quote:

As a Co-Chair of LGBT+ Labour I had to keep quiet during the election about my frustrations with the way regressive elements on the NEC and in the leader’s office undermined LGBT+ rights in the manifesto. They projected their own prejudices onto women & working-class voters as an excuse to incorporate a section in the manifesto vilifying transgender women and not having a separate LGBT+ manifesto.

Before coming to the offending section, I should say it is sexist and classist to claim women & the working-class are opposed to extending LGBT+ rights. Being LGBT+ is not restricted to a gender or class! Communities only turn on minorities when the quasi-fascists persuade them that one group's rights come at the expense of another. Trans rights do not take away from women’s rights, this false narrative comes from misinformation and vilification in the Tory press and on social media by anti-trans campaigners. The Labour Party does itself no favours by pandering to this.

The paragraph that caused most pain to the trans community during the election was on page 66 of the manifesto:

Labour would… “Ensure that the single-sex-based exemptions contained in the Equality Act 2010 are understood and fully enforced in service provision.”
Until we intervened this was spun as an acceptance by Labour that transwomen would be excluded from women’s spaces.

I am told that this wording was different from what was originally in the Manifesto draft before the Clause V meeting, and the final text in the manifesto was as much of a surprise to the shadow equalities and youth ministers as it was to LGBT+ Labour’s team.

The paragraph caused alarm and offence to the trans community. During the campaign Dawn Butler and LGBT+ Labour tried to say that what the section was clumsily worded and what it meant was that because transwomen are women, transwomen would not be excluded from single-sex spaces. However, this did not stand up to scrutiny of interviewers who pointed out different interpretations by frontbenchers, and that if this was pro-trans it would have been included in the LGBT+ section of the manifesto, not the women’s section.

Labour could have rescued all of this with the release of a separate LGBT+ manifesto to coincide with Trans Day of Remembrance (20th Nov) or World Aids Day (1st Dec). There were separate manifestos for other groups and minorities but not LGBT+. Great policies developed by LGBT+ Labour were assigned to the scrap heap instead.

We need a frank investigation as to how the trans exclusionary section was incorporated into the main manifesto and no separate LGBT+ manifesto published. This is what I am told by several sources happened in the production of the manifesto:

In the run up to the election there were rumours that Boris was going to weaponize trans-rights to win voters in northern working-class constituencies. Socially conservative voices close to Jeremy Corbyn seized on this to argue there should be no separate LGBT+ manifesto and Labour’s commitments to self-declaration for gender recognition dropped.

During the Party’s consultation on the manifesto two Unions (Unite and GMB) initially argued to dilute or remove commitments to self-declaration in GRA reform. They dropped their objection after pressure to agree the TUC’s line. LGBT+ Labour’s proposals to protect QIA+ people in law and to introduce equality tribunals to decide discrimination in education and services, were seen as too radical for this manifesto. Other LGBT+ policies on education, health & social care, housing, law & order, and asylum would mainly be covered by general commitments in the manifesto.

Labour’s draft manifesto was put before the Clause V meeting. The draft was supportive of self declaration in GRA reform and did not qualify trans rights. Chair of Equalities on the NEC, Ann Henderson (JC9 CLP division), raised several objections and concerns about the impact on women of trans rights. While there was murmurs of support from a few, Dawn Butler & Cat Smith rejected that there was any conflict between equalities.

No vote was taken at Clause V to change the text on trans rights but somehow changes made it into the final manifesto! Cockup or conspiracy? In my opinion we need an investigation to get to the bottom of this. Only a few people can change the draft manifesto and we need to know who changed it and why? It could be sinister, or it could be ignorance? If it were ignorance, it could have been avoided by running the wording by LGBT+ Labour or someone with experience of the trans community.

Did this sacrifice of LGBT+ rights win its target voters? No, the number of voters who place being anti-trans as more important to how they vote than the NHS is an extremely small fraction of a percent. However, having a negative message about trans rights drowned out Labour’s positive manifesto commitments to women such as: ending the gender pay gap, flexible working, ending the stigma and ensuring that no woman is put at a disadvantage from menstruation to menopause, etc. Following a frontbencher’s interview, the headlines & trendings were not about the cuts to domestic refuges under the Tories and Labour’s commitment to fund them & give paid leave for survivors, the headlines were anti-trans claims about transgender women being a threat to others.

