Labour MPs sign pledge against ‘divisive' Supreme Court trans ruling
Charlotte Nichols, Kate Osborne, Olivia Blake and Nadia Whittome put their names to a statement that also said lesbian rights do not conflict with those of transgender people.
It came after Supreme Court judges unanimously ruled that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act referred to biological sex instead of acquired gender.
The Left-wing backbenchers endorsing the pledge is the latest sign of ongoing tensions within the Labour Party over gender identity issues.
The statement was drawn up for a Lesbian Visibility Week reception in Parliament last week, and reads: 'We, the undersigned, affirm our unwavering commitment to the dignity, safety and liberation of lesbian and trans people in all their diversity.
'In the wake of the UK Supreme Court ruling, we reaffirm that the rights of trans people do not conflict with the rights of lesbians. We reject attempts to divide our communities and stand united against all forms of transphobia, lesbophobia and misogyny.
'Our liberation is bound together. There is no pride in exclusion. No feminism without solidarity. We stand firm. We will not be divided.'
'Ruling does not provide clarity'
Interim guidance issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) , published in the wake of the court judgement, said that trans women should not be allowed to use women's lavatories.
It added that membership of an association with 25 members or more can be limited to gay men or lesbian women, saying a lesbian-only association should not admit trans women, and associations for gay men should not admit trans men.
Ms Whittome said she was 'very concerned' in the wake of the judgement, warning that it 'does not provide clarity'.
Ms Blake said she could 'understand that many people are anxious' about the potential consequences of the ruling, writing on Instagram: 'As an MP, I remain committed to campaigning for better, fairer services for everyone. We must tackle unequal access so as to ensure everyone, cis women and trans women, receive the support they need.'
Days after the court ruling, Labour frontbenchers Dame Angela Eagle and Sir Chris Bryant were among Labour MPs who railed against remarks made by Baroness Falkner, who chairs the EHRC. She had said the ruling meant trans women would be banned from women's single-sex spaces.
In a leaked WhatsApp message, Dame Angela warned that official guidance that would follow the ruling could be 'catastrophic' for transgender people.
'Let's meet about this when we get back from Easter recess to decide a way forwards,' she said. 'The ruling is not as catastrophic as it seems, but the EHRC guidance might be and there are already signs that some public bodies are overreacting.'
Downing Street insisted it would not take any action because the Supreme Court judgement itself had not been criticised.
Sir Keir Starmer said after the ruling that a woman 'is an adult female', but critics of the Prime Minister pointed out his past comments on the issue. In 2022, he had said trans women were women, declaring the following year that '99.9 per cent' of women did not have a penis.
Sally Wainwright, from the campaign group Lesbian Persistence, said: 'Clarity is not division. It's the duty of elected parliamentarians, and especially of those in government, to uphold the rule of law, not to try to undermine the authority of the highest court in the land.
'MPs should be welcoming a ruling that makes crystal clear that lesbians, women and trans people all have our own, inalienable rights. Those rights are not in conflict, but are separately protected by the Equality Act.
'What is divisive is the trans lobby stirring up fear and alarm, particularly amongst vulnerable gender-questioning young people, by misrepresenting the meaning of the ruling. It is inappropriate for MPs to support such statements. They should be providing reassurance where it is needed instead.'
A Government spokesman said: 'We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex.
'This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.
'Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this Government.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
32 minutes ago
- The National
Nicola Sturgeon is still as strong a voice as ever for those in need
The interview with Kirsty Wark heard Ms Sturgeon talk on many elements in her memoirs. She spoke on narrowing the attainment gap in education, stating that is only achievable if you tackle the root causes, highlighting child poverty. READ MORE: Alex Salmond's niece speaks out after Nicola Sturgeon memoir attacks To this end she spoke of one of her main achievements while serving as First Minister that got one of the largest applauses of the day: the introduction of the Scottish Child Payment that lifted 100,000 children out of relative poverty. She condemned the Westminster Labour government for bringing forth welfare reforms and cuts that will impact on the most vulnerable. So, regardless of what road Nicola Sturgeon takes on leaving Holyrood, one thing is clear: she is still as strong a voice as ever for those in need. Catriona C Clark Falkirk
The National
33 minutes ago
- The National
Careerism and shameful self-interest are a poison in our politics
Careerism and corruption are cancers in the body politic and cause blind rage and disillusionment among the public, mass abstention in elections and increasingly desperate protest votes for the multi-millionaire, former-Tory charlatans of Nigel Farage's Reform UK. Politics has always included principled people with high ideals, devoting their time and energy to liberation from repression and exploitation. But far too many of those who pass for politicians are chancers, careerists and in some cases downright corrupt. We allegedly live in a democracy. But even the right to vote took blood, sweat, tears, deportations, jailings and hangings to achieve. It took decades of struggle by the Chartists – the first working-class party in history – trade unionists, Suffragettes and socialists to break the resistance of the land-owning and industrial capitalist classes, gradually winning concessions on voting rights, first to the middle class, then male workers and much later women workers. READ MORE: Jonathon Shafi: Farcical mass arrests expose Labour's failings over Palestine Even in the 20th century, the House of Commons was still stuffed full of landowners and industrial capitalists who wandered into Parliament for a few hours in their spare time to pass laws to their own class advantage. That's why Westminster sessions don't start until the afternoon, so the landed gentry and capitalist overlords had time to attend to their business interests first. This upper-class domination of Parliament was reinforced by there being no wage for MPs until 1911. Workers couldn't afford to be elected to fight for the working class. Mass industrial movements and their reflection in the political field began to break down these class barriers. Scottish miner Keir Hardie was the first working-class Labour MP, elected in 1892. But pit-head collections in mining villages had to be held to prevent Hardie's family being evicted due to rent arrears, because in his first period as an MP he got no parliamentary wage. From the 1830s, the Chartists demanded a wage for MPs, to open the hallowed halls of Westminster to working-class men and women. With the election of several Labour MPs as the political arm of the trade union movement in the early 1900s, the British ruling class showed their cunning ability to neuter dangerous opponents. In 1911, they established an MPs' salary of £400 a year. In today's money that's £40,000. More to the point, the £400 wage put MPs on a different planet from the average worker on the average wage of £70 a year. Switching from no MPs' wage to salaries which have rocketed over the decades, the British ruling class have bought off many former fighters or simply attracted the lowest form of careerists without two clean principles to rub together. MPs are on £93,904. By comparison, MSPs might think themselves mere paupers. But with the MSPs' salary just short of £75,000 (£74,506) they live in a different world from the rest of us. How can any MSP on that money understand the problems of juggling bills, feeding your family, paying rent or mortgage and transport costs, when the average Scottish skilled worker's wage is under £35,000? How can they begin to even glimpse the realities facing single parents, pensioners, disabled people, or those on the paltry adult minimum wage of £12.21 per hour? But for many, their parliamentary salary is only the start of it. Recent research showed 83 MPs – one-in-eight of all in Westminster, including four Cabinet members – are raking in £830,000-a-year in rent from a total of 170 properties they own. Some MPs have up to nine houses and commercial properties rented out. This includes 23% of all Tory MPs and 11% of those on the Labour benches. Labour's Rushanara Ali resigned as a minister with responsibility for homelessness last month after reports that she had evicted tenants from a property she owns and immediately raised rents. Landlordism is one of the poisons in politics – payment by big businesses and lobby groups is another. Last year, Declassified UK reported that 13 out of 25 of Labour Cabinet members had received more than £300,000 from Israeli lobby groups since first being elected to Parliament. Likewise, he who pays the piper calls the tune in our NHS; Health Secretary Wes Streeting has received more than £200,000 from donors linked to private health firms. No wonder former Labour voters are deserting these openly capitalist new Tories in their millions. But the shameful careerism, cynicism and corruption of the so-called 'centrist' parties – whether openly conservative or social democratic – are also fanning the flames of the far right. Desperate, furious people often lash out at the establishment parties by giving a protest vote to Reform UK. What they don't yet grasp is that Farage's outfit is part of the same establishment. In 2009, as a member of the European Parliament which he professes should not even exist, he openly boasted that he had claimed £2 million in expenses, on top of his MEPs' salary. Now he has at least 11 side jobs, enriching himself by another £1m since becoming an MP last year. So much for his carefully nurtured, entirely false image of being 'a man of the people'. The Scottish Socialist Party's (SSP) built-in principle that our MSPs will live on the average worker's wage is unique – and non-negotiable. Not one of the parties in Holyrood is prepared to follow suit. And it must be added there is absolutely no evidence the new party proposed by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana would insist on MPs and MSPs living on a worker's wage. For all their excellent qualities, neither of them has done so as an MP. But that is what the SSP believes is even more necessary now than when we had six MSPs 20 years ago, who carried out party policy by living on a skilled worker's average wage, with legitimate expenses open to public inspection. The cancers of careerism and corruption have corroded the minds of millions more since then, driving many into despair, disillusionment, or the arms of the far right. That's why in aiming to stand SSP candidates in all eight Holyrood regions next year, every one of them will commit to being a socialist MSP on a worker's wage. No political party serious about socialist change, for the benefit of Scotland's people instead of the profits of Scotland's billionaires and millionaires, can fudge or compromise on the wage their MSPs live on. Furthermore, as well as being a here-and-now measure to make politicians accountable and incorruptible, the SSP's policy is a glimpse of a future socialist democracy; what an independent Scottish socialist republic would look like. Our goal is a Scotland with elected representatives at local, regional and national levels – and on elected boards of management in publicly owned industries, banks and services – all living on the wages of the people they represent, as a measure against privileged bureaucracy. It's a measure to cut through despair, giving hope to millions that Scotland can be entirely different, with careerism and corruption cut out of politics and the state.
