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

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?

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.

It’s an area of high deprivation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is not true.

The money now being spent on armaments thanks to Trump dragging us into what could be a never ending area of conflict means that money has been taken from other budgets.

I said in an earlier post that one of the problems the UK has is that it is NOT a thriving economy. There are lots of reasons for this and have built over the decades. We dont grow as much as say Germany and France. We work longer hours but are less productive and have huge debts because of borrowing in the past.

So far prior to Trump madness, to be the budget to balance the UK now contributes less to global schemes that for instance benift women such as medical support for women living with HIV.

And, over the past 20 years (or maybe more) central Government has contributed what amounts to a 40% cut to local councils.

Idiots like Reform shouting nonsense about how they will make cuts probably have never read a financial report in their life.

I am old enought to remember when through a local council you got Adult Education (evening classes) for free. For many whose education experience had not been positive this was a wonderful gateway to not be trapped. Just as there used to be youth clubs etc.. There used to be 1 o'clock clubs (many of which became the first local Women's Liberation groups!) Cottage hospitals where those recuperating could be moved to to free up bed space in hospitals. And ...

And whilst I dont excuse politicians talking through their backsides, we are also to blame by thinking that somehow we (yes us) create enough money that the Government must have enough to do more.

They dont.

We dont want to be told we cant have everything.

And the media bullies politicians into talking total piffle and so decade after decade we have become a poorer country but somehow thinks it can live as though it is a rich country.

And as I said up thread, I think Labour is virtue signalling equality, but is actually hoping to introduce rationing of services.

And lets assume it was, in what way could a Government improve opportunities for those who have less, if they were the focus?

UK forecast to see biggest hit to growth from Iran war out of major economies
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgk0j71g417o

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.

And alongside all this is the total failure to deal with corruption and the zero accountability managerial class.

There are people who are CONVICTED of fraud on a massive scale in public institutions who still get their pension. The taxpayers will never see that money returned.

Things aren't just shit because of cuts, they're shit because of corruption, which no-one is EVER held accountable for. Look at the Post Office Scandal, those sub postmasters were honest and had money stolen from them - many still have not had the full amount returned and some never will because they're now dead (sometimes because of the way they were treated).

I really think we're seeing a societal breakdown because of this.

As Knotty says 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?

People are noticing this. Because there's no accountability and public institutions costing millions don't do their jobs and are never held to account, it's not surprising a lot of people (more and more) just want them scrapped and the money saved and put elsewhere.

Another good example is the case on this board of a school failing to safeguard girls by providing their legally mandated single sex spaces. No-one responds properly to safeguarding concerns, it's shifted around and nothing is done, costing goodness only knows how much in staff time, there's no consequence to this deliberate incompetence and refusal to answer basic questions. There's no consequence to people not doing their jobs! What is the point of the plethora of institutions involved if they can't do something as basic as fix the issue of a young girl being forced to strip in front of a male - which is against the fucking law?!!

And none of the bodies contacted have done a single tiny thing other than produce word salad. The father has had to resort to legal action.

And you would think with all these unaccountable and apparently pretty chocolate teapot bodies, if things needed to be rationed, they would be where to put the axe. What was it that Isla Bumba was being paid per annum?

I can't help but link this to the news story over the weekend about GPs being told to remove 1 in 4 patient referrals to hospitals to control waiting lists. Rationing of services and the first step towards introducing some kind of health insurance system. The axing of SEND services and replacing with a limited, much reduced service and removal of the right to seek tribunal or accountability of the local authority.

As the rationing of services is coming at a time when food and fuel bills are going to rocket and we're likely to end up with rationing and impact on people working, this should really nicely create three sets of people: the ones the govt support and are prioritised and fine; the ones wealthy enough to pay for services; and everybody else stuck in the middle.

This is an absolutely great idea for social cohesion, calm and integration at a difficult time, isn't it?

So, what is everyone's guess for what proportion the 'everyone else stuck in the middle' is going to be? I suspect on numbers alone that group of people could start a revolution if they get sufficiently pissed off.....

That revolution might be Reform. What the current political establishment and many people seem to fail to recognise is that when public institutions make your life measurably worse and don't do what they're supposed to do for you and your family (and it is clear they will NEVER do their job for you) then maybe you're willing to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' so no one gets those benefits.

One thing you learn from focus groups is that even the voters who are angriest about the state of the country often don't realise the scale of what they have to be angry about.

Take Commonwealth voting, which Reform have started to kick up a stink about. Most normie Brits simply don't believe that foreign citizens who do not also have UK citizenship have the right to vote here. It sounds absurd. Or maybe they think it's restricted to long term residents.

They don't know that someone who came here last week from Cameroon on a student visa can register to vote, and Labour is introducing legislation to automatically register him as a voter.

You can argue for or against that, but what we're getting from Labour and Lib Dem MPs is not even an argument for that, it's an argument that Ofcom should stop people talking about it on X.

This is not sustainable.

I can't help but link this to the news story over the weekend about GPs being told to remove 1 in 4 patient referrals to hospitals to control waiting lists.

I agree, its very concerning.

The thing about this story is that it isn't about GP referring patients inappropriately, its about too many people needing hospital treatment.

So if GPs are pressured to reduce the number of referrals while given a priority list of patients, it is very likely that lots of people will never get referred to fully state funded care. Maybe getting financial help to use the private sector?

Maybe getting financial help to use the private sector?

