Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Badenoch wants to bin the Public Sector Equality Duty

89 replies

Slothtoes · 09/06/2026 08:23

Badenoch wants to bin the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) because she wants to ‘bring back trust in public institutions’. She will replace it with ‘common sense’.
That’s always worked out so well for women... Hmm

She says everyone should be treated equally. Just talking now on Radio 4 Today programme.
Badenoch is trying to chuck the baby out with the bathwater in a very dim-witted dangerous way.

OP posts:
BendoftheBeginning · 09/06/2026 09:08

Niminy · 09/06/2026 08:47

It’s certainly worth asking the question whether PSED has actually worked well for women, and what have been its unintended consequences and secondary effects.

If we’re asking the question, we should also be asking for an independent assessment and THEN having a policy position based off it.

This is forming a policy position for a peanut gallery for whom “equality” and “feminism” and “women’s rights” don’t need thinking about. And as an earlier poster has pointed out, we all know how well things go for women when we have no rights in law or policy, because we’ve just been through a phase of having to fight of a threat to them. Wiping them out altogether is ridiculous!

Original poster
Slothtoes · 09/06/2026 09:07

Dangerous sexist and homophobic/lesbophobic situations like putting rapists in women’s prisons, the NHS not providing single sex wards etc that public bodies brought in, were due to their mistaken idea that it was their duty to treat everyone equally, and not by actually looking at the Equality Act properly (as confirmed by FWS case)

OP posts:
Erin1975 · 09/06/2026 09:06

The problem with "common sense" is that there is no such thing. It is not defined. Every person will have a different opinion on what is "common sense".

EvelynBeatrice · 09/06/2026 09:02

Sorry; wrong thread!

hethor · 09/06/2026 09:00

We’d still be in the Stonelaw years now

What makes you think that? The PSED hasn't played any meaningful role as far as I'm aware in rolling this back.

ByGraptharsHammer · 09/06/2026 08:59

It’s an interesting idea legally. The PSED as something the government actually complies with has always been suspect. But it’s definitely a point that all governments dislike because of ease of getting judicially reviewed.

I imagine that this might be quite popular across the political spectrum - who would defend it?

fanOfBen · 09/06/2026 08:57

The interviewer was confused in a way even I could see, exaggerating the effect that removing the PSED would have. Is there a reputable summary somewhere of exactly what removing the PSED would do? I don't recall it playing a major role in any case I've followed.

Original poster
Slothtoes · 09/06/2026 08:55

AlphaApple · 09/06/2026 08:36

I think it’s worth examining. There have been some batshit crazy decisions and actions justified by the PSED so it’s not working as well as it could.

I agree that if public bodies are going beyond the law because of their ignorance of the law, naivety to being lobbied or whatever (like say with ‘Stonelaw’ decision-making not backed up by the law), then that’s definitely something to look at.
But that’s because a public body might be applying the Equality Act incorrectly. Which definitely has happened. Public bodies are not infallible. But that doesn’t mean that the Equality Act itself is wrong. She’s saying that public bodies being required to use the Equality Act is wrong because ‘everyone should be treated the same’. She calls that ‘common sense’. Hmm

But saying we just don’t need our public bodies to legally have to consider equality any more (…!) because that consideration can be better done by these bodies simply applying ‘common sense’ (WTF does that even mean? How do we define it, or its lack? How can it hold up in court?) is very dangerous for everyone.

She’s saying whatever the organisational culture and therefore the decision making of the public body is, then that would effectively be the law now.

Not having a PSED would take away the legal ability of women, disabled people, ethnic groups, LGB people and anyone else affected by public bodies’ decisions to appeal those decisions. Very scary.

Imagine if Badenoch’s vision of no PSED had been the legal situation through the Stonelaw years under that the rotation of Tory PMs we’ve had over the last decades. We’d still be in the Stonelaw years now.

OP posts:
Niminy · 09/06/2026 08:47

It’s certainly worth asking the question whether PSED has actually worked well for women, and what have been its unintended consequences and secondary effects.

Original poster
Slothtoes · 09/06/2026 08:37

MaidsRoom · 09/06/2026 08:26

The problem with the public sector equality duty is it slows everything down so much. Every single policy decision needs an equality impact assessment, even when it has nothing to do with equality. It makes government slow and expensive. And then we wonder why taxes are high but nothing ever happens.

This is absolutely untrue. Decisions get made all the time without impact assessments!

OP posts:
AlphaApple · 09/06/2026 08:36

I think it’s worth examining. There have been some batshit crazy decisions and actions justified by the PSED so it’s not working as well as it could.

Erin1975 · 09/06/2026 08:28

She is just going to repeat every Reform policy parrot fashion.

Johnogroats · 09/06/2026 08:27

Baby out with the bathwater was the phrase that sprung to me too. On with the culture war…

MaidsRoom · 09/06/2026 08:26

The problem with the public sector equality duty is it slows everything down so much. Every single policy decision needs an equality impact assessment, even when it has nothing to do with equality. It makes government slow and expensive. And then we wonder why taxes are high but nothing ever happens.