Kemi Badenoch: Diversity obsession has led to Kafkaesque madness (KB for PM?)

[IwantToRetire]

Another really straightforwarded down to earth practical commentary of where chasing the rainbow has led us. And ideas on how Government cant, without being dictatorial help solve the mess.

The root of the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Equality Act 2010, often exploited by those with a separate agenda. The Equality Act is a shield, not a sword. It is about preventing discrimination, not social engineering. There are no protected groups in the act, only protected characteristics. A white man is just as protected on the characteristics of race and sex as a black woman, yet many believe the act is there just to protect minorities, when in reality it protects us all.

Many companies’ diversity and inclusion activities are falling foul of the law; for example by confusing legal positive action and positive discrimination, which is illegal — except when selecting political candidates (a handy get-out-clause Labour devised to use all-women shortlists). Encouraging people from underrepresented backgrounds to apply for a job or go for a promotion is positive action, and legal. Restricting applications for a position to a certain group is positive discrimination and most certainly isn’t. This has led to increasing calls for the Equality Act to be scrapped. The act is 13 years old and could be improved but the issue is not the law. It’s bad actors misrepresenting it to suit their agenda.

Many of these laws were written at a time when institutions knew how to self-regulate. Someone proposing a terrible idea would be checked by colleagues in the organisation. Today, those colleagues are scared of being called bigots for disagreeing, so they say nothing. What the Farage and Sawers cases have done is show that this problem is getting worse. Long-held tenets of liberal democracy — freedom of association, freedom of conscience, the presumption of innocence — are being tossed aside in favour of dubious inclusion strategies that themselves fall foul of the law. In some cases they’re cancelling people before any wrongdoing occurs, leaving them with no way to prove their innocence.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kemi-badenoch-banking-scandal-natwest-niigel-farage-wdp3mmq0w
Also available via archive.ph

Streeting has got those vibes too.

They’re always people in the wings. Who did you rate again, Labour?

The last I noticed, it is the mainstream Labour party that most bang on about Corbyn - and who seem most keen to dissociate with him.

That doesn’t invalidate all the hard work that was done by Labour to increase female representation in Parliament.

To increase the Labour Party's female representation in Parliament. Yet they have still never had a leader that is anything other than male and white.

I also think banks are a business and so can refuse service for whatever reasons they want.

Does that apply equally to Bakers, B&B owners and now painters and decorators?

And yet they have yet to elect a female leader, whilst the Tories have elected three ( even if most would rather forget about Liz Truss) without short-lists and are the first British party to have a PM of Asian heritage.

The thing about short-lists is that often people are selected not because of their ability but because of their belonging to a specific category of person. I don't think they are required any longer.

@CloudyMcCloud - I'm a floating voter but very unhappy with Brexit and what has happened with education post COVID. I will be looking for a party that is seeking to address those positively, not heard much yet!

I read the Spectator and the New Statesman. I am utterly peed off with the Conservatives for structurally making the UK poor. But that's another board.

I am GC to the point of educating my children in schools that guarantee their single sex rights by policy if not law. But this mess was started by the Conservatives and they should bloody well fix it pdq. The Labour Party in opposition always attracts the same group of left wing oddbods who are invariably thrown over the side when real power seems possible. This looks like one of those times to me.

If you are GC Labour won’t make things better for you, it’ll be worse

They won’t move on Brexit either for that matter

As for odd bods don’t worry they’ll still be there

What exactly do you think Liz Truss achieved? Apart from causing more damage to our economy in one month than the whole Covid pandemic.

Women now make up 35% of MPs in Westminster.
53% of Labour MPs are women
25% of Conservative MPs are women

Labour are twenty points ahead. That's not down to GC policy. I see them tidying up all the loose ends before next year at speed. The Conservatives are finished (my area will go Lib Dem).

I work with politicians so my view is tainted by how they operate. I would if I were sensible be getting to know the Labour Party on GC matters. Like any interest group it seems the time is right to re engage as business is doing. It's good politics to know your next government even if you don't agree, you can't oppose them, you need to work with them. If GC people don't start that engagement yes you will get policies that are very unfriendly to women. This is what happened to Labour in opposition but government is different. It explains the policy shifts in part from Dodds. For some I think that is not enough, but it is the act of a party readying for government.

If people vote them in, and it’s not a given, then they can take responsibility for whatever crap happens

It’s not like people didn’t point it out.

Well, you may say people take responsibility but they won't. Cognitive dissonance applies to all people.

GC should engage with Labour. Give up on the Conservatives unless they will get their legislation done in the next 12 months. You want to try and get Labour to do the same. For all we know, the same solution being devised now by the Conservatives is likely to be presented to Labour if they win. It seems likely.

No. Labour should listen to GC women.

It’s the other way around. Stop blaming the wrong group. If you do vote for them then it’s your bag.

As a GC voter I don’t owe Labour anything, why on Earth would I

You seem quite happy to call on Labour's legacy when it suits, yet expect us to reject it when it doesn't:

"You do realise that Corbyn hasn’t been Labour leader for quite a while now and that plenty of Labour voters found him too left wing?"

I have not become more right wing.

The Labour Party morphed into a misogynist shit show under Corbyn and the impact of that is still being felt through the membership and PLP and their beliefs.

This "U turn" is just a cynical ploy to put the issue to bed before the election and I don't buy it.

Put Rosie Duffield in charge or a senior post and I'll be happy to reconsider my voting intentions.

@RebelliousCow I promise you she absolutely did say that. She told a classroom full of year 5's on a photo opp classroom tour (fist bump to fellow SW constituent @August) that TAs were too expensive and only Teachers were required.

She might understand biology, but she is very right wing and no friend of poor women.

’The thing about short-lists is that often people are selected not because of their ability but because of their belonging to a specific category of person. I don't think they are required any longer.’

