Labour draws up equality law revamp that will inflict ‘socialism’ on Britain

As far as I can tell the problem with this is not that there will be a lower gap between poorer and middle classes it will be that certain groups of people will be elevated over everyone else and have much nicer, much better, much easier lives. It will be transparently and incredibly unfair.

They'll just be put to the front of the queue because they tick a certain box or boxes - trans being a good example of this in recent years where middle aged blokes have had facial hair treatment paid for whereas naturally hairy woman have not even though arguably the impact on those women's lives is much greater (women are expected to be hair free, TIMs are not).

Another example is that the men who've come into the country illegally and sexually assaulted children have had their defence paid for and often then given a cash gift to leave whilst the children affected got zero support or counselling on the NHS, this dynamic has also happened with the grooming gangs - if you listen to Maggie Oliver on this it's absolutely outrageous what's happened and the lack of support given to these girls who were raped and tortured.

Fairness is already out of the window for many and people will become more and more angry

I don't have any confidence that the current government could organise a piss up in a brewery so the idea they'd be able to pull this off - even assuming good intent - is clearly batshit.

From what I’ve read so far, I might not have any issue with this. However I have so little respect left for the Labour Party that I no longer trust them not try to use this as a cover to sneak in other changes, such as the definition of sex in the Equality Act.

I hold them entirely responsible for my loss of trust and respect.

If my library is less resourced than one in a deprived area, then that’s fine by me. NHS dentists in poorer areas - all good. (In fact rather than scrapping the two-child benefit cap money should have been pumped into early health intervention.)

What is not fine is making things “personal” - that way madness lies or at least further making work pretty pointless for many.

I would broadly support this move and I think the argument that it will mean I couldn't, for e.g., get a hip replacement if I needed one is completely overblown and likely untrue.

It may mean that for e.g. when a review of branch library provision is undertaken, that on socioeconomic grounds a branch in a poorer area scores more 'points' than a branch in a wealthier area. The reality is this is often already the case, and it won't be the only metric taken into account anyway.

It will be quite funny watching people whose normal comeback to anything related to equality is 'what about white working class boys?', now get upset about anything that benefits white working class boys.

I live in an area with a very large Muslim population. I believe my Muslim neighbours exist. I believe they shouldn't be subject to discrimination because of their religion.

I don't believe that Muhammad flew up to heaven on a winged horse.

My Muslim friends and neighbours don't believe I should be cancelled because I don't believe in their story about the winged horse.

This works for me. Perhaps there is a lesson there for the trans community.

In that sense, of course they exist.

There’s some motte-and-bailey going on here though (by many trans advocates, if not by you).

Many trans activists see disagreeing with the metaphysical or political beliefs associated with trans ideology as “denying trans people’s existence”. A Canadian tribunal has recently endorsed this view.

So, it’s entirely reasonable to say: if you say that unless I agree with X, Y, Z I am denying trans people’s existence, then, sure, if that’s the standard, I deny their existence.

A parallel: do Indigo Children exist? You know, the ones with additional psychic powers.

It’s an area of high deprivation.

It's not socialism, though, if by socialism you mean empowerment of the working class or levelling privileges. It's really the managerial class accruing more power by means of being the class that distributes the spoils.

It's like one of those Schrodinger's cat thought experiments.

Emily Thornberry thinks that immigration gives a turbo boost to the economy, and open borders are a categorical good with no overheads.

Emily Thornberry also thinks that migrants are so impoverished that they need to be given ILR so they can claim benefits, and it's a bit racist to ask whether this is affordable.

(Important context: the UK government considers relative poverty to be living in a household with less than 60% median income, so many Boriswave migrants - disproportionately low wage and low skill - count as impoverished as soon as they enter the country.)

I swear, if James Buchanan had never existed, we could invent public choice economics from first principles just by observing how Labour politicians operate. If the purpose of a system is what the system does, the purpose of British Social Democracy is to generate enough revenue to allow Labour politicians to buy off client groups.

See also, Bridget Phillipson sitting on the EHRC guidance, which is apparently too complicated to lay before Parliament despite the SC judgment being a model of legal clarity.

Apparently Labour's internal polling is showing that the party stands a good chance of losing every single council seat that it holds in Sunderland, most of them to Reform. Perhaps that might concentrate the mind of Sunderland MP Bridget Phillipson.

So is a falling birth rate a good thing or a bad thing? Because you seem a little confused on that point.
Or is the problem that the "wrong sort" of women are having children?

this is satire, right?

Mentally ill people who are convinced they are the opposite sex exist.

The poorest are working for poverty wages often in grim working conditions. Looking after our old, working in insecure jobs etc. , ensuring the wealthy can make bigger profits.That's how the poorest subsidise the rest of us and in particular the billionaires who avoid tax by offshoring their wealth.
Remember the richest 50 families in the UK own more than the poorest 50 per cent of the population. 34 million people.

Right here, in a nutshell, is why so many ambitious, highly qualified, skilled and well-paid people are leaving this country - because they are constantly clobbered by this wretched government and punished for having made a success of their lives.

When you continually reward the net takers while picking the pockets of net contributors you perpetuate a system where it pays to sit at home and not contribute.

DEFINITELY NOT A CULT 😂

exonerate

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Reminds me of this

Your mantras are about a decade too late.

Ahem not the best example

You are out of your depth here.

Be careful everyone, if you do this in front of a mirror then India Willyboy will appear and make himself at home in your car 😁

Are you for real?

Nobody here will chant mantras in a display of moronic group think, even if you are happy to. Have you ever read '1984'?

If it doesn't matter how we define them why are we told that misgendering is literal violence?