Does the coalition get equality?

By David Hodges

I have always had my concerns over whether the two governing parties get equality. The Conservatives by their nature have struggled with the notion of creating a more equal society but there is no doubt that some in the party are now committed to the principle. The Liberals on the other hand, to my mind, have always been committed to the principle. However, it’s the practicalities both struggle with.

The Conservatives anti-regulation/equality legislation is a burden on the employer/business must come first attitude has created an inherent opponent in their psyche to breaking down discriminatory barriers that exist. (Cameron had made noises about positive action to make his parliamentary team more representative pre-election, but the woeful number of women/ethinc minorities in the cabinet undermines his previous comments.)

The Liberals have rallied against positive action to break down discrimination claiming that, for instance all-women shortlists, are illiberal. This amounts to a laissez-faire attitude to equality where inequality is allowed to ferment because positive action is viewed as an equal evil. It’s plain madness.

I don’t know which attitude I find more irritating but the results of both are that the fight for a fairer, less discriminatory society becomes much harder.

Theresa May, spoke yesterday on the issue:

“Equality has become a dirty word because it has come to be associated with the worst aspects of pointless political correctness and social engineering.”

Attacks from the right, especially personal attacks on great equality champions like Harriet Harman, have tried to make equality a dirty word. I suspect equality is not a dirty word amongst the people who the legislation tries to support. Some sections of business will always complain about new regulations – that doesn’t make the regulation wrong. (See the light regulation of the financial sector as a case study.)

“Just look at the socio-economic duty. In reality, it would have been just another bureaucratic box to be ticked. It would have meant more time filling in forms and less time focusing on policies that will make a real difference to people’s life chances.”

The socio-economic duty – clause one of the Equality Bill – set out a new legal duty on key public bodies, including central government and local authorities, to ensure they consider the impact that their strategic decisions will have on narrowing socio-economic inequalities. Making people consider the impacts of their decisions – I can see why the government wouldn’t support that (see the government’s deficit reduction plan as a case study for not considering impacts of decisions).

“We need to move away from this old approach and make equalities work for everyone. We need equalities policy to work with the grain of human nature, not against it. Legislation on its own is not enough. Government will no longer dictate how people should behave.”

I like the rhetoric of ‘making equalities work for everyone’, but then it’s followed by the same old tired line of government not dictating to people about how they behave. That is not what happens. Government legislates how people can’t behave, i.e. they cannot discriminate against somebody on the grounds of sex, age or sexuality etc.

I don’t doubt that many members of the coalition are well meaning on equality, but that’s no excuse. Instead of rubbishing Harriet Harman for her achievements they should cease with the party politics on fighting inequality and follow her lead.