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

[IwantToRetire]

Sir Keir Starmer’s government is drawing up new statutory guidance that critics say amounts to a “war on the middle class”.

Under the plans, public sector bodies will have a new “socio-economic duty” imposed on them, meaning that all decisions they make must strive to reduce inequality in society.

The policy would lead to benefits claimants and deprived families being prioritised for taxpayer-funded services, with the middle classes pushed to the back of the queue, according to the Conservatives.

The socio-economic duty has been dubbed “Harman’s law” after Baroness Harman, the former Labour deputy leader who originally brought it in as part of the Equality Act in 2010.

It included a clause that required public bodies to “have due regard to the desirability of exercising [their functions] in a way that is designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage”.

The Tories kept the Act when they won the election later that year, but scrapped the socio-economic element, with Theresa May, then home secretary, describing it as “ridiculous”.

Full article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/03/29/labour-equality-law-revamp-inflict-socialism-britain/

And at https://archive.is/397ko

@MyThreeWordshas it. The socio-economic duty is present in the Equality Act 2010 as section 1:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/1

As I understand things, the government intends to write the guidance referred to in that section to give it force. As the guidance appears to be a devolved matter that would be in England with Scotland and Wales having their devolved powers to write their own guidance.

I don’t know the stats but would be interested to understand how many people on UC and also in work are working part time not full time.

That is as much of an issue as low wages are. People choosing part time and only as few hours as they can to still access benefits. I’m not saying it’s deliberate for malicious reasons, may well be for childcare reasons or that they are less well off working full time without benefits- what we all know as the benefits trap. That’s a huge issue for the UK as it limits productivity.

What happens when those at the bottom become a larger group than those at the top? We have more net recipients than we have contributors in the UK.

How can they restrict police services to poorer people? How can we go private for that? What are we paying our vast taxes for? If middle classes aren't even able to be protected now and their safety is secondary, what's the point of this government if it doesn't govern for the whole country?

I think Labour have gone nuts.

Yep McSweeney has gone and Starmer is now at the bidding of the left in the party,

Local elections will be another test, they could go in the other direction.

Activating the socio-economic duty in the Equality Act was a Labour manifesto commitment, I think, and absolutely nothing to do with sex/gender. Wales and Scotland have activated it already.

Improving outcomes for people from disadvantaged backgrounds is not a bad thing and the Telegraph article is ludicrously overblown. In practice though I suspect that doing this will just lead to more bureaucratic hoops and no differences to people's lives.

There's an EHRC research article about it here: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/ehrc-publishes-new-research-socio-economic-duty-implementation-ahead-introduction

Reducing inequality? Disgusting!

There is no such thing as equality so in that way, as there is also no such thing as 'trans' you may be onto something there.

When politicans try to orchestrate 'equality' they often mean 'for you not for them'.

And when the shit hits the fan as it will do, the rich will fuck off, they are never likely to give up their wedge for the poorest, not gonna happen.

So there is even less to go round.

The system in moden countries that is supposed to tax the rich and provide for the poor - doesn't work.
The NHS which is supposed to give a baseline care to everyone - completely broken.
Housing - well is there even a word for that shitshow?
The money available from Council Tax - where does that go? Policing tweets? Brilliant.
Councils going into administration - what magic equality wand is going to fix those?

If the Labour government are going to put more onus on already busted flushes the result is likely to not be equality that's for sure.

This is a back slapping 'aren't we such great socialists' that is never going to resolve real issues.

I believe it also benefits some employers because they do not have to pay employer NICS if staff work less than a specific number of hours.

Lol we've always been a larger group. They just take some of our very little money to fund everything anyway so there are even more people at the bottom. Yes, it's bloody crowded down here. And you still take from the system when you're at the top. It isn't as if you JUST contribute and you often get more out of the system than anyone else, too.

Have Labour’s policies been working as planned so far? Growth hit zero in January and unemployment particularly youth unemployment is up.

They keep squashing aspiration and getting worse results.

Its so silly when people say there are no such things as transpeople. Of course there are.

Realistically most people vote for a government that benefits themselves and their families in some way or at least doesn't shaft them too much. Labour may be attempting (however misguided their attempts) to benefit the poor to get their vote (although looking at recent polling, the poor don't vote Labour any more, rather Reform).

But what's in it for the middle class if their businesses are being taxed to the point that its not worth running one, there's no jobs for their kids, private education is being wrecked, farming is attacked. There's obviously arguments for and against doing those things but human nature would suggest that there's no stake in Labour's society for these people. And they are the ones paying the tax. So the social contract is breaking down.

Depends what you mean by "trans". There are people who are in the process of trying to change sex obviously. But none has yet succeeded.

There’s men who don’t fit stereotypes and women too, that could just be accepted instead.

Maybe people have to stop expecting to continually gain, and expect to just live consistently. So maybe you don't own a business (because you can't afford the tax etc necessary to run an ethical one), so you earn relatively high wages as an employee for your entire working life and you are content with that.

Well its not ideal is it. Do you know how much interest we pay on debt incurred to support those that can't support themselves as they don't have work. And Labour have killed the golden goose by wrecking the jobs market.

Sure. But there are people who exist with a particular view on their sex/gender and the label for such people is trans(gender). They exist. Whatever you think about them, they exist as a group. Arguing otherwise is just weird.

Why have we as a society raised people who can't support themselves? Sounds like Our Bad.

Who do you think pays the wage of an "employee". We do actually need business owners! We can't all work for the state.

And most of the private sector (which pays for the public sector) is made up of SMEs. That's small business owners. Who pay those "relatively high wages as an employee for your entire working life"

"SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) make up 99.9% of the UK private sector business population, totalling roughly 5.5 to 5.7 million businesses. These enterprises employ approximately 60% of the private sector workforce (16.6-16.9 million people) and generate over 50% of all private sector turnover"

Well that's the question isnt it.

I'd firstly look to Labour's tax policies on employers NI. That's the main reason for the large spike in youth unemployment.

Most people who are complaining don't have a sustainable business if they have to pay an ethical amount of tax or offer basic employee rights.

Who is employing the employees if you’ve / Labour have hammered the businesses?

"Ethical" for whom? The person doing the actual work? Basic economic sense would suggest that its good to incentivise rather than penalise the people who earn the money keeping this country afloat? And who pay all these benefits and public sector wages?