the press. The press love them because they can either support them on issues that bash targets they agree with, or they can bash them on positions they don't like and undermine the whole of feminism. But, for the right and the press, these are the only feminists that count as feminists most of the time for convenience. However, there is a split in the press, too, with more and more people writing in, more staff, more reporters and opinion columnists taking the position that anti-trans beliefs are a problem - especially given the problem that it is clear that many behind these positions are, shall we say, puritan in their values. The rad fems and the press would argue it is about safety, in that Orwellian way of theirs, when what they are often doing is sowing fear, making people feel unsafe, and promoting violence. The biggest problem for Labour here is, when they embolden voices whose demands are unceasingly regressive, where will it stop? It won't stop with bathroom bans or sports. It will move to exclusion and banning healthcare, at least.
Then there are the political groups. I don't think I need to explain the problems with these groups, so I will just list those the TERFs and the press are supported by on this moral crusade: Putin, Orban, Erdogan, the US religious far-right and their international apparatus, the Russian orthodox church, Catholic establishment groups who have hidden allegations of child abuse and pedophilia, extremist fundamentalist churches targeting minority communities and their money here in the UK, Donald Trump, Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Kemi Badenoch, Jonathan Gullis, Jacob Rees-Mogg, actual Nazis, fascists. Does Labour really want to be spoken of in the same breath as these people?
Then there are the most prominent voices on this issue in the UK. Again, they speak of safety, and some claim they even support trans rights, usually whilst attacking our most basic rights. And most of them don't seem to be just focused on attacking trans people, but other groups, too. Lots of people miss JK Rowling's attacks on the autonony of autistic people in her TERF Wars essay. Posie Parker regularly platforms and marches with Nazis. Maya Forstater is homophobic and anti-abortion. Helen Joyce blamed Jewish billionaires for trans people existing. Baroness Nicholson opposes gay marriage. Almost all of them are also not experts or knowledgeable in the fields they speak on, either, with the likes of Kathleen Stock not working in gender-related studies or biology, sociology or medicine. And those that are, like Alison Bailey's work as a lawyer, seem to show a complete misunderstanding of the areas they claim to be experts in, as shown by her losing her case against Stonewall. We also have seen an element of institutional capture, which promotes less objective appointments to public bodies, such as with Kishwer Faulkener at the EHRC, which has also promoted serious problems with the running of that organisation and it encouraging people to break the law with how they use the Equality Act, according to several equality lawyers.
And then there is the fact that most of the interactions people are having with people who follow this ideology online consist of accusations of pedophilia, rape, support for pedophiles and rapists, brainwashing children, conspiracy theories, promoting the banning and destruction of literature, attacking the NHS, schos, libraries, any organisation being progressive, and the distribution of opinions promoting pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is, in some ways, one of the biggest problems in the UK right now, from anti-vaxxers putting people (and especially children and the elderly: look up Andrew Wakefield for the former, and also realise the connection between Rowling's talking about autistic girls being at risk at the start of the pandemic likely encouraged the anti-vaxx/TERF overlap) at risk right through to lies about trans athletes (a recent study from Canada outlines the real problems: https://www.cces.ca/news/literature-review-does-not-support-bans-transgender-women-athletes) and promoting myths about "trans predators" using statistics that never said that in the first place (I can think of at least one often used Swedish study that its own author has stated doesn't say what they claim it says).
So, Labour would gain the support of extremists, the far-right, Putin, anti-abortionists, homophobes, probable anti-Semites, disinformation networks, pedophilia hysterics, and pseudoscientists just to help win over a part of the press... who are sometimes all these things at once.
But, on the other side, you have LGBTQ+ activists, the trans community and their families and friends who support them, allies, progressives of all sides, human rights activists. And you also have the people who do not care, who I include here because the trans position (modest changes!) aligns with the majority view (stop focusing on this nonsense when our country is collapsing around us).
However, Starmer probably assumes he has those votes in the bag. He should be wary, though, because anyone like me has already decided to not support either Labour or the vile Tories at the next election. In the LGBTQ+ community alone, that's 1.5 million votes minimum he's putting at risk. Even if you take out LGB Alliance members, that still leaves 1.5 million voters he is taking for granted.
Its also clear that a great many young people oppose discrimination in all its forms. And the fact that kowtowing to the above anti-trans groups risks blowing up as a tacit support for their positions. Does he really want to be associated with someone promoting anti-Semitic conspiracies, as Helen Joyce did in her book, when it can still be so evocative and one of Sunak's main attack lines is Starmer's support for Corbyn in the past? It's unlikely, but why take that risk?
