The 33 Conservative MPs who rebelled over the Genocide Amendment

19 Jan
  • Ahmad Khan, Imran
  • Amess, David
  • Blackman, Bob
  • Blunt, Crispin
  • Bridgen, Andrew

 

  • Crouch, Tracey
  • Davis, David
  • Djanogly, Jonathan
  • Duncan Smith, Iain
  • Ellwood, Tobias

 

  • Francois, Mark
  • Ghani, Nusrat
  • Gillan, Cheryl
  • Gray, James
  • Green, Damian

 

  • Hart, Sally-Anne (pictured)
  • Hoare, Simon
  • Hollobone, Philip
  • Jenkin, Bernard
  • Latham, Pauline

 

  • Lewer, Andrew
  • Lewis, Julian
  • Loughton, Tim
  • Mackinlay, Craig
  • Nokes, Caroline

 

  • Richards, Nicola
  • Rossindell, Andrew
  • Seely, Bob
  • Tugendhat, Tom
  • Wakeford, Christian

 

  • Walker, Charles
  • Warburton, David
  • Wragg, William

Today’s genocide amendment had no relation whatsoever to recent votes on Covid – or other major rebellions that this site has been chronicling.

But there is considerable overlap between the rebels on those lists and on this one.  And even newcomers to our records such as Sally-Ann Hart and Nicola Richards have voted against the Government previously (though rarely).

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the amendment, lists of those defying the whips now have a certain predictability.

Alec Cadzow: Global Britain must be prepared to intervene in the Middle East

15 Jan

Alec Cadzow is Researcher to ex-FCDO Middle East & North Africa Minister Dr Andrew Murrison MP. He previously worked for a consultancy in Jordan and specialised in Middle Eastern history at St Andrews University before that.

Parliament has returned from recess (third time lucky), now a fully sovereign entity and ready to forge a new future as a “Global Britain” – a subject which was aptly debated on Monday.

A catchy slogan, but what does it mean? Remainers have often assumed Brexit would usher in a foreign policy of not-so-splendid isolationism, at least in practice.

Conservatives must ensure the contrary, and while Monday’s debate was understandably trade-centric, a mixture of realpolitik and principle will demand that Britain does not neglect the Middle East – which has been conspicuously absent from our foreign policy discourse.

In terms of realpolitik, we have seen how 21st century military actions (or lack thereof) can have blowback on the UK’s influence.

This is particularly the case in Syria, where a pass has been granted to malign powers in our absence.

The failed 2013 vote to approve military action in the wake of Assad’s chemical weapons attack was largely down to mistrust on Middle Eastern intervention caused by the Iraq war, as Philip Hammond then Defence Secretary noted.

This event caused Obama to hesitate before outsourcing the dismantling of Assad’s chemical weapons stockpile to Russia, despite such an attack infamously representing a “red line”. Obama (and the imminently incumbent Biden) was haunted by Iraq – having been elected on a pledge to bring troops home from “endless wars.”

Now, a looming pyrrhic military victory for Assad will bring a pax Russica (with the Iranian theocrats and neo-Ottoman Turks fighting for scraps). Putin sees himself as the Tsar-like protector of the Orthodox Christians and he used the war to eliminate the domestic blight of Chechen Islamists – doing so by opening up the Caucuses (a textbook authoritarian move which both Assad and Saddam employed).

So, Britain, as a result of its inertia – itself largely attributable to a hangover from Iraq – now finds itself without leverage (except for within the superficial – in this case – diplomatic channels of the UN) which has only empowered our enemies.

Indeed, such avoidance has not been atypical, as Tom Tugendhat MP chastised Britain’s abstention from an important UN vote on Iran – itself a symptom of our uneasy relationship with the EU. We can now diverge.

Realpolitik dictates that we must always be asking “if not us, then who?” As well as Russia, Iran and Turkey, there’s the threat from illiberal China extending its Middle Eastern nexus through Belt and Road. This is a power whose facilitators include the EU, and who many Conservatives – including my MP – want to restrain. Unshackled from the EU, one way to ensure we don’t facilitate Chinese hegemony is through not abstaining from the Middle East.

