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

[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/

This is what Crispin Blunt was saying when he complained about her decision on self-ID. He questioned whether she was up to the job of holding two briefs. The WEC is clearly captured.

Absolutely Hecates we should have Truss' back on this one.

Also chimes with what Jan Gooding ex of Stonewall was saying in her webinar. It's hard not to believe that Stonewall aren't involved in this:

She said:

“…..as long as Liz Truss is the Minister for Equalities I have absolutely no idea who she thinks she's representing because she, I've never heard her talk about race, I've not heard her do anything positive for trans people, she's being really weird on conversion therapy. I mean why is this woman, and I'm speaking very openly to you, I mean she's the most disastrous Equalities Minister so let's hope we get somebody new, but we at Stonewall now are regrouping on our strategy for the advance of everyday life of trans people and yes, that's going to be around trying to change the law…”

This is like playing 'whack a mole.' I think I'm going to need some help on this one, the agenda isn't even hidden. I used to think it should be a single dedicated role. However I now think what is important is having Ministers who can cover all the different strands in depth.
Can we raise questions about the WEC's role?

we get Crispin Blunt

Gaaargh. Certainly, the WEC is pro self ID, they made that pretty clear in their recent consultation, that was effectively an attack on the expert witness they'd called for the gc viewpoint. Shocking behaviour, frankly, very rude and unprofessional.

They will be sure to go for Liz Truss.

Can we raise questions about the WEC's role?

I think I had a look to see if one could complain/comment on a joint committee and got a bit lost on the parliament website. Maybe someone who understands it all better could advise?

we at Stonewall now are regrouping on our strategy for the advance of everyday life of trans people and yes, that's going to be around trying to change the law

I’m wondering if it is legal for the government to be funding a political lobbying group?

”we get Crispin Blunt (or Sue Pascoe former MFH) in there.”

Is this a certainty? Are they in some kind of line for this position? Sorry for the question. I don’t know much about these roles and how they are appointed. Does the PM not choose?

And really, the manipulation here is frightening

The decision on who the minister would be lies with the PM and advisors, however there would be lobbying behind the scenes from MPs I'm sure. The goal in the first instance does seem to be to oust truss from the looks of this consultation.

Can we raise questions about the WEC's role?

I'd like to know how to do this too.

When is everyone going to wake up and see how sinister this all is? FFS.

They clearly don't want anyone who is going to consider women in the role.

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

@AnyOldPrion

”we get Crispin Blunt (or Sue Pascoe former MFH) in there.”

Is this a certainty? Are they in some kind of line for this position? Sorry for the question. I don’t know much about these roles and how they are appointed. Does the PM not choose?

And really, the manipulation here is frightening

Sorry, I was being flippant (slightly) as Crispin Blunt was the MP speaking very condescendingly to Liz Truss and basically saying that she wasn’t up to doing both jobs.

Sue Pascoe is in the Conservative Women’s Group (can’t remember their exact position, possibly an MP?) with very few years of ‘lived experience’ as a woman, having had time to reach a high level in their career and been a Master of Foxhounds in their male manifestation before transition. I wouldn’t be surprised if Sue has big ambitions to be Women’s Minister. Sue was also being promoted by the 50:50 campaign encouraging people to vote for ‘women’.

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

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.

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 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

@Imnobody4

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?

I checked and listed on another thread. Another batch has been processed - some absolute shockers from the RCN and GMB who have put the bomb on the bus triggered at 60mph and chucked women straight underneath.

Mine is not there yet. Some good ones from women’s groups and a detailed description of the grc panel which is interesting.

Great tip thanks mufti - I’ll check it out.

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

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

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!

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

Idiots.

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.

[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.

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 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