Well that approach didn't work with housing once Thatcher's theft of another of our assets has led to property owners making more and more money out of providing sub standard housing, or over crowded housing.

And have just read an article about how the shortage of NHS dentists has lead to many patients being pressurised into unnecessary dental work, which often needs follow up work as a cost that most people cant afford.

I am not saying that state run is always good, but if a business is running health care they are going to want to make money out of it.

This approach is the same as allowing employers to employ people at below poverty wages, and in this instance that state has to make up the shortfall.

It isn't clear why other european countries like France can run a health service which most people say works really well.

And in Denmark where there are really high taxes they have one of the best health services. And people pay that higher level because they are aware enough to know that services cost money.

The UK is a basket case. Not just politicians fiddling around with changes that will make no real difference, but everyone moaning about contributions.

Our problem is that we are aspirational Americans, life style, politics, tax elves, etc., but expect European level of health and social care.

why not though? 😂 someone was saying they were deprived for living in a council house (rent was 600 as opposed to market value which is 1400) life long tenancy too.
Socially housed are living life on easy mode if anything

I don't know it's just 'moaning' about contributions - between the state supported and the wealthy enough to be able to maintain their normal standard of living whatever happens, there's many people who are already stretched to the max with increasing taxes in all directions, cost of living, fuel, heating, food, they have nothing more they could give.

Hard agree. I think this government has taken the idea that we just need higher taxes and more spending, and tested it to destruction.

There are bigger issues around state capacity. Not just the NHS, it's that nothing works any more.

Local councils, driven to bankruptcy by statutory duties, are just stopping doing all the useful discretionary stuff they used to do, and even if they weren't short of money there's still a capacity issue.

That involves entire inspection regimes around things like environmental health. Try finding an EH inspector who's younger than 50. It's not just that the numbers are too low, it's that nobody has entered the profession for years and we're about a decade away at best from the entire EH system collapsing.

You could say similar things about other inspection systems like rogue landlords, or hygiene standards in slaughterhouses (this one being kept afloat by newly qualified vets from Ghana), or the failures behind that vape shop fire in Glasgow.

I don't have an easy solution - I think all these are long term issues, many of them downstream from bad policy decisions 15 or 20 years ago, which will take ages to fix. But we can notice that nothing works.

Focusing support on the most deprived is a marathon not a sprint, with the results seen in the next generation. If we target support to lift children out of poverty, which is a shocking 31% of UK children, and as a result those children have better outcomes and prospects, our future society will be better overall.
You think its important that middle class people have children, because you think the children of the middle classes are the superior citizens of the future. However if deprived children had the opportunities of the more privileged, they could make the same level of contribution.

I did not mention the “middle class”. I talked about the class of people who work and pay taxes.

You did. It doesn't make any difference to the point I was making though.

Global events have increased the urgency to invest in our economy’s foundations - Women's Budget Group

“We are already seeing increased oil and gas prices, likely to drive up inflation and therefore the costs for everyday goods for us all. Now is the time for the Chancellor to lay the groundwork for reforming the Government’s fiscal framework to strengthen our social infrastructure and economy in the long term and shore up our resilience to such external shocks. Otherwise, we risk reversing back to debates about the size of a short term ‘fiscal gap’ while the foundations of our economy continue to buckle and women pay the price.

“Underinvestment in public services is not gender-neutral: it is women who disproportionately bear the costs through lost earnings, poorer health, and weakened long-term economic security. Women’s unpaid labour is compensating for the government’s failure to significantly invest in social infrastructure,

“Only today we have seen food inflation increasing again. NHS waiting lists, still at 7.29 million in England, continue to keep people out of work, and our broken social care system strips people of their independence. Recent IPPR research shows a decline in healthy life expectancy. Expensive childcare continues to stretch many families’ budgets too far and pushes women out of the labour market or into debt. With an aging population, the cost of inaction will only grow. The care crisis must be treated with the same urgency as any other economic crisis.

“The Chancellor’s confidence in the impact of higher GDP per person is not reflected in the national wellbeing measures published last week. According to the ONS headline measures, where average life satisfaction used to track GDP per person, it diverged during the pandemic and has not returned in line with national growth figures since. Standards of living go far beyond GDP and include the wellbeing and conditions of our families, communities and local services.

“There is now a clear opportunity to act. The Government cannot continue to argue that growth must come first while at the same time emphasizing that investment in physical infrastructure drives growth. The truth is: investment in health, education, and care is essential to a productive, resilient, and sustainable economy. We are more vulnerable to the impact of global events and economic shocks precisely because we have not invested in our economy’s foundations.

“The real barriers to the level of investment needed are a fiscal framework that is not fit for purpose and an out-of-date tax system. By allowing borrowing only for capital spending, the Treasury systematically sidelines investment in people and services, treating social infrastructure as day-to-day spending rather than an investment that will deliver long-term economic returns. This traps policymaking in a narrow debate about fiscal headroom driven by the latest headlines instead of how to meet the country’s needs.

“The Chancellor should reform her fiscal rules to recognise the long-term returns of social infrastructure by introducing ‘investment spending’ in addition to capital and current spending, alongside creating a more fair and progressive tax system. This would enable sustainable investment in essential services, enhance employment, promote gender equality and generate a stronger social fabric in the face of global economic headwinds.

Full article https://www.wbg.org.uk/article/global-events-have-increased-the-urgency-to-invest-in-our-economys-foundations-says-wbg/