Academics criticise Cameron’s approach to inequality

David Cameron’s approach to reducing inequality has come under attack from respected academics, cited by Mr Cameron, in the week that his use of poverty statistics were questioned for their accuracy.

On Wednesday, Channel 4 News gave Cameron 4/5 for inaccuracy for his use of poverty statistics (via Next Left) while this blog highlighted how the Institute for Fiscal Studies regarded ‘severe’ poverty statistics quoted by Cameron as “unhelpful.”

At a debate last night at the LSE, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett rejected Cameron’s call for a focus on raising low incomes, rather than tackling inequality across society, to improve social cohesion and outcomes. As highlighted by Polly Toynbee, Cameron used his speech to justify tax giveaways to the rich like raising the inheritance tax threshold:

“That doesn’t mean we should be fixated only on a mechanistic objective like reducing the Gini co-efficient … we should focus on closing the gap between the bottom and the middle.”

Earlier this week, Wilkinson told the Guardian:

“Bringing down the top incomes is very important. Cameron talks about social problems and diminishing responsibility as if they came from too much government. I think these are the long-term consequences of the rise of inequalities under Thatcher.

Income inequality rose in the 1980s but both parties must commit to reversing the trend

On Wilkinson and Pickett’s Equality Trust blog, Kathryn Busby says:

“In order to achieve the benefits of greater equality – and improve health and well-being for everyone in society – we cannot leave the top well alone. It is essential that we narrow the gap between the highest and lowest paid.”

Wilkinson and Pickett’s book ‘The Spirit Level‘ published earlier this year shows that countries with low inequality and good social capital also have big states. Frame 7 of a slideshow on their website show that ‘smaller state’ countries like the US and UK did worse than big states, for example in Scandinavia, where government action reduces inequality and fosters higher levels of social capital than in Anglo-Saxon states.

This is not to apologise for Labour’s lack of progress on inquality. Wilkinson and Pickett will be calling on all parties to address inequality as the main cause of social ills. Now is the time for Labour to make a commitment to a less unequal society rather than kowtowing to the city. But cross-dressing Cameron is now being exposed as the wannabe emperor with no clothes.

This post was jointly written by Joe Farrington-Douglas and Will Straw

http://www.order-order.com Guido Fawkes

Not really sure what is achieved by leveling down. Doesn’t help the poor.
willstraw

Two points:

1) Wilkinson and Pickett show how income inequality and social outcomes are closely correlated.

2) Cameron shouldn’t cite them if he doesn’t accept their conclusions.
http://twitter.com/josephlaking/status/5679387192 Joe Laking

RT: @leftfootfwd After challenges by C4 and IFS, academics cited by Cameron have criticised his approach to inequality http://bit.ly/3E4LE4
http://twitter.com/RupertRead Rupert Read

You’re wrong, Guido. You need to read Wilkinson and Pickett.
[See also these: http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2009/11/mps-expenses-scandal-is-product-of.html http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=295509020300 ]
We are social beings. There IS such a thing as society. That is why inequality matters.
Also, many goods are ‘positional’ goods. If other people are richer than you, then they can access those goods, making you worse off – even if you have what is on paper a decent income. (For the definitive analysis here, see Hirch’s ‘The social limits to growth’.)
http://twitter.com/rupertread/status/5679454490 RupertRead

http://bit.ly/1nO2BV Relative poverty is what matters. Find out more!
http://twitter.com/RupertRead Rupert Read

See also my recent newspaper column on this precise topic:
http://oneworldcolumn.blogspot.com/search/label/*%20Author%3A%20Rupert%20Read
http://twitter.com/joefd/status/5684205972 j farrington-douglas

cross dressing cameron's exposed on inequality http://bit.ly/3E4LE4 @leftfootfwd
joe fd

You should be levelled down guido.
http://twitter.com/smithsky1979/status/5709022314 Sadie Smith

@TimMontgomerie @KerryMP Institute for Fiscal Studies calls bollocks on Cameron's definition of "severe" poverty: http://bit.ly/3E4LE4
http://twitter.com/chrisplol/status/5709070622 Chris Paul

RT @smithsky1979 @TimMontgomerie @KerryMP IFS calls bollocks on Cameron's definition of "severe" poverty: http://bit.ly/3E4LE4
http://twitter.com/acre56/status/5709163102 andy creamer

RT @ChrispLOL: RT @smithsky1979 @TimMontgomerie @KerryMP IFS calls bollocks on Cameron's definition of "severe poverty: http://bit.ly/3E4LE4
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/11/look-left-%e2%80%93-the-week-in-fast-forward/ Look Left – The Week in Fast Forward | Left Foot Forward

[...] the Conservative leader’s use of ‘severe’ poverty statistics was questioned, academics criticised his approach to inequality, George Osborne’s plans for the Financial Services Authority were [...]
http://twitter.com/sspcampsie/status/5763832683 SSP Campsie

Wilkinson and Pickett criticise Cameron's misuse of their findings on inequality: http://short.to/x1tq
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/11/richest-thirteen-times-better-off-under-tory-marriage-tax-break/ Richest thirteen times better off under Tory marriage tax break | Left Foot Forward

[...] Cameron has come under attack in recent weeks for claims he has made over poverty and inequality. Share | Permalink | Leave a comment Click here to cancel [...]
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/12/david-cameron-stockbroker-heritage-nigel-lawson/ Why Cameron’s stockbroking heritage explains his love for Lawson | Left Foot Forward

[...] this is why Cameron was careful to use his Huge Young Memorial lecture to say: “That doesn’t mean we should be fixated only on a mechanistic objective [...]
http://twitter.com/peterbowers/status/7170411930 Pete Bowers

@ToryatSea http://bit.ly/3E4LE4 It's hardly a brilliant record, I know. But I'm not sure inequality has increased much, if at all.
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/01/the-best-way-to-tackle-health-inequalities-mr-cameron-is-to-tackle-all-inequality/ The best way to tackle health inequalities, Mr Cameron, is to tackle all inequality | Left Foot Forward

[...] key reason why it will fail was already brought out implicitly on Left Foot Forward a couple of months ago – it is that you cannot attack major societal [...]
Slawomir Wojcik

Levelling down is painful in societies with competitiveness (which is culturally modified aggression – like it or not) as an exclusive criterion of social promotion. The inter strata barriers grow higher. The degree of anxiety and aggression accompany them. A the thoughtful move from the top to level it down a bit seems to be the best solution – you don’t have to look too far for other solution – deprivation and decline. Most of the middle class understands that it is the lower class pushing with their (considered unsubstantiated although they are not) claims that robs them of their money. Most of our mass media play it exactly this way, exacerbating the problem. I can see the point in reluctance to give money to people who seem not to know better but the roughest ways of using them. You can not throw the money at people from helicopters (…). You can not soak the economy with the money like a sponge – you have to work at pains to built a structure that absorbs the money without destroying own ability to consume (and to produce and in this order – why do so many of you think that we produce to fight to find somebody to consume it than, why are we so far from the primitive notion of : I need an apple; I get a stick; I pick the apple to eat it and to share it! What are the simplest steps you can take? They are very basic indeed: go the the pub across the road you never went to and talk to people (and put an unbranded simple jacket on). The real measure of poverty is how much you can give away without harm? Think for yourself – if you consider yourself not well enough to give away a penny, whatever your wealth, you are a pauper.