Topic: Keir Starmer: your views?

[So… Howard Philips]

I think that's the problem. It is far from straightforward and it shouldn't be a defining issue for the Labour Party.

And to give an idea of the complexity of the issue here is a view from a lesbian who doesn't want sex with a trans women;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385

[Alan_X]

Can we please keep these issues separate.

[Zeb]

I think that's the problem. It is far from straightforward and it shouldn't be a defining issue for the Labour Party.

That's the key point. We recognise that not paying attention to something has an impact but the effects of appearing monofocused on particular issues seems to escape many of us. Hard lesson for me personally was over austerity with it.

----

I'm mulling over the Renaissance (current Labour right) report, think it was Red Soldier posted a Guardian article summarising the headlines, about it all. You can spot the influence of some of those who lost their seats last election in it: https://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Renaissance-Report-EMBARGOED-9pm-18.10.21.pdf

Think I agree with parts of it, which are well evidenced, but am a bit less clear on others. 'Navigate the Culture Wars by focusing on the future' sounds nice. And setting out clear, limited by virtue of what is possible, steps Labour would take in government is a good thing. Would that be sufficient though as the debate on some things has already outrun, overturned in fact, prior cross-party consensus? Don't know. Difficult because I do believe that Labour should be the party where members are actively looking to move things forward, make things better, and pulling in that direction. It's where that then joins up with the rest of society - the rest of the electorate, 'normal people' - which seems the rub until members decide they'd like to be in government and actually deliver on a bit of it.

[ShakaHislop]

I think that's the problem. It is far from straightforward and it shouldn't be a defining issue for the Labour Party.

People wouldn't say this about gay rights or racism. They'd speak of solidarity with LGB people and being anti-racist as being "Labour values"

[Elmo!]

I agree that the Labour party should be in the business of defending minority rights and that the protection afforded to unpopular views or despised groups is a key part of democratic socialism - or should be.  The Trans debate is not a straightforward one though. I'm not entirely on top of it, and wouldn't wish to be, but I do know that there are many feminists who are in the firing line. Several well-known ones have been 'no platformed' because they're not FULLY on board with EVERYTHING that the Trans community want. That complicates things, obviously.

I can't really comment on specifics unless you give some names, but I have found the issue is that the specific "limited concerns" of gender critical people almost always turn out to be much more than that when you dig deeper. It's a defence mechanism - possible subconscously - to convince themselves they are not being transphobic. They will say they are only looking out for womens safety and that is their only issue, but when you start arguing with them on that point, they will start making arguments about how unfair it will be when trans women start winning all the womens sports etc.

Or they endorse "charities" like LGB Alliance, who at this point are just an anti-trans hate group and nothing to do with supporting LGB people (in the recent example of Kathleen Stock, she is a trustee of LGB Alliance).

[Snail]

People wouldn't say this about gay rights or racism. They'd speak of solidarity with LGB people and being anti-racist as being "Labour values"

Quite.

[Yorkykopite]

I can't really comment on specifics unless you give some names, but I have found the issue is that the specific "limited concerns" of gender critical people almost always turn out to be much more than that when you dig deeper. It's a defence mechanism - possible subconscously - to convince themselves they are not being transphobic. They will say they are only looking out for womens safety and that is their only issue, but when you start arguing with them on that point, they will start making arguments about how unfair it will be when trans women start winning all the womens sports etc.

Or they endorse "charities" like LGB Alliance, who at this point are just an anti-trans hate group and nothing to do with supporting LGB people (in the recent example of Kathleen Stock, she is a trustee of LGB Alliance).

Like I said before, I'm not really abreast of the arguments and am not interested enough to learn. When Trans people are threatened then obviously it is my concern. But the ins and outs of the discussion....I'm unlikely to get involved.

The feminists I had in mind are the famous ones like Julie Bindel, Germaine Greer, JK Rowling - admirable women by any reckoning. Where I am interested (and this is relevant to the Labour party) is the free speech issue. When such women are prevented from speaking publicly or threatened/abused on social media then, as a consequence, it means the Labour party have to tread carefully. Not in supporting their right to speak (that must always be upheld), but in being too closely associated with those who wish to silence them.

[Sangria]

I can't really comment on specifics unless you give some names, but I have found the issue is that the specific "limited concerns" of gender critical people almost always turn out to be much more than that when you dig deeper. It's a defence mechanism - possible subconscously - to convince themselves they are not being transphobic. They will say they are only looking out for womens safety and that is their only issue, but when you start arguing with them on that point, they will start making arguments about how unfair it will be when trans women start winning all the womens sports etc.

