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

No it's not a cult to admit that trans people exist. Wow.

Totally not a cult right?

Quite.

I live in the NE where socioeconomic conditions are lower than most of the rest of the country and rates of lots of lifestyle diseases are very high.

When they were relating Covid death rates it was always highest up here.

Taxi driver was ranting about the ‘myth of white privilege’ the other day and quite frankly, after 25 years of teaching the bottom 1% of the bottom 1% socioeconomically and SEND speaking, I agree with him.

(His solution was more and better football in school. Bring back the bagnell cup or something.)

Trans people exist. Say it to yourself in the mirror. Trans people exist. Trans people exist. Trans people exist. Keep repeating it until it gets through. Trans people exist. Nothing I say or think can exonerate their existence. Trans people exist. Trans people exist. Over and over until it sinks in. They aren't imaginary. They exist and are real. Trans people exist.

Yes, people exist...but nobody is the opposite sex to that which they are. They can refer to themselves as 'trans' if they wish, but nobody else is compelled to use that term, nor use made-up 'pronouns', nor share in this private belief about themselves.

You dont have to agree with their self definition. But they are real people who exist the same as you and me. They dont not exist 🤣

Trans people exist. Your agreement with them is totally moot. It doesnt matter how you group or define them, a bunch of people exist who feel they were "assigned the wrong sex at birth" etc. They exist. Stop being silly.

Yes, but nobody is compelled to accept their self definition, especially when it flies in the face of reality. Self definition is a private matter.

What there are is people who, for whatever reason, have adopted a contemporary, post-modernistic identity. Nobody is the opposite sex to that which they are. We are all either male or female.

People can present as they wish, but it doesn't make them into a unique or specific category of human being. People have experimented with self expression for millenia - before the trans concept was invented in recent decades.'Trans' is nothing but a framing device; a catalogue of terms for describing feelings and imagination.

Exactly.

The UK has not voted to become a communist country.

They have the authority to run a tax system and use the funds to address inequality already. So why not do that first?

The elephant in the room though is that by focussing support on the most deprived - often young single parents, the unemployed, immigrants without the skill sets needed to get a decent job etc we have nothing left to support the class of people who work and pay taxes. This often means that they are unable to pay for child care and therefore decide to have fewer children.
Not sure where that will leave society going forward.
Waits for the accusations of being a eugenicist.

On ‘Everythingism’: the bar for including something as a blanket obligation fo all public bodies to consider can’t surely be as low as “it exists and the govt can do something about it.”

On support for universal provision: if people feel they are paying taxes to support things but are then systematically deprioritised when they need it, I think that will tend to reduce support. I think the argument can be well made for some types of provision (eg benefits). But make it a general principle applied across the courts, school system, NHS, all public bodies, and I think it will be corrosive.

3. Inequality: OK. Well, why not reduce income inequality by restricting immigration only to those earning within a narrow band of mean income? No more high-earning bankers and no more low-paid social care workers. Over the course of a few years this could make a meaningful difference to inequality. But would that be a good thing? I realise some traditions would say ‘yes’ (mostly one-nation tories and some strands of leftist). But I think that most politicians and most people, when they say they want less ‘inequality’ actually mean they want things to be of a good and rising standard for all. In which case, ‘inequality’ is the wrong word for it.

Hang on.

What has the NHS been up to for the last few decades? The UK had full access to good health care so what went wrong?

Whatever happened there needs to be looked at and rolled back before doing exactly the same thing to every other service, no?

As I said in my post, it doesn't undermine universality- in fact it might do the opposite. I made exactly that point re free school meals in my post.

The point about "everythingism" doesn't make sense to me here- socioeconomic disadvantage is a known and measurable problem, and evidence-based solutions exist.

As for inequality being the wrong target- well, that's an opinion. But if you mean authorities could start withdrawing services from what you call "the top"- they still have to comply with what the law requires, and this wouldn't change that.

I think there's a great deal of sense in maximising opportunities for all. We waste so much potential by failing to give the most deprived sectors of society full access to good education, health care and support.

The problem with 'equality' is that if everyone gets the same outcome no matter what effort is put in, then those who could actually improve just stop trying. And the then ends up with nobody trying as there literally is no point.

Then it just a race to 'I'm the most at the bottom' which we've already seen in this thread. I mean if you have access to the internet and something to type on, you are not at the bottom but never mind that detail.

That is separate point. It doesn't sound like you are a toff worrying about a socialist uprising.

Sounds pretty sensible to me, and I speak as a middle class person. I very much doubt this means we will all be terribly disadvantaged. And as for those kibbitzing about trans rights, seeing as thus far this government has been unremittingly hostile towards trans people, I rather doubt they are trying to change anything in a way you'd disapprove of.

As long as their head of household supports them financially so they aren't a burden on the state. As would happen in most other countries.

@Iheartlibrarians

Helping people flourish despite socioeconomic disadvantage is a very good thing and will often justify significant state intervention.

But I still don’t like this move, for a few reasons:

1. ‘Inequality’ is the wrong target. It can be advanced by suppressing the top rather than supporting the bottom. If that’s not what the govt means then why frame the duty in those terms?

2. ‘Everythingism’ often leads to achieving nothing well. Which agencies do we want solving which problems? How to do that best? Do that.

3. Eroding the principle of universal provision. We already (rightly) have lots of interventions that target certain groups and are distributed unequally. But a lot of our state runs on the principle of equality before the state. This erodes that, and risks undermining support for such services at all.

Bangladeshi and Pakistani women who don't work are probably the most economically deprived group in the UK. I doubt the toffs are that scared or resentful of them.

I agree with a pp that it’s a way to sneak in rationing of public services.

Need a hip replacement? You have a job? Back of the queue then. Consequently person pays themselves. Hope for a school place nearby? You own your home? Nope, your kids can travel miles away. Consequently some feel forced to go private.

And, of course, taxes on private health and schools will rise so Govt can double dip - bingo!