It’s also pragmatic to pay attention to the Middle East because of our security interconnectedness.

Destabilisation abroad, the proliferation of refugees, and extremism at home are interrelated. The statistic that more British Muslims fought for Da’esh than were in the British Army’s ranks at the peak of the former’s power hints at our problems with integrating – particularly Muslim – immigrants.

The 2015 vote to approve military action in Syria came directly after the Paris attacks, as we belatedly realised that non-intervention had empowered terrorists who brought the fight to us.

France understands these consequences, which is why they lead in the Sahel. Current Defence Secretary Ben Wallace MP says he sees them too. However, if it really matters, we can do more than to deploy 250 reconnaissance troops to the UN’s Mali peacekeeping mission (MINUSMA).

There are also principles – intangible values and a complex, interwoven history – which interlock Conservatives with the Middle East.

Edmund Burke, the oft-quoted “father of modern conservatism”, was a popular figure among key Iranian reformers during the 1905 Constitutional Revolution, out of which constitutional limits were applied to the despotic Qajar monarchy. Reformers preferred the stability of gradual change – aspiring to the inherent conservatism which had created British political systems and values – rather than the destructive nature of a French-style overhaul of the Ancien Régime.

At a time when American democracy looks fragile – something which has been made fun of by antithetical regional and global leaders – Britain’s stable constitutional monarchy can provide a blueprint to reformers, many of whom live in absolute monarchies.

We are, however, compelled to remember Britain’s legacy from another perspective.

We often failed to live up to our political principles through our actions. In the case of Iran, two years after the Revolution, the Anglo-Russia Pact divided the country into spheres of influence, granting Russia the revolutionary north where political gains were quickly reversed. We would later contrive a new dynasty – the Pahlavi – and engineer two coups to keep it in power.

Another case is the Levant. The multiple promises we made to Arabs, our French allies, and Zionists during World War One were mutually exclusive and we were unable to appease every party during the Paris peace process. Having lived in Jordan – where it’s estimated 60 per cent of the population is Palestinian – I experienced first-hand some of the animosity held towards Britain borne out of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and Balfour Declaration which reneged on promises to create an autonomous Greater Syria governed by an Arab monarch. Our actions famously tormented T.E. Lawrence “of Arabia” in his post-war years too.

This is not to say policy makers should be drawn to the region out of imperial guilt. Instead, Global Britain provides an opportunity to align our values with our actions, and due to our history with the Middle East, where better to demonstrate this?

Some might argue a manifestation of this policy means we must cut ties with Saudi Arabia, after human rights abuses at home and abroad. Others reply that they provide us with valuable intelligence, and fill Treasury coffers through defence spending. Nuance would be leveraging the latter to positively affect the former, an argument Crispin Blunt MP has convincingly made.

It’s clear that we are obliged by too many pragmatic factors and historical-ideological principles to retreat to isolationism regarding the Middle East. Backbenchers and policy-makers alike ought to realise this as the new era of a Global Britain begins.

Profile: Liz Truss, Perky promoter of free trade with Japan – and, like Johnson, a disruptor

29 Oct

Liz Truss, the International Trade Secretary, proclaims the brilliance of the free trade agreement she has just signed with Japan. According to a video posted by her on Twitter, the deal, the first of its kind since Brexit, is “a win-win” and “just a glimpse of global Britain’s potential”, for it paves the way to other deals.

Experts observe that the economic benefits of the first deal are likely to be “very small”, and mockery erupted when the Department for International Trade tweeted, during an episode of The Great British Bake Off, the questionable assertion that soy sauce from Japan will become cheaper.

Nonetheless, it’s worth remembering that opponents of Brexit lauded the EU’s trade deal with Japan, while taking side-swipes at the UK’s “untested, yet still somehow flailing, negotiating team”.  Truss has delivered a trade agreement which some Remain supporters said wouldn’t happen before a trade deal was complete with the EU.