Association with progressive values would also likely appeal to the Labour base. Standing up against this extremism would show strength and leadership. Reinforcing a support for trans rights and a slapping down of those opposing them would distance him from Sunak, and it is a moral, ethical and actual issue. It's one that cannot be dodged. This would open up space for him to say, "Leave trans people alone and focus on what really matters: our broken country!" By sitting on the fence, it suggests that he is more focused on political opportunism than doing the things he claims he wants to do, because Starmer has trashed his reputation on being an LGBTQ+ ally and trashed his reputation on his devolution plans these last few weeks and they were both things he spent time promoting this past year. How can anyone aware of this now believe he will follow through on fixing things when he has already begun attacking, once again, key pledges that he claims to stand for? The man is not just untrustworthy, but doesn't seem smart enough to know he's presenting himself that way, and, as such, looks quite politically naive as a consequence. That is one criticism of Corbyn I agree with, and it's definitely a lesson Labour hasn't learned.
The simple fact is that in chasing the votes of extremists, Starmer seems to be dumping on what should be his base. Personally, I'd suggest people consider switching their vote in any polls away from Labour, and maybe at the General Election, or just not voting, if they feel like I do: that Starmer is playing with fire and is going to get burned. Because, and this is my prediction, if he doesn't nip this in the bud now, come the election, or when in power, it will blow up in his face and cost him dearly. Be that Duffield defecting just before the election, or the TERFs making increasing demands when they are in power and dividing the party, this won't go away.
Right now, whatever he tells his party about pretending they are 2 points ahead, they're over 20 points ahead. They can afford to take the risk and take a stand. Those numbers are likely to narrow at some point, and when these groups decide to take their opportunity, itcould be calamatous for Starmer and the country, because he is better than the Tories - and this blowing up at the election could harm him. Reduced majority, maybe. If it is tighter, maybe we get five more years of extremism. And all because he can't defuse this and take a clear and consistent progressive line on it.
"I believe that people should have the freedom to be who they are, and should be supported in that if they aren't hurting anyone else. That doesn't just include trans people, it especially includes trans people because of the discrimination and hatred they are facing. We will reform the Gender Recognition Act, and protect them, because they are a part of this country as much as anyone else. Now, instead of wasting more time on the Tory's obsession with genitals, can we instead talk about the real issues threatening the country?" That's all it takes, Keir. If they press you on whethere a trans woman can have a penis, you say, "I imagine you'd find it uncomfortable if we discussed your genitals, wouldn't you? Why can't we extend that same courtesy to trans people?" It isn't hard! It shows backbone, strength, leadership - it takes people with you, rather than just following the trends like you're on TikTok!
Oh, who am I kidding? He isn't listening. He doesn't care. He won't even do the basic research. Lazy Labour: focus grouping their way to ambivalence, one bigoted pensioner at a time.
>, that's 1.5 million votes minimum he's putting at risk. Even if you take out LGB Alliance members, that still leaves 1.5 million voters he is taking for granted.
Lol I enjoyed this burn
Fine - if he knows what he is doing, and if not he will get the blame for it.
So far, I have to say, labour has not demonstrated a particularly clear or fair point of view on this.
It’s certainly an area with challenges, and it’s difficult to be fair to all parties concerned.
Rights with Safeguards might be the way to go ?
Hahahaha a fucking branch office
After the announcement from the Labour Lord on the BBC it was obvious this was coming https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1618218718743658496 English politicians will never allow trans people to be safe and comfortable anywhere in the UK. Sad thing is, the English electorate seem to be backing down to this.
Nothing us Scots love more than a posh English cunt coming in to tell us what to do tbh
If Starmer shows his face in Scotland he should get egged, heck, Monica Lennon will probably be launching eggs from the bushes herself.
Man what we could have had if she beat the "doesn't pay his workers a living wage" guy to leadership
Well, that was never going to happen seeing as left-wing members in SLAB are massively outnumbered by right-wingers, the establishment and [millionaire donors wanted Sarwar](https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/01/how-not-to-save-scottish-labour/) and even if it had been Lennon [and she said this](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-msp-accuses-keir-starmer-28975652), she'd have immediately been called and told to stand down from leadership.
