Another Consultation- from WEC (somewhat biased against women) Possibly Targeting Liz Truss

It's been amply demonstrated what happens when you:

• Hoover up all equalities into one brief

• Have one of those briefs with far more funding than all the other briefs put together, including direct government funding, which has been allowed to capture and mess with government duty of impartiality

• A direct agenda to create a hierarchy that subordinates all other equalities beneath that very well funded, powerful brief. Already we see those other briefs are only relevant to this brief if the person with another brief is also a member of this top of the hierarchy brief

• A direct agenda to obliterate one of those equality briefs altogether in its own interests

In short its game set and match on ending equality by taking it over.

The only way now for controlling this - until govt wakes up, grows a backbone and sorts out the mess it's allowed to happen with all this - is to keep the brief split so one person has one agenda and one focus that has not been allowed to become entangled with and dominated by the interests of another more powerful group.

And absolutely now the office looking at equality of women should be entirely separate from the office with the LGBT+ brief, since its beyond the point now of trying to argue the two can run happily together.

Pretty sure equalities was added later

Does anyone remember what the old department was called that was specifically about women's rights? Part of the problem was when women's rights were just lumped in with equalities.

The Minister for Women position was brought in under Tony Blair and first held by Harriet Harman. Remember all the "Harriet Harperson" hilarity

stumbledin I think it was Women's Equality Unit.

If it is "equalities" why not other areas of discrimination such as race, or age.

That's exactly what they are doing. The Disability and Racial Disparity units are already part of the new "hub" with Equalities Office.

I am going to mention their rudeness and point out that their bias is obvious and offensive and it is ironic therefore, that they call themselves anything to do with equality. Harrumph!!

Does anyone remember what the old department was called that was specifically about women's rights? Part of the problem was when women's rights were just lumped in with equalities.

ie there used to be a Women's Minister. ie they focused on women's rights.

They actually used to send out a very good newsletter that looked both at Government departments and developments in what is now known as the Women's Sector.

ie if you look at the brief the current committee looks at women and lesbian and gay issues, which is how gender and trans have got dragged in.

If it is "equalities" why not other areas of discrimination such as race, or age.

In other words women's discrimination needs its own stand alone remit, and we should go back to having a Minister for Women with its own department.

Unless and until that happens, women's issues will continue to be pushed off the table or presented as somehow obstructing the rainbow coalition that has erased Lesbian and Gay Rights.

(All I can find about the changes to the status of women's rights as an issue is the table at the end of this page publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/356/35604.htm

This has been on the cards for quite a while.

www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/government-equalities-office-set-to-move-again

The constant tinkering with the brief hasn't helped.

I don't know why I remember that - maybe because it was such an eyeopener at the time.

We will be given our very own 'Prince of Wales' lol

Eek. Very sobering thought.

[quote gardenbird48]I have just seen a new call for evidence launched by the Women’s Equality Committee (who were so rude to Profs Kathleen Stock, Rosa Freedman and Alice Sullivan during the GRA evidence session and the chair wrote an anti women’s rights article beforehand).

This consultation has a surprisingly short timescale for responses - 3 weeks (I wonder if any lobby groups have already had a heads up??).

It appears to be looking at how well the GEO has ‘embedded equalities throughout’ but slightly concerningly they also talk about whether the the Women and Equalities Minister role should not be held as a dual role (ie Liz has two main roles).

There is a risk that they may use this to argue that the WE Minister role should be dedicated and taken by one person. Liz wouldn’t want to drop her International Trade Sec role (as it is more senior I think?) so would drop Women & Equalities and we get Crispin Blunt (or Sue Pascoe former MFH) in there.

committees.parliament.uk/committee/328/women-and-equalities-committee/news/138432/how-can-we-put-equalities-at-the-heart-of-government/[/quote]
Not for the first time I have been reminded of history lessons on Edward I. He took over Wales, not through fighting and winning, but by setting up an alternative power base and making himself available for landowners to go to him for arbitration of disputes. Then he went in.

We will be given our very own 'Prince of Wales' lol

Are they going to keep having consultations until they get the answer they want?

I think this and the lack of impartiality could possibly be challenged under the Gunning Principles https://www.bangthetable.com/blog/gunning-principles/

[quote NotAnotherFeckingMuftiDay]Ereshkigalangcleg

There really does need to be an overarching Inquiry into lobbying culture and impartiality.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life has a consultation that closes on 29th Jan that may be a good place to start to raise this issue.

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/standards-matter-2-public-consultation-and-public-sector-survey[/quote]
This is really interesting and looks potentially useful. Thanks!

Meanwhile, I think it's time I got more informed on how our political system actually works. 'UK politics for dummies' is what I need, I think.

If the equalities brief is split off it will just become a pointless boondoggle.

The whole point of it going to a senior member of the cabinet is so the person who does it has clout and the chance to meet regularly with other senior ministers.

That's a really good point that should be made in this latest consultation.

Sue was also being promoted by the 50:50 campaign encouraging people to vote for ‘women’.

Idiots.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life has a consultation that closes on 29th Jan that may be a good place to start to raise this issue.

Thank you!

It would appear so, with as little notice as possible.

Are they going to keep having consultations until they get the answer they want?

If Wellington College & Sandhurst alumni, & former Captain in the Royal Hussars, Crispin Blunt were to be pushed within the ranks for the Women & Equalities role then the mask would have slipped completely. As donquixotedelamancha put it, it would carry less weight and become "a pointless boondoggle" . I suspect they'd argue that it should be simply "equalities" rather than women and equalities because that's exclusionary etc etc

And another thing - what the hell are they doing launching another consultation when they haven't published (read) all the submissions from the first one. Has anyone had their submission published yet?

If the equalities brief is split off it will just become a pointless boondoggle.

The whole point of it going to a senior member of the cabinet is so the person who does it has clout and the chance to meet regularly with other senior ministers.

Ereshkigalangcleg

There really does need to be an overarching Inquiry into lobbying culture and impartiality.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life has a consultation that closes on 29th Jan that may be a good place to start to raise this issue.

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/standards-matter-2-public-consultation-and-public-sector-survey