I disagree very strongly with Owen Jones about several issues. But it seems we largely agree about part of the Brexit debate. I think this is worth highlighting because it shows something important that we often seem to forget these days... 1/
It is possible for two people to agree about some things and disagree about others. We don't have to seek the total defeat and discredit of those who disagree with us about something. We don't have to divide the world into our side and their side. 2/
Owen Jones and I have exchanged harsh words about sex and gender. I think he's wrong on that topic and has written things that are extremely regrettable. No doubt he'd say the same about me. But I don't think he's a bad person; if I did, how could I agree with him on Brexit? 3/
People do good things and bad things, say sensible things and stupid things. That makes life complicated. I know it's easier to take comfort in simple dividing lines, lists of good people (who agree with me) and bad people (who don't). But it's better to 4/
accept and embrace complexity. Sometimes people you admire with do stuff you don't admire. Sometimes people you dislike will say things you agree with. We need to remember that more. 5/
Based on many responses to this piece, I’m struck by the utter confidence some FBPE tweeters have in their own understanding of Conservatives & Leavers, groups they evidently dislike + see as “other”.
Numerous responses argue that wicked Tories always secretly wanted the hardest Brexit ergo there was never any point seeking Norway etc. The (accurate) idea that the Tory Leave position evolved (hardened) over time and in response to ...
circumstances does not exist in FBPE mythology. It’s a narrative that entirely overlooks the messier reality of a Tory Leaver position that was born of incomplete information and developed chaotically and quixotically *and reached an endpoint that was not inevitable*.
...
Liz Truss confirms to Parliament that the Government will not amend the Gender Recognition Act to allow people to chose their own legal gender without medical approval. gov.uk/government/spe…
"We have looked carefully at the issues raised in the consultation, including potential changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004. It is the Govt’s view that the balance struck in this legislation is correct..."
"We have also come to understand that gender recognition reform, though supported in the consultation undertaken by the last government, is not the top priority for transgender people. Perhaps their most important concern is the state of trans healthcare."
The @CareQualityComm, a non-departmental public body answerable to Parliament, has decided it is competent to interpret and apply legislation (the Equality Act 2010) as it sees fit.... 1/
The issue here is the "protected characteristics" set out in the Act. It is against the law to discriminate against someone because of:
age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation 2/
Note that "sex" and "gender reasignment" are *different* characteristics. IE: Parliament has decided that a person's biological sex and gender expression are different. Yet the CQC says that "gender" can encompass both, because everyone with a gender also has a sex. 3/
But private capital alone won’t be enough to kickstart innovative projects. In some cases, the state will have to provide development capital directly. 3/
New at @SMFthinktank: Bounce Back Britain, a report on how a new approach by British business can help our economy and society recover from the pandemic. smf.co.uk/publications/b… 1/n
His report goes to the heart of the debate about modern corporate conduct: why don't companies invest more, since investment is good for their long-term prospects, as well as for the wider economy? 3/