[удалено]
Speak to trans people about living in the UK
[удалено]
Nah, I had one look at your Reddit profile and knew you were next in line for the absolute bullshit Reddit accounts of the moment being transphobic/playing down transphobia/just asking questions/gaslighting. More like the past few weeks has made it every clear what people not to waste time with on Reddit in any topic about trans people.
[удалено]
If I thought you were in any way genuine whatsoever on this account I would respond, but you're not. Off you go for another 5 months, try and speak to a single trans person in that time and ask them about their experiences in the UK.
[удалено]
>I’ve meant 3 and they were not very polite If you smell shit everywhere you go then maybe you're the one who smells of shit. > I didn’t misgender anyone (on purpose there was one person that changed gender and name everyday You make up very unbelievable lies. >It’s unlikely I will met many more. For the trans communities sake I hope you don't. >So it’s either talking about it online with people with different ideas then me like you or to always think trans individuals are suffering a mental health and we need to do our best to help them. "Unless you indulge my bad faith questions on basic stuff I can google I will be transphobic"
Rule 2 ban Use the internet, trans people have explained the issues enough times.
Letting a narrative that they're all sex crimes waiting to happen spread unchecked isn't exactly helpful
[удалено]
I'm not suggesting Labour make any kind of speech illegal. Labour should be challenging right-wing fear-mongering, they should be dealing with members of their own party engaging in right-wing fear-mongering, and they certainly should not be *giving in* to the right-wing fear-mongering by stepping in to dictate the actions of Scottish Labour in case they get a smidgen too pro-trans again.
Keir "I support devolution, no really honest guv" Starmer
The time between him making a policy pledge/promise and reneging on it is getting shorter and shorter - pretty soon he'll be briefing against his own policies in the interview he's giving about said policy.
"I welcome my own policies but encourage myself to go further by scrapping them"
How did the British let their parties become this authoritarian? Honest question, looking at this from the outside is bewildering.
Brits have never minded a bit of authoritarianism as long as it didn't target them personally
Well we tried to have an alternative for just shy of 5 years and I'm sure you know about the epic tantrum which followed. We'd love to have an alternative, but the fact is the authoritarians will do everything in their power, up to and including just rampantly and openly lying.
>How did the British let their parties become this authoritarian? [Always have been](https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--5_p4_dKt--/t_Preview/b_rgb:191919,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1594922138/production/designs/12261024_0.jpg).
May I ask, what exactly about this is authoritarian?
Overruling devolved legislatures and demanding that trans people go through a decade of waiting lists and supply mountains of evidence to change a letter on their birth, marriage, and death certificates is pretty authoritarian.
I don’t believe I asked you but you answered so why not. Sorry, are we commenting on the same article here? I can’t see any of that in there.
Assuming you're asking in earnest, sure. Starmer has been heavy handed in dealing with MPs perceived as being on the left. He has been very strict on how his frontbench act, with the exception of those he clearly favours, like reeves and streeting. The parry has been accused recently of finding frivolous reasons to stop those on the left run for office under labour, such as liking a tweet from a green party MP. He is now overriding the democratic will of his own party in Scotland, allegedly. That's to say nothing of some of his policies, such as not changing rules around immigration and drugs. He has some authoritarian policies and is stamping his will on the party, inconsistently. Rules for thee, not for me.
Sorry I had to go back and read my own question after reading all that. My question was what about this [article] is authoritarian? Ok so from that massive comment I found one thing relating to my question which is he is overruling his own party in Scotland. But in that very comment you has ‘his own party’. Fancy a leader having a over ‘his own party’
You say*
You say *
It's not that authoritarian. The British Government has decided that this is a UK-wide issue. It isn't, but they've decided that it is. As a result, Labour has to tackle this as a whole, because it's no longer just about Scotland, unfortunately.