It is extraordinarily difficult to sing the praises of a trade deal. Rosy assertions about future prosperity have yet to be confirmed by events, and are countered by grim forecasts from depressed Remainers, while the voluminous details of what has been agreed are deeply technical and strike the public as intolerably dull.

In the present Cabinet, only Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and perhaps Rishi Sunak could give a speech about trade which would raise people’s spirits.

Like most of the rest of her ministerial colleagues, Truss is a dull speaker who never seems to get much better.

But she has the virtue of never appearing to get downhearted. She possesses a seemingly invincible perkiness.

Last summer, while contemplating a bid for the Tory leadership, she told The Mail on Sunday that as a woman in politics, “you have to be prepared to put yourself forward because nobody else is going to”.

In her case, this could well be true. A senior Tory this week told ConservativeHome: “Her longevity in Government is a mystery to virtually the whole parliamentary party.”

The senior Tory had perhaps failed to observe that in the most recent ConHome Cabinet League Table, Truss, with a net satisfaction rating of +69.7, was second only to Sunak, on +81.5, with Dominic Raab in third place with +59.7 and Gove fourth on +56.4, while the Prime Minister got -10.3.

At the age of 45, Truss is a veteran, the second-longest serving member of the Cabinet, which she joined as Environment Secretary in July 2014, a record beaten only by Gove, appointed Education Secretary in May 2010.

Perhaps that explains why the editor of ConHome possesses a seemingly inexhaustible appetite for profiles of Truss. The first appeared in March 2014, when she was a rising star of the 2010 intake, a tough-minded Thatcherite northerner who had been educated at a comprehensive school and was tipped by some as a future leader.

The next profile appeared in March 2017, by which time she was Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, and the judges were furious with her for failing, as they saw it, to defend judicial independence against attack by The Daily Mail.

Three months later, she was demoted to the post of Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Here she continued to fight her corner, and on occasion to express her disrespect for Cabinet colleagues (including Gove, by now Environment Secretary), as in this lecture, delivered at the London School of Economics in June 2018:

“I’ve never liked being told what to do. And I don’t like to see other people being told what to do. Britain is a country that is raucous and rowdy…

“I see it as my role as Chief Secretary to the Treasury to be on the side of the insurgents – I see myself as the disruptor in chief! Because British people love change…

“And government’s role should not be to tell us what our tastes should be.

“Too often we’re hearing about not drinking too much…eating too many doughnuts…or enjoying the warm glow of our wood-burning Goves…I mean stoves.

“I can see their point: there’s enough hot air and smoke at the Environment Department already…

“we have to recognise that it’s not macho just to demand more money. It’s much tougher to demand better value and challenge the blob of vested interests within your department.

“Some of my colleagues are not being clear about the tax implications of their proposed higher spending.

“That’s why, in next year’s Spending Review, I want to take a zero-based, zero-tolerance approach to wasteful spend.”

In May 2019, while dipping her toe in leadership waters which turned out to be too chilly for her, Truss spoke of “a need to build a million homes on the London Green Belt”. On an earlier occasion, to an American audience, she had spoken with relish of a world in which “no one knows their place, no one fears failure, and no one is ashamed of success.”

This gung-ho side of her, the relish she takes in assaulting the cosy world of received pseudo-liberal opinion, her longing to let the free market rip in order to produce the wealth which alone will rescue the poor from over-priced housing and allow them to feed their children, find a ready assent in Johnson.

He too is a disruptor, who wants to unleash the animal spirits which have been crushed by socialist planning laws, and who favours tax cuts for everyone, including that most despised group, the better off.

Truss became the first Cabinet minister to declare for Johnson, and as Stephen Bush some time afterwards related in The New Statesman:

“During his bid for the leadership, Liz Truss advised Johnson on economic policy, and was the architect of plans to cut taxes for people earning over £50,000. Civil servants dreaded a Johnson government because they found Truss’s tenure as Chief Secretary to the Treasury under Theresa May exhausting, for reasons ranging from her demanding work schedule to her habit of asking officials multiplication questions at random intervals. Few dispute that she would have been able to do the job effectively. But Johnson discarded her as his chancellor-designate in part because of the row the tax plans caused, and in part because Sajid Javid was more willing to spend freely.”

