MPs demand withdrawal of a controversial consultation

[OldCrone]

www.consultationinstitute.org/closing-date-politics-mps-demand-withdrawal-of-a-controversial-consultation/

Finally, this week, Members of Parliament began calling for the consultation to be withdrawn. David Davies, MP for Monmouthshire was among those who alleged that the exercise was “fundamentally flawed”. He was quite explicit, demanding that the consultation be thrown out and restarted once parliamentarians “have had a proper conversation with women’s groups about their rights to protection”.

What the Government has done is avoided making any attempt at an impact assessment at this stage. In its own words; “It is therefore not possible to conduct a full impact assessment on what the changes to the Act will be, as they have not yet been decided.”

What this means is that the impact assessment – when it comes – will be when the Government has taken its decision, and will not be available to inform the debate and the consultation. Lawyers will surely seek to argue that this may invalidate such a decision.

The Government contends that an impact assessment cannot be prepared as it has no clear proposals in mind. Again, in a statement from the Equalities Office, “This is an open consultation – we are not putting forward any specific proposals for how we want the system to change”

Yet in the Ministerial Foreword to the consultation, the Minister talks of being “conscious of concerns about the implications of our proposals.” Maybe they are ‘unspecific’ proposals?

The author seems to think it is "a professionally-prepared and comprehensive consultation". Yet on his own admission, the government has not put forward any specific proposals, has said that they will make their decision based on the results of the consultation, and only then will impact assessments be carried out.

Nobody knows what is being proposed, so we were all guessing when we responded to the questions. No impact assessments had been done of any proposed changes, because nobody knows what the proposed changes are. How can this be described as "a professionally-prepared and comprehensive consultation"?

Well, if Labour gets in, I will probably have to leave the country as I'm Jewish and not a 'good' Jew (eg one who thinks that Jeremy Corbyn walks on water and a little bit of anti-Semitism between friends is just a bit of delightful banter).

If the Tories get in, I can stay, as long as I don't mind there being no NHS, my kids' schools going to pot and workers having zero rights.

We need a new, non-mad, non-racist, non-misogynist political party. I know FPTP isn't very hospitable to new parties; the alternative is all (re?)joining Labour and ousting the militant entryists as they have done to the old guard in turn.

The results of the consultation will be important. If a lot of people have made clear their opposition to self ID, could a future govt ignore this opposition?

Was speaking to DH, a civil servant, who said the GRA consultation will have been written by civil servants based on ministerial stated preferences (possibly with external advice) BUT will be ignored if it is clear there is strong public pushback against it. So the more we can continue to go public with the issue, the more likely it is that they won't get away with forcing it through. Even if 100% of people who filled in the consultation had loved self-ID, which is obviously not the case, if the minister is being roasted by the papers/voters over this, she will kick it into the long grass as hard as she bloody can.

I must say, since filling in the consultation and going 'public' as GC on facebook, I wondered what took me so long! The intimidation tactics are effective - but like all abusive tactics, as soon as you start to stand up to it, you realise how passive you have been.

Looking forward to raising the issue as often as I can now. And I think as other (secretly) GC women see this, they too get the courage to speak up. If we all speak up together, no bloody chance this proposed legislation will go anywhere.

Haven’t RTFT yet but I believe there was an explicit statement towards the end (in question 22?) that they were planning on doing an impact assessment AFTER they’d decided what they were going to do.

I know Labour is a worry, but even if they get in, they still have all the Brexit shit to do. Will it even get a look in? I'm not sure it will for a while yet. Yes they've promised it but they've promised a lot of things to a lot of people.

Also, the longer it takes to come up, the more time we have to deal with things and the TRAs will continue to do our work for us in some cases.

I keep hoping (praying) that Labour surely can't be so stupid as to ignore the objections from so many women re self-ID and completely not see the impact it will have. They surely can't be so stupid.

Rough wording here (can’t c&p from my PDF and on phone): ’We will produce a full, substantive impact assessment once we know what action we will take’

What fucking use will that be then?

