Your quoted reply that you copied and pasted was not a reply to me but to a post by Ereshkigalangcleg at 16:42, so it is a bit of a non sequitur but I will respond anyway.
If there was a problem with systematic "capture" of the public sector the only conceivable, realistic place that could be coming from was the Government of the day, as that is the only body that has consistent influence over the whole public sector. The government for the past 14 years was the Conservatives. So again, the idea "the left" are responsible for "capture" doesn't bear scrutiny.
As other PP have already pointed out to you, the "capture" started well before May 2010 when the Tories came into power. The example you were given was that the GRA was passed in 2004 under a Labour Government.
Here is evidence of even earlier influence - under another Tory Government that predated the Labour Landslide in 1997. However, this does not prove that this is all down to the Tories.
It amplifies the point made by other PPs that it is not the Government in power that is the significant factor but influence on, and then by, left-wing institutions, in this case the Civil Service Trade Union.
Note the reference to the potential incidental influence of Press For Change attendance at the PTC Union Seminar on policy in at least one prison.
The PTC Union Seminar
By Andrea Bloomfield and Christine Biggs
On Saturday 14th September 1996, four members of Press For Change were invited to speak to lesbian, gay, and bisexual members of the Public Service, Taxation and Commerce Union at their seminar at Aston Business School in Birmingham.
From the start it was clear that they had a great deal of interest in transgendered rights - we were given the main lecture theatre for our workshop, and every union representative who was there attended our sessions, several of them returning for a repeat performance!
They asked many intelligent questions, they all gave us their undivided attention and took away leaflets and specially prepared information packages, as well as signing our petition.
In between the lectures there was plenty of opportunity to talk to individual LGB members of the union at length, and they were without exception warm and friendly and expressed genuine interest and concern for how they could help prevent discrimination against transgendered people in the workplace, and how they could help Press For Change. They were mystified by the Government's refusal to legitimise the status of transsexual people, when the natural justice of our cause seemed so obvious to them, and such a small number of individuals is involved.
They had been unsure, before we spoke, if LGB groups were the most appropriate bodies to include and represent transgendered union members, since many transsexuals are heterosexual and might feel they belonged elsewhere ... in women's groups for example. However, following our discussions, both the LGB members and ourselves, felt that we had such a lot in common, due to our mutual experiences of discrimination, and that transgendered people could benefit from the greater numbers, the knowledge, and the caring motivated approach of the LGB group. They have developed considerable skills in campaigning for social justice.
It did seem that our involvement in Pride 96, and the bridge building that has already occurred, has broken down many of the barriers and misconceptions on both sides. It seems that as the gay and lesbian community gains self confidence and maturity it is becoming increasingly tolerant and socially aware, concerned to include rather than exclude other minority groups. Hands are being outstretched on both sides.
It was agreed that the union will donate £100 to Press For Change, as well as paying our expenses which we obviously kept to a minimum. They will also refer cases of discrimination to Press for Change so that transgendered union members can have access to our support and to lawyers skilled in dealing with these cases. They will recommend affiliation to PFC at the union's next conference, and will maintain links to mutually assist each other's campaigns.
Incidentally, one of the union members who works in a department responsible for planning the health care needs of transsexual prisoners was made aware of the G&SA <a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20060710222919/www.pfc.org.uk/legal/tsprison.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Submission to HM Prison Service, and he will bring the matter to the attention of his manager.
We were most impressed by a speech given by Peter Tatchell, the infamous gay activist. In spite of the media image which portrays him as excessively radical, dangerous or even mad!, he is an articulate, engaging and charismatic speaker, who also seems to be decent, level-headed and humane. He made an impassioned plea for the right to be different, not just for the same rights as everyone else, but for tolerance of what makes gay or transgendered people unique, and an acknowledgement that they have a great deal to contribute to society.
Many thanks to Michelle Wilson, who gave an excellent presentation about how best to approach management when changing over, and to Frank Hannah who made a big impression with his very personal description of the way in which discrimination limits the lives of transsexuals.
If anyone would like to involve their union in our campaign, the Press For Change Information Pack contains sample letters and suggestions. Please ask your union what their policy is concerning transgendered rights and suggest that they affiliate to PFC.