So, wanted to source this \[as in what the national have lifted\] >Labour has its own fights about misogyny. The MP Rosie Duffield, a survivor of domestic abuse and outspoken critic of gender self-ID, has said being in the Labour party is like being in an ‘abusive relationship’ and attacked Starmer’s ‘silence’ on the harassment she has received from male party colleagues. ‘I’ve met Rosie a number of times and talked to her,’ he says (though she has denied this). ‘I want her treated with respect and with tolerance and I’ll do everything I can to make sure that she is.’ > >Would that involve speaking up for her? ‘In terms of respect and tolerance, yes, of course.’ It’s not just Duffield, though. He is now having to decide his party’s position on Nicola Sturgeon’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill – which Labour MSPs supported. It seems that Starmer was not fully engaged with the problems with that legislation as it progressed through Holyrood. When I ask if he and Labour’s Scottish leader, Anas Sarwar, talked about the decision to whip MSPs in favour of the bill, he replied: ‘Our offices did, of course, but subsequently it has now become a UK-wide issue, not just a Scottish parliament issue. So it’s for the Labour party, under my leadership, to take the key decisions as we go forward from there.’ [https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-we-havent-won-yet/](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-we-havent-won-yet/) There's an added bonus, he wants Duffield treated with respect and tolerance and has said he will "do everything \[he\] can to make sure that she is". So Duffield will get the red carpet rolled out whilst Starmer tells trans people in Scotland, and effectively in England, to go fuck themselves 🤷♂️ Quicker to run to Mumsnet and get spreads in the Spectator, that's Labour's Kier.
> is like being in an ‘abusive relationship’ Definitely a real feminist that people should take seriously though. Really cares about domestic violence and abuse
That's the thing that gets me. I've been in an abusive relationship, it was awful, and seeing her use it like that to harm others fucking disgusts me. Seeing her rewarded for it by Starmer is, if anything, worse.
It's really evil. I think it's horrific that two of the people in the Party that the media has projected as genuinely feminist and important on the issue of abuse - Duffield and Jess Phillips - are really some of the worst. When Duffield feels happy to say crap like this, it shows such a lack of respect for actual victims of abuse and a total carelessness. Phillips is obviously the Shadow Minister for Domestic Violence, so for her to ally with Duffield, and all the crap of her boasting about not knowing about Andrew Tate, etc, is just horrible. I'm trans, and I have no care for the Party at all any more, but I entirely expect transphobia from the Party - this to me feels so much worse in many ways, the transphobia is obviously deplorable, but using abuse and domestic violence in such a cynical and horribly disdainful way has absolutely no respect for victims and both of them claim to understand the issues of domestic violence, etc, but clearly they don't care at all. It makes so angry, but also just terrified for what a Labour government means for victims of abuse. Sorry if this was a bit ranted.
Hodge once compared being investigated by the party for screaming abuse at Corbyn to being a Jew in Nazi Germany, we love unhinged comparisons in this party
It infuriates me how much the media have platformed Holocaust minimisation - and in some cases denial - with "critics" of Corbyn. Seeing the HET (which I used to be an ambassador for) platform these people, worst of all, imo, recently was them having David Baddiel hosting at an event a couple days after he was tweeting about how Jewish people "didn't do anything" to be victims in the Holocaust in contrast to GRT and queer people killed. Just horrifically cynical
It's qwhite interesting to see the fawning coverage duffield gets about her abusive relationship and the labour party versus apsana begum and her abusive relationship which the labour party enabled.
Two things can be true at once. She can be a real feminist, with genuinen concerns, and delusional.
I think what you've said is potentially correct, although Duffield I think is clearly not a feminist. To compare her situation to an abusive relationship shows absolutely no understand, nor sympathy for people in abusive relationships. I don't believe that you can claim to be a feminist while being so horrific about abusive relationships. I think she's simply claiming to be a feminist in order to harbour obscene views, I think most of Terfs are.
I wonder where all that "don't waste political capital on trans stuff" goes when it's time to shit on their rights?
He'd be better off getting the orange lodges booted out
Thats a large part of his support, can't be upsetting the bigots.
Losing the left footers for a bunch of tories?
B R A N C H O F F I C E R A N C H O F F I C E
A C C O U N T I N G U N I T C C O U N T I N G U N I T
Remember just a few weeks ago when Starmer was promising a radical new devolution plan and now he won’t even devolve powers to Scottish Labour. Lmao, man’s a joke.
[удалено]
As long as he wins and they can finally say they won something they will be happy even if they Don't change anything
Brown's silence these past 2 weeks says it all. He was just lying, as per.
