By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
On the day the Fabian Society launches its Solidarity Society report - two years in the making - one of its authors, Tim Horton, has written to David Cameron challenging him to speak to the Fabians about poverty in modern Britain.
In his Hugo Young Memorial Speech recently, David Cameron critiqued Fabianism and argued that the size and scope of government were “now inhibiting, not advancing the progressive aims of reducing poverty and fighting inequality”.
Cameron also recently argued that ‘big government’ causes poverty, and, last year, that:
“the methods of the centre-left, principally income redistribution and social programmes run by the state…have now run their course. The returns from big state intervention are not just diminishing, they are disappearing.”
But Tim Horton, who wrote the new Fabian report with James Gregory, challenges those views based on his extensive new research. His letter to Cameron says:
"We do not think that analysis is supported by the evidence on poverty prevention in Britain and internationally. Both our new book and your Hugo Young lecture discuss the history of poverty trends in the 20th century. Yet we were surprised that your recent lecture at the Guardian skipped straight from 1968 to post-1997 in analysing poverty trends, so said nothing at all about the 1980s, which saw the largest increase in poverty and inequality in 20th century Britain.
* Poverty measured as below 60 per cent median income rose from 12 per cent in 1977 to 25 per cent in 1992 – more than doubling.
* Poverty measured as below 50 per cent mean income rose from 8 per cent in 1977 to 25 per cent in 1992 – more than trebling.
So the largest increase in poverty in the 20th century coincided with a political programme to reduce the role of the state. This would seem to be precisely the opposite of the analysis you offered. We are interested in your views as to why you think this happened."
The role of the state is increasingly becoming a dividing line ahead of the general election, and it will be intriguing to see whether Cameron will accept this challenge.
If he does, he will need to find evidence that sufficiently counters the Fabians' research that shows the small state inaction defined by Thatcherism increases poverty.
If he refuses, those on the left will continue to doubt that Cameron's Big Idea - The Big Society - holds any real chance of alleviating poverty in this country.
You can read Tim Horton's full letter to David Cameron here, and download the Fabian report The Solidarity Society here.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
For Comfortable Britain the transformative promise came true and those professionally close to New Labour and it's ideology have certainly prospered but for all the jovial rose red camaraderie of that dimly remembered champagne fueled election night party with the stars on the South Bank Britain's poor and broken are not only still with us but are now huddled in even greater number and lived off by a parasitic poverty industry that essentially operates as a buffer zone for the status driven middle classes , we've evolved a kapo culture as state charity is extended to bankers and compassion limited to the latest favoured minority groups or on crocrodile tears over casualties in support of pointless wars we were expertedly manipulated into in pursuance of the only type of Solidarity New Labour have shown any real interest in, Solidarity with Power.
The New Labour Government's war on terror has simply translated into a war on everyones rights as the state has shrugged off more and more responsibilities and established more crushing powers for itself. The real terror for citizens though is how to survive in a society that's turned its back on the have nots, unwell and old.
This isn't a fair society the obscene MP's expenses scandal very clearly demonstrated that but no one is allowed to openly discuss this in a political way. It's just accepted that life is brutally unfair and that the devil takes the hindmost. Accepted but never openly admitted as everyone from the Prime Minister to the least politically engaged Irish Republican MP's milk the system in ways that would result in a Court appearance if it was being done by the residents of a council sink estate.
Lets talk about Unfair Britain.
We have a centre left-right-left-right-left-right party that swept into power championing the politics of accountable Government , greater social responsibility and fairness that now has an unelected leader and has practically atomised society through over reliance on exclusive middle class led 'focus groups' and ' critical friend' mechanisms that are simply empowered to tell the centre what it wants to hear - or they are abolished - to exclude any real possibility of of a more inclusive form of participatory politics.
Just look at the contributors gallery over there.
Is that what Britain looks like now or is it more of a snapshot of Unfair Britain? A few women. A couple of black faces... in fact this could quite easilly be the new more user friendly corporate BNP website and for supporters of New Labour to expect the bottom half of society to spot the difference is a bit rich. New Labour is a powerful white middle class political party , a throughly divisive party that unashamedly and unfairly focusses almost entirely on perpetuating white middle class interests in Government at the expense of anyone and anything else and like it or not that is the clear understanding of where the party is at as we hurtle towards a general election in which fascist politics will simply play a role as another type of unfair.
I had the same problem - I think that you have to purchase the report.
The Institute of Fiscal Studies have recently published a report on poverty in the UK : http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4524
Gordon Brown is work obsessed and consequently has put all his eggs into one basket, i.e., directing resources to the working poor; this would be more laudable if he hadn't almost completely ignored the plight of the non-working poor in the process. I don't know if our Prime Minister and his Cabinet actually despise non-working citizens but for them, especially those unlucky enough to be long-term unemployed or carers, Brown has done next to nothing to help them and, over time, has made their lives increasingly more difficult by refusing to uprate benefits like Jobseeker's and Carers Allowance to reflect the cost of living; increasing these benefits only in line with inflation has led to many of the poorest in society tumbling down a vicious spiral into ever increasing hardship.
This is surely a Tory agenda.
So why has the Labour Party prosecuted it over the last twelve years?
"The problem with statistics like this is that they deal with averages and aggregates."
Which is why the numbers quoted in the article relate to 'median' income, which is not the same as 'mean' (average) income.
Median is the income at which half the people are below, and half above.In other words, if there are 26 million households, and the median income is quoted at, say, £22,000, that means that 13 million have an income of less than £22,000 and 13 million more than £22,000.
Median income is invariably used these days in poverty studies as a more accurate benchmark to measure against. Over the last thirty years, it also reflects the great inequalities of income visited upon the people by the Conservatives, 1979-97 and maintained, much to its shame, by Labour since 1997. That is, median income has drifted away from mean income to a significant degree.
But you are right in your general thrust. There's more than a touch from Labour of regarding out-of-work people as 'undeserving' poor, scroungers and layabouts.
The thing is, like so many committed Labour supporters, I didn't vote for the Party, election in and election out, election after