The government is undertaking an absurd exercise called the Red Tape Challenge.
It is biased against all regulation because, of course, they think that impedes 'competition' when it actually seeks to create a level playing field.
One of the consultations is on equality regulation. They say:
Equality regulations are designed to help ensure fairness in the workplace and in wider society. They include regulations and laws on discrimination and harassment.
You can find the Equality Act 2010 here
Tell us what you think should happen to this Act and why, being specific where possible:
Should they be scrapped altogether?
Can they be merged with existing regulations?
Can we simplify them — or reduce the bureaucracy associated with them?
Have you got any ideas to make these regulations better?
Do you think they should be left as they are?
Note the inherent bias in the questioning and their ordering.
If you believe in equality.
If you believe that regulation promotes equality.
If you believe regulation protects those who suffer from discrimination.
Please say so. Leave a comment on the government web site.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Yes the PSG believes that regulation promotes equality
And when the FSA (and others) attempt to “regulate” the financial services industry this industry simply relocates (in a web of shell companies) to some offshore secrecy jurisdiction (three are conveniently situated very close to the shores of the UK) where is little or no regulation.
To work effectively “regulation” must be truly international!
Without looking too far….most of the “equality” and “discrimination” laws are UK enactments of EU legislation.
If so then this gov cannot remove them!
Yes the PSG believes that regulation promotes equality
And when the FSA (and others) attempt to “regulate” the financial services industry this industry may simply relocate (in a web of shell companies) to some offshore secrecy jurisdiction (three are conveniently situated very close to the shores of the UK) where there is little or no regulation.
To work effectively “regulation” must be truly international!
Article in Vaity Fair from Stiglitz.
Small extract:
“The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security–they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government–one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105