One of the factors driving support for Liz Truss in the current Conservative leadership contest is a sense of frustration among activists that, after 12 years in office in one form or another, the Tories have not done much to make this a more conservative country.
Few stories capture the essence of this frustration as much as the recent furore over diversity targets in the Royal Air Force. Sky News reported that the Force’s head of recruitment resigned rather than implement a potentially unlawful freeze on hiring white men. This would have been bad enough on its own, but sits especially badly alongside an apparent crisis in flying training, which persists despite Ben Wallace ordering the Air Chief Marshal to make fixing it his “only priority” more than two years ago.
For its part, the RAF seems unrepentant, with the Times reporting the Air Vice Marshal in charge of recruitment has defended the decision to “slow” recruitment of certain candidates in order to try and hit the service’s diversity targets. Naturally, Rishi Sunak’s leadership campaign weighed in to criticise the RAF’s decision, while Liz Truss has made earlier promises to crack down on an alleged “woke culture” in the Civil Service.
But driving institutional change doesn’t happen overnight. That not only means that any programme to change course will take time to deliver, but that two politicians who have spent several years at the top of government have tough questions to answer about why they haven’t taken action sooner. The single biggest thing driving this sort of attitude is the Equality Act 2010. Rushed through by Labour as it prepared to get booted out by the voters, it places legal requirements on private and especially public-sector bodies which push them towards the sort of policies we see in the RAF.
That doesn’t mean that every out-there policy to emerge from the nation’s human resources departments is drawn directly from the Act, of course. But if legislation lays down a compliance regime and mandates the hiring of people to police it, something quite predictable happens.
First, those diversity officers and so on will, in the manner of all bureaucrats, adopt an expansive interpretation of their responsibilities and strive continually to expand their role. Second, the posts will attract sincere believers in the objects of the legislation who are prepared, on their own initiative, to go above and beyond — up to the point of potentially unlawful orders, in the case of the RAF.
Politicians can rail against this all they like. But such talk is cheap without concrete action. If the next prime minister is serious about making operational readiness the military’s only priority, there is nothing stopping them exempting the Armed Forces from the public sector equality duty by removing them from the list of organisations subject to it in Schedule 19 of the Act.
Of course, perhaps the new prime minister won’t think this the right thing to do. That’s a perfectly honourable position. But if so, they should be honest about it, and not wail about woke recruitment practices they tacitly endorse.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“Inclusive language” is an anglocentric hustle. I was recently asked on a scientific grant application to write my CV in a “gender-neutral” way. Trouble is, my surname is Ó Náraigh, which is the male form of the surname. The female version would be Uí Náraigh or Ní Náraigh, depending on the context. So not gender-neutral at all. You would wonder how the Russians manage (“Vladimirov / Vladimirova”). There must be many other languages where such “gender-blinding” is not possible, leading me to believe that “woke” is a mind-virus that specifically affects the English-speaking brain.
Not to mention having to write everything gender neutral in french.
lunac.y.i.e !!
Of course Google should issue intersectional guidance as well so that if you register as black you will be able to use such expressions as “N****r” as a friendly greeting and “B***h” for your girlfriend without being deleted.
My wife used to drive our 13 year old son to school together with a friend’s 5 year old daughter and was constantly turning the radio off when songs by Rappers were played – which my son much enjoyed – for fear of the friends daughter coming out with such words at embarrassing moments. For some reason a startling level of sexism seemed (at least then) to be acceptable if the singer was black. It was all very difficult for her to explain the problem that didn’t seem to make much sense to my son.
This is yet more woke capitalism. Rents are at an all-time high across the industrialized world. Home ownership is in long-term decline. Having trouble with your landlord? That’s okay. Google is here to the rescue – the solution is to give him a more gender-neutral name. Problem solved, let’s move on… to children’s entertainment. Disney wants to take over parents’ duties, and teach children about race, sex, gender, and identity. The kids’ college fund is a bit depleted. If Disney is so good at parenting, will it stump up the cash?
Come to think of it, what , if anything, has been proposed as a gender-neutral version of “landlord”?
Will it be like the acting profession, where it’s apparently politically correct to call all by the male term “actor”? Or the confusion of chairman / chairwoman / chairperson / chair? The only one of those that is disappearing fast is “chairwoman”.
But, if “ever-mutating woke language shibboleths serve to signal class status” they won’t if everyone has access to this technology, as Google seems to intend. Ironically enough, the main purpose of “inclusive language” is to divide people. The new snobs will have to find new markers.
I give it a year, at most.
When I read about ‘Baby G’ and her ‘bimbofication’ I honestly thought that this must be satire. Is this real?
I noticed that my comments are being edited even before I write them down. I wonder how that happened. Oh, maybe I’ve already been influence not to write certain things. Google is late to the game!
True. In composing a post here I always have to bear in mind the quirks of the moderator’s algorithm to try to avoid giving it a hissy fit. I am getting better at knowing what will get it ruffled.
A number of posters who I enjoyed no longer post here presumably because they were less inclined to tailor their posts to meet the moderators predilections. Of course a time may come when rephrasing my thoughts is insufficient and I have to leave the only forum I bother to post on.
This is of course just the beginning. “AI” can and will be extended to more intrusive “auto-corrections” on what you write. This is not necessarily a problem for the individual – you should be able to find and set software that controls such intrusions. Where it will become a problem is when it is used by the publishing media to edit contributions, with or without, the author’s consent. It is inevitable, so railing against it will achieve nothing but journalists and readers voting with their feet might. Integrity lies with the participants.
My pronouns are notfuc/kingwoke, and I think it’s ok for mankind to mention but not to use the word “ni55er”.
Grammarly does not care for the word homosexual.
If you include the short form of that in your post here your post will likely be moderated automatically. What does Grammarly recommend?
Don’t worry… Elon is taking them head on. Gosh, Apple corrected my elon to Elon! Things are looking up!
One presumes this inclusive language AI will be writing in characters developed by the Romans.
Ropeople, please!
Yes, it is utterly absurd that the term ‘nazi’ cannot be used, even to describe the German government of 1933-45! Either this shows very bad faith on the part of UnHerd, or that algorithms just cannot get context at all. Either way, it is censorious and appalling.
Apart from the patronising and hysterically un-self aware notion of anglophone (white) twenty somethings telling the rest of the world how to think about ‘gender’, and indeed, everything, Google is any case the archetypal the classic ‘punching down’ organisation. While endlessly hectoring and cajoling the ‘unwoke’ working class, it bows down and does whatever the governments of the world tell it do, or face being blocked, as in China.
Softwear package…