ARCHIVED:
Copy and paste this: http://www.pfc.org.uk/campaign/ptcrpt.htm
Into the Search Box here:
https://web.archive.org/
It can be argued that gender identity ideology is not an inherently "left-wing" ideology. One of the Founders and leading lights of Press For Change was a Conservative Party activist.
It is nevertheless true that left-wing institutions are, literally, the flag bearers of transgenderism. They are not alone but I would suggest that they have got to that place for ideological and political reasons, rather than, for example, commercial and business interests.
Institutions such as the Church of England, for a long time stereotyped as "The Tory Party at Prayer", now typify socially liberal "progressive politics": the politics of the Left.
It is perhaps more accurate to say that The Left has, for the most part, been "captured" by identity politics to a larger extent than the Right?
As far as "sex vs gender" issues are concerned, the closer to the extremes of the Right and parts of the Left you go the more you will find that they remain solidly based in reality. Similarly with "socially conservative" parties. This is where there is "common cause" not just between Tommy Robinson and GC Feminists but also between (in alphabetical order): The Communist Party, The Party of Women, Reform UK, the Social Democratic Party and the Workers Party of Britain.
Maybe it would be better to talk about "socially liberal" vs "socially conservative" rather than Left vs Right? However, it seems a bit pedantic because, on whole, the Left tends to be socially liberal and the Right socially conservative.
But even assuming it (systematic "capture" of the public sector) were true, what's your solution? Get rid of all public institutions? More centralised government control? Direct voting on every aspect of public life? Quickly one starts to run out of road with a democracy. Which is why I find the whole thing dangerous.
I would suggest that the existence of "Dissident Organisations" such as the SEEN groups I posted about here indicate that there is a culture from which some wish to dissent:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5129991-jane-clare-jones-blog-on-tommy-robinson?page=6&reply=137173017
I take your point that you were objecting to a more general claim, ie. of institutional capture by "the Left". However, I think I have dealt with that above?
I find the suggested remedies that you jump to somewhat extreme, to say the least.
Public Sector employees are not robots and, returning to your posting of the Civil Service Code of Conduct, there is empirical evidence that Civil Servants are influenced by their personal political views.
There is also a constructive suggestion here as to how this might be remedied without having to, "Get rid of all public institutions? More centralised government control? Direct voting on every aspect of public life?"
Public servants and political bias: Evidence from the UK civil service and the World Bank
11 Jan 2018
Stefan Dercon
Professor of Economic Policy, Blavatnik School of Government and Economics Department, University of Oxford
An experiment shows that public servants make errors when interpreting data, incorrectly concluding that it aligns with their ideological preferences
Extracts:
One of the most difficult challenges for promoting evidence-based policy is that politicians tend to have predetermined views of the world, often tainted by ideology. Recently, I finished a six-year spell as a UK civil servant, as chief economist of DFID, the UK government department responsible for international development policy and spending. UK civil servants have a strict code that stipulates that while they are serving and accountable to the political leadership of the country, they should also be impartial and make judgements based on the best evidence available, and not preconceived ideas. In my experience, the UK civil service code is not loose talk – it is taken very seriously by civil servants and politicians.
Researchers will not be too surprised by these results, but the size of the sample and their professional roles makes it at least interesting. These results definitely surprised UK civil servants – it showed that even in a simple assessment of data we could show they are not as impartial and evidence-based as they would claim to be. And the ideological bias is not simply due to politicians meddling based on their ideology, but linked to their own preferences.
To give them credit, a number of teams of government officials have responded by trying to avoid this. The remedy is not a guarantee for a cure, but worth trying. Independent peer review within departments, such as via an independent ‘quality assurance unit’ as in DFID, surely will play a role. Red teaming, in which one person in a team is expected to find all arguments against some proposal, is now also more widely practiced, I am told. But as with most behavioural biases, thinking a bit slower, taking stock, questioning one’s priors and showing some humility is a good start. This is not just important for public officials entrusted to use evidence for decision making, but all of us, including researchers. By the way, when did you last change your mind due to a piece of research or evidence?
Full article:
https://voxdev.org/topic/institutions-political-economy/public-servants-and-political-bias-evidence-uk-civil-service