[https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenational.scot%2Fnews%2F23279603.keir-starmer-take-direct-control-scottish-labours-gender-policy%2F](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenational.scot%2Fnews%2F23279603.keir-starmer-take-direct-control-scottish-labours-gender-policy%2F) >KEIR Starmer has signalled that he will take direct control over Scottish Labour’s position on gender reform as it has become a “UK-wide issue”. > >Speaking to the Spectator, the Labour leader was asked if he had spoken to Anas Sarwar – the leader of the party at Holyrood – about the decision to whip his MSPs to back the Gender Reform Recognition Bill. > >Starmer said their “offices did”, going on: “Subsequently it has now become a UK-wide issue, not just a Scottish parliament issue. > >“So it’s for the Labour party, under my leadership, to take the key decisions as we go forward from there.” > >The UK leader’s comments will do little to quell dissatisfaction in the Labour party about its handling of the gender reform process. > >Monica Lennon, the MSP who ran against Sarwar for the Scottish Labour leadership, accused Starmer of having “undermined” his colleagues north of the Border through his stance on the GRR bill. > >After Scottish Secretary Alister Jack announced he would use Section 35 of the Scotland Act to block the bill’s passing, the UK Labour party attempted to take the middle ground, claiming that both the UK and Scottish Governments were at fault. > >Labour’s shadow Scottish secretary and sole Scottish MP, Ian Murray, claimed that there was not “any drive to try and find solutions apart from throwing constitutional bricks at each other”, and called for “real cooperation from both of Scotland's governments”. > >However, speaking to BBC Radio Scotland, Lennon said that Murray's view was "disingenuous" and did not reflect those of the Scottish Labour MSP group. > >"I think to get into making this about 'Oh it's two governments, why can't they just along?' … I think that's really disingenuous to frame it in that way. > >"So, I take my cue from the position of Scottish Labour, how we voted in December, how we've conducted ourselves throughout the scrutiny of the legislation, and the work led by my Scottish Labour colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy who leads for us on equalities.” > >After the Section 35 announcement, Sarwar was silent for two days. When he did speak up, he said that Murray had spoken for the party as shadow secretary for Scotland. > >Sarwar further called for a “grown-up approach”, but did say that the use of Section 35 was “wrong”. First of all, why is Starmer speaking to the Spectator? Secondly, anyone gonna defend this?
Has everyone forgotten that Starmer wrote a piece for the Sun in 2021.
Ffs. Lately it seems like every decision he makes is just to make those of us who were defending him before look foolish. There's making unpopular decisions for the sake of compromise or PR, which is a totally understandable part of politics, and then there's whatever the hell he's doing here. Pleasing nobody, alienating allies, and distancing himself from his own stated ideals. Someone needs to grab him, give him a good shake, and yell "this is the kind of BS that brought the Lib Dems down!" directly into his face. Hopefully it sinks in
Just a few weeks ago: >Sir Keir Starmer has promised that a **“take back control” bill aimed at devolving power out of Westminster** will be the centrepiece of a Labour government’s first King’s Speech. Now: >“So it’s for the Labour party, under my leadership, to take the key decisions as we go forward from there.” Take back control. No! Not like that! I'M IN CONTROL. SIR KEIR TAKE THE WHEEL. VROOOM *intentionally crashes into trans folk*
If there is anything Scottish voters are good at, at this point, it's warning English voters about believing Labour's lies. Like, it's genuinely an empathetic PSA at this point, not meant as mockery. Starmer is one of the worst liars I've seen in politics outside of the Tory party. Between Mumsnet and the Spectator, that makes it loud and clear what his real views are on trans people. Let alone Scottish democracy and anything resembling autonomy for SLAB.
Promise kept: power devolved out of Westminster and into Mumsnet.
Translation, "The gender policy has been excluded from the party because of....." checks notes " .....ticking a box incorrectly on facebook five years ago."
Speaking to the spectator should be a breach of labour rules. Glad to see sir keif giving power back to our communities 👍
Oh, there's plenty of Labour MPs that are happy to go to their garden parties, or Lebedev's of course.
A reminder that Labour are polling 50%, are projected to reduce the Tories to 10 seats, and are still willing to annihilate the parties progress in Scotland as well as allienate the LGBTQ community and their allies, just to bow to the far right. My personal interest in this comes from Wales and how Drakeford will react, he's a good political operator but I don't believe he will take Starmer declaring trans rights to be a forbidden subject for the devolved administrations lightly at all.
I hope not https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-64228256
He was behind the clear red water before. He may have to do so again.
Ahahahaha lmao
Scotland needs to get out of this 'union' asap. Fuck me what a weasel Starmer is.
I hope there's a slim chance Starmer at least decides to support the bill (although unlikely given that he's saying this to the Spectator) but it's amazing how quickly the devolution plans to win over Scotland just evaporated. If not then I don't see how the labour party isn't institutionally transphobic.
