Change in focus in equality policy...

[RedToothBrush]

Lucy Fisher @LOS_Fisher
EXCL: Gvt has focused too heavily on “fashionable” race, sexuality & gender issues at expense of poverty & geographical disparities, Liz Truss will say tomo.

Overhaul of equalities policy will see pivot away from quotas, targets, unconscious bias training & diversity statements

In major policy reset speech, Truss will hit out at “identity politics, loud lobby groups & the idea of lived experience” in debate about a fairer society.

She will unveil new approach to equalities based on “freedom, choice, opportunity, & individual humanity & dignity”.

New equalities policy will seek to dovetail with PM’s “levelling up” agenda

Gvt will:
• look to move Equalities Hub from capital to the North
• launch equalities data project
• move Social Mobility Commission into Government Equalities Office

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/16/pivot-fashionable-race-sexuality-gender-issues-focus-poverty/
Pivot from 'fashionable' race, sexuality and gender issues to focus on poverty in equalities overhaul
Liz Truss hit out at identity politics and unconscious bias training, saying her policy reset will instead look at geographic disparities

Trying to think about down sides to this. Focusing on poverty is a key thing for women and the BAME community anyway.

It strikes me as occupying a space that Labour should be, given their roots and history.

This is definitely culture war related, but its also a sensible move, because it is an approach that is needed in many respects.

I apologise for the source, but guido fawkes have a transcript of the speech:

Redtoothbrush why are you apologising for the source?

@Avocadotoastie

I also don't think people who believe that "people are only poor because they're lazy" can be trusted to address poverty.

Not a chance in hell.

@Andante57

I apologise for the source, but guido fawkes have a transcript of the speech:

Redtoothbrush why are you apologising for the source?

Cos guido isn't always the most reliable.

I believe in evidence based policy, didn't Tony Blair at one point. Quite honestly I want them to deliver, it's down to Labour to deal with the identity politics fiasco if they want to be considered trustworthy. Unconcious bias training was a waste of money.
A post Covid world facing climate change is a totally different world.
My main problem is the emphasis on social mobility. What is also necessary are good well paid jobs in care work etc and reform of the gig economy. It's not about everyone becoming an entrepreneur.

@MichelleofzeResistance

The lack of virtue signalling in that content is noticeable though, and notable for its rarity. Sex mentioned several times along with gender reassignment rather than any other term, FGM is clearly mentioned and the type of feminism that leaves women on their own to fight for child care.

It's not PC, it's not of the current fashion. That's an interesting signal by itself. But the govt are preparing for a country facing very real immediate issues like imminent food shortages, massed unemployment and worse; it is not going to be an electorate with much patience for first world problems, or for the traditional Labour heartlands responding well to being told they're too white, straight, heteronormative and lots of other wanky jargon when their kids are going hungry.

Luxury beliefs aren't going to be going down well in the near future.

Yes, after listening to the whole speech and the brief Q&A it's clear that a fair bit of thought has gone into the optics. It's intersectionality, Conservative style. It remains to be seen what they actually intend to do with the data. It's a big gamble for Truss, because if this goes wrong or turns out to be just another cost-cutting project, she will be remembered as the Andrew Lansley and IDS of equality and social mobility, with disastrous consequences for many people who are already on their knees. It has to be more than the old bootstraps stuff.

Link to the speech as publish by .gov
www.gov.uk/government/speeches/fight-for-fairness

And, although I realise I am repeating myself, thinking that maybe this stop Stonewall having a voice with Government, it might, but then it is just as likely to stop women's campaigns having a voice the Government listens to.

They will be talking to "Women in Business" ie "feminism" as a political tool to analysise lack of equality for women could find itself in the Government's dustbin.

Right wing papers are loving this speech. And it fits in with the (easy to make) criticism that Labour has lost touch with its roots and is just bunch of woke Londoners who have now idea how the real world works.

@QuentinWinters

I don't trust the Torys at all and I don't think undermining unconscious bias awareness and indirect discrimination is a good thing. I think this is a backlash against the progress disadvantaged groups have made, namely women and people of non-white British heritage. It means we can wrangle about data and what it means, rather than deal with discrimination. Invisible Women shows that we don't collect data on how women are disadvantaged. So how are we going to tackle systematic sexism under this regime? I feel this could be a trojan horse deployed on GC feminists.....

They're right though. There is zero evidence that unconscious bias training even works, and a lot of questions around the validity of the research is is based on.

It's essentially a cash cow for certain organisations and individual "experts".

It's functioned to allow institutions to look like they are doing something.

@stumbledin

Link to the speech as publish by .gov www.gov.uk/government/speeches/fight-for-fairness

And, although I realise I am repeating myself, thinking that maybe this stop Stonewall having a voice with Government, it might, but then it is just as likely to stop women's campaigns having a voice the Government listens to.

They will be talking to "Women in Business" ie "feminism" as a political tool to analysise lack of equality for women could find itself in the Government's dustbin.

Right wing papers are loving this speech. And it fits in with the (easy to make) criticism that Labour has lost touch with its roots and is just bunch of woke Londoners who have now idea how the real world works.

I think this goes without saying - if it is a problem that lobby groups have been given to much power, and this is addressed, it will affect lobby groups that you might like.

That kind of trade off is often why nothing is done about corruption.

This is a good call politically for the situation we’re finding ourselves in.

Many people are going to find their living standards dropping. In those circumstances being told that you’re privileged because you’re white, male or straight is likely to make you angry rather than compassionate. A lot of people in these groups are going to feel hard done by and they are not about to lap up a message that actually, they’re kind of lucky.

