Yvette Cooper used the bungling of her opposite number to Labour's political advantage. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour is the real winner after the European Arrest Warrant vote that wasn't

Labour is set to use an opposition day debate on the eve of the Rochester and Strood by-election to debate and vote on the European Arrest Warrant.

Last night, the House of Commons fell into disarray as furious Tory MPs discovered that they would not be voting on the European Arrest Warrant, accusing the government of misleadingly ducking an issue that would see some backbenchers rebel.

The Labour party jumped on Theresa May's bungling with Yvette Cooper leaping up and proposing her own motion to postpone the vote. This led to some extraordinary filibustering from the Tories as they attempted to buy time for as many of their MPs, including David Cameron hurrying in in white tie having left the Lord Mayor's Banquet early, to turn up and vote.

Labour's motion was defeated by just 43 votes. But such a close vote, with 35 Tories rebelling to vote in favour of the motion, was a sign that the Labour party – which actually supports the government in wanting to opt in to the warrant – was calling the shots as government authority in the Commons dangerously wobbled.

Eventually, the government's original motion, which so controversially did not even mention the European Arrest Warrant, was comfortably passed, by 464 to 38. However, it looks like Labour continues to be the real winner, as it is reported this morning that the party is set to use an opposition day debate on Wednesday next week to discuss and vote on opting in to the warrant.

The date scheduled, 19 November, is on the eve of the Rochester and Strood by-election, which is awkward for the Prime Minister. To see rebellions from his eurosceptic MPs, as well as having to assert a pro-European position, the day preceding a by-election where it looks like the anti-EU Ukip is likely to defeat the Conservatives and take another of their seats is a very difficult situation for the PM.

Having been constantly criticising May in recent weeks for attempting to delay the vote until after the by-election, it looks like Labour is now deciding when and how the vote will play out with maximum damage to the government. The crisis of confidence in its leadership meant last week was one of Labour's very worst. But it has grasped this political opportunity smartly, and it looks like the spotlight will soon be back on Tory tensions.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

Women-only train carriages are just a way of ensuring more spaces are male by default

We don’t need the “personal choice” to sit in a non-segregated carriage to become the new short skirt.

“A decent girl,” says bus driver Mukesh Singh, “won't roam around at 9 o'clock at night. A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy.”

Singh is one of four men sentenced to death for the rape and fatal assault of Jyoti Singh Pandey on a Delhi bus in 2013. His defence was that she shouldn’t have been on the bus in the first place. Presumably he’d have said the same if she’d been on a train. In the eyes of a rapist, all space is male-owned by default.

I find myself thinking of this in light of shadow fire minister Chris Williamson’s suggestion that woman-only train carriages be introduced in order to combat sexual violence on public transport. It’s an idea originally proposed by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn in 2015, only to be shelved following criticism from female MPs.

Now Williamson feels that a rise in sex attacks on public transport has made it worth considering again. Speaking to PoliticsHome, he argues that “complemented with having more guards on trains, it would be a way of combating these attacks”. He does not bother to mention who the perpetrators might be. Bears, vampires, monsters? Doesn’t really matter. As long as you keep the bait safely stored away in a sealed compartment, no one’s going to sniff it out and get tempted. Problem solved, right?

And that’s not the only benefit of a woman-only carriage. What better way to free up space for the people who matter than to designate one solitary carriage for the less important half of the human race?

Sure, women can still go in the free-for-all, male-violence-is-inevitable, frat-house carriages if they want to. But come on, ladies - wouldn’t that be asking for it? If something were to happen to you, wouldn’t people want to know why you hadn’t opted for the safer space?

It’s interesting, at a time when gender neutrality is supposed to be all the rage, that we’re seeing one form of sex segregated space promoted while another is withdrawn. The difference might, in some cases, seem subtle, but earlier sex segregation has been about enabling women to take up more space in the world – when they otherwise might have stayed at home – whereas today’s version seem more about reducing the amount of space women already occupy.

When feminists seek to defend female-only toilets, swimming sessions and changing rooms as a means of facilitating women’s freedom of movement, we’re told we’re being, at best, silly, at worst, bigoted. By contrast, when men propose female-only carriages as a means of accommodating male violence and sexual entitlement, women are supposed to be grateful (just look at the smack-downs Labour’s Stella Creasy received for her failure to be sufficiently overjoyed).

As long as over 80 per cent of violent crime is committed by men, there can be no such thing as a gender-neutral space. Any mixed space is a male-dominated space, which is something women have to deal with every day of their lives. Our freedoms are already limited. We spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about personal safety. Each time it is proposed that women don’t go there or don’t do that, just to be on the safe side, our world gets a little bit smaller. What’s more, removing the facilities we already use in order to go there or do that tends to have the exact same effect.

Regarding female-only carriages, Williamson claims “it would be a matter of personal choice whether someone wanted to make use of [them].” But what does that mean? Does any woman make the “personal choice” to put herself at risk of assault? All women want is the right to move freely without that constant low-level monologue – no, those men look fine, don’t be so paranoid, you can always do the key thing, if you’ve thought it’s going to happen that means it won’t …. We don’t need the “personal choice” to sit in a non-segregated carriage to become the new short skirt.

In 1975’s Against Our Will, Susan Brownmiller pointed out that the fact that a minority of men rape “provides a sufficient threat to keep all women in a constant state of intimidation”. Whether they want to or not, all men benefit from the actions of those Brownmiller calls “front-line masculine shock troops”. The violence of some men should not be used as an opportunity for all men to mark out yet more space as essentially theirs, but this is what happens whenever men “benevolently” tell us this bus, this train carriage, this item of clothing just isn’t safe enough for us.

“A decent girl,” says the future rapist, “wouldn’t have been in a mixed-sex carriage late at night.” It’s time to end this constant curtailment of women’s freedoms. A decent man would start by naming the problem – male violence – and dealing with that. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.