By Tom Miller
By its nature, Government is something that requires compromise, yet political activists, in contrast, tend to be people with developed and specific opinions about how things should go. I'm afraid I happen to be one of those people, so it is not often that, upon reciept of an email/press release from the Labour Party I feel bound to republish it in full. But the Equalities Bill is one which simply looks so good that I feel bound to join the choir and sing its praises. The email below was sent (OK, I doubt she pressed the button, but she will at least have signed it off) by Harriet Harman:
- - -
I'm writing to let you know about the Equality Bill which we have published today. We promised in our 2005 Manifesto that we would have an Equality Bill. So this is keeping an election promise.
The Bill - which will be debated in Parliament next month - has 5 main points. It will:
* introduce a groundbreaking new law to help narrow the gap between rich and poor;
* shine a light on the hidden pay unfairness against women at work;
* end the last lawful discrimination which is against older people;
* allow employers - if they want to - to make their workforce more diverse by choosing for example a woman or black person who was equally suitable for the job; and
* require public authorities - like councils - to use their purchasing power to drive equality when buying goods and services from th e private sector.
It was Labour governments that introduced the Race Relations Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, new legal rights for disabled people and changed the law to allow gay and lesbian "civil partnerships". Labour governments always stand up for equality. When the Tories were in government they did nothing to press forward on equality - instead they brought in the notorious homophobic "clause 28".
The new Equality Bill will provide a strong legal framework. It will become law - after being debated by Parliament - in about autumn 2010. But to put flesh on the bones and to make these new measures work in practice we need a Labour government. This is an important law and it's another good reason to keep Labour in government.
Many party members, trade unionists and others have campaigned for all the things that are in the Bill. I hope that you will feel proud of it.
- - -
Update: Theresa May has described these rather moderate attempts to make information on the gender pay gap publically available (there's not even any legal compulsion to abolish it) as a 'class war attack'.
At the moment, the Tories would say that if we redirected all public funds to white-tie orgies in gentlemen's clubs.
On top of it being wrong, it's also an incredibly tired and old-fashioned bit of rhetoric that belongs in Norman Tebbit's repertoire. I can't believe May was the one who had to drag up the bit about them being the Nasty Party.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
What planet are you lot living on?
Equality means equality. Not different levels of equality. The person employed should be the best for the job, and if there are "identical" applicants, why should the woman get the job above the man? Perhaps she should push herself an extra little bit and be better and win the job on merit.
'The notes to the Bill also then give examples of those beliefs which will NOT be protected. "Communism, Darwinism, Fascism and Socialism are not beliefs that fall within the definition; nor is adherence to a particular football team. However, beliefs such as atheism and humanism would be covered," they state.'
this if correct must worthy of world championship ranking in the 'own goal' competition along with the proposed revision of m.p.'s expenses
It's England that's being carved up Stewart. English regions! When the people of the "north east" had a vote regional government was soundly rejected but England gets balkanised anyway.
No wonder there's a rise in English nationalism.
I'm all for equality, but it has to be genuine, it can't be forced through by social engineering and it has to take into account biological differences between sexes, particularly the fact that women generally have to choose to an extent between their career and their family: either postpone the latter, or work the former in around it, which is difficult. Measures such as very long maternity leave should be replaced with joint parental leave, for example, which could mean that either parent could take time out until they have collectively used up their leave.
The "groundbreaking new law to help narrow the gap between rich and poor" will do nothing, just impose a useless unenforcable obligation.
I agree with every word, and as a 'small' employer myself I do the 'copious notes defence' when I don't want to employ somebody I think may be disappearing off on maternity leave before they've even got their feet under the desk.
When you're effectively inviting somebody to join the workplace family, the choice of whom to employ should be the employer's. Hapless Hattie isn't going to dictate to me who I should employ.
1. On busy-body forms state religion/ethnicity as 'Jedi Knight'
2. On job interviews for public sector jobs claim you are a Muslim and/or 'oppressed minority'. You'll be invited to an interview - guaranteed.