Scotsman
44 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Rising UK State Pension age may push retirement to 70
A new government review could reshape when you can claim your pension 🕰️ Sign up to the weekly Cost Of Living newsletter. Saving tips, deals and money hacks. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Labour is reviewing the possibility of raising the UK State Pension age to 70 The review may tie future increases to life expectancy, following models used in countries like Denmark Experts warn automatic increases could create uncertainty and disrupt retirement planning Over-60s may need to plan for a longer working life and consider personal savings But immediate changes are limited: currently, the pension age rises to 67 next year and 68 by 2044-46 If you're approaching retirement, a new government review could directly affect when you get your State Pension, and how long you might have to wait. Labour is exploring the possibility of raising the State Pension age to 70, with the latest review examining whether future increases should be tied automatically to life expectancy, reports The Telegraph. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The review is being led by Suzy Morrissey, an expert commissioned by Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, who is exploring the 'merits' of automatic adjustments. Countries such as Denmark, Finland, Italy, and the Netherlands already link retirement age to life expectancy, and Denmark recently raised its pension age to 70. Morrissey will be studying these models to see what lessons the UK could take from them. But what does it mean for UK pensioners and their money? How likely is it that such a radical change could be brought in? Here is everything you need to know about it. Liz Kendall MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, leaves Downing Street after a weekly cabinet meeting on January 21, 2025 (Photo:) | Getty Images Why might changes be made? Life expectancy is a key factor in the debate. UK life expectancy at age 66 has continued to rise, although improvements have slowed compared with previous forecasts, partly due to pandemic-related reversals. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Current projections suggest a 66-year-old in 2050 might live until 87, compared with 90 under older 2014-based forecasts. As mentioned above, Denmark's approach offers one potential model. The Danish system effectively caps the amount of time anyone can spend claiming state support, legislating that the average retirement period should be 14.5 years. By contrast, the UK aims for future generations to spend 'up to a third' of adult life in retirement, a target that could mean later pensions if life expectancy continues to rise. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The review is also taking place amid long-term pressures on public finances. State Pension spending has risen 19% over the past decade and 70% over 20 years in real terms. Politicians have previously tried to accelerate increases to reduce costs, including former Chancellor Jeremy Hunt, who attempted to bring forward the rise to 68 in the late 2030s. Declining life expectancy made the plan politically unworkable. What does it mean for pensioners? For pensioners in the UK, the immediate picture is less drastic. The State Pension age is set to rise to 67 from next year and is scheduled to reach 68 between 2044 and 2046. Any increases beyond that, including the controversial age of 70, are likely at least a decade away. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But the review signals that retirement planning in the UK could become more unpredictable, particularly if automatic formulas are adopted. How likely is a change? Experts warn that tying State Pension age strictly to life expectancy could create 'chaos' in retirement planning. Sir Steve Webb, a former pensions minister, says that different population projections could swing the retirement age by up to eight years. 'Every time the population projections are updated, this could move the dates for pension age changes by up to a decade, making it very difficult for people to plan their finances,' he adds. Catherine Foot, director of the Standard Life Centre for the Future of Retirement, is already warning that working to the current pension age isn't realistic for everyone. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'People aged 60-65 are experiencing the fastest-growing rate of poverty for any working-age group,' she says, citing ill health, caring responsibilities, and ageism as barriers. Using average life expectancy to set pension age could push retirement further away for those already struggling. For now, the review is in the evidence-gathering stage, with recommendations expected in several years' time, but for over-60s and those planning retirement, it's a reminder that pension timelines are not set in stone. Those approaching retirement may need to plan for a longer working life, consider personal savings, and stay informed about potential policy shifts. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad
