Badenoch accused of wearing transphobia as ‘badge of honour' by Labour MP
A spokesman for the Conservative leader said she has 'always defended the rights of trans people' and accused Mr Quigley of twisting Mrs Badenoch's words.
As MPs discussed a petition calling for the ability of trans people to self-identify their legal gender, Mr Quigley said: 'It is disheartening to see figures, including the Leader of the Opposition, appear to wear their transphobia almost as a badge of honour.
'In this House we must not forget that our words matter and we can really impact the most vulnerable. I came into politics, and I believe many of us did, to champion minorities and give a voice to the voiceless.
'It is vital that we remember the power we hold, to raise the tone of debate rather than to lower it, to support the vulnerable, not scapegoat them.'
He added: 'What concerns me further is the growing narrative that improving trans rights somehow threatens the rights or dignity of women and girls.
'And I am not going to deny that in places such as the prison service there have been troubling examples of individuals playing the system to gain access to women's spaces. We must acknowledge and address these concerns seriously.
'But when I hear some from the Opposition declare themselves – well, if they were here – champions of women's rights, I find myself asking, where are they, well, now? Where have they been for the last 15 years?
'When violence against women and girls skyrocketed, where was the legislation? When women's shelters were chronically underfunded, where was the outrage? When domestic abuse cases surged, whilst court access diminished, where was the action?
'When male perpetrators played the legal system to harass their victims, where was the advocacy? I do not raise these points just to score political points, but rather to prompt reflection.
'If your defence of women's rights only surfaces in opposition to trans rights, then I question whether it is truly about supporting women, or simply targeting trans people under that guise.'
Intervening, Labour former minister Dame Meg Hillier said: 'So many people have been in touch with me, very frightened now, because of this Supreme Court ruling.
'Doesn't he agree, as he said, we need to speak well here, but the Government needs to make sure that that interim guidance is fast firmed up into proper guidance? Because the interim guidance is causing confusion and fear amongst so many people.'
Mr Quigley said he agreed 'entirely' with the MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch, adding: 'Words matter.'
A spokesman for Mrs Badenoch said: 'Kemi has always defended the rights of trans people, but she has been clear that those rights cannot come at the expense of women and girls.
'This issue has consistently been exploited by people, like Richard Quigley, who seek to misrepresent the law and twist Kemi's words for their own political gain.
'The Supreme Court judgment has now made the law abundantly clear, and it is what Kemi has argued throughout her political career – that sex is biological.'
Later in the debate, Dame Meg said the Government 'may need to step in to resolve' the issues caused by the Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of a woman.
'The Equality Act itself was well written in order to deal with intersectional issues when they arose, the guidance around it was very clear and this ruling has muddied that,' she said.
Intervening earlier in the debate, Labour MP Will Stone said 'we should be doing our utmost to protect the trans community and ensure they have the same rights as everyone else and that they can live in dignity'.
The Swindon North MP added: 'What we say in this House matters, it ripples across communities, and regardless of what side you sit on or where you are in the argument, at the centre of that argument are people.'
Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam Olivia Blake said the uncertainty on the issue risked 'undermining' gender recognition certificates (GRC).
Ms Blake said: 'I'm pleased that Labour committed to making the GRC process simpler in our manifesto, but the recent judgment is very concerning and it risks undermining the existence of these certificates in themselves if we're not careful, and if the guidance goes the wrong way.'
Conservative shadow equalities minister Mims Davies said: 'Every individual should live a life of dignity and be free as to how to live their lives and be safe to do so, and safety has been very much raised today, and rightly should be supported in that. We are a party that is inclusive and focused on equality, and will always stand up for the rights of women and girls too.'
However, she added: 'I believe we must ensure that we work for a future where women do not have to fight for their rights every time and nobody has to keep fighting for all of their rights every time.'
Home Office minister Seema Malhotra said accounts of hate crime and transphobia were 'a concern to us all'. Ms Malhotra said the Government remained committed to both delivering a trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy, and the Cass report. However, she said Labour did not believe in self identification.
