UK Politics

3647 readers

119 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

Starmer U-turns on previous position on trans women after gender ruling (www.channel4.com)

submitted 22 hours ago by sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 24 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

His new comments came as Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson said the ruling means transgender women should use male toilets.

The SC ruling didn't even say that trans people had to be excluded from single-sex spaces, only that they could. This is the same shit they pulled with the Cass Review, which didn't call for puberty blockers to be banned, but they always assert that it did.

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 9 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

The SC ruling didn’t even say that trans people had to be excluded from single-sex spaces, only that they could.

This is Lord Sumption's take on it and he reckons the ruling has been misinterpreted. As a former Supreme Court judge, I'm happy to go along with that as he is an expert on interpreting and writing such judgements.

The speed with which some people have jumped on this and given their own, apparently wrong, reading of the law is worrying. Especially as one of them is Baroness Falkner who is threatening to write up "guidance" based on her misunderstanding of the judgement. Almost seems... opportunistic.

[–] Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net 5 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

It's 2025, and there are still people with titles like "Lord" and "Baroness" somehow

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 1 points 4 hours ago

We are subjects in a feudal constitutional monarchy. We can reform the House of Lords (I favour sortition) but the whole system is broken.

[–] fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk 1 points 9 hours ago

Yeah, but I feel that once you've got a "Lord Michael Gove", the title has essentially become meaningless :)