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

We all do. Relative to the amount we earn

I don't have a problem with this. This was part of the original equality act and just never enacted

I go to lots of chin stroking meetings with middle class university educated professionals on how we can for example get people from deprived areas to engage with preventive health services. Of course generally they haven't a clue because they've never lived in those areas or come from families that lived in those areas. I did so can tell them that they need to think beyond just making them free eg are the clinics or classes close to public transport that runs regularly, do the venues feel welcoming. What they really need to do of course is spend time listening to people from those areas and really understand the barriers but that's all very time consuming and annoying. I mean sometimes ppl from deprived areas don't even understand the phrase lived experience or patient engagement! Imagine!!

so if this makes public services more adapted to people from low socioeconomic economic background, that's fine by me. I mean anything that makes services easier to use for all ppl is a good thing

It isnt silly to point out no person has ever transitioned from one sex to the other. You are just trying to accuse women who want rights as hating the poor. As if poor people are too thick to understand there are two sexes.

But this is about economics not the ridiculous notion that people can change sex.

Ive given the statistics of who actually mainly earns the money though. In real life. It's SMEs.

Look. If you support a system that means that it's easier for people to be "employees" rather than run businesses (even sole traders) but at the same time disincentivise employers to employ people then soon enough you are going to run out of employers. And then we have even more unemployment. Which means more benefits need to be paid.

This is absolutely what is happening. Educated/middle class women not having children or deferring so the birth rate overall is falling. Except I can see that there are lots of families having children - they are the ones on benefits in social housing. Several of our neighbours are in this situation. They have 6 kids and 3 cars. They’re very good neighbours i should say - but it would be a weird thought that we contribute more to supplement their lifestyle and then would also be behind them in any queue for public services…

I wonder where the threshold will be for deciding on who this applies to because not having to pay a full rent or mortgage and having supplemental benefits on top of income doesn’t immediately equate to a poor lifestyle.

And then I’d say - what public services? Nothing seems to be working anymore. It’s like false advertising. We have institutions like the HSE but if you ever try to report something they say it’s not their jurisdiction. So a lot of things are in name only. Why not just shut all these pointless places down if they don’t do anything. That would save a few quid for the essentials?

If Phillipson got the finger out and sorted the guidance issue, I'd feel a lot more relaxed and positive about this.

I suppose we all look to our own corner and want to either be confident that a government will look after us if needed, or will not tax the hell out of us if we are in the middle somewhere.

Well, this thread has gone off the deep end a bit (which, to be fair, so did the article).

It's a duty to consider how to address socio-economic inequality- that's all. It's already part of the Equality Act as others have said, and just never brought into force. That's what would usually happen with a law that Parliament has passed, and the only reason it wasn't is because the 2010 election happened and the next Government decided not to. No socialist conspiracy here.

On the substance: it's replicating what already exists with Public Sector Equality Duty for the 9 protected characteristics (race, sex, age, disability etc)- to consider the impact on them.

It doesn't mean not providing public services to others- in fact it might mean the opposite.

An example: some local authorities choose to provide free school meals to all children of primary school age- including the ones from better-off families, precisely because it's better if the poor kids don't stand out. It's a popular policy in areas with very mixed demographics. They're not obliged to do this, and still wouldn't be if the duty were brought in- it can't force them to do anything. But they'd be more likely to consider it, which I can't understand anyone thinking is a bad thing.

Here's the key line from the Act:

"An authority to which this section applies must, when making decisions of a strategic nature about how to exercise its functions, have due regard to the desirability of exercising them in a way that is designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage."

Is that really objectionable?

"An authority to which this section applies must, when making decisions of a strategic nature about how to exercise its functions, have due regard to the desirability of exercising them in a way that is designed to reduce the inequalities of outcome which result from socio-economic disadvantage."

It isn't that it is 'objectionable' it is that it is impossible.

And pointing this out is not a thread 'going off the deep end'.

You don’t get more out of the system if you are a net contributor. That’s the opposite of what the term means. Unless you’re referring to other advantages.

Another reason to reform NI!

Thats not a benefit to employers. Its a perverse incentive by Rachel Reeves to encourage employers to give less work to employees. The work still needs to be done. So both the employer and employee are penalised by this tax. The only beneficiary is HMRC with this tax. Certainly not employers.

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!

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.

@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.

I would dearly love to be wrong about this, but I would suspect this is only the first leak, the govt loves for some odd reason to leak little bits and get everybody as confused and worried as possible, and it's the squirrel. This will turn out to be the re write of the Equality Act and will be how they get around the guidance and women's sex based rights. And homosexuality, as that was also protected only by the SCJ's interpretation. And I'll expect some tweaks to remove rights around disability so that the SEND bill can't be stopped via legal means. Phillipson refusing to release the guidance now makes sense.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?