Truss was more suited to the go-getting task of pursuing free-trade deals, as part of a global Britain strategy in which – despite having voted Remain in 2016 – she has the merit of actually believing.

She holds another post, Minister for Women and Equalities, and here too she is of value to Johnson, by holding the line against fashionable opinions which if adopted by him, would destroy his credibility with the former Labour voters in the Midlands and the North who handed victory to the Conservatives last December.

Truss is conducting a review of the whole field of equalities and diversity policy, and at Downing Street’s behest, has already refused to allow self-definition by transgender people under the Gender Recognition Act.

Crispin Blunt, Conservative MP for Reigate, was furious with her:

“Does she appreciate that trans people cannot discern any strong or coherent reason for this screeching change of direction?

“Does she understand the anger at the prospect of them receiving their fundamental rights being snatched away?”

But the Labour Party leadership has declined to pick a serious fight over this issue, for it knows that many old-style feminists are aghast at the idea of trans men being allowed to declare themselves women and enter women-only spaces.

So Truss, with her odd mixture of indiscretion and obedience, her contempt for liberal groupthink, love of freedom and faith in free trade, is in many ways a useful ally for Johnson.

Her detractors will continue to say she has only got where she is today because the Prime Minister needs a reasonably high proportion of women in senior posts. But it would be fairer to say that she has got there because she had the gumption to declare her loyalty to him in June 2019, and is in many respects a kindred spirit.

Profile: Liz Truss, Perky promoter of free trade with Japan – and, like Johnson, a disruptor

29 Oct

Liz Truss, the International Trade Secretary, proclaims the brilliance of the free trade agreement she has just signed with Japan. According to a video posted by her on Twitter, the deal, the first of its kind since Brexit, is “a win-win” and “just a glimpse of global Britain’s potential”, for it paves the way to other deals.

Experts observe that the economic benefits of the first deal are likely to be “very small”, and mockery erupted when the Department for International Trade tweeted, during an episode of The Great British Bake Off, the questionable assertion that soy sauce from Japan will become cheaper.

Nonetheless, it’s worth remembering that opponents of Brexit lauded the EU’s trade deal with Japan, while taking side-swipes at the UK’s “untested, yet still somehow flailing, negotiating team”.  Truss has delivered a trade agreement which some Remain supporters said wouldn’t happen before a trade deal was complete with the EU.

It is extraordinarily difficult to sing the praises of a trade deal. Rosy assertions about future prosperity have yet to be confirmed by events, and are countered by grim forecasts from depressed Remainers, while the voluminous details of what has been agreed are deeply technical and strike the public as intolerably dull.

In the present Cabinet, only Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and perhaps Rishi Sunak could give a speech about trade which would raise people’s spirits.

Like most of the rest of her ministerial colleagues, Truss is a dull speaker who never seems to get much better.

But she has the virtue of never appearing to get downhearted. She possesses a seemingly invincible perkiness.

Last summer, while contemplating a bid for the Tory leadership, she told The Mail on Sunday that as a woman in politics, “you have to be prepared to put yourself forward because nobody else is going to”.

In her case, this could well be true. A senior Tory this week told ConservativeHome: “Her longevity in Government is a mystery to virtually the whole parliamentary party.”

The senior Tory had perhaps failed to observe that in the most recent ConHome Cabinet League Table, Truss, with a net satisfaction rating of +69.7, was second only to Sunak, on +81.5, with Dominic Raab in third place with +59.7 and Gove fourth on +56.4, while the Prime Minister got -10.3.

At the age of 45, Truss is a veteran, the second-longest serving member of the Cabinet, which she joined as Environment Secretary in July 2014, a record beaten only by Gove, appointed Education Secretary in May 2010.

Perhaps that explains why the editor of ConHome possesses a seemingly inexhaustible appetite for profiles of Truss. The first appeared in March 2014, when she was a rising star of the 2010 intake, a tough-minded Thatcherite northerner who had been educated at a comprehensive school and was tipped by some as a future leader.

