Latest news with #NationalExecutiveCommittee
The Independent
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Labour postpones women's conference over Supreme Court transgender ruling
Labour has postponed its women's conference because of the risk of protests and legal challenge following the Supreme Court ruling on gender. The party's ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) voted on Tuesday to postpone the event, which was due to take place in September, pending a review. A leaked advice paper had recommended postponing it because the 'only legally defensible alternative' would be to restrict attendance to biological women. The NEC also decided to extend the terms of those serving on the National Labour Women's Committee until a conference takes place and elections can be held. A Labour Party spokesperson said the party must make sure all its procedures 'comply with the Supreme Court's clear ruling' and that it would make any changes required with 'sensitivity and care'. The Supreme Court ruled in April that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. The party will interpret measures relating to women on the basis of biological sex at birth, it is understood. Labour had previously operated its 'positive action' measures on the basis of self-identification, allowing transgender women to take part. A leaked advice paper produced for the NEC meeting recommended postponing the women's conference on September 27 because 'there is a significant risk of legal challenge to the event as it currently operates' and 'there may be protests, direct action and heightened security risks' if it goes ahead. That could carry a 'political risk' of overshadowing the party's showcase autumn conference which begins the following day. The recommendation in the paper was to postpone the women's conference pending a wider review of positive action measures. The paper also says the party should issue guidance to make clear that all-women shortlists can only apply to 'applicants who were biologically female at birth'. Labour did not use all-women shortlists at the last general election. A Labour Party spokesperson said: 'Like all other organisations, the Labour Party must ensure all party procedures comply with the Supreme Court's clear ruling. 'Labour is clear that everyone in our society deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. 'The party will work closely with individuals and local parties to implement the necessary changes with sensitivity and care.' It is understood Labour will respect the Supreme Court judgment and comply with statutory guidance when it is published. Ministers will consider the Equality and Human Rights Commission's code of practice when a draft is submitted by the body. The Labour for Trans Rights group, along with Pride in Labour and LGBT+ Labour's trans officer, Georgia Meadows, condemned the NEC paper and its recommendations. They said: 'It is a blatant attack on trans rights and is seemingly an attempt to isolate trans people even further within the Labour Party and the labour movement more widely.' The Labour Women's Declaration group, which backs 'sex-based rights', said cancelling the conference would be a 'knee-jerk reaction'. A spokesperson told the LabourList website: 'We are shocked that hundreds of women in the Labour Party might be prevented from meeting at conference because the NEC would prefer to disadvantage all women rather than to exclude the very small number of trans-identified men who may wish to attend the women's conference.'
BBC News
20-05-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Labour postpones women's conference after Supreme Court ruling
The Labour Party has postponed its annual Women's Conference in the wake of advice following last month's ruling on the legal definition of a month, the Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex. Up until the ruling, Labour had allowed people to self-identify as a woman, so trans women could attend the event and also take part in "positive action" measures such as all-women decision has been condemned by trans rights advocates as an "attempt to isolate trans people" and by gender critical activists as "a kneejerk reaction". Labour Women's Conference is traditionally held the day before the main conference and brings together hundreds of women from Labour's activist base, including MPs, councillors, and supporters for a day of discussion and policy-making.A leaked advice paper to Labour's governing body, the National Executive Committee (NEC), recommended delaying the conference because the "only legally defensible alternative" would be to restrict attendance to biological paper set out how "there is a significant risk of legal challenge to the event as it currently operates" and "there may be protests, direct action and heightened security risks" if it goes ahead on 27 could carry a "political risk" of overshadowing the party's showcase autumn conference which begins the following day on 28 Tuesday night, the party's NEC voted to delay the conference, pending a wider review of positive action NEC also decided to postpone the elections to the National Labour Women's Committee, which are normally held at the conference, and to extend the terms of those currently serving. Labour moved away from using all-women shortlists at the last general election. The leaked paper also advised the party to issue guidance to make clear that all-women shortlists can only apply to "applicants who were biologically female at birth".A Labour Party spokesperson said the party must make sure all its procedures "comply with the Supreme Court's clear ruling"."Labour is clear that everyone in our society deserves to be treated with dignity and respect," he said."The party will work closely with individuals and local parties to implement the necessary changes with sensitivity and care." 'Knee-jerk reaction' Ministers will consider the Equality and Human Rights Commission's code of practice, which it has just put out for decision was condemned by Georgia Meadows, who was speaking as LGBT+ Labour's trans officer."It is a blatant attack on trans rights and is seemingly an attempt to isolate trans people even further within the Labour Party and the Labour movement more widely," they Labour Women's Declaration group, which backs "sex-based rights", said cancelling the conference would be a "knee-jerk reaction".A spokesperson told the LabourList website: "We are shocked that hundreds of women in the Labour Party might be prevented from meeting at conference because the NEC would prefer to disadvantage all women rather than to exclude the very small number of trans-identified men who may wish to attend the women's conference." Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Yahoo
