Pippa Bailey builds on a well-rehearsed narrative from Bridget Phillipson (Cover Story, 20 February). My experience of the Minister for Women and Equalities, when chair of the EHRC, was, at best, disinterest and disengagement. Nevertheless, while I was in post, the EHRC continued its interaction with respect, so there was no discernible “challenge” as far as we were aware, including after the Supreme Court ruling on biological sex of April 2025.
To now read that women “deserve” single sex spaces or that Phillipson needs to go through the EHRC code “thoroughly and properly” is both patronising and disingenuous. She received the code in April 2025, and was fully aware that changes would be made to 3/13 sections impacted by the Supreme Court ruling. Those changes were submitted on 4 September. To have taken six months on circa 11 pages of text drafted by leading lawyers, implies a level of meticulousness not normally afforded to senior ministers, where decision-making is a prerequisite.
The real reason for the delay is that Phillipson does not like this law as clarified by the Supreme Court. It is possible that she was awaiting the outcome of a Judicial Review in which she argued that female-only lavatories could continue to be seen as single-sex even if they permitted trans women to access them, contrary to the EHRC and Supreme Court position. That ruling is in, and EHRC won on all counts.
This isn’t about “an approach” taken by myself or my board, as that has now been tested in in court. Phillipson has erected a hurdle to application of the law, thus denying women validation of their rights. That is there for all to see.
Kishwer Falkner, Baroness Falkner of Margravine, House of Lords
The privileged few
Pippa Bailey’s profile of Bridget Phillipson describes the imposition of VAT on private schools as an outworking of Roy Hattersley’s view that freedom for the majority “requires a limitation of the power enjoyed by the previously privileged minority”. In reality, the policy has increased, rather than reduced, privilege. The wealthy are largely unaffected by higher fees; their children will remain in independent education irrespective of cost. Those most affected are those families who previously made financial sacrifices to access such schooling but who lack substantial inherited wealth. As these families withdraw, independent schools become socially narrower. At the same time, access to high-performing state schools increasingly depends upon the ability to purchase housing within catchment areas. Privilege is not diminished but consolidated among those already most advantaged.
Professor Brendan McSweeney, Royal Holloway, University of London
Battle royal
Will Lloyd’s Cover Story (27 February) identified numerous areas for reform of our current system. He states “parliament today has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform the monarchy”, but this is unlikely to happen. As a country, we still live in a feudal time warp in which we are subjects, not citizens. A majority remains in favour of retaining the monarchy.
However, there is one reform that might receive a significant degree of public and parliamentary support. It is somewhat ironic that at the point the Mountbatten-Windsor scandal reaches a crescendo, we are in the midst of the annual rugby Six Nations tournament. Most of the other competing nations laud their countries via their national anthems; the English do not. We still sing “God Save the King”, an anthem to an individual, not a country.
Prince William has stated he wishes to change the monarchy to make it more modern. Well, one way to start would be to rewrite our national anthem so that, like those of Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France and Italy, it celebrates our nationhood and our diversity of faith, and does not bow the knee to an individual who has simply inherited his role as head of state.
Graham Judge, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Thank you to Will Lloyd for his excellent excoriation of the royal family. He notes that “envisioning a constitution and a monarchy appropriate to our circumstances is a challenge Labour was born to take up”. But why a constitution and a monarchy? Now is the time to start imagining our Britain with a strong constitution, and without a monarchy.
Dr Thom Gorst, Bath
In hot water
Thank you for explaining about the financial position of Thames Water (Special Report, 27 February). I have long been confused by announcements that it would cost many billions to resolve the situation, when insolvent organisations aren’t valued at many billions. Dunn explains the special administration regime that would allow the insolvent company to fail and would stop the haemorrhaging of bill-payers money, including the heavy environment agency fines. Money should be used for repairs and maintenance, not for paying more unsustainable interest. It sounds like a no-brainer and makes me wonder that the government has resisted it. Government makes increasingly less sense as time goes by.
Noel Hamel, New Malden, Greater London
Manning the ship
Ethan Croft states there is no precedent for the fight on the right of British politics (Inside Westminster, 27 February), but there is a precedent and that is Canada. Nigel Farage is following the playbook of Preston Manning, who set up the Canadian Reform Party in the late 1980s. Reform and the Progressive Conservatives fought each other in the 1990s, until they agreed a merger in 2003, leading to the Canadian Conservative Party.
The Red Tories such as Scott Brison joined the Canadian Liberal Party. If there is a Reform-Conservatives merger, will Ruth Davidson and Andy Street, who have created Prosper UK, join the Lib Dems? Ed Davey said they are welcome.
Adam Robertson, Lowestoft, Suffolk
Elephants in the robing room
Andrew Marr (At Large, 27 February) questions whether Starmer shares with Streeting and Rayner the elephantine traits of heedlessness of criticism and lack of direction. In one sense at least, short-sightedness, the PM is pure pachyderm.
Tom Stubbs, Surbiton, Surrey
Withering slights
I was dismayed by Faye Curran’s article (Out of the Ordinary, 20 February), which seemed to paint anyone who does not agree with her critiques of Emerald Fennell’s films as too dumb to understand that they have been tricked by cheap shock tactics.
In relation to Promising Young Woman, where is the “nuance” in sexual assault? The point is that men often do end up “swinging their penises around” even when caught, because they think they have done nothing wrong. Isn’t Fennell demonstrating the hopelessness of the project – that even “nice” men, when given the opportunity, will sexually assault women if they think they can get away with it? For the record, I did not particularly enjoy Wuthering Heights, but for none of the reasons that Curran sets out. However, I do not condemn anyone who did.
Helen Fowweather, Malvern
Not Quite, Prime Minister
Following Mark Richardson’s letter in the latest issue suggesting the New Statesman adopts its own version of Private Eye’s “Pedantry Corner”, I feel moved to point out, in reference to Ailbhe Rea’s article on the civil service (Politics, 20 February), that Sir Humphrey was not the cabinet secretary in Yes, Minister. He attained that rank in Yes, Prime Minister. He was permanent secretary at the Department of Administrative Affairs in Yes, Minister. I would get out more but I’m awaiting the publication of some urgent reports by Sue Gray, etc, etc.
Tom Cole, Peterborough
By George, he’s gone
I’ve been writing letters in response to George Eaton’s New Statesman articles since 2016, including tussles with him about his disparagement of Corbyn (Notebook, 27 February). Although I frequently disagreed with you, George, I for one will miss you. Best wishes for whatever you do next.
David Murray, Wallington, Surrey
Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk
We reserve the right to edit letters
[Further reading: Was the Chancellor’s Spring Statement dead on arrival?]
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 04 Mar 2026 issue of the New Statesman, Trump's global terror
Join the debate
Subscribe here to comment