The next profile appeared in March 2017, by which time she was Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, and the judges were furious with her for failing, as they saw it, to defend judicial independence against attack by The Daily Mail.

Three months later, she was demoted to the post of Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Here she continued to fight her corner, and on occasion to express her disrespect for Cabinet colleagues (including Gove, by now Environment Secretary), as in this lecture, delivered at the London School of Economics in June 2018:

“I’ve never liked being told what to do. And I don’t like to see other people being told what to do. Britain is a country that is raucous and rowdy…

“I see it as my role as Chief Secretary to the Treasury to be on the side of the insurgents – I see myself as the disruptor in chief! Because British people love change…

“And government’s role should not be to tell us what our tastes should be.

“Too often we’re hearing about not drinking too much…eating too many doughnuts…or enjoying the warm glow of our wood-burning Goves…I mean stoves.

“I can see their point: there’s enough hot air and smoke at the Environment Department already…

“we have to recognise that it’s not macho just to demand more money. It’s much tougher to demand better value and challenge the blob of vested interests within your department.

“Some of my colleagues are not being clear about the tax implications of their proposed higher spending.

“That’s why, in next year’s Spending Review, I want to take a zero-based, zero-tolerance approach to wasteful spend.”

In May 2019, while dipping her toe in leadership waters which turned out to be too chilly for her, Truss spoke of “a need to build a million homes on the London Green Belt”. On an earlier occasion, to an American audience, she had spoken with relish of a world in which “no one knows their place, no one fears failure, and no one is ashamed of success.”

This gung-ho side of her, the relish she takes in assaulting the cosy world of received pseudo-liberal opinion, her longing to let the free market rip in order to produce the wealth which alone will rescue the poor from over-priced housing and allow them to feed their children, find a ready assent in Johnson.

He too is a disruptor, who wants to unleash the animal spirits which have been crushed by socialist planning laws, and who favours tax cuts for everyone, including that most despised group, the better off.

Truss became the first Cabinet minister to declare for Johnson, and as Stephen Bush some time afterwards related in The New Statesman:

“During his bid for the leadership, Liz Truss advised Johnson on economic policy, and was the architect of plans to cut taxes for people earning over £50,000. Civil servants dreaded a Johnson government because they found Truss’s tenure as Chief Secretary to the Treasury under Theresa May exhausting, for reasons ranging from her demanding work schedule to her habit of asking officials multiplication questions at random intervals. Few dispute that she would have been able to do the job effectively. But Johnson discarded her as his chancellor-designate in part because of the row the tax plans caused, and in part because Sajid Javid was more willing to spend freely.”

Truss was more suited to the go-getting task of pursuing free-trade deals, as part of a global Britain strategy in which – despite having voted Remain in 2016 – she has the merit of actually believing.

She holds another post, Minister for Women and Equalities, and here too she is of value to Johnson, by holding the line against fashionable opinions which if adopted by him, would destroy his credibility with the former Labour voters in the Midlands and the North who handed victory to the Conservatives last December.

Truss is conducting a review of the whole field of equalities and diversity policy, and at Downing Street’s behest, has already refused to allow self-definition by transgender people under the Gender Recognition Act.

Crispin Blunt, Conservative MP for Reigate, was furious with her:

“Does she appreciate that trans people cannot discern any strong or coherent reason for this screeching change of direction?

“Does she understand the anger at the prospect of them receiving their fundamental rights being snatched away?”

But the Labour Party leadership has declined to pick a serious fight over this issue, for it knows that many old-style feminists are aghast at the idea of trans men being allowed to declare themselves women and enter women-only spaces.

So Truss, with her odd mixture of indiscretion and obedience, her contempt for liberal groupthink, love of freedom and faith in free trade, is in many ways a useful ally for Johnson.

Her detractors will continue to say she has only got where she is today because the Prime Minister needs a reasonably high proportion of women in senior posts. But it would be fairer to say that she has got there because she had the gumption to declare her loyalty to him in June 2019, and is in many respects a kindred spirit.