She said: 'We understand these issues must be navigated sensitively. The Government's position embodies a belief that it is both possible and essential to uphold protections for trans individuals whilst respecting women's concerns around privacy, safety and dignity.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
19 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Sturgeon is no feminist: she tried hard to destroy women's rights
Women had been trying to warn Ms Sturgeon and her Government years before, within and outside her party. MSP Joan McAlpine wrote a long open letter to her explaining clearly and unambiguously the issues with self-ID concerning the very real threats to women's rights to safety, dignity and privacy. She also alerted parliamentarians as early as 2018 to the way data collection was suggested in the Census Amendment Bill, introducing voluntary questions on transgender status and sexual orientation in the 2021 Census, redefining the meaning of sex to include gender. She was pilloried for her pains. To this day Nicola Sturgeon still cannot bring herself to say that Adam Bryson is a man. She will not acknowledge, let alone apologise to, the women who have been steadfast in their refusal to be cowed and silenced, and who, in defending the belief (and fact) that sex matters have been vilified, while some lost their livelihood. I think it is perfectly justified to claim that women's rights went under Nicola Sturgeon's SNP bus, and that yes, she tried very hard to destroy women's rights. Women didn't threaten to kill, "decapitate", rape anyone. Trans activists did. So, enough of the "both sides were toxic" argument. Dr Mireille Pouget, Dollar. Read more letters Who governs Scotland? It is shocking that the SNP administration refuses to implement the necessary measures contingent on April's Supreme Court judgment on biological sex being the criterion for the operation of the Equality Act, 2010. John Swinney drags his heels about enforcing the provisions of the Act, claiming that he first requires guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). Yet on April 25 the EHRC published "An interim update on the practical implications" of the judgment. This spells out unambiguously that biological sex determines conditions in public services and sporting bodies, emphasising that "trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use women's facilities". It could not be clearer. The SNP leadership has gone curiously quiet on gender, with only a very anaemic statement from Shona Robison on the furore over Kate Forbes's appearance at Summerhall, saying: "I don't think it sends out the right signal over freedom of speech". What an understatement! That could be said of much of SNP government, with Freedom of Information requests ignored or the relevant materials supplied with almost total redaction. The Salmond Inquiry was the classic case of evidence being redacted. It is therefore not surprising that For Women Scotland has felt the need to take legal action once again, demanding that the Supreme Court's judgment be implemented in Scotland's schools and prisons. Why is Mr Swinney resisting this? Is he actually in charge? Given the National Library's ridiculous removal of The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht from its centenary exhibition because of demands made by its "LGBT+ network" ("NLS could face 'thousands of legal claims' over gender critical book removal", The Herald, August 16), it is worth asking whether there is a similar network agitating for pro-trans policies within the Scottish Government, perhaps among its civil servants. Who governs? Is it politicians, or is it Stonewall? Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh. A charmless mediocrity I am sure that many of your readers will share my appreciation for Alison Rowat's excellent review of Nicola Sturgeon's memoir ("Review, Frankly: Sturgeon psychodrama suddenly makes sense", heraldscotland, August 18). The key observations made by Ms Rowat are "almost comically dull"; "a pattern of thinking emerges. Nothing is ever Nicola's fault"; "writing which reads at times like a bad Mills and Boon parody"; "For a political memoir, Frankly is remarkably light on policy"; and most damningly in conclusion: "Deep as a puddle to the end". So how could someone who was described as such a political genius and presented herself as having such acute literary taste have produced a book of so little political value and of no literary distinction? It is now clear from her own account that Nicola Sturgeon was a charlatan all along, and her political and literary prowess were always delusions. The next question for the likes of Ms Rowat – and for all of the other commentators who have suddenly had the scales fall from their eyes – is why they played along with the pretence all this time, instead of unmasking it from Day One. Some of us saw through it all along: Nicola Sturgeon is a charmless mediocrity who has failed in everything she has attempted. She would be well advised to enjoy the attention that is currently being lavished on her, as she does not deserve to be remembered for long, except as an exemplar of how not to do things. Peter A Russell, Glasgow. Misleading claims 'The SNP spent £2700 per head in Scotland more than the rest of the UK.' These were the words of Dennis Forbes Grattan (Letters, August 16) which are misleading on a number of different levels. First, the SNP does not spend public money, it is the Scottish Government that spends funds significantly calculated according to spending commitments of the UK Government. Second, in order for the Scottish Government's budget to pass it must be balanced and requires, as the SNP does not have a majority in Holyrood, the backing of at least one other party. Third, not only