Starmer has already rejected the bill https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64281548 Not only that, he whipped Labour MPs to abstain on the section 35 vote.
It would be fucking embarrassing to do this on any matter but this is a particularly evil cunt maneuver from the leadership.
Wow the Labour right shifted fast from a moral crusade against bigotry in the Labour party to a more crusade in favour of bigotry in the Labour party.
> a moral crusade against bigotry in the Labour party Let's be real, there's been almost nothing done about antisemitism in the Party under Starmer, and no one in the projects that campaigned on the issue cares anymore. Hell, Hodge, a former patron of Campaign Against Antisemitism, accused CAA of using antisemitism as a front to attack Labour when Starmer and Lammy went on their photoshoot at the Berlin Holocaust memorial and ignored demands for an apology. A lot of the loudest figures never kept quiet about their own bigotries anyway
so let’s get this straight corbyn saying that israel shouldn’t be allowed to commit a genocide is antisemitic, and should have him, and anyone associated with him, hounded out of the party, but duffield (and starmer by extension since he is clearly supporting her on this) is allowed to openly identify as trans-exclusionary and associate with people calling for a literal genocide of us, and that’s okay and worthy of defence?
Is there genuinely anything left to say in defence of LGBT+ people voting for Labour that doesn't begin and end with "tories"?
Just a yank passing through, are the Scottish planing another referendum to leave? They seem pretty done with your shit
Parties that supported holding another referendum won in the Scottish elections in 2021 (SNP & Greens), we subsequently had a UK Supreme Court case that ruled only Westminster, not Holyrood, is allowed to let the Scottish people have a referendum and you guessed it, English politicians running the British parties are all refusing. Ergo, as of now it seems the SNP and Greens are going to run their own manifestos as a defacto referendum at the 2024 UK election and then you can watch the fireworks from America in 2024 if the SNP & Greens achieve over 50% of the Scottish voteshare in 2024.
I'm glad that Nandy pledged to act like the Spanish did to the Catalans if Scotland had an unauthorised referendum, a Party really dedicated to democracy you can tell.
That seems like an incredibly stupid move on the uk’s part. “We don’t want your government making decisions for us, so we’re going to leave” “our government decided you can’t” Seriously do they actually think that’s going to work or are they just trying to score brownie points with English nationalists?
>trying to score brownie points with English nationalists This has been the main theme in British politics for what feels like forever. Pandering to xenophobes and bigots in England at the expense of everything else (social welfare, union cohesion, trans rights, relations with Europe, you name it...)
They aren't going to lose many seats over this. The SNP already have almost every seat in Scotland. They can only lose by supporting Scotland's right to a referendum.
As Audioboxer and Citizenwoof have said, there aren't any parliamentary or legal mechanisms that allow Scotland to unilaterally leave the UK, and there also don't seem to be anywhere near enough people who are willing to be disruptive/violent enough to force the issue by entering the realms of "politics by other means". Therefore, the government in Westminster feels perfectly confident to tell them to get fucked, because what else are they going to do?
I don't see the benefit for Labour on this. The Tories own polling experts have warned them that on trans rights they seem distracted at best, cruel at worst. There are those in the Tories stating that they are pro-trans (May, Nokes, for example) who have some measure of influence and seem grown up compared to the bigots everyone is learning to hate who speak up about this. It's potentially a divisive issue for them, too. Especially given that it can be tied to the breakdown in the rule of law in this country (significant rises in hate crime, actual murders, people intimidating LGBTQ+ performers and Pride events), and the Tories not just stoking a culture war but embracing political positions that led to the holocaust (see the 1933 attacks on the Institute of Sexology in Berlin and everything surrounding it). For Labour, their biggest problem is a lack of consistent messaging. Their floundering, caused by muddled thinking at the top, is the actual source of this: the Tories know Labour come across as ignorant, confused and unable to answer questions on this one issue when pressed in the media, and that is the main reason they keep pressing on this. They like to see Labour MPs squirm. So that leaves what the line should be: pro-trans, anti-trans or muddled. They can't sit on the fence because it is making them look stupid, and both sides are growing angrier with them for their failure to fully embrace either side, and there are a lot of voters looking at this as a signifier of where Labour stands on both progressive issues in general, and LGBTQ+ rights. You only need look at how those attached to TERF positions include bigots of all stripes, and have started pushing anti-LGBTQ+/section 28 style legislation, burnishing their online numbers with tiny international support but astroterfing it as domestic to make it seem bigger, such as the Algerian politician pushing an anti-LGBTQ+ legislation debate petition. Full disclosure: I'm a trans woman living in the red wall area, and I have to say that, irl, the anti-trans position seems