The forty-two Conservative MPs who voted against the Government on the 10pm curfew

13 Oct
  • Ahmad Khan, Imran
  • Amess, David
  • Baker, Steve
  • Baldwin, Harriett
  • Blackman, Bob

 

  • Blunt, Crispin
  • Bone, Peter
  • Brady, Graham
  • Chope, Christopher
  • Clifton-Brown, Sir Geoffrey

 

  • Daly, James
  • Davies, Philip
  • Davis, David
  • Davison, Dehenna
  • Doyle-Price, Jackie

 

  • Drax, Richard
  • Fysh, Marcus
  • Ghani, Nusrat
  • Green, Chris (pictured)
  • Hunt, Tom

 

  • Latham, Mrs Pauline
  • Loder, Chris
  • Loughton, Tim
  • Mangnall, Anthony
  • McCartney, Karl

 

  • McVey, Esther
  • Merriman, Huw
  • Morris, Anne Marie
  • Redwood, rh John
  • Rosindell, Andrew

 

  • Sambrook, Gary
  • Seely, Bob
  • Smith, Henry
  • Swayne, rh Sir Desmond
  • Syms, Sir Robert

 

  • Thomas, Derek
  • Tracey, Craig
  • Vickers, Matt
  • Wakeford, Christian
  • Walker, Sir Charles

 

  • Watling, Giles
  • Wragg, William

Plus two tellers – Philip Hollobone and Craig Mackinlay.

– – –

  • Seven Tory MPs voted against the Government on renewing the Coronavirus Act.
  • Twelve voted against the Government over the rule of six.
  • Now we have 42 this evening – enough to imperil the Government’s majority in the event of all opposition parties that attend Westminster voting against it too.
  • Fifty-six signed the Brady amendment, but it was never voted on, and wasn’t a measure related directly to Government policy on the virus.
  • We wrote last week that Conservative backbench protests would gain “volume and velocity”, and so it is proving.
  • There’s a strong though not total overlap between these lockdown sceptics and Eurosceptics.
  • We count eight members from the 2019 intake – and a big tranche from pre-2010 intakes.
  • Chris Green resigned as a PPS to vote against the measure.
  • He’s a Bolton MP and there’s clearly unhappiness there about these latest restrictions.

“Huge concerns”…”I cannot support this policy”…levelling over green fields with concrete”. Tory backbenchers on the Goverment’s housing plans.

9 Oct

“This is not levelling up. It is concreting out,” Bob Seely wrote yesterday morning on this site about the Government’s White Paper on planning reform, and his Commons debate on the subject later in the day.

His article criticised the algorithm that sets out how many houses are needed in which places – which was originally brought to public notice by our columnist Neil O’Brien.

Would Seely’s colleagues agree with him?  Here are some snap extracts from speeches by Conservative backbenchers who spoke yesterday.

  • Theresa May: “We need to reform the planning system….But we will not do that by removing local democracy, cutting the number of affordable homes that are built and building over rural areas. Yet that is exactly what these reforms will lead to.”
  • Philip Hollobone: “The Government are being sent a clear message by Back Benchers today that they have got this wrong and they need to think again.”
  • Jason McCartney: “I have huge concerns about the supposed new housing formula or algorithm. I think we have all had enough of algorithms this year.”
  • Neil O’Brien: “Ministers should fundamentally rethink this formula so that it actually hits the target. Yes, we should build more houses, but we should do it in the right places.”
  • Chris Grayling: “I regret to say that, even as a loyal supporter of the Government, I cannot support this policy in its current form.”
  • Jeremy Hunt: “In short, I am concerned that these proposals do not recognise serious risks…The Government must think again.”
  • Damian Green: “This will not be levelling-up; it will be levelling over green fields with concrete.”
  • Damian Hinds: “I encourage [the Minister] and the Government to think again about some of these important matters.”
  • Caroline Nokes: “The Housing Minister and I were first elected in 2010 on a manifesto that committed to no more top-down housing targets, and this algorithm looks suspiciously like a top-down target.”
  • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: “The real flaw in the White Paper is that all it does is concentrate building in the south-east and central south of England”.
  • Clare Coutino: “I seriously worry about centrally designed housing numbers which do not take into account a local area’s capacity to deliver.”
  • Luke Evans: “I am also concerned that the formula does not take into account infrastructure, as has been mentioned, or future plans for generations.”
  • Karen Bradley: “How can it be the case that the Government are now considering any form of central target, because that is exactly what the algorithm looks like?”
  • Laurence Robertson: “As things stand, I think that the housing numbers will take precedence. That is wrong and it goes against what we stand for as a party.”
  • Crispin Blunt: “The presentation that the Government have made is potentially catastrophic for delivering the wider objectives of Government policy.”
  • Harriet Baldwin: “Let us move away from the Gordon Brown approach and the top-down imposition of Stalinist housing targets.”
  • Gareth Bacon: “I urge the Government to heed the words of hon. Members in this debate and to revisit the proposals.”
  • Kieran Mullen: “Why are we going down a route that is likely to cause upset and tear up some local decision making when we could tackle the issue through that existing route?”
  • Laura Trott: The White Paper…says that the green belt will be protected, and that is right, but we see no evidence that this is being taken into account in the algorithm.”