Labour is making a mistake if it takes LGBT+ voters for granted; like it took its northern Red-Wall. We cannot have this happen again or we will find Labour’s Pink-Wall of voter which crumble at the next election.

Gonzo McFee posted:

After we leave the EU it's going to be hilarious watching everything go to poo poo and the BBC saying nothing about it because the government refuses to talk about it or send anyone to talk about it.

Apraxin posted:

https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1208032905781534721
‘The programme motion has been passed by 353 votes to 243.

The deputy speaker wishes members a very peaceful Christmas and they file out.

There is now an adjournment debate on the “progress of Southend towards city status” and then parliament breaks up til 7 January.’

Nice to see they found time for the truly important issue of the day

Angepain posted:

this looks pretty damning

https://twitter.com/heatherisone/status/1208019082097942528

https://www.facebook.com/heatherpeto.rushcliffe.52/posts/608250319980703

Lady Demelza posted:

The WAB might have passed parliament, but doesn't the EU have to unanimously vote on the withdrawal too? There are still problems with the Irish border and rights of EU citizens in the UK, so what are the chances that they vote against it? And what happens if they do?

Lady Demelza posted:

The WAB might have passed parliament, but doesn't the EU have to unanimously vote on the withdrawal too? There are still problems with the Irish border and rights of EU citizens in the UK, so what are the chances that they vote against it? And what happens if they do?

Lady Demelza posted:

The WAB might have passed parliament, but doesn't the EU have to unanimously vote on the withdrawal too? There are still problems with the Irish border and rights of EU citizens in the UK, so what are the chances that they vote against it? And what happens if they do?

quote:

Former France Télécom bosses given jail terms over workplace bullying
Former executives at France Télécom have been given prison sentences and fines after being found guilty of “institutional harassment” and creating a culture of routine workplace bullying that sparked a number of suicides at the company.

The landmark ruling is likely to send shockwaves through the French business world. It is the first time managers have been held criminally responsible for implementing a general strategy of bullying even if they had not dealt directly with the staff involved.

quote:

Between 2008 and 2009, 35 employees killed themselves. The company had been privatised and was undertaking a restructuring plan during which bosses set out to cut more than a fifth of the workforce – more than 22,000 jobs.

Angepain posted:

this looks pretty damning

https://twitter.com/heatherisone/status/1208019082097942528

https://www.facebook.com/heatherpeto.rushcliffe.52/posts/608250319980703


e: 365 is a number

KOGAHAZAN!! posted:

Very distressed to see Ann Henderson named here, she’s always been presented as one of the good left wing choices for NEC.

Jose posted:

Can I interest anyone in some of the most doomsday economics ever published essentially unrelated to climate change?

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/20000-feet-under-the-sea/603040/

Apraxin posted:

Lady Demelza posted:

Oh okay, so passing the WAB means that on the surface nothing changes for the next year, Brexiteers get to gloat that the world hasn't ended, whilst businesses and individuals quietly enact whatever plans they have for when Brexit properly kicks in in January 2021?

Lady Demelza posted:

Oh okay, so passing the WAB means that on the surface nothing changes for the next year, Brexiteers get to gloat that the world hasn't ended, whilst businesses and individuals quietly enact whatever plans they have for when Brexit properly kicks in in January 2021?

Braggart posted:

Old Chlory.

Libluini posted:

Considering all those thorny questions that are still unsolved, like what has to be done with Northern Ireland, Boris has his work cut out for him. He has some time to prepare for negotiations in January-March and then the EU is ready to work and the race is on. And in November everything has to be already ready and finished for the EU-members / EU-parliament to vote on and turn the new treaty into a real boy.

sinky posted:

https://twitter.com/brianfharrison/status/1207084347775488006

Libluini posted:

November 2020: All negotiations must be concluded, so the EU can vote and implement the new treaties in time

Pesmerga posted:

There’s not a single person running for leader so far that I’m remotely inspired by.

The DPRK posted:

https://twitter.com/SocialM85897394/status/1207960704998952960

jaete posted:

I thought this would be in like June at latest, since everything needs to be ratified by all the parliaments and whatnot

Lord_Hambrose posted:

The EU should just go ahead and slit the UKs throat and hurl the body in a dumpster. Just get it over with. I am not confident anything will be done in the next year.