Per appointment hearing for new chair of EHRC. This afternoon

[impossibletoday]

If anyone wants to listen/watch

https://x.com/CommonsWEC/status/1939616377750401117?t=MLdkge4QWLoyBv6F2SOSA&s=19

I hadn't heard that one before; it's a hoot! Where's it from?

It was quite illuminating to have someone who is to all intents and purposes a middle of the road feminist being treated as though she was a radical.

And I thought it good that she was just able to carry on in quite a low key was replying with quite ordinary responses and not get caught up if the hysteria some were trying to whip up.

Not sure if she prepped for the session, but being able to respond that not having suitable toilets was a problem for many, eg disabled people.

And that it was established practice that women who had suffered male violence would be offered women only (sex based) services.

But so shockingly badly put together as pre-appointment session.

Not just in terms of the remit of the WEC by the HRC. The only question on current HR issues in the UK was Windrush, which it obviously is, and still not resolved. But nothing else. Implying that the UK has no major Human Rights issues that any one needs worrying about.

Seriously?

https://www.thetimes.com/article/5cc666a5-b885-4b41-bb45-a0c2b0c83cd2?shareToken=151e4b76c84e8d2963dbf545468ec816

MPs oppose Starmer's gender critical pick.....

https://x.com/joannaccherry/status/1943749943568871435?t=qrT2jX1JvctadJINF4PwWQ&s=19

Well, this is where we see if Bridget Phillipson has enough determination.

And really, the Women and Equalities Committee should just rename itself the Trans Committee. I've seen quite a few pre-appointment hearings, and I don't remember one with this level of open hostility to the candidate.

Remember the previous meeting when they went for Baroness Falkner? The chair - Sarah Owen - openly displayed her complete ignorance of the SC judgment.
Not sure she should be in charge of switching off the lights, let alone chairing a committee.

As Joanna Cherry mentioned on X - the committee don't even cite the real reason for why they are rejecting her - they are claiming she doesn't have enough experience to run a large organisation or dealing with issues of race - when we all know the real reason.

I bet Helena Kennedy is behind this - she was seething during the pre-appointment hearing.

Can we write directly to Bridget Phillipson to complain?

They are making themselves a laughing stock.

Even if they received thousands of well orchestrated letters against her, the purpose of the meeting was to hear directly from her.

And as they chose to just go on and on about trans rights and didn't ask about other issues, whether race, class or in fact Human Rights (which committee was there and played lap dog to the TRAs) to claim she lacked experience is just made up rubbish.

I had a moan on another thread about councillors and how they shouldn't be allowed to use their position to provide services to local people, to grandstand about their personal politics.

Well this should apply to MPs.

I dont know if there were other applicants who could be better, but in terms of the process the only people who failed was this joint committee hearing.

Can we sack the WEC for not representing women?

I wonder if Parliament Petition would accept a petition about that.

The members of select committees are appointed by each party ratified in the commons.

so best to target the Labour Party re this.

Although i do not think it will go unnoticed.

top and bottom is they are as about as relevant as a Parish Council.

But the fact that Labour only appointed trans activists to the extent that the Tories gave their seat to Rosie Duffield is the issue.

And we know, as some of us did, complaining about the hugely unprofessional standards of the Chair makes no difference.

They dont care.

So worth remembering, more so than this farce, that this is the committee that will be progressing trans rights at the expense of women whilst Labour remains in Government.

@IwantToRetire Select committees have a scrutiny role, they have no teeth.

We cannot complain about what they say in the HOP anywhere including committees, they are legally immune so it is a pointless activity.

This committee cannot advance anything at all, that is the structure of our democracy.

Labour are slowly retreating from the TRA position.

So personally it is a whatever moment.

Yeah, it is one of those "thank you for your input. I will give it due consideration" events. As in "thanks for that now fuck off".

I mean it probably says something about Labour and/or the WEC that one of the early orders of business in this parliament was "oh fuck, we need to find a job for Sarah Owen, but not one where she's actually responsible for anything or can do any damage".