03-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Our leaders care more about the cult of machines than voters' concerns
Something strange is happening in Westminster. New money is working in mysterious new ways – and Labour is in thrall to it. In exchange for destroying copyright markets worth some £125bn to the UK, Labour has been promised some magic beans: once artificial intelligence companies are free to effectively steal any British creativity they want and copy it, they will move here and we will be happy again. Last week our newspapers synchronised their front pages to warn against watered down copyright rules, while top British artists including Kate Bush and Damon Albarn released an album of recordings of empty studios and concert halls to protest against the proposed changes. Destroying copyright to appease the Gods of AI is a very strange thing to do. Many in the creative industries are lifelong Labour voters, or were until now; musicians are even represented on Labour's National Executive Committee. No one else in the world is doing anything like this. As a result, not only are some intellectual property-based companies (and hefty taxpayers) now making plans to leave the UK, but the Government may also find itself dragged through the international courts, using powers reserved for rogue, pirate states. That's something the Prime Minister, a human rights lawyer, might care about, but I suspect no one has told him yet. And why would this be? Here's a clue. Listeners to BBC Radio 4's Today programme last week heard support for the Government's plans come from a 24-year-old, Julia Willemyns, founder of a think tank that's barely six months old. Willemyns proceeded to lecture Ed Newton Rex – the composer and AI entrepreneur behind the silent album – on how copyright really works. Children educating adults? It's reminiscent of Mao's Cultural Revolution, which cynically stoked up intergenerational conflict. Funnily enough, Willemyns's think tank also has a sinister Maoist vibe: it's called 'UK Day One'. Willemyns made some dubious claims that the BBC allowed to go unchallenged. She cited Japan as a model, which is odd. Japan made it easier for AI models to ingest copyright material in 2018 but now has buyer's remorse. Artists are furious, and the loophole may well be plugged up again. The flood of AI start-ups that Japan hoped for never appeared and they won't spring up here either, because businesses in Britain pay some of the highest electricity prices in the world. That's because AI uses a huge amount of electricity. Where does this strain of cult-like, techno-utopian thinking come from that wants to do away with copyright and empower machines? It evolved from very intense 'rationalist' online forums a decade ago such as Less Wrong, where poorly socialised economics and psychology nerds jostled for status. The blogger Scott Alexander, one of the leading lights, suggested they should call themselves 'the Grey Tribe', signalling a disdain for traditional left and right – or red and blue – politics. Many signed up to a peculiar philosophy called effective altruism (EA), which argues that charity shouldn't be about doing what makes you feel or look good but what generates the best outcomes most effectively. While it sounds reasonable enough, its supporters pursue whacky preoccupations ranging from fantasies about a killer artificial intelligence to extending animal rights to insects. Some of EA's supporters are hugely wealthy and have used their largess to extend the influence of these ideas. Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz is the biggest EA funder and helped bring Willemyns's UK Day One into existence with a £150,000 grant from his Open Philanthropy charity. To understand Labour's thinking we should also look to Matt Clifford, a government adviser. He steered Rishi Sunak's AI summit towards the theme of 'safety' – yes, those killer AIs again – which ultimately empowered the big Silicon Valley players as they successfully argued only significant players like themselves could be trusted to police the risks. Labour appointed Clifford; he then obligingly recommended the copyright changes. Another influential source of funding for anti-copyright ideas is an attempt to invent a new field called 'Progress Studies', an initiative that also sprouted out of the nerd forums. It was devised by Stripe founder Patrick Collinson and Tyler Cowen, an economics blogger and professor. Emergent Ventures, a scheme that Cowen helps to administer, has dispensed grants to more than 800 people and organisations. Without these two strands of thought, Effective Altruism and Progressive Studies, some policy phenomena such as 'Yimby' would not even exist. Nor would the 'Crush Crime' venture, furiously promoted by Dominic Cummings, which hasn't crushed very much crime, but has harvested a lot of emails. Supporters are aiming to create a movement. As Cowen himself explained recently: 'It would never be such a formal thing or controlled or managed or directed by a small group of people or trademarked. It would be people doing things in a very decentralised way that would reflect a general change of ethos and vibe.' Here's why all this matters. These groups have such a narrow concept of what 'progress' means. The rationalists get too fixated on things they think might accelerate progress – mainly artificial intelligence – and are indifferent or hostile to things and people who they perceive as inhibiting it. So older people, strong national borders and boundaries – a property right like copyright protection is a boundary – are all regarded in the same way that Scientologists view their critics: as 'suppressives'. But what kind of progress involves the destruction of markets for creative work? It is not progress at all but a regression to pre-Enlightenment times, when artists had to beg for their supper. It also paves the way for a creepy, post-human world: Cowen himself has said the 'bottleneck to progress is human beings'. This is where a bewildered Labour Party finds itself today, along with much of Tory wonkdom – and none of them really realises how they got here. Machine cults have replaced the very human concerns and needs of voters. For Labour, a political party founded on strong Christian beliefs that the weak shall inherit the Earth, this has been quite a journey. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