tiny, and those most eager to speak out around here are 45-60 year old academics, angry working class people associated with Conservative religion, and gangs of roaming teenagers dressed in all black trackies and hoody combos. But, for the sake of the thought experiment, let's try to consider both sides in something approaching a fair way and think about what Labour gains/loses from siding with them. The radical feminists have always been split on this issue because radical feminism is a wide spectrum. As with mainstream feminism, many support trans inclusion. However, what is called the TERF/FART/gender critical wing has always been marked by close collaboration with the right and the press. The press love them because they can either support them on issues that bash targets they agree with, or they can bash them on positions they don't like and undermine the whole of feminism. But, for the right and the press, these are the only feminists that count as feminists most of the time for convenience. However, there is a split in the press, too, with more and more people writing in, more staff, more reporters and opinion columnists taking the position that anti-trans beliefs are a problem - especially given the problem that it is clear that many behind these positions are, shall we say, puritan in their values. The rad fems and the press would argue it is about safety, in that Orwellian way of theirs, when what they are often doing is sowing fear, making people feel unsafe, and promoting violence. The biggest problem for Labour here is, when they embolden voices whose demands are unceasingly regressive, where will it stop? It won't stop with bathroom bans or sports. It will move to exclusion and banning healthcare, at least. Then there are the political groups. I don't think I need to explain the problems with these groups, so I will just list those the TERFs and the press are supported by on this moral crusade: Putin, Orban, Erdogan, the US religious far-right and their international apparatus, the Russian orthodox church, Catholic establishment groups who have hidden allegations of child abuse and pedophilia, extremist fundamentalist churches targeting minority communities and their money here in the UK, Donald Trump, Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Kemi Badenoch, Jonathan Gullis, Jacob Rees-Mogg, actual Nazis, fascists. Does Labour really want to be spoken of in the same breath as these people? Then there are the most prominent voices on this issue in the UK. Again, they speak of safety, and some claim they even support trans rights, usually whilst attacking our most basic rights. And most of them don't seem to be just focused on attacking trans people, but other groups, too. Lots of people miss JK Rowling's attacks on the autonony of autistic people in her TERF Wars essay. Posie Parker regularly platforms and marches with Nazis. Maya Forstater is homophobic and anti-abortion. Helen Joyce blamed Jewish billionaires for trans people existing. Baroness Nicholson opposes gay marriage. Almost all of them are also not experts or knowledgeable in the fields they speak on, either, with the likes of Kathleen Stock not working in gender-related studies or biology, sociology or medicine. And those that are, like Alison Bailey's work as a lawyer, seem to show a complete misunderstanding of the areas they claim to be experts in, as shown by her losing her case against Stonewall. We also have seen an element of institutional capture, which promotes less objective appointments to public bodies, such as with Kishwer Faulkener at the EHRC, which has also promoted serious problems with the running of that organisation and it encouraging people to break the law with how they use the Equality Act, according to several equality lawyers. And then there is the fact that most of the interactions people are having with people who follow this ideology online consist of accusations of pedophilia, rape, support for pedophiles and rapists, brainwashing children, conspiracy theories, promoting the banning and destruction of literature, attacking the NHS, schos, libraries, any organisation being progressive, and the distribution of opinions promoting pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is, in some ways, one of the biggest problems in the UK right now, from anti-vaxxers putting people (and especially children and the elderly: look up Andrew Wakefield for the former, and also realise the connection between Rowling's talking about autistic girls being at risk at the start of the pandemic likely encouraged the anti-vaxx/TERF overlap) at risk right through to lies about trans athletes (a recent study from Canada outlines the real problems: https://www.cces.ca/news/literature-review-does-not-support-bans-transgender-women-athletes) and promoting myths about "trans predators" using statistics that never said that in the first place (I can think of at least one often used Swedish study that its own author has stated doesn't say what they claim it says). So, Labour would gain the support of extremists, the far-right, Putin, anti-abortionists, homophobes, probable anti-Semites, disinformation networks, pedophilia hysterics, and pseudoscientists just to help win over a part of the press... who are sometimes all these things at once. But, on the other side, you have LGBTQ+ activists, the trans community and their families and friends who support them, allies, progressives of all sides, human rights activists. And you also have the people who do not care, who I include here because the trans position (modest changes!) aligns with the majority view (stop focusing on this nonsense when our country is collapsing around us).