Or they endorse "charities" like LGB Alliance, who at this point are just an anti-trans hate group and nothing to do with supporting LGB people (in the recent example of Kathleen Stock, she is a trustee of LGB Alliance).

As someone who is neither L, G, B, nor T, nor female for that matter, whom should I listen to when they're arguing that their rights are being overridden by others?

It used to be simple, when liberals knew the establishment position and why it was wrong. But now it's not a matter of defining where the establishment is wrong, but why each of the traditionally liberal positions is wrong, as seen by the other liberal positions.

[Elmo!]

As someone who is neither L, G, B, nor T, nor female for that matter, whom should I listen to when they're arguing that their rights are being overridden by others?

It used to be simple, when liberals knew the establishment position and why it was wrong. But now it's not a matter of defining where the establishment is wrong, but why each of the traditionally liberal positions is wrong, as seen by the other liberal positions.

Listent to everyone of course and evaluate their arguments. Fo rme personally, it's quite easy to see their is very little evidence to back up the fear mongering by those who are gender critical - they tend to rely on anecdotal evidence while ignoring real world evidence from other countries, but others will see it differently.

[Sangria]

Listent to everyone of course and evaluate their arguments. Fo rme personally, it's quite easy to see their is very little evidence to back up the fear mongering by those who are gender critical - they tend to rely on anecdotal evidence while ignoring real world evidence from other countries, but others will see it differently.

You talk about evidence from other countries, but what about evidence from this country? Eg. the case of Sarah Everard has led me to re-evaluate how threatening I may seem to women, when it had never crossed my mind before. I accept that I didn't know enough about that, and would not know, and thus I follow their advice without reservation. But when they say that they do not accept transgender females as females in their desire for security and control, should I dismiss their concerns?

[Zeb]

People wouldn't say this about gay rights or racism. They'd speak of solidarity with LGB people and being anti-racist as being "Labour values"

Believe it's the 2005 manifesto that is the only one from that period which even mentions gay rights specifically, and then only to say what had been done in the previous 8 years without needing to be turned into a manifesto pledge or an electoral issue Labour messages about all the time, or seems to, to a general audience.

[Elmo!]

You talk about evidence from other countries, but what about evidence from this country? Eg. the case of Sarah Everard has led me to re-evaluate how threatening I may seem to women, when it had never crossed my mind before. I accept that I didn't know enough about that, and would not know, and thus I follow their advice without reservation. But when they say that they do not accept transgender females as females in their desire for security and control, should I dismiss their concerns?

The case of Sarah Everard is not related to trans rights. When I say evidence, I mean looking at the effects of policies (or the status quo) on a large scale. Not individual stories.

[Sangria]

The case of Sarah Everard is not related to trans rights. When I say evidence, I mean looking at the effects of policies (or the status quo) on a large scale. Not individual stories.

Policies are relatively easy to judge. How do you judge individuals who are said to be against the rights of one group or another and thus demonised? Like I said, I personally belong to none of these victimised groups, and as a traditional liberal I should be finding it easy to define their cause against the establishment. Except that these groups are accusing each other of transgressing on their rights, and highlighting individuals who should be dismissed because they are TERF or some other obscure acronym.

I'm from none of these groups. I can only judge based on guidelines, as I have no personal experience to guide me. I see quite a few articles about how individuals from one group or another feels transgressed against by other groups. I am on the outside. I am asking you for guidance on assessing individuals. If you're unwilling to define clear guidelines, yet insist that the way is clear, what does that tell me?

[Elmo!]

Policies are relatively easy to judge. How do you judge individuals who are said to be against the rights of one group or another and thus demonised? Like I said, I personally belong to none of these victimised groups, and as a traditional liberal I should be finding it easy to define their cause against the establishment. Except that these groups are accusing each other of transgressing on their rights, and highlighting individuals who should be dismissed because they are TERF or some other obscure acronym.

I'm from none of these groups. I can only judge based on guidelines, as I have no personal experience to guide me. I see quite a few articles about how individuals from one group or another feels transgressed against by other groups. I am on the outside. I am asking you for guidance on assessing individuals. If you're unwilling to define clear guidelines, yet insist that the way is clear, what does that tell me?

Sorry what exactly am I unwilling to define?