03-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Our leaders care more about the cult of machines than voters' concerns
Something strange is happening in Westminster. New money is working in mysterious new ways – and Labour is in thrall to it. In exchange for destroying copyright markets worth some £125bn to the UK, Labour has been promised some magic beans: once artificial intelligence companies are free to effectively steal any British creativity they want and copy it, they will move here and we will be happy again. Last week our newspapers synchronised their front pages to warn against watered down copyright rules, while top British artists including Kate Bush and Damon Albarn released an album of recordings of empty studios and concert halls to protest against the proposed changes. Destroying copyright to appease the Gods of AI is a very strange thing to do. Many in the creative industries are lifelong Labour voters, or were until now; musicians are even represented on Labour's National Executive Committee. No one else in the world is doing anything like this. As a result, not only are some intellectual property-based companies (and hefty taxpayers) now making plans to leave the UK, but the Government may also find itself dragged through the international courts, using powers reserved for rogue, pirate states. That's something the Prime Minister, a human rights lawyer, might care about, but I suspect no one has told him yet. And why would this be? Here's a clue. Listeners to BBC Radio 4's Today programme last week heard support for the Government's plans come from a 24-year-old, Julia Willemyns, founder of a think tank that's barely six months old. Willemyns proceeded to lecture Ed Newton Rex – the composer and AI entrepreneur behind the silent album – on how copyright really works. Children educating adults? It's reminiscent of Mao's Cultural Revolution, which cynically stoked up intergenerational conflict. Funnily enough, Willemyns's think tank also has a sinister Maoist vibe: it's called 'UK Day One'. Willemyns made some dubious claims that the BBC allowed to go unchallenged. She cited Japan as a model, which is odd. Japan made it easier for AI models to ingest copyright material in 2018 but now has buyer's remorse. Artists are furious, and the loophole may well be plugged up again. The flood of AI start-ups that Japan hoped for never appeared and they won't spring up here either, because businesses in Britain pay some of the highest electricity prices in the world. That's because AI uses a huge amount of electricity. Where does this strain of cult-like, techno-utopian thinking come from that wants to do away with copyright and empower machines? It evolved from very intense 'rationalist' online forums a decade ago such as Less Wrong, where poorly socialised economics and psychology nerds jostled for status. The blogger Scott Alexander, one of the leading lights, suggested they should call themselves 'the Grey Tribe', signalling a disdain for traditional left and right – or red and blue – politics. Many signed up to a peculiar philosophy called effective altruism (EA), which argues that charity shouldn't be about doing what makes you feel or look good but what generates the best outcomes most effectively. While it sounds reasonable enough, its supporters pursue whacky preoccupations ranging from fantasies about a killer artificial intelligence to extending animal rights to insects. Some of EA's supporters are hugely wealthy and have used their largess to extend the influence of these ideas. Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz is the biggest EA funder and helped bring Willemyns's UK Day One into existence with a £150,000 grant from his Open Philanthropy charity. To understand Labour's thinking we should also look to Matt Clifford, a government adviser. He steered Rishi Sunak's AI summit towards the theme of 'safety' – yes, those killer AIs again – which ultimately empowered the big Silicon Valley players as they successfully argued only significant players like themselves could be trusted to police the risks. Labour appointed Clifford; he then obligingly recommended the copyright changes. Another influential source of funding for anti-copyright ideas is an attempt to invent a new field called 'Progress Studies', an initiative that also sprouted out of the nerd forums. It was devised by Stripe founder Patrick Collinson and Tyler Cowen, an economics blogger and professor. Emergent Ventures, a scheme that Cowen helps to administer, has dispensed grants to more than 800 people and organisations. Without these two strands of thought, Effective Altruism and Progressive Studies, some policy phenomena such as 'Yimby' would not even exist. Nor would the 'Crush Crime' venture, furiously promoted by Dominic Cummings, which hasn't crushed very much crime, but has harvested a lot of emails. Supporters are aiming to create a movement. As Cowen himself explained recently: 'It would never be such a formal thing or controlled or managed or directed by a small group of people or trademarked. It would be people doing things in a very decentralised way that would reflect a general change of ethos and vibe.' Here's why all this matters. These groups have such a narrow concept of what 'progress' means. The rationalists get too fixated on things they think might accelerate progress – mainly artificial intelligence – and are indifferent or hostile to things and people who they perceive as inhibiting it. So older people, strong national borders and boundaries – a property right like copyright protection is a boundary – are all regarded in the same way that Scientologists view their critics: as 'suppressives'. But what kind of progress involves the destruction of markets for creative work? It is not progress at all but a regression to pre-Enlightenment times, when artists had to beg for their supper. It also paves the way for a creepy, post-human world: Cowen himself has said the 'bottleneck to progress is human beings'. This is where a bewildered Labour Party finds itself today, along with much of Tory wonkdom – and none of them really realises how they got here. Machine cults have replaced the very human concerns and needs of voters. For Labour, a political party founded on strong Christian beliefs that the weak shall inherit the Earth, this has been quite a journey.
