Hi ,

If you were to believe some of the dramatic headlines and op-ed pieces, you could be forgiven for thinking that the socio-Economic duty (SED) will bring an extreme overhaul of life as we know it. Claims of woke social engineering, class warfare, imposing socialism and redistribution have been thrown around.

From the scaremongering media coverage (seriously, I’m concerned that some headline editors out there are getting way too much caffeine) it’s almost as if having people at the greatest disadvantage considered, and having a say in policies and laws that affect them the most, is something bad.

I mean it isn't at all surprising; when inequalities - and measures designed to tackle extreme inequality - enter the conversation, the neoliberal word-bingo begins. Cries of bureaucracy, state interference and free-market meritocracy (myths) are swiftly bandied about with alarming repetition from multiple mouths. It’s almost as if there was a memo to brief some folks on how to talk about it. 

But, my friends, there is once again something larger at play, and it tells us a great deal about the debate unfolding as the UK government prepares to bring the long-awaited Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 (the socio-economic duty) into force. 

Before we get there though, let's just remind ourselves what the SED actually is, because facts and all that.

The purpose of this duty is pretty straightforward:  it asks decision-makers to consider how their strategic choices - such as policy, public spending, commissioning or de-commissioning of services - might affect people experiencing poverty and socio-economic disadvantage. Where it has been activated in Scotland and Wales, and voluntarily as good practice in parts of England, it has delivered success stories. Yet, instead of seeing this as a positive measure to make decision-making more inclusive and responsive to inequality, we are seeing an increasingly heated debate that is often disconnected from what the duty is actually about.

Our latest research, produced in collaboration with the University of York Law School, examines how the duty is being discussed across politics, media, academia and public life, revealing the competing narratives: who is saying what, whose voices are amplified or excluded, and what this tells us. The findings raise questions beyond analysing the policy itself; we find ourselves asking who gets to shape the public conversation about inequality.

The analysis found that most of the loudest objections came from a small number of powerful media outlets owned by some of the wealthiest people. Same old story, again. We already know that money buys access and influence, which in turn uses that influence to secure even more power, and power shapes the rules that self serve. It is all here in our Money, Media and Lords report.

And this matters. Because the way we describe inequality directly shapes what we believe can be done about it. When poverty is presented as a consequence of individual choices and inadequacy, structural solutions look unnecessary. You only have to look at the debate around young people not in education, employment or training - the so-called NEET crisis - to see how structural problems can be misrepresented as individual failings.

Likewise, when measures designed to reduce inequality and policy-inflicted harms are branded as ‘ideological dross’, or an ‘equality crackdown’, even modest attempts to change how public money and services are allocated can be made to seem extreme.

Unnervingly, this billionaire-owned media influence on public opinion can affect the political feasibility of steps to raise living standards and screen out policies that make our lives worse.   

Our research is ultimately about something bigger. At its heart is a question about power: are platforms being used to inform the public—or to undermine a democratically approved duty designed to disrupt the structural inequality that favours the few. Read the full blog here, or tell us what you think, below.

What do you think would support others to get outraged at the sell off of our public assets to spur action?

"Highlight the loss figures to the UK public of these sell offs and the gains we could have had as a society. the resulting debt due to these sell offs?"

"To effectively move people from passive disagreement to collective outrage and action regarding the sell-off of public assets, a campaign should focus on tangible personal impact, corporate greed, and lost heritage.
Here are the most effective strategies to spur public outrage and action:
1. Highlight the Direct Impact on the Pocketbook such as (A) Surging Costs (B) The "Taxed Twice" Argument (C) Service Degradation
2. Expose the "We Sell, They Profit" Dynamic for example (A) Executive Pay vs. Public Good (B) Foreign Ownership (C) The Permanent Loss..."

"Highlight the water scandal, bringing it home to those people who are apathetic or fed up with politics. Press for more documentaries like "Buried" showing how the public is being conned or in some cases poisoned by the abrogation of British government control or even care post Thatcher (though most of the media has gone to American money and the BBC to it's shame is obsessed with America.)"

"We need people to understand that the sell off of public assets is not a minor problem that only involves "other" people. Instead it is a major and immediate problem that hits all normal people in their pockets and in other ways. Examples. The sale of council houses initially helped the existing owners but now most ex council houses are owned by private landlords who charge higher rents, the councils have no money to build replacements and there are few available. The PFI initiative may have allowed the NHS, education authorities etc. to build but the ongoing cost is resulting in high taxes and poor services. The sale of the water industry was claimed to bring in private money to modernise the system but it has probably got worse, we are paying more and our rivers, lakes and seas are polluted. CEOs and their mainly foreign bosses are walking away with millions of our money. We also need to establish in the public mind that these are not individual isolated problems but are all problems with a common cause."

What should be high on the agenda, what should be reviewed and challenged and how should councils and government ensure they are working to address unequal outcomes in communities?