The thing is your original question to me asked whether you should listen to women, or L, G, B or T people. As Sian is often at pains to point out, these feminists that were being talked about do not speak for all women. In fact polling has consistently shown that women are more in favour of transgender rights reform than men.

[Sangria]

Sorry what exactly am I unwilling to define?

The thing is your original question to me asked whether you should listen to women, or L, G, B or T people. As Sian is often at pains to point out, these feminists that were being talked about do not speak for all women. In fact polling has consistently shown that women are more in favour of transgender rights reform than men.

They do not speak for all women. So should I dismiss their concerns as stated?

NB. I'm a bloke, and largely free from victimisation. As a liberal, I instinctively support those who face victimisation against the establishment. When feminists, whom my instinct tells me to back, say that they are demonised for their feminism, how should I read things?

[Elmo!]

They do not speak for all women. So should I dismiss their concerns as stated?

NB. I'm a bloke, and largely free from victimisation. As a liberal, I instinctively support those who face victimisation against the establishment. When feminists, whom my instinct tells me to back, say that they are demonised for their feminism, how should I read things?

As said, you should look at the evidence. I certainly condemn any "demonisation for their feminism".

I'll leave it at that, as we are going off topic.

[Mumm-Ra]

I am completely baffled at this point and suspect I'm not the only one 

[Sangria]

I am completely baffled at this point and suspect I'm not the only one 

Try reading articles about the ongoing struggles between these groups. You'd be just as baffled as I am as to why there is such a heated debate. I had to google several terms in the last of these articles that I read. And I bet I'm considerably better read on the subject than the vast majority of the electorate.

[villagelife]

sorry but comparing the UK to other countries is a really nasty thing to do. trans people or indeed other minorities shouldn't suddenly just feel grateful because we live in a (subjectively) less shit country and shut up and get on with our day like there's nothing going wrong here.

Its not nasty its reality. Trans whatever they want to be pro nouned are not  finding their lives in danger everyday, they arent going to be jailed, stoned or killed for slipping into a pair of ten denier tights. As i said, there are pubs in the UK i would be scared to walk into.

It doesnt affect me in anyway, but the likes of JK rowling and the Prof should be able to say what they want. What does worry me is the vitriol aimed at them, by the very people who claim they are being victimised.

As i said all this is far down the list of what the average UK person cares about, and in reality most people are fed up to the tits with it, but I feel it has been hijacked by some in Labour to show how more holier than thou they are. It aint solvable ever, its as divisive as brexit.

[ShakaHislop]

Its not nasty its reality. Trans whatever they want to be pro nouned are not  finding their lives in danger everyday, they arent going to be jailed, stoned or killed for slipping into a pair of ten denier tights. As i said, there are pubs in the UK i would be scared to walk into.

It doesnt affect me in anyway, but the likes of JK rowling and the Prof should be able to say what they want. What does worry me is the vitriol aimed at them, by the very people who claim they are being victimised.

As i said all this is far down the list of what the average UK person cares about, and in reality most people are fed up to the tits with it, but I feel it has been hijacked by some in Labour to show how more holier than thou they are. It aint solvable ever, its as divisive as brexit.

So they should be allowed to dish it out but them taking it back is unacceptable? How politically correct.

[villagelife]

I can't really comment on specifics unless you give some names, but I have found the issue is that the specific "limited concerns" of gender critical people almost always turn out to be much more than that when you dig deeper. It's a defence mechanism - possible subconscously - to convince themselves they are not being transphobic. They will say they are only looking out for womens safety and that is their only issue, but when you start arguing with them on that point, they will start making arguments about how unfair it will be when trans women start winning all the womens sports etc.

Or they endorse "charities" like LGB Alliance, who at this point are just an anti-trans hate group and nothing to do with supporting LGB people (in the recent example of Kathleen Stock, she is a trustee of LGB Alliance).

Re-read that back to yourself.    This is your problem, someone doesnt agree with you, you immeadiately catergorise them as a transphobe, just because they hold a different view to you.  I find the whole thing of trans people competing in sports very be-wildering and can fully see a females atheletes viewpoint on this. Does that make me a transphobe?

[Snail]

Trans whatever they want to be pro nouned are not  finding their lives in danger everyday, they arent going to be jailed, stoned or killed

HRC is deeply saddened to learn of the death of Taya Ashton, a 20-year-old Black transgender woman who was killed in Suitland, Prince George’s County, Maryland on July 17. Taya’s death is at least the 31st death of a transgender or gender non-conforming person in 2021. We say “at least” because too often these deaths go unreported — or misreported.

