Inequality in Britain

[????]

Fisking.... surely?

[Huguenot]

I think you can tell the difference Quids :)

It's not a relentless repetition of the entire post with a point by point rebuttal that looks like html mess. If you're going to copy and paste the entire post then just say 'Referring to Quid's nonsense earlier,' etc....

Fisking has all the talent of holding up cue cards and going blah blah blah, before holding up the next cue card and going blah blah blah.

[Ladymuck]

Oh Quids!!! How I've missed your posts!

*hugs ????, then regains composure*

Ahem...will return later when I have less pressing things to do.

In the meantime, here is a minute summary of the brand new "Equality Act"...couldn't find the Act on-line.

Will it make any difference?

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry if you thought it was sneery DaveR, I wasn't

> trying to sneer (which is quite snotty schoolboy),

> I was trying to ridicule.

I have just seen this...you are one bad Huguenot.

DaveR, I think you would have been marginally better off with the sneer - should have kept quiet.

[Huguenot]

I'm just trying to be fair.

There were two ridiculous ideas - first that reducing taxation would improve tax take (based on a thought experiment) and secondly that charity would replace it (we're aware of workhouses yes?).

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

...(we're aware of workhouses yes?)

Yes...and?

[Huguenot]

Workhouses were at best charitable institutions run by patrony. Mainly enslavement.

If DaveR reckons 'charity' would replace 'tax', he underestimates the influence that private giving would have. Most likely rich guv'nors would dictate terms and enslave the poor as cheap labour.

In 1834 workhouses were unionised, hence my 1820 quip.

I'm sure you know this Ladymuck?

[brum]

Huguenot, by heaven, you are a very clever chap. Perhaps even a smart a*se. Which would be a shame, as nobody likes a smart a*se.

[Huguenot]

Well Brum, my advice is that if you don't have a clue then just throw cabbages and make farting noises. Gets the girls you know.

My point is clear, that Conservative strategies to shove welfare into charity is not only Georgian, but plagued with horror and intrinsic slavery.

If you have a better point I'd be pleased to hear it.

Still waiting.

[brum]

Steady on Huguenot, just kidding with you old chap. I have nothing else to contribute. *farts and throws another smelly cabbage* (by the way, such behaviour has never attracted any girls, strangely enough!)

[Huguenot]

No worries Brum.

There's a devil behind some of these right wing cost cutting concepts that needs exposure.

[Ladymuck]

Exposure is fine - ridiculing less so.

Anyway, will the new Equality Act 2010 make a blind bit of difference - or not?

Edited to provide actual Act in its entirety.

[DaveR]

PS the laffer curve is the theory, but the actual experience of almost every western econonomy (including the UK) in the 80s and 90s was that reducing tax rates did in fact increase revenues, as was the case for Ireland with corporation tax during the first half of this decade.

Who's ridiculous now?

[Ladymuck]

Welcome back DaveR - thought you might have been frightened off. Any thoughts on this new Act? I've started scanning through it, but at 251 pages long it's a slog.

[????]

I've noticed that all three of the major parties are themselves stressing fairness rather than equality....so I think they've all cottoned onto the fact it's a bit of a wooly concept that is perhaps best left in the common rooms of 1960s universities......

[Ladymuck]

Yes, I've noticed that too ????. Strange, given that they've been banging on about equality/inequality for the last year. To be honest, I don't really care what they call it - so long as they (the politicians/lawmakers) actually do something about it (the inequality/unfairness). It's good to see that (whatever they choose to call it) they are now acknowledging (on a regular basis) that something does need to be done. A step in the right direction I think. Let's see what happens.

[Ladymuck]

Well, having scanned through the new Equality Act 2010 (?the Act?), it would seem that the Labour Party does appear to be demonstrating a degree of political will to address many of the various inequalities which persist in the UK. The purpose of this brand new Statute is to help reduce the gap between rich and poor ? thus creating a more equal society overall. A huge chunk of the Act basically consists of a consolidation of existing anti-discrimination legislation ranging from the first Equal Pay Act 1970, right through to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and everything in between. Whilst this means that, as regards those Statutes, the law will remain unchanged, the fact that they are now all under one roof means that accessing them will be a great deal easier (cheaper lawyers' fees?).

So, what's new in this Act? Well, it's aims are clear: to tackle discrimination (though how workable some of the measures will be in practice remains to be seen. I predict quite a bit of protracted case law before the law is made certain - though I hope not). There is no doubt in my mind that some of the measures are as bold as some of President Obama's and, I suspect, it won't be long before some provoke debate and controversy. The Act contains a lot of stuff, but below are but a few of what, I consider, to be some of the most interesting measures for implementation.

Government departments, local and health authorities etc. will now have to consider how to deal with those who suffer socio-economic disadvantage.

In an attempt to reduce the pay difference between men and women, public bodies comprised of 150 or more staff will be required to publish any gender pay gap. Private and voluntary sector employers with at least 250 employees will be under a similar obligation (though this will be on a voluntary basis to begin with).

Pregnant women and new mothers will receive additional protection so that, (e.g.), mothers are able to breastfeed their children without (e.g) being requested to leave (e.g.) shops.

?

In an endeavour to increase the number of women in Parliament, political parties will be permitted to use all-women shortlists until 2030.

In order to make workplaces more ethnically diverse, employers will be allowed to utilise positive discrimination as a means of hiring someone from an under-represented ethnic group.

In a bid to assist the disabled, disabled people who live in rented accommodation will now have the right to have reasonable adjustments made to communal areas, though the cost will need to be borne by them. It will also become unlawful for employers to question potential employees on disability/health issues prior to offering them a job (though exceptions will apply).

Public bodies will now have to consider the needs of people with different religious and philosophical beliefs when planning/providing services. E.g. they may need to contemplate whether or not to provide halal meals as part of a "meals on wheels" service.?

2006 saw the banning of age discrimination at work. The new Act now stretches this to (for example) shops, hospitals, and the financial services.

?

The Act also imposes a new duty on public bodies to consider the needs of people of all ages when planning/providing services (e.g. children, teenagers etc). Ditto the needs of, e.g., members of the gay and lesbian community. Transsexuals are also afforded additional rights.

It will now also be illegal for private clubs to discriminate against members/guests on the grounds of their sex, religion or beliefs, because pregnant or a new mother, or because they are transsexual. Note: discrimination on the grounds of race, sexual orientation or disability is already unlawful.

As alluded to above, I believe this Act to be a fairly brave move. Will it be enough though? And what challenges/criticisms will it generate?

[Ladymuck]

So nobody has any comments on the new rights afforded to ethnic minority groups, transsexuals, breastfeeding mothers, gays and lesbians, women, those who suffer socio-economic disadvantage, the disabled, pregnant women, people over a certain age and people with religious and philosophical beliefs? No-one?

Anybody out there...on Planet Earth?

On Pandora?

[Huguenot]

Nope, I think broadly people agree with you ;-)

[Ladymuck]

And you?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Et tu?

[Ladymuck]

Bienvenue aux thread PGC...do you breast feed or have any particular philosophical beliefs by any chance? And, if so, will the new Act help you? Or not?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I wouldn't deign to be that familiar LadyM. I was thinking dear Julius.

[Ladymuck]

Julius?

[????]

Et Tu Brutus