That’s 19 backbenchers critical of important aspects of the proposals.

Furthermore, Scott Mann referred diplomatically to “some challenges within the White Paper”; Gareth Johnson said “it is essential that we bring local authorities with us in proposing these targets”; William Wragg wants to ” abandon the notion that planning is something that is done to communities”, and Richard Fuller, while saying that the Government “is on to something”, also said the targets for his local area are unmanageable.

Only James Grundy spoke from the Tory benches without any criticism of the plans.

No wonder that Andy Slaughter, from the Labour benches, gleefully pointed out that “there are 55 Conservative Back Benchers hoping to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker”.

Chris Pincher, the Housing Minister, pointed out that the proposals are out for consultation, and reiterated (as in his recent ConservativeHome article) that “over the past two months my Department has actively engaged with the sector and is listening to feedback. Many right hon. and hon. Members will know that I too have been listening and discussing carefully”.

In short, he was distancing himself and the Government from the algorithm numbers.  But we think it worth grabbing some highlights from yesterday’s speeches because, on this showing, opposition on the Tory benches is not confined to the algorithm.  Ministers will find a central feature of their plans, top-down housing targets for local authorities, very difficult to get through the Commons, at least as presently constituted.

Radical: While political leaders hide from confrontation, activists are winning the war on self-identification

18 Aug

Victoria Hewson is a solicitor and co-founder of Radical, a campaign for truth and freedom in the gender recognition debate. She and Rebecca Lowe, her co-founder, alternate authorship of this column on trans, sex and gender issues.

Regardless of commitments about a summer announcement, Parliament went into recess without any further clarity from Liz Truss on the Government’s plans for reform of the Gender Recognition Act. Nonetheless, there has been no let up in the debate.

It had been expected that the changes to the law that the May government had consulted on – which would have allowed people to change their legal sex without a medical diagnosis, or evidence of having lived for some time as a member of the opposite sex – would be abandoned by the current Westminster government.

In Scotland, reforms of the law to this effect in are still expected to proceed, after having been put on hold during the Covid crisis. But the signs had been pretty clear for months that Westminster had decided against so-called “self-ID” for England and Wales.

In the weeks before recess, however, trans rights activists became ever more vocal in their efforts to mobilise support for self-ID. Publications such as Pink News worked hard, misusing survey data (and misrepresenting the current law), to try to create the impression of a country in which the vast majority of people favoured self-ID, and with it the ability for male-bodied transwomen to use women-only facilities. As ever, mainstream-media reporting too often went along with this false narrative.

Perhaps the influence of these activist groups is one reason for the Government’s delay in confirming its position formally, as promised. After all, government departments and quangos, from the Cabinet Office to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), have signed up to receive guidance and training from Stonewall, through its Diversity Champions programme – and Stonewall is a highly political organisation, which has been lobbying the Government particularly strongly on trans issues.