is much of the so-called spending of the Scottish Government determined by decisions taken at Westminster (90 per cent according to Finance Secretary Shona Robison), much of it is 'notional' because Westminster allocates Scotland a share of UK Government spending, such as for defence where expenditure of £5.1 billion was listed but only £2.1bn was actually spent in Scotland. Finally, as recently pointed out in Alex Orr's letter (August 14), to claim that this Westminster-imposed financial predicament 'underlines the complete folly of independence' is also misleading, especially as SNP politicians (assuming the party does not disband after independence is achieved) would likely be in the minority in future independent Scottish parliaments. Stan Grodynski, Longniddry. JK Rowling, one of Nicola Sturgeon's fiercest critics (Image: PA) A damning indictment I have recently undergone a hearing test appointment, after waiting two years. I have had hearing aids for a number of years but was amazed at the difference once these were recalibrated to account for the drop in certain sound tones over the past years. I can honestly say the improvement is night and day. My appointment took place on a Sunday afternoon, which I thought was unusual. It was not until I discovered that the SNP Government has admitted that it will now not deliver on a promise to raise community audiology services on a par with eye care that I understood the reason for the long wait that I had, and that audiology staff are working hard to try to reduce the waiting times. Experts have stated that the ballooning waiting list could be cleared by the spend of £9 million in three years, but the SNP 's Public Health Minister has admitted that the money, originally ring-fenced, has been spent elsewhere. This is a damming indictment on the SNP Government and is further proof that it puts sound bites before policy and is gaslighting the Scottish people, and has in fact given up trying to improve the elements of healthcare that so many people are dependent on. The sooner the people of Scotland understand that things will only get worse the longer this Government remains in power and take action at next year's election, the better. Douglas Eadie, Alexandria.
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Labour right wants Wes Streeting in No 10. Why? What does he really stand for?
Just over a year after Keir Starmer entered Downing Street, his political survival already looks uncertain. Perennially indecisive, unpopular with the public and unable to pass major legislation without rebellions, the prime minister has reportedly been put 'on notice' by senior figures within his party. Speculation about a potential successor is mounting. What would Labour's dominant faction – the neo-Blairite right – look for in a candidate? Their best bet would be an effective operator who doesn't carry too much political baggage, a decent communicator, free of Starmer's stumbling reticence, and a committed partisan of their cause: namely the free market and a strong state. They need someone who will go on the offensive for these values, rather than offering the bland apologetics that we have seen from the incumbent. Few fit the bill better than the health secretary, Wes Streeting, who has made no secret of his ambition to lead the country and appears to have spent years laying the groundwork with media rounds, donor events and backroom conversations. When Starmer's leadership of the Labour party was on the brink during the Beergate scandal, Peter Mandelson is said to have canvassed the Labour frontbench to anoint Streeting. 'In the longer term,' briefed one party source, 'Wes is their guy, not Keir.' Born into a working-class east London family in 1983, Streeting has been fairly consistent in both his political style and outlook since he was in his early 20s. A pugnacious advocate of private enterprise, and an effective behind-the-scenes operator, his deft handling of the press allows him to stride into the limelight at crucial moments, with memorable one-liners that seem crafted to enrage his opponents. As president of the National Union of Students (NUS) in the twilight of the New Labour era, he inveighed against lecturers' strikes, remarking that 'students need industrial action by university staff like a hole in the head'. He also broke with dominant student opinion by supporting tuition fees and criticising Palestine solidarity protests. From the NUS it was only a small step to parliament, where Streeting landed in 2015. The words 'future leader' were immediately 'appended to his name like a Homeric epithet', according to one insider account. He vigorously opposed the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, repeatedly excoriating him in parliamentary meetings and working with the People's Vote campaign to chip away at his resistance to a second Brexit referendum. This earned him a place in Starmer's shadow cabinet once the right had regained control five years later. There, he made no bones about accepting hundreds of thousands of pounds from donors linked to the private healthcare industry. He insisted that the party needed to get tough on 'law and order' along with 'defence and national security'; and he signalled a clear shift from the foreign policy of the Corbyn era by visiting Israel and meeting with ministers in its government. Now that Streeting is at the helm of the NHS, we are beginning to see how his hypothetical prime ministership might play out. Shortly after the last general election, he sketched out his vision for the health service in the pages of the Sun, writing that 'major surgery' was needed to make it 'fit for the future': moving treatment out of hospitals, so as to focus on local care and prevention. This could not be achieved through public