Published by , November 13th 2009 at 1:19 pm
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.
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
Awards & Rankings
Archive
Domestic Progressives
- Alastair Campbell
- Anthony Painter
- Blackburn Labour Party
- Conor's Commentary
- Dave's Part
- Duncan's Economic Blog
- Freemania
- Go Fourth
- Guardian Politics blog
- Harry's Place
- Hopi Sen
- Labour and Capital
- LabourHome
- LabourList
- Liberal Conspiracy
- Liberal Democrat Voice
- Luke's blog
- Mark Reckons
- Matthew Taylor's blog
- Next Left
- New Statesman: free speech
- The Novocastrian
- Political Scrapbook
- Progress
- Shamik Das
- Tank the Tories
- Tax Research UK
- This is my truth
- Tom Harris MP
- Tom Watson MP
- Touchstone TUC blog
- Young Fabians Blog
Global Progressives
Climate Progressives
Not really sure what is achieved by leveling down. Doesn’t help the poor.
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.
RT: @leftfootfwd After challenges by C4 and IFS, academics cited by Cameron have criticised his approach to inequality http://bit.ly/3E4LE4
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://bit.ly/1nO2BV Relative poverty is what matters. Find out more!
See also my recent newspaper column on this precise topic:
http://oneworldcolumn.blogspot.com/search/label/*%20Author%3A%20Rupert%20Read
cross dressing cameron's exposed on inequality http://bit.ly/3E4LE4 @leftfootfwd
You should be levelled down guido.
@TimMontgomerie @KerryMP Institute for Fiscal Studies calls bollocks on Cameron's definition of "severe" poverty: http://bit.ly/3E4LE4
RT @smithsky1979 @TimMontgomerie @KerryMP IFS calls bollocks on Cameron's definition of "severe" poverty: http://bit.ly/3E4LE4
RT @ChrispLOL: RT @smithsky1979 @TimMontgomerie @KerryMP IFS calls bollocks on Cameron's definition of "severe poverty: http://bit.ly/3E4LE4
[...] 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 [...]
Wilkinson and Pickett criticise Cameron's misuse of their findings on inequality: http://short.to/x1tq
[...] 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 [...]
[...] 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 [...]
@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.
[...] 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 [...]