Civil Service diversity jobs will be scrapped - Esther McVey, the Cabinet Office minister

[IwantToRetire]

Civil Service diversity jobs will be banned in a new crackdown on Whitehall “woke” spending, The Telegraph can reveal.

In a radical overhaul aimed at ending the “back-door politicisation” of the Civil Service, mandarins will be ordered not to hire any new staff dedicated to <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/fuxUY/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/01/20/crackdown-on-activists-in-the-civil-service/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">boosting diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI).

Under the plans, there will no longer be any jobs in Whitehall devoted solely to diversity.

Managers will be forbidden from hiring third-party DEI contractors, and officials whose jobs are currently focussed solely on diversity will be transferred into human resources teams and given broader remits.

Esther McVey, the Cabinet Office minister, is concerned that Whitehall managers are becoming <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/fuxUY/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/09/top-civil-servants-urged-to-push-diversity-to-get-more-mone/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">distracted by “woke hobby horses” rather than delivering their core functions.

In an announcement this week, she will warn that the public sector must not become a “pointless job creation scheme for the politically correct”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/11/civil-service-diversity-jobs-will-be-scrapped/

Can also be read at https://archive.ph/fuxUY

(I think this might backfire on them in terms of public perception, and no doubt exploited by Labour.)

Exactly. These roles aren't making any practical difference to anyone's rights. In fact quite the opposite.

All this does is embed it into the whole system, using bitter staff who will feel as if their nose has been put out of joint.

The whole thing needs scrapping and people need to be made redundant, not embedded.

Exactly this. EDI done properly is surely focused on the recipients of the service. EDI assessments done right are an important way of protecting services for women - I'm not saying they're always done right of course, especially in Scotland where every single funded women's service has to be trans-inclusive - but that's not to say that wiping out EDI scrutiny would put women or any other minority in a better place.

I'd go further and say EDI (done right) is an important tool in balancing competing rights, which is a thing we should be looking forward to post no-debate.

I don't think this is a win for women.
(I don't think that anything that comes out of Esther McVey's mouth is a vote for women.)

We should be fixing EDI, not banning it.

Surely as funders, you would have put this into the stats that are captured by the funded bodies? So no need for a seperate department, it should be written into the original bidding documents and be part of the monitoring?

I think that is an important aspect and I agree that it shouldn't be lost TheBunyip - but for example what I noticed over the pandemic in the sector that I work in, charities, was that the DEI consultants, certainly at a national level, were more concerned about changing the jargon from BAME to global majority and complaining about white privilege among boards and staff teams rather than focusing on the very real issues that certain sections of the population, the working class and those from ethnic minorities for example were much harder hit by the pandemic. A lot of these consultants come from fairly privileged middle-class backgrounds and know naff all about poverty and what things are like in working-class communities. This work needs to take place actually in those communities by the people who live and work there, which largely it does, but it's invisible because they do not have the same (self-)promotion tools.

Of course it is but you need someone with some expertise in making things accessible and an understanding of the issues that may impact certain groups to be able to do that effectively. That person would be someone with EDI specialist knowledge 🤷🏼‍♀️

I don't think there is any evidence that the underpinnings of EDI actually manages to accomplish this. I think a lot of it is based on a bullshit, simplistic understanding of statistics and what disparities mean, how to address them - it's intrinsic to the whole EDI concept. As is the idea that employers have some kind of moral standing to tell their employees what to think and believe, what holidays they need to publicly observe, and so on.

What @TheBunyip describes sounds great and important, but my own experience was that EDI was too often an excuse for individuals to take up time at large team meetings lecturing their colleagues about some aspect of sexuality or gender identity. There was a bit of family friendly stuff and some good work on race via mentoring schemes. Disability was never mentioned.

Disability is hardly ever touched on, especially physical disability, because that takes time effort and money to address rather than a performative email signature

I would be very pleased if EDI were to pivot to considering all 9 protected characteristics and paid attention to circumstances that limit life chances (like poverty).