spending, Streeting warned, because 'the money isn't there'. It could only be done through hard-knuckled 'reform'. True to his word, Streeting has helped to normalise the state of perma-austerity at the health department, which will receive only an extra 2.8% annually in real terms over the coming years: less than the long-term historical norm of 3.7%, and far below the average increase of 6.8% under New Labour. This is nowhere near enough to solve the perpetual crisis in the sector, let alone make any real improvements in the quality of care. Without meaningful investment, the levers that Streeting can pull to realise his goals are limited. There is reorganisation through measures such as the summary abolition of NHS England and mass job cuts. There is techno-optimism, allowing AI companies such as Palantir to run parts of the ailing service. And, most importantly, there is privatisation. Streeting has been working hard to ensure that 'more treatments can be delivered through the independent sector', as an official briefing put it. Under his watch, an even greater portion of the NHS – including, potentially, sensitive patient data – is being handed over to profit-making companies. His plan to set up 300 'neighbourhood health hubs' is powered by corporate finance, in what is shaping up to be a frame-by-frame replay of the disastrous PFI initiatives of the 2000s. Research shows that the effect of these policies is to worsen health inequality. But this does not seem to concern the minister. Bullish as ever, Streeting has said he is 'up for the fight' that his plan will provoke. And that is what he now has. In recent weeks, resident doctors rejected his notion that 'reform' alone will magically resolve the service's deep-rooted problems of under-resourcing and understaffing. They refused to accept a pay deal that would amount to a 21% reduction in their salaries since 2008, and instead made a principled case for wage restoration. Streeting was intransigent. During the resulting five-day strike he launched a series of broadsides against the workers, insisting that they must feel the 'pain' of the walkouts and vowing that they would 'lose a war with this government'. Much like his 'bullet in the head' rhetoric, the remarks showed that Streeting's main interest is in positioning himself as a crusader on behalf of the establishment rather than fixing the service he oversees. He is also keenly aware of the populist appeal of his rhetoric at a time when support for the doctors' struggle is in decline. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion The other front on which Streeting has been fighting is the culture war. He has imposed a permanent ban on puberty blockers for trans children – despite a wealth of dissenting expert opinion including that of the British Medical Association, which disputes the scientific basis of the prohibition – and he has also barred those under 18 from changing gender markers on their NHS records, potentially making it more difficult for them to access vital services. The irony, of course, is that while Streeting styles himself as the man to beat Nigel Farage, his politics is one of deference to big business, clampdowns on trans rights and incendiary rhetoric to provoke the left. These features are more typically associated with reactionary populism than with social democracy. Streeting's ascent reflects the fact that, in today's Labour party, the former is cannibalising the latter. Oliver Eagleton is an associate editor at the New Left Review and author of The Starmer Project: A Journey to the Right
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Treasury ‘looking at' new property taxes to replace stamp duty
Government officials are looking at a potential national property tax, which would replace stamp duty on owner-occupied homes, The Guardian reported. No final decision has been made, but it is thought this national tax could help build a model for local levies to replace council tax in the medium term. Buyers pay stamp duty under the existing framework, if they purchase property worth more than £125,000. The new levy would be paid by owner-occupiers on houses worth more than £500,000 when they sell their home, with the amount due determined by the value of the property and a rate set by the Government. A Treasury spokesperson said: 'As set out in the plan for change, the best way to strengthen public finances is by growing the economy – which is our focus. 'Changes to tax and spend policy are not the only ways of doing this, as seen with our planning reforms, which are expected to grow the economy by £6.8 billion and cut borrowing by £3.4 billion. 'We are committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible, which is why at last autumn's budget, we protected working people's payslips and kept our promise not to raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee national insurance, or VAT.' Chancellor Rachel Reeves will unveil any changes to the Government's tax policy at a fiscal event, such as a budget. Former government adviser Tim Leunig has previously suggested replacing stamp duty land tax with a 'national proportional property tax' levied on house values greater than £500,000, in a paper published by the think tank Onward. At a rate of 0.54%, with a 0.278% supplement on values over £1 million, the levy 'would raise the same amount as stamp duty'. Sir Mel Stride, Conservative shadow chancellor, said: 'The Conservatives have warned that more taxes are coming and now reports are emerging that the family home is next in the firing line. 'This tax grab would punish families for aspiring to own their own home. 'Under Labour nothing is safe. Your home, your job, your pension – the Chancellor has all of it in her sights. 'Rachel Reeves will tax your future to pay for her failure.'