What happens now then? I’m not really sure how it works. Is her appointment based on a vote or do the government ultimately decide?

The government decides. The committee have got their report - and it would be interesting to know the arguments that went into crafting that report - and it's gone off to Phillipson. She still makes the ultimate decision.

It's very rare for a candidate for one of these roles to get an adverse report from the select committee, and when it does, that can trigger discussions that lead to the candidate standing down. But in this case, the committee's behaviour has been outrageous and Bridget Phillipson is a minister who's very comfortable with exercising power (which is not always a good thing, but would be in this case)

Sorry for the delay, I hadn't noticed your post,
The '“Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, he has a brother who is a known homo sapiens...'
speech wasn't really a speech it was a piece of satire written by a US senator, George A Smathers and first published in the 17 April 1950 Time magazine.

I always thought it was older - Mark Twain or somebody like that.

I worry that if she does take up the job, it will be difficult for her without the confidence of this committee. Maybe I'm wrong as pp's have said the committees have no teeth and so the ehrc chair doesn't actually need their good will or cooperation, but it would be an unpleasant start for her at least. I hope she has the complete confidence of philipson and any other relevant ministers.

Thanks, Marie.
It reminded me of a bit in an old John Buchan story - somebody made a spoof scaremongering political speech about how the other party was planning to "set up a chasuble in the market place and sell your daughters into simony"!

Claude Pepper was quite a colourful character - maybe an early example of Florida Man:

Regarding the 1950 Florida Senate election, President Harry Truman called George Smathers into a meeting at the White House and reportedly said, "I want you to do me a favor. I want you to beat that son-of-a-bitch Claude Pepper."[53] Pepper had been part of an unsuccessful 1948 campaign to "dump Truman" as the Democratic presidential nominee. Smathers ran against him in the Democratic primary (which at the time in Florida was tantamount to election, the Republican Party still being in infancy there). The contest was extremely heated, and revolved around policy issues, especially charges that Pepper represented the far left and was too supportive of Stalin. Pepper's opponents circulated widely a 49-page booklet titled The Red Record of Senator Claude Pepper.[55] Pepper was defeated in the primary by Smathers.

At that time, being a Deep South senator who insisted on bigging up Joe Stalin was what one might call a bold position.

Mind you, he was around at the same time as Mississippi's diminutive Klansman senator Theodore Bilbo, who was memorialised decades later in a satirical short story about Senator Bilbo imposing segregation on the Shire.

I didn’t hear all of her grilling but it was great to hear about her taking about services for disabled people. How lovely that someone is thinking about all the protected characteristics, with reasoning and balance.

They really are the most arrogant self righteous bunch of idiots. They really aren't fit for office, just student union level politics. I'm surprised Human rights committee members joined in.
This country is doomed.

This is a warning to the cabinet that anything less than full throated TRA advocacy will be rejected. It will be impossible for them to split the difference on any issue trans touches. Starmer and Streeting at the least seemed to have drawn the correct conclusions. Hopefully Starmer acts aggressively to stamp out this toxic ideology's infiltration of Labour which can only be lying in wait for any sign of weakness before it rises against his premiership.

Not true. It was because the then WEC prioritised ammending the GRA and produced a report saying how hard done by were those wanting to transition that the then Parliament then did the public consultation that led to or started the GC fightback.

It was because the WEC instigated it as a priority that this happened. And now a decade and a bit later they could do the same. And this time get their way.

Worth remembering that all the accusations of being anti trans were all effectively about MAS supporting free speech.

Is it worth writing, emailing Philipson and the other Minister for Women, saying that the WEC is little more than a Salem Witch Hunt, and that in fact MAS is a middle of the road liberal feminist and therefore totally suitable to have a job as she will listen to both sides. Added to she recognises that letting people express their view point is the priority, rather than some hardline ideologue attempting to abuse their position to get the outcome that suits the personal position.

With a PS saying can she send Sarah Owen on a training course about how to chair a meeting. She is making Labour look ridiculous!