The equalities and diversity debate has run aground. It is still grinding along the minorities groove. The language is still the language of oppressed groups. The analysis is still the broad brush stroke of identity politics. In a paper, soon to be published by ippr, called ‘You Can’t Put Me in A Box’, Danny Sriskandarajah and I argue that we need to get smarter at treating people as individuals and not just as part of a group.

There is still persistent bias throughout British society. And it affects certain groups in certain situations more than others. But the lives of black people, gay people, women, those living with disabilities and other identifiable groups have changed immeasurably over the past decades.

Systematic political blackmail has given way to gay cabinet ministers; people are living independent lives with disabilities and learning difficulties unimaginable ten or fifteen years ago; there are significant numbers of black and Asian actors, peers and people in business, at all levels. Being black, gay, disabled, a woman and so on does not automatically blight our ambition or our chances of success any more.

The variations within these groups are enormous. And the assumption of disadvantage and the blanket application of those groups to the understanding of issues does not give us an accurate guide to who is really at disadvantage in society.

Yet we continue to use an analysis based on group identity in the delivery of public services, despite the fact that it no longer accurately describes the way people actually live. What do we mean by this? Well, one example would be the cliché that in Britain Muslims are at a persistent disadvantage. In his work on religious extremism, Professor Shammit Saggar form Sussex University, tested the plea frequently heard from the so-called ‘radical’ preachers that “that British Muslims experience such high levels of social disadvantage that their plight goes beyond that of other excluded groups.”

He discovered that, in fact: “The economics of British Muslims are a mixed picture. Most data has been collected on these Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin Muslim communities, who together only account for two-thirds of British Muslims. Indian Muslims, for instance, perform significantly better in the labour market than Pakistanis or Bangladeshis. Equally, the generally impressive story of the Ismaili community, or those with an east African dimension, points in the other direction. Likewise, in relation to British Muslims of Arab or Turkish background. This implies a country of origin effect, rather than a religious effect.”

The assumption of persistent bias needs to give way to a more subtle approach to get to the actual heart of problems. We need analyses that start with the problem and not with a presumption about the type of solution.

Furthermore as long as we continue to frame the issues about equality only in terms of minorities, those in the broader reaches of society feel more excluded. They feel that the government and the political class are not listening to them. The Harman-isation of the equalities debate harms the political debate. It patronises those in the groups who do not feel that their aspirations and achievements are foreshortened by being black or disabled or gay or whatever. And it excludes those who feel overlooked. It is not so difficult to join the dots from this kind of political approach to one of the reasons why people vote BNP.

Prejudice may still be an everyday event, but it is no longer an all-day event. We must design our public services to be accurate in tackling discrimination where that is the problem but, where it is not, to deliver services to individuals, without making assumptions about their needs and lives. This requires us to reframe our thinking and reshape our services. We now need to act on the change that we have brought about.