If it achieved greater equity of opportunity through recognisable initiatives rather than some activists exploiting their positions to act as C21 WitchFinders General then I should think we should all support EDI.

I would be thrilled if workplaces became genuinely accessible to people with disabilities, or employers were more open to workers across the age spectrum. Or if there were a reduced need for advocacy groups like Pregnant and Screwed.

Agree, employers focus on aspects of EDI that cost nothing and don't challenge the status quo.

EDi 'experts' had their chance and all they did was to spend money on putting women and girls at more risk.

Public money is being spent on all this and too right they should account for it and prove that it is money well spent and what it has achieved.

"Of course it is but you need someone with some expertise in making things accessible and an understanding of the issues that may impact certain groups to be able to do that effectively. That person would be someone with EDI specialist knowledge 🤷🏼‍♀️"

Which would be fine, but all too often these roles are filled by people like Aedan Wolton or folk who have nothing but gender studies as their qualification and look at equality through their own particular lens.

gendercriticalwoman.blog/2023/11/05/aedan-wolton/

Not a comment about the Tory attempt at the last moment to address the issue of whether some positions can be used by entryists to further a personal political agenda.

But just wanted to say I think there is a huge difference between an organisation having as part of human resources someone or two is specifically charged with looking at how the organisations is enabling people from a range of communities be part of the work. For instance as others have said disabilities is rarely dealt with and often because it can involve cost, and is never a one off solution. Let alone as has also been said about pregnant women.

This is totally different to an organisation or department trying to ensure that its services or products is as accessible to all people whatever their community. And quite often this cant be done in house, it has to be done through outreach with those communities. And as a slight derail, but is part of the same trend, there is nothing that organisation like more than someone saying use us as consultatns because we are "the" representatives of community X or Y. But outreach is a long process.

This is why funders have been only too happy to fund so called 2nd or 3rd tier organisation who claim to speak for instance for women. In many instances these tier organisation haven't grown organically out of the women's sector, but are artificial creations of funders, who fund them to be representative and then tell groups if you want any of our money you HAVE to work with our preferred representative group. The problem is does the group represent the groups in that sector or do they ultimately represent the funder/s. This is how mission drift happens, not drift but a strong current you cant as a financially dependent group swim against.

This sounds very sensible

Staff networks will also be curtailed, with McVey citing the Civil Service Muslim Network, which was suspended after officials discussed how to change government policy on Gaza during its meetings. “Many may have started with good intentions but some have moved to a place of political and religious activism and such networks have no place in the civil service and will be closed down,” she said.

Lanyards to hold security passes worn by civil servants will now have to carry a standard departmental design rather than a “random pick and mix” of political statements, she said. “Working in the civil service is all about leaving your political views at the building entrance. Trying to introduce them by the back door via lanyards should not happen.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1f4cbe83-fbcb-4b86-b1a8-1561cd12e1d8?shareToken=8e2d70d7972b44ee37170e56b2b370c0c0

... you need someone with some expertise in making things accessible and an understanding of the issues that may impact certain groups to be able to do that effectively. That person would be someone with EDI specialist knowledge ...

No one person can fulfil that role, because how discrimination impacts on different communities is never identical. This is why, after the 70s when a particular politics started using the work Black to mean all communities who are seen as a minority in the UK, was later rejected by many included under that umbrella term. It was felt it did not allow them to have their experiences and needs addressed.

Anymore than some blanket EDI approach could ever be said to in fact give equal consideration to the huge range of issues, even if only dealing with the 9 protected characteristics.

What's the betting SEEN will be the first staff network to be shut down after intense lobbying from the the rainbow-washed gender networks and the trans and NB networks 🤬

Don't worry, McVey is banning Rainbow Lanyards in the Civil Service. That'll fix things.

Some of these organizations aren't even non-profits on the surface. They may also be for-profit businesses that claim to be able to tell an organization how to do right by different identity groups.

Or at least the right ones - the woman who my last workplace hired for DEI training said during her presentation to employees that Catholics need to be careful to check their thinking on gender issues.