According to posts on Facebook, friends and family will hold a vigil and balloon release to remember Taya on Wednesday afternoon. Sadly, not much is publicly known about Taya’s life at this time.

Taya was just at the beginning of her life -- a life that she deserved to live to its fullest. Black transgender women continue to be killed in this country, and this violence is unacceptable. Everyone, from friends and family to community organizers and allies, needs to speak out with urgency. We must end the stigma and violence that all transgender and gender non-conforming people face.”

HRC recorded 44 deaths of transgender and gender non-conforming people in 2020, more than in any year since we began tracking this violence in 2013.

The Prince George’s County Police Department’s Homicide Unit is currently investigating Taya’s death. Anyone with information can contact 301-516-2512. Those who wish to remain anonymous can contact Crime Solvers at 1-866-411-TIPS or go online to www.pgcrimesolvers.com. Please reference case 21-0032181.

More than 10,000 hate crimes in the U.S. involve a firearm each year, which equates to more than 28 each day, according to a 2020 report from HRC, Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, Giffords Law Center and Equality Florida titled “Remembering and Honoring Pulse: Anti-LGBTQ Bias and Guns Are Taking Lives of Countless LGBTQ People.” The report also notes a marked increase in anti-LGBTQ hate crimes, especially against transgender people. According to the 2017-2019 Transgender Homicide Tracker, three-fourths of confirmed homicides against transgender people have involved a gun, and nearly eight in 10 homicides of Black trans women involve a gun. Further, advocates saw a 43% increase in the formation of anti-LGBTQ hate groups in 2019.

In an injustice compounding this tragedy, Taya was misgendered and misnamed in some media and police reports. Anti-transgender stigma is exacerbated by callous or disrespectful treatment by some in the media, law enforcement and elected offices. According to HRC research, it is estimated that approximately three-quarters of all known victims were misgendered by the media and/or by law enforcement. In the pursuit of greater accuracy and respect, HRC offers guidelines for journalists and others who report on transgender people. HRC, Media Matters and the Trans Journalists Association have also partnered on an FAQ for reporters writing about anti-trans violence.

At the state level, transgender and gender non-conforming people in Maryland are explicitly protected from discrimination in employment, housing and public spaces. Maryland expressly includes both sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics in its hate crimes law. While we have recently have seen some gains that support and affirm transgender people, we have also faced anti-LGBTQ attacks at many levels of government this year, with more than 250 anti-LGBTQ bills under consideration in state legislatures across the country, more than 120 of which directly target transgender people. In May, 2021 set a record as the worst year for anti-LGBTQ legislation in recent history.

We must demand better from our elected officials and reject harmful anti-transgender legislation at the local, state and federal levels, while also considering every possible way to make ending this violence a reality. It is clear that fatal violence disproportionately affects transgender women of color, especially Black transgender women. The intersections of racism, transphobia, sexism, biphobia and homophobia conspire to deprive them of necessities to live and thrive, so we must all work together to cultivate acceptance, reject hate and end stigma for everyone in the trans and gender non-conforming community.

In order to work toward this goal and combat stigma against transgender and non-binary people, HRC has collaborated with WarnerMedia on a PSA campaign to lift up their voices and stories. Learn more and watch the PSAs here.

HRC has also launched the “Count Me In” campaign to encourage everyone, LGBTQ people and allies, to get loud, get visible and spread awareness on behalf of transgender and non-binary people. The more people who show they care, including allies and trans and non-binary people who speak up for the most marginalized in our community, the more hearts and minds we will change. Learn more and take action at hrc.org/CountMeIn.

For more information about HRC’s transgender justice work, visit hrc.org/transgender.

https://www.hrc.org/news/hrc-mourns-taya-ashton-black-transgender-woman-killed-in-maryland

That took me all of half a second to Google, might I suggest that you do the same in future?

[Elmo!]

Re-read that back to yourself.    This is your problem, someone doesnt agree with you, you immeadiately catergorise them as a transphobe, just because they hold a different view to you.  I find the whole thing of trans people competing in sports very be-wildering and can fully see a females atheletes viewpoint on this. Does that make me a transphobe?

Where exactly did I call anyone a transphobe? I didn't use names.

Are we not allowed even to speculate about non specific people anymore?

[Snail]

Where exactly did I call anyone a transphobe?

No, no, it's definitely you with the problem here, Elmo.

[villagelife]

So they should be allowed to dish it out but them taking it back is unacceptable? How politically correct.

Do they issue death threats to other people, do they individually point people out and try to ruin their careers, reputation and business.

Jk Rowling will mention a cervix or state a woman is something and she will then suddenly be threatend with death, rape and violence, not very proportional. And it does clearly make a lot of trans supporters sound like vile, sadistic, mental miserable little things.

[Mumm-Ra]

So they should be allowed to dish it out but them taking it back is unacceptable? How politically correct.

Dish it out? I've just done a little reading on the JK Rowling kerfuffle as it seemed like a good place to start. I saw her giving opinions that people didn't like, but I wouldn't call it dishing it out.

This is what I read from her btw:  https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

This is actually very interesting and could do with its own topic if anyone is so inclined

[Elmo!]

Do they issue death threats to other people, do they individually point people out and try to ruin their careers, reputation and business.

Jk Rowling will mention a cervix or state a woman is something and she will then suddenly be threatend with death, rape and violence, not very proportional. And it does clearly make a lot of trans supporters sound like vile, sadistic, mental miserable little things.

There is horrific abuse on both sides, that is for sure, and it should be condemned. Trans people tend to be abused for who they are rather than what they believe though. The anti-trans rights people have the vast, vast majority of the media on their side though, pumpingo ut articles about how they are abused and silenced for their opinions.

[villagelife]

https://www.hrc.org/news/hrc-mourns-taya-ashton-black-transgender-woman-killed-in-maryland

That took me all of half a second to Google, might I suggest that you do the same in future?

You should of used another 30 seconds to find out who did it.

She,he was killed by her boyfriend who had been in a relationship with her for 3 months. So not exactly trans hate is it. And its America, Kier and Labour cant do much over there.


“With the assistance of Metro Transit Police, Prince George’s County Police detectives and a K9 officer searched those tracks and recovered a weapon that’s now been linked to Taya’s murder,” Prince George’s police said in a Wednesday statement. Price was in custody in Virginia, pending extradition to Maryland, and police are still trying to determine a motive, although they do not believe Ashton’s murder was linked to her gender identity, the statement said.

Price had been in a sexual relationship with Ashton, according to a charging document viewed by the Blade. Ashton’s family members had said earlier that there had been no sign of forced entry at her apartment, so they believed she knew her attacker.

Price “admitted to being sexually intimate with the Decedent and stated that he has known the Decedent for approximately three months,” the document states. “He then admitted to being at the Decedent’s apartment the night of the murder and being sexually intimate with the Decedent that night,” it continues.

“Based on the aforementioned facts, the evidence indicates that the Defendant is responsible for shooting and killing the Decedent,” the document concludes. It does not say if he was questioned directly about whether he killed her or whether he admitted or denied that he had done so.

In addition to the murder charges, Price is charged with first-degree and second-degree assault, possession of a handgun, and use of a firearm in a felony, according to the document.

[Snail]

She,he

Okay, we're done.

[villagelife]

Okay, we're done.

I though gender fluid people where allowed to have that option? Seriously.

[TepidT2O]

I though gender fluid people where allowed to have that option? Seriously.

I genuinely fail to see what your point on all this is.

I’ve interpreted it as being that the Labour Party should ignore trans issues as very few people care about them.
Of this is not the case, then what is your position?

If it is, then surely if the Labour Party isn’t fighting for minorities on the political stage, who is?

[villagelife]

I genuinely fail to see what your point on all this is.

I’ve interpreted it as being that the Labour Party should ignore trans issues as very few people care about them.
Of this is not the case, then what is your position?

If it is, then surely if the Labour Party isn’t fighting for minorities on the political stage, who is?

The point is that minor issues like this is ploarizing the labour party, and far too much time is spent on topics like this, where there is no winner, because there is nothing to win, than on ploicies which affect the much wider party and the voting public. The worse part though is by saying one thing out of line and being a labour party MP could immeadiately condenm you from others in the party in such a vitriolic and sustained way that it always sticks and probably ruins good people with potential.

And labour cant fight for all minroities, as some of these minorities dont like each other. But labour first and foremeost should be for policies that benefit the majority of working men and woman.