Transactivist talking points have also been adopted by representatives within the Conservative Party. Many common examples of transactivist misinformation can be found in this piece by Crispin Blunt and Sue Pascoe, for instance – ironically, in a section devoted to “myth-busting”. So it would not be surprising if the Minister for Equalities has faced the pressure of opposition from within the party over her rethink on pushing forward with self-ID.

The EHRC itself joined the fray last week. Not, however, as might have been hoped, to clarify and improve its guidance on the existing laws protecting women that have been the subject of widespread misunderstanding (as seen in the Blunt and Pascoe piece referred to above). But, rather, to publish another tendentious survey, and remonstrate with its respondents who didn’t support transwomen’s access to women-only spaces and services.

Whilst she acknowledged that a great majority of British people broadly support trans people’s rights to live free of discrimination, and do not consider themselves to be transphobic, Rebecca Hilsenrath, EHRC’s chief executive, also noted that “people were found to be less supportive of trans people in specific situations”. The specific situations in question included women’s refuges and facilities such as public toilets.

Yet far from acknowledging that there are good reasons, and legal support, for such views, Hilsenrath seems to consider that the people holding them need to be helped to change their minds, by bringing about a better “level of understanding on the key facts surrounding the debate” by “both sides improving the level of discourse”.

This seems, again, rather ironic considering the poor guidance the EHRC has published on the legal facts of the matter. Indeed, although Hisenrath called for a constructive, tolerant, and fact-based dialogue on law and policy, it seems very clear what the EHRC considers to be the “right” outcome of any dialogue.

In a recent thoughtful piece for The Spectator, James Kirkup called for the Government to take the sting out of the issue by first publishing a “drily technical” announcement that: self-id would be dropped, tweaks made to existing processes regarding legal sex changes, to make them faster and cheaper; and, proper clarity provided in guidance on single-sex provisions. Then the “wider issues” of “reconciling conflicting rights and addressing the woefully poor evidence-base on trans issues, should be kicked even further into the long grass, with a proper fact-finding ‘further investigation’ that must report before any major change can come”.

Now, apart from the fact that what Kirkup considers would be an undramatic, “technical” announcement is, in effect, exactly what the trans lobby have been campaigning against – and publicly positing as a “rolling back” of trans rights – this calm approach seems sensible.

However, it comes with risks. Conservative governments have not traditionally been good at making conservative appointments, and trans lobbyists and activists have excelled at capturing public bodies. There is surely a serious risk, therefore, that any investigative commission, instead of fearlessly finding and reporting on the truth in medical and legal matters, would be susceptible to the same forces that have caused scientific papers to be withdrawn, and legal “guidance” to distort the law.

Certainly, however, there is no reason for Boris Johnson or Liz Truss, or Keir Starmer for that matter, to get personally involved in the unedifying social-media gender wars. But, it is also the case that they should not allow themselves to get caught up in the “both sides are equal” fallacy that the EHRC and others have been perpetuating.

Legal rights associated with sex have become a political matter, whether we like it or not, and a Conservative government should not hide from making necessary political decisions to acknowledge the reality of sex, and the legal and policy considerations that flow from that. In real life, public bodies continue to adopt policies that are in conflict with current law. Yet these decisions seem to undergo little or no consultation or scrutiny – until, as seen with the spate of legal action against guidance to schools, brave individuals stand up and challenge them.

NHS Lanarkshire recently announced an HR protocol , which effectively makes staff changing rooms mixed sex, included people who dress as the opposite gender for “erotic pleasure” under the umbrella of “trans”, and by claims that staff could be discriminating against trans colleagues by “not thinking” of them as the gender they present.  A Labour MSP who tried to hold NHS Lanarkshire to account over this, and who questioned how a medical organisation could propagate the idea of a baby having its gender “assigned at birth”, was met with calls that she should be disciplined by her party.

These are the consequences of political leaders leaving the field. Hiding behind a commission of experts, therefore, in order to avoid offending the groups of highly engaged and influential activists who have occupied that field, would itself be a political decision, and one that seems unlikely to improve the quality of the debate.