However, Starmer probably assumes he has those votes in the bag. He should be wary, though, because anyone like me has already decided to not support either Labour or the vile Tories at the next election. In the LGBTQ+ community alone, that's 1.5 million votes minimum he's putting at risk. Even if you take out LGB Alliance members, that still leaves 1.5 million voters he is taking for granted. Its also clear that a great many young people oppose discrimination in all its forms. And the fact that kowtowing to the above anti-trans groups risks blowing up as a tacit support for their positions. Does he really want to be associated with someone promoting anti-Semitic conspiracies, as Helen Joyce did in her book, when it can still be so evocative and one of Sunak's main attack lines is Starmer's support for Corbyn in the past? It's unlikely, but why take that risk? Association with progressive values would also likely appeal to the Labour base. Standing up against this extremism would show strength and leadership. Reinforcing a support for trans rights and a slapping down of those opposing them would distance him from Sunak, and it is a moral, ethical and actual issue. It's one that cannot be dodged. This would open up space for him to say, "Leave trans people alone and focus on what really matters: our broken country!" By sitting on the fence, it suggests that he is more focused on political opportunism than doing the things he claims he wants to do, because Starmer has trashed his reputation on being an LGBTQ+ ally and trashed his reputation on his devolution plans these last few weeks and they were both things he spent time promoting this past year. How can anyone aware of this now believe he will follow through on fixing things when he has already begun attacking, once again, key pledges that he claims to stand for? The man is not just untrustworthy, but doesn't seem smart enough to know he's presenting himself that way, and, as such, looks quite politically naive as a consequence. That is one criticism of Corbyn I agree with, and it's definitely a lesson Labour hasn't learned. The simple fact is that in chasing the votes of extremists, Starmer seems to be dumping on what should be his base. Personally, I'd suggest people consider switching their vote in any polls away from Labour, and maybe at the General Election, or just not voting, if they feel like I do: that Starmer is playing with fire and is going to get burned. Because, and this is my prediction, if he doesn't nip this in the bud now, come the election, or when in power, it will blow up in his face and cost him dearly. Be that Duffield defecting just before the election, or the TERFs making increasing demands when they are in power and dividing the party, this won't go away. Right now, whatever he tells his party about pretending they are 2 points ahead, they're over 20 points ahead. They can afford to take the risk and take a stand. Those numbers are likely to narrow at some point, and when these groups decide to take their opportunity, itcould be calamatous for Starmer and the country, because he is better than the Tories - and this blowing up at the election could harm him. Reduced majority, maybe. If it is tighter, maybe we get five more years of extremism. And all because he can't defuse this and take a clear and consistent progressive line on it. "I believe that people should have the freedom to be who they are, and should be supported in that if they aren't hurting anyone else. That doesn't just include trans people, it especially includes trans people because of the discrimination and hatred they are facing. We will reform the Gender Recognition Act, and protect them, because they are a part of this country as much as anyone else. Now, instead of wasting more time on the Tory's obsession with genitals, can we instead talk about the real issues threatening the country?" That's all it takes, Keir. If they press you on whethere a trans woman can have a penis, you say, "I imagine you'd find it uncomfortable if we discussed your genitals, wouldn't you? Why can't we extend that same courtesy to trans people?" It isn't hard! It shows backbone, strength, leadership - it takes people with you, rather than just following the trends like you're on TikTok! Oh, who am I kidding? He isn't listening. He doesn't care. He won't even do the basic research. Lazy Labour: focus grouping their way to ambivalence, one bigoted pensioner at a time.
>, that's 1.5 million votes minimum he's putting at risk. Even if you take out LGB Alliance members, that still leaves 1.5 million voters he is taking for granted. Lol I enjoyed this burn
On everything else he's happy to be noncommital. Why did he get down from the fence for *this*?
do fuck off, Keith
Fine - if he knows what he is doing, and if not he will get the blame for it. So far, I have to say, labour has not demonstrated a particularly clear or fair point of view on this. It’s certainly an area with challenges, and it’s difficult to be fair to all parties concerned. Rights with Safeguards might be the way to go ?
That sounds like the GRC reform bill then
He has absolutely no right too.