They aren’t needed for Labour because over half of its MPs are women. The Conservatives still only manage one in four.

All women short lists were introduced by Labour because when constituency groups were looking at what makes a good candidate, what a good MP looks like, they were automatically biased towards choosing a male candidate - the vast majority of MPs were male and no real progress was being made.

In 1979 there were 19 women MPs
In 1992 there were 60 women MPs

In 1997 Labour used all women shortlists to select candidates in half of all winnable seats. They were challenged by some within their own party and they suspended the policy but kept the candidates that had already been selected by AWS. 35 of those 38 candidates were elected.

In 1997 there were 120 women MPs
Until 1997, women never constituted more than 10% of MPs—until the late 1980s the proportion was always below 5%.
Until the 1997 election, only 10 women had ever served as Cabinet Ministers.

Labour changed the law to allow AWS

By 2020 we had 220 women MPs
For the first time women make up more than a third of MPs

@CloudyMcCloud - if GC people want to influence Labour then not engaging with them is like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

GC people have engaged with the Conservatives. The next government is looking Labour. Now is the ideal time to influence the eventual manifesto and bolster the people who are GC.

It shouldn't affect the conservatives. Badenoch is already there. But since they likely to lose then GC people should play both sides. Win win.

If you don't, you lose by default.

I was not a fan of Corbyn and I’d never agree with any one party on everything. I won’t align with people who only know what a woman is because it’s a byproduct of their misogyny.

Nope. I really don’t need to do this.

There are plenty trying to influence and do you know what they’ve done? Bullied, ignored and cast out

‘No one is talking about this’ remember?

If they can’t do the basic requirement of acknowledging it is an issue at all why would any GC woman jump over hurdles.

The party you support owns their shite and people who vote for it can too.

@CloudyMcCloud - that's just irrational. You guarantee by your stance that you will get nothing you want, whereas I would try. Where is your sense of proportion?

Btw if the Conservatives deliver their changes then I think it will be difficult for Labour to unpick it; it would be best if it were done before the next election. My view of them is it highly convenient not to do so.

Play both sides. That's what TRA did and look at the results

Women need to tell Labour deeds not words will get their vote.
Kemi Badenoch is trying to get the

This is just silly. What do you want me to do exactly? Write Keir a stern letter?

His stance is no one is talking about it, he’s feeling like he’s ‘sorted’ the problem with recent spin.

If you and others vote for that need even if you know it’s shit for women then that’s entirely on you. Don’t think you can castigated non-Labour GC voters, own what you get.

Women need to tell Labour deeds not words will get their vote.
Kemi Badenoch is trying to get the Equality Act to to define sex as biological sex via the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Labour is preventing it. Tell Labour if they change tactics and do this - support bio sex definition they will get the middle -aged women's votes, which they need.
Facta non Verba!
Latin for: Deeds not Words.

Are supposedly GC Labour voters a bit concerned they’ll be left with their crap party and already looking for others to blame?

Doesn’t bode well for women.

I may well agree with all of it, that doesn’t mean I want KB as PM.

Sorry that my adding what was meant as a joke has sidetracked posters. I was being cynical. ie using a newspaper (which other MPs do) to make a political stance clear.

I had hoped that more would respond to the contents of the article, not the re-run of Labour vs. Tory.

I think many people, for the very best of intentions, misuse the EA ie "confusing legal positive action and positive discrimination, which is illegal" and the consequences of that. Unfortunately under representation within a workforce isn't going to be solved by attempting to encourage those under represented to join if being part of the work force is then totally alienating.

There needs to be a much deeper rethink about how to get properly representative work forces.

I think this bit is just a dig at the Labour Party "except when selecting political candidates (a handy get-out-clause Labour devised to use all-women shortlists)" when given that her theme (rather than tub thumping) was about using the law properly. eg should could have written about why (even though it is limited) there needs to be the option to say some services should be single sex (ie the excemptions).

re other comments:

I and others post links to right wing papers because the so called left and liberal press just does not even acknowledge that there are issues about women's sex based right being undermined, ignored or even erased. When and if the Guardian ever does publish such an article would be more than happy to post that link.

re the ongoing discussion re vote Labour and give up women's rights or vote Tory and see more people go into poverty. The horrible reality is that with FPP most of us have votes that mean very little. Any of the issues we think are most important will not matter. What will matter is the opinions / interests of those in marginal seats.

re KB not being safe in her own constituency really interesting to hear from someone local. Have seen on other threads that she's in a save seat so will be there to stand up for women's sex based rights. But seems she isn't safe. And it also reveals something about her if, like Nadine Dorriss, she hasn't thought she has any obligations to her constiuents.

Sorry cant help but add that yes the Tories may have "started" the self ID journey but it was actually instigated by the Women and Equalities Committee who felt that LGBT people were not getting the rights they deserve. And it is interesting that the Tories did in fact respond to the results of the consultation on making self id legal, but not going through with this. That as a result of campaigning and women filling in forms they learnt what the consequences would be. Shame that the Women's and Equalities Committee didn't in the first place realise the clash of interests, but just followed the rainbow flag.

It's sort of similar to those on the left who are outraged that ULEZ may be challenged by right wingers, and say but it was a Tory policy. It may well have been, as were LTN's (thanks to Boris) but it was also Tory councils who did respond to those who were impacted negatively, and in some instances reversed decisions. Is that political expediency or is that responding to what people want. Whereas Labour councils are now so evangelical that they are quite happy that many implemented LTNs under emergency powers relating to Covid lock down, and refuse to have consultations. A bit like Labour and self id. A Tory instigated policy that they now want to implement at all costs, well at all costs to women.

Definitely comes across this way.

Left wing women are the biggest proponents of gender identity world wide.