Just realised that was sort of the point of the article. I really should RTFT first.

www.edf.org.uk/about/our-funders/

Oh look, Esme Fairbarn again. They are very busy, aren't they.

That's not an accusation, just an observation of a funding body that keeps cropping up.

As a pp said, Labour will still have Brexit to worry about. Even if there was a snap election called tomorrow and by Christmas Jeremy Corbyn is putting up his tree in Number 10, they still would have a busy legislative calendar and no political clout to do anything other than mostly non-contentious stuff. No politician will want to use their bargaining chips up on something like the GRA when there is a customs union to vote on and a lorry park on the M26.

So what should happen next?

I do worry that organisations who have tried to "get ahead of the curve" will jsut hunker down and refuse to make any changes to their policies until the government (of whatever constitution) decides what to do about the GRA.

I suspect it will need a couple of legal test cases to reiterate that the EA is based on sex not gender to get them to sit up and listen. JJ's case against the Labour Party re AWS must come up at some time soon, though perhaps that will be seen as too narrow in focus to be relevant more widely? Something involving the changing rooms at M&S or GG sleeping accommodation would be better

Agree that it may get kicked by May and the like while they deal with Brexit, but of course the real hard line drivers won't back off. We mustn't either.

If Labour get in I think they will make GRA reform a priority because if they don't they know the backlash will stop them doing anything else.

TRAs will fear that if they lose this momentum (groan) they might not get it back for years. They do not want their current woke supporters getting older and possibly seeing they were wrong.

I emphatically don't want this to go into the long grass because, as PP say, all of the organisations that have acted ahead of the law will keep their anti-woman policies. More will follow. Then it will just be a case of 'updating' EqA and GRA to be inline with what everyone is doing anyway. Because they don't understand what happens in women's lives and are indifferent to its impact on us.

The estimable Jonny Best sums it up in this thread about the current wretched experiences of a neighbour who is having problems with a violent man. Best has enough admirable honesty to offer this insight into how he used to be:

This is why I have so little patience with the multitude of woke dudes I've encountered on twitter this last few months, with their stylish, city lives and their avocado toast and their flat whites and their stupid fucking beards - and their patronising, ignorant opinions.

They simply do not know what goes on in lives that are different from their own. I was the same when I lived in London and moved in arty circles and socialised on the gay scene. I had no fucking idea. Now I do.

twitter.com/JonnnyBest/status/1053419766369714176

Hi can i just quickly ask advice- I'm filling in the consultation. Do you suggest i use some of the explanations on fair play for women guide as my reasons for my answers? I want to get it done quick.

Ouda I must say, since filling in the consultation and going 'public' as GC on facebook, I wondered what took me so long! The intimidation tactics are effective - but like all abusive tactics, as soon as you start to stand up to it, you realise how passive you have been.
Same here. I've been pretty oblivious to this as I have been dealing with other stuff for the last couple of years, and I admit that my default position can be a bit right-on if I haven't paid attention. Now that I'm up to speed, I have no intention to shut up and accept this madness.

Mymindblown
Yes, there's lots of useful information on the FPFW site. You could also take a look at womansplaceuk.org/wpuk-guidance-on-gra-consultation/

OldCrone thanks. I was slightly worried by the data protection statement- I didn't understand whether they could publically release the answers we gave as that's what it seemed to be stating - is anyone able to clarify?

Corbyn never does a U turn, he digs his heels in.

No one should be surprised that the consultation is to decide something for which there is yet no plan. This is literally what the Tories do with everything. Look at brexit.

iiRC you can elect whether to allow your answers to be used publicly or not

In most cases, it's to allow the government to say "in responding to the consultation, Mermaids said "TWAW #NoDebate"" or "the majority of women who responded to the consulatation expressed concern at self-ID being used in sporting competitions - as one respondent explained "I am in the top ten in the country for my discipline, but fifteen year old boys regularly record times faster than the current women's record - if I had to compete against them, I may as well retire now as no woman would ever stand a chance of winning."