This'll set the pulses Racing!

"Is the word race helpful or unhelpful?"

I feel that race, the word itself, brings about different images, both positive and negative.

On one hand, race can be a person's nationality. Their race may be brought up what they were brought up with, or where they were born etc.
If race is to be seen in this light, then it is purely positive. It may symbolise something very dear to each person, their heritage. If I was to consider myself a certain race, it would be Scottish or possibly British, and I see these nationalities as positive, because they are dear to me.
In that context, the word "race" is helpful.

However, on the other hand, race can lead to racism. Race may be simply a way to label people, and often leads to stereotypes. There are very common stereotypes and they are often formed through race, e.g. lazy mexicans, hairy italians, fat americans etc.
Race is usually seen as something of difference and is a tool to discriminate. The reason we label everyone else's race is because we know our own so well. We don't automatically assume that British is a race, because it is our way of life. But when asylum seekers move into British territory, their race becomes abundantly clear. We see it as a difference and a way to discriminate.

So, in my opinion, the word "race" is both helpful and unhelpful, depending on the context in which it is used. And I understand that this is probably the most vague answer that could possibly be given to this question, but it holds the most true.

Equality in Society

"We all live in an equal society... don't we?"

No. Unfortunately we don't. Not yet. If, at all, we reach the goal of having an equal society, it will take generations to complete. There are still groups in society that are not equal to other groups in society.
Okay, so in Britain we have the NHS, a free medical system for every UK citizen. And yes, we do have free education at primary, secondary and higher levels. And housing systems from the government make sure that everyone has a house.

But do the above things automatically mean an equal society?

In my opinion, no. Because this is a very upper class view of the Government's approach to helping people. The NHS doesn't actually treat everyone equally, despite what Beveridge proposed. It is down to where you live and what constituency you are in, so it often means that the poorer people in our society do, in fact, recieve worse treatment than richer people. Also, private medical care is there, for those who can afford it, which treats people extremely well. So there is still inequality in this field.
Also, with education, it is all down to where you live again. If you live near a nice school, the chances of you getting in are quite high. But how nice schools do you know that are situated next to high-rise flats or council-housing schemes? And with Universities and Colleges. Yes, in Scotland they are free for entry, but how do poorer people expect to pay for their child to live in, possibly, a whole other city for 3+ years?
And with council housing, I don't feel I should have to list examples, but how often do you see a social-housing scheme and think "I would quite like to live here"

Tony Blair said: "The Class War is Over"

This statement is not true. There are still very obvious classes in our society, and we label people accordingly because of these. People who have more money have a better standard of living, and this will ALWAYS be the case. This isn't a problem as such, as there will always be people more deserving of more money than others. But problems with class are rooted at the core of society, so there won't be any change. If a young child is at primary or secondary school, living in social housing, not eating the right foods and his parents are on benefits or working in manual labour, low-paying jobs. Where do they get their inspiration from?
As long as there are different classes in one generation, this will affect the others.