[villagelife]

Why hasnt Labour condemned the Saudi takeover of newcastle or not even a word, a load of minorities are being tortured and killed, if Labour had said what most of the country is saying , that would have gained him some points? Whilst it would have little international effect, it would show he thinks like a lot of others. Why havent they? Easy win that surely.

[Elmo!]

The point is that minor issues like this is ploarizing the labour party, and far too much time is spent on topics like this, where there is no winner, because there is nothing to win, than on ploicies which affect the much wider party and the voting public. The worse part though is by saying one thing out of line and being a labour party MP could immeadiately condenm you from others in the party in such a vitriolic and sustained way that it always sticks and probably ruins good people with potential.

And labour cant fight for all minroities, as some of these minorities dont like each other. But labour first and foremeost should be for policies that benefit the majority of working men and woman.

You could apply this logic to pretty much any minority in the past. Imagine Labour had always taken this attitude.

[TepidT2O]

The point is that minor issues like this is ploarizing the labour party, and far too much time is spent on topics like this, where there is no winner, because there is nothing to win, than on ploicies which affect the much wider party and the voting public. The worse part though is by saying one thing out of line and being a labour party MP could immeadiately condenm you from others in the party in such a vitriolic and sustained way that it always sticks and probably ruins good people with potential.

And labour cant fight for all minroities, as some of these minorities dont like each other. But labour first and foremeost should be for policies that benefit the majority of working men and woman.

Well this is just nonsense.  Labour wouldn’t have stood against racism, laws against gay people etc etc.

You don’t stand for something because  it’s for the majority …..  that’s a terrible way to run any political party.

Yes, it’s toxic, it’s impossible to have even a nuance of disagreement without civil war. yes the majority of the voting public couldn’t give two hoots about it.

But that’s perhaps all the more reason why an issue like this is right for a properly run Labour Party.

[villagelife]

Well this is just nonsense.  Labour wouldn’t have stood against racism, laws against gay people etc etc.

You don’t stand for something because  it’s for the majority …..  that’s a terrible way to run any political party.

Yes, it’s toxic, it’s impossible to have even a nuance of disagreement without civil war. yes the majority of the voting public couldn’t give two hoots about it.

But that’s perhaps all the more reason why an issue like this is right for a properly run Labour Party.

If its to benefit the majority, which is what I said, everybody does or should, the opposite to that is selfishness. And as you say its toxic, and its a civil war, so why doesnt labour wipe their hands of it, have a policy and everybody lives with it. If some dont like it tough. What Labour lose they will also gain. And then they can move on.

[TepidT2O]

If its to benefit the majority, which is what I said, everybody does or should, the opposite to that is selfishness. And as you say its toxic, and its a civil war, so why doesnt labour wipe their hands of it, have a policy and everybody lives with it. If some dont like it tough. What Labour lose they will also gain. And then they can move on.

Labour has always stood for minorities.

Does it have to be front page? No. Should Labour abandon minorities? Hell no.


I know the Labour Party is a broad church and all, but what you are espousing is something that isn’t actually the Labour Party.

[villagelife]

Labour has always stood for minorities.

Does it have to be front page? No. Should Labour abandon majorities? Hell no.

Labour hasnt always stood for minorities, its been for the working class, minorities wouldnt of even been a word in 1926 or whatever. And whilst there are some monorities it should support, to help any, it has to be im power and to do that it has to appeal to the majority, which unfortuantely for some of labour is 87% white british people, of whom about 99% dont want to change gender.

Law and Order - Employment rights -Nationalise tansport and the utilities - Green energy -Financial Responsibilty - Education - Defence - National Identity. And Kier needs to say that labour wont consider re-entry to the Eu for 10 years, saying anything else is not realistic and wont help get back the red wall. And ban the phrase white priveledge within the party, its not our fault we where born here. Even though I wouldnt want to come from any other city.

Labour should be able to say the tories green plan is good, it should also be able to say ours is better.

BTW should he have condemned the Saudi takeover?

[villagelife]

The case of Sarah Everard is not related to trans rights. When I say evidence, I mean looking at the effects of policies (or the status quo) on a large scale. Not individual stories.

It is actually, Srah was a female as are some trans people. So if Sarah was trans, you would of reacted in a different way.

[Elmo!]

It is actually, Srah was a female as are some trans people. So if Sarah was trans, you would of reacted in a different way.

Yes, just in the same way it was a white thing, because she was white and some trans people are white, and it was a marketing executive thing because she was a marketing executive and some trans people are marketing executives.