The Guardian laments the stillbirth of the clause in the Equality Act 2010 that required public sector bodies to consider the impact of every policy on inequality. The Act itself was passed as one of the last flourishes of the previous government, but this clause was not due to come in until April 2011. Now Teresa May says it never will.
In practice the “public sector equality duty” would have meant that local authorities would have had to carry out an “Equality Impact Assessment” on, well, everything. Here is a link to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s own guidance on carrying out an Equality Impact Assessment.
The Guardian says that the clause was “a moderate and sensible effort to provide exactly the ‘framework for equality’ she [Teresa May] claims she wants” and May was mean to kill it. I quote from the editorial linked to above: “All the clause required was that every new policy had to be considered through the filter of its impact on poverty. ”
All? That “all” is no small thing. Funnily enough it was the left that alerted me to the sinister effects of having to consider things through a filter chosen by the elite. “Hegemonic discourse” is their preferred term for it.
Now the Guardian says the clause was nothing more than a light steer given to councils that they would be free to interpret how they wished, and talks as if the description “socialism in one clause” was just Teresa May’s snark and scaremongering. Back in January 2009, though, Polly Toynbee wrote an enthusiastic article about its potentially “mind-bogglingly immense” impact and quoted a Labour Cabinet minister who described the public sector equality duty “with relish” as… guess what?
Rather let the cat out of the bag, there.
Great Post! I really like your blog!!
Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
The Equality Act is appallingly worded and deliberately vague so as to tie the courts up for years with ridiculous test cases (as with the ‘discrimination’ against women and low income workers from the budget cuts). As the chair of the Institute of Equality and Diversity Practitioners wrote in a Guardian letter yesterday: “the fact that most people cannot define class does not alter the effect of class discrimination.” Maybe not, but how is a court to decide if there’s been discrimination when they can’t even decide what class the ‘victim’ is.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/nov/19/fairness-equality-white-working-class
It is quite sobering to read the blatant moves by the statists in the birthplace of Western classical liberalism to gain ever more control. We have our own such creatures strangling our Republic but they at least attempt to clothe their moves under other guises. Poor England though has her statists attacking by leaps and bounds.
Still seeing such reversals can give the less cynical some cause for hope…
“Socialism may now require two Clauses…”
Expanding are they? I suppose it’d be easy enough to work out a time-share agreement on the reindeer and sleigh.
As Mr Worstall correctly pointed out, this is a naked attempt by Labour to bind its successor into implementing its own preferred policies.
Time to send in the libertarian “lawfare” shock troops. Use the law to tie up the authoritarians.
Given that socialist economic policies are the greatest cause of poverty worldwide, would not a requirement that proposed legislation be assessed for its impact on poverty essentially shut down the mischief of the legislature?
I’m not seeing the down side here.
Oh wait, you have to consider it, not let the impact actually influence you.
Everybody will be equally impoverished.
Except for Napoleon and Snowball, of course.
“this is a naked attempt by Labour to bind its successor into implementing its own preferred policies”
Rank amateurs, then. Here in Ecuador, the socialists did it the proper way, by writing a new Constitution with built-in safeguards against any possible modification. At the time the Constitution was being put to referendum, one of its authors frankly and gleefully acknowledged, in a newspaper interview, that the Constitution “made it practically impossible for any party of any other tendency than ours to govern within the law”.
Christopher Snowdon, above, refers to something called the “Institute of Equality and Diversity Practitioners”.
The good Christopher has no regard for my blood pressure.
The problem Theresa May has is that she is doing away with the legislation but still squeaks the political nonsense and bilge about ‘fairness’ and ‘equality’.
Either have the balls to say ‘Government is distracted from serving the public by all this nonsense so it is going’ or implement it. Instead she is appearing to not implement it but speaks as if she agrees with the original intent.
This *will* come back with a coagulation brand stamped on it.
But she’s not doing away with the legislation. She is just declining to bring it into effect.
The Government Equalities Office still exists. She is still Minister for Women and Equalities (now a function of the ancient office of Lord Privy Seal, which has been hidden under that title)m as well as holding the great office of state of Home Secretary. Under her, Lynne Featherstone is Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Equalities). Lynne is in many ways likeable and sensible, but really does believe in the crusade against discrimination.
“Hegemonic discourse.” Christ. IU weep for my language. What’s wrong with “making the weather”?
How does this dovetail with the upcoming Olympics? Will awards be given for trying?