Try that in court if you happen to be a pasty Irishman.
This is aimed at discrimination in the provision of goods and services - making it illegal, for instance, to refuse service to a customer on the basis of their age. All sounds good in principle but could, of course, create serious problems for insurers, company pension schemes, the NHS etc unless it's drafted very carefully. The chances of it being so drafted, given the track record of this government in such matters, are approximately zero.
I believe Britain is being divided up in order that we are less able and willing to resist EU tyranny.
Harpywoman's being the leader of the nazi feministas is anti male, nay anti white male, NAY anti white middle class male and has been for ever.
This is positive discrimination in it's nastiest most politically vindictive form:
"allow employers - if they want to - to make their workforce more diverse by choosing for example a woman or black person who was equally suitable for the job"
Have you Harriet Harman EVER employed anyone in your entire life? When do find 2 people who were both equal candidates with exactly equal strengths and weaknesses? Either this law will be enacted and followed strictly to the letter in which case it will hardly if ever be used. Or over time it will be corrupted so that racial minorities and wojmen get preferencial treatment.
I'd ask one question. I'm a white middle class male, if I have 2 "equal" candidates applying for a role, one of whom is a white middle class male and the other a black working class women, am I allowed to choose to make my workforce "less diverse" and emply the white male?
Further if you'd ever employed anyone you'd know that to ensure legal restraints one racism and sexism in selection all one has to do is take copious notes and gradings at interview and ensure the findings back your desired end result. I know loads of managers who don't employ young women for fear of them taking maternity leave. All no doubt have perfectly defensible notes and records as to why they chose who they did.
This is nonsense and will be kicked out when Labour are removed.
"introduce a groundbreaking new law to help narrow the gap between rich and poor"
Which is? Similar to the "groundbreaking new laws" of the last 12 years that haven't delivered on pay and poverty?
"shine a light on the hidden pay unfairness against women at work"
Will that light also shine upon your own Department Harman? Seems the average female salary is above the average male salary, surely that's discrimination?
Of cours the notion that women chose to take career breaks or work part time to have children is irrelevant, hell lets them take 3 or 4 years out then walk into the same pay rate and job seniority as a man who's worked all that time. More nazi feminista nonsense that private business will rightly ignore (as shown by the last point of council contracting out red tape).
The only place any of this will be enacted is in the inefficient, pc, make believe world of the public sector where red tape, pointless jobs and a fixation with pc red tape nonsense is par for the course.
But as with all things Labour propose who cares. Labour will be thrown into opposition for a long long time a year from now and this nonsense will go with them.
Thank you for one more reason for the electorate to kick you out.
Isn't it about time the English got the same funding per person as the Scots or Northern Irish? While the Welsh get free prescriptions and Scottish prescriptions are reduced from £4 to £3 each - in England the price goes up! Then there's free university education and free care for the elderly.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish to have these benefits but what about the English?
Once upon a time if Labour stood for anything it was for fairness and equality. The Barnett Formula is shockingly unfair to the people of England.
On top of this people are starting to work into what we used to view as old age, one of the side-effects of an ageing population. This opens up a whole new range of discrimination issues for which new legislation is required.
More of that doublethink from New Lab's mad social engineers.
As for the "notorious" clause 28, 7 out of 8 people voted to keep it as a protecting to their children.
Egalité mon derrière.
More likely you're probably a bloke in his pants.
I filled in the last census as being black, just to screw the system a little.
I'm not, but in my mind, why shouldn't I be?
If I ever need to fill out a job application I shall also be a disabled transsexual lesbian. The job shall be mine.
A black person is self-defined.
I don't have my family history going back to the start of time - how do I check whether I might qualify?
Discrimination is OK now. Harperson made it legal, no, required.
I despair.
Don't you think it would be a good idea to get out there making the case among the half of the population who stand to benefit from this, and are more likely to vote?
Parts of this Bill are welcome, but why the 80s loony-left feminism stuff? This is a major vote loser.
Where has the politcial judgement of our party gone? Blair would never have allowed this in the run up to a General Election.