Telegraph
05-02-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Starmer's plan to please all voters will leave him without the support of anyone
Relax: Labour have got this. There will be no 'far Right' surge of support on Keir Starmer's watch. We know this because of two recent initiatives. The first is the creation of an informal caucus of MPs representing the 89 Labour-held constituencies where Reform came second at last year's general election. The group will lobby ministers to adopt more robust anti-immigration policies and rhetoric, and will advocate, for example, that ministers 'shout louder' about their success in removing unsuccessful asylum applicants, all in a bid to impress voters who might be considering voting for Nigel Farage's party. The second plank in Labour's strategy to thwart Reform is a cunning one indeed: the party's new general secretary, Hollie Ridley, has told a meeting of the National Executive Committee that Labour intends to produce literature in future electoral contests aimed squarely at both Reform and the Greens, the latter of which Labour strategists are also unnerved by. It is hardly necessary to remark how ingenious this latter strategy is. There is surely no downside to delivering bespoke, even contradictory messages to voters in different parts of the same country – perhaps even the same ward – reassuring them that Labour will focus on those voters' priorities. Worried that the Government isn't doing enough to reach net zero? Fear not – Job done! What could possibly go wrong? Well, since you ask… This sort of targeting of specific groups of voters has been going on for as long as there have been elections. Emphasise the bits of your manifesto that X voter will support, but don't even mention this other bit that they will be less keen on. It sounds cynical but it's an inevitable part of politics and all parties indulge in it. The problem with the twin threats to Labour support from the Greens and Reform are that they are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, and their values and priorities are antithetical with nary a Venn Diagram overlap. Those voters who want to see the local hotel expunged of suspicious-looking new arrivals on our shores are the same voters who aren't just sceptical about net zero, they're positively hostile towards it and all those who support it. Those nice, middle-class voters who happily voted Labour while Jeremy Corbyn was leading it but who find Keir Starmer's impression of a middle-management council official delivering a PowerPoint presentation on refuse collection protocols less engaging are turning to a party that would happily end all economic growth and doom Britain to economic penury in order to achieve zero carbon emissions, while advocating open borders to anyone in the world who would still want to live here and subject themselves to the Greens' new brand of virtuous austerity. That Labour is confident of appealing to both sets of voters is ambitious and impressive, if a little hard to believe. It's just as well there is no such thing as social media or the internet, otherwise this clever strategy might be exposed before the polls even open. While Margaret Thatcher reaped the political rewards of adopting the Martin Luther strategy – 'Here I stand, I can do no other' – forcing voters to respect her immoveable ideological positions, Tony Blair was the first UK politician to wield the political weapon of triangulation, seeking common ground between two opposing viewpoints or shifting the debate to a further point where the two sides could recognise a common interest. Neither strategy will work today. Those And unless Keir Starmer is about to unveil some previously hidden political genius for politics, he is not going to be able to appeal simultaneously to both the Right and the extreme Left. He can't defend Britain's borders and win the approval of immigration liberals. He can't stick rigidly by his party's commitments to net zero and convince car owners and domestic energy bill payers that there is no price to be paid for that ambition. The Government cannot hope to generate the economic growth it needs to dig Britain out of its current economic hole without breaking a few eggs over the heads of naysayers who oppose every new housing development, road and airport runway. Who could have guessed that politics would involve taking a stand in favour of one set of principles and opposing another? Certainly not Labour, by the sound of it. It seems determined to go into battle facing both ways, to the Left and the Right, reassuring everyone that whatever their priorities, Labour will meet them, even when those priorities are irreconcilable. Good luck with that.