I'm not sure about that. She references transparency in business and pay data. I expect Domestic Violence and other violence against women will still feature. I reckon they're waking up to the importance of women's votes in the future. It'll be hard for Labour to get back the votes they've lost and women tended to support Labour more than men.

They're right though. There is zero evidence that unconscious bias training even works, and a lot of questions around the validity of the research is is based on.
Well, depends what you mean by "works". I don't think it reduces sexism or racism because I think most sexists and racists aren't doing it subconsciously.
What it does do though, is remove any claim of "I didn't know it was racist" and enable organisations to discipline those staff. It also brings them into training without specifying they may be sexist or racist, and then opening a conversation about attitudes and acceptable work behaviour.
We have only just got to a position in my workplace where you can talk about sexism/racism, and thats only happened by treating the majority with kid gloves ("of course noone means to be racist, its just subconscious, blahblah"). Its a backwards step to remove the training in my opinion.

Harriet Harman's reponse to Liz Truss. Can't help feeling it's not a very coherant response. She's also conflating gender and sex. www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/liz-truss-is-trying-to-set-up-a-hierarchy-of-suffering-and-turn-back-the-clock-on-40-years-of-equalities-progress

She quite deliberately conflates them, I think.

I try and read Harman's article and all I hear really is blah blah blah. It's just more of the standard gobbledegood. Sigh. There is no political party that at the moment is making enough sense to be a reasonable opposition at a time when the goal couldn't be more open.

Bingowings it is this. USA slant for sure but I found it interesting in understanding right wing mindset when you're lefty at heart. And why it makes sense to them and they're not just horrible etc.

www.amazon.co.uk/dp/160358594X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_fabc_-k92FbWJ7C4VJ?tag=mumsnetforu03-21

Will catch up on thread now

@QuentinWinters

They're right though. There is zero evidence that unconscious bias training even works, and a lot of questions around the validity of the research is is based on. Well, depends what you mean by "works". I don't think it reduces sexism or racism because I think most sexists and racists aren't doing it subconsciously. What it does do though, is remove any claim of "I didn't know it was racist" and enable organisations to discipline those staff. It also brings them into training without specifying they may be sexist or racist, and then opening a conversation about attitudes and acceptable work behaviour. We have only just got to a position in my workplace where you can talk about sexism/racism, and thats only happened by treating the majority with kid gloves ("of course noone means to be racist, its just subconscious, blahblah"). Its a backwards step to remove the training in my opinion.

Unconscious bias training doesn't mean any training about racism, sexism, etc. It's a specific type of training.

[quote ItsAllGoingToBeFine]Why have the examples of unintended consequences (single sex spaces, Rotherham etc) been left out of the official transcript?
which states on the page "Delivered on:
17 December 2020 (Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered)"

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/fight-for-fairness[/quote]
she may have gone off script. It might be the copy they were given but not exactly what she said at the time? /a section they'd debated, taken out, and then she thought "sod it" and said it anyway?

I read the speech on the Fawkes link and assuming it's accurate (which I will) I can't take any positives from it.

Some of it is actively worrying.

I could write an essay and was doing so in my head but it's late etc.

Redtoothbrush we've both been here for years (I may have met you IRL but not sure) anyway I think I know your politics.

That speech really scares me.

I started reading Harman's response but it's totally inadequate and I didn't really understand the focus she was taking. There was so much to take issue with or pick out what was said/ what wasn't said.

I think this is where FWR will likely diverge again. We have seen a lot of additional traffic due to a certain issue and it's really interesting to hear more people's perspectives but in the end a single issue has brought lots of traffic from people who likely don't agree on much else.

There was a comment about how it's great to see no virtue signalling. There was though- signalling about traditional right wing values.

I don't know whether anyone wants to get into the political stuff or not. I'm worried though.

NiceGerbil I feel the same

I haven’t even finished reading Truss’ speech yet and I can see a lot of this is about reforming the civil service who the Tories seem to distrust with a a passion way more than what the Tories actually get from the civil service (which I do agree has loads of flaws) in terms of getting the Tories along with the rest of the country out of absolute FUBAR issues like Brexit and hopefully keeping the country running in some semblance with food and medicines on the shelves and not stuck in a lorry queue somewhere.

There are a few good points in here in terms of resetting the compass, but some of it makes no sense even on its own logic

It is fundamentally important that the role of equality minister is held by someone who also has another cabinet job, as I do with trade.

This ensures equality is not siloed, but is instead the responsibility of the whole government and all our elected representatives.

By driving reforms that increase competition, boost transparency and improve choice, we can open up opportunities.

But that is not levelling the playing field, that’s passing the moral responsibility for success back on to the individual who may be way out of sight still trying to slog their way up the steep cliff at the far end of the road which is on the way to the bloody playing field

This is a zinger
Under this new leadership, the EHRC will focus on enforcing fair treatment for all, rather than freelance campaigning.

Deserved. So bloody deserved.

I say that from a women’s rights perspective even though at the same time I am also livid with EHRC’s shamefully poor leadership for creating the hole in the regulatory fabric that the Tories are now using to start to take apart the machinery of equality that we currently have, without replacing it with anything better, or very much at all it seems. The EHRC and the government have let everyone down because neither vision actually has the solution.

Which is frightening for anyone who doesn’t believe it’s all about ‘equal chances’, because they know very many people don’t start from or live out their lives with ‘equal chances’.
Because misogyny, racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism and the class system are all still hale and hearty in a very atomised and financially increasingly polarised modern society. Achieving equality is a lot more complicated and resource intensive and demanding than either of these visions are making out.

The new leadership of the EHRC; any good? Or captured?

I don't think they are as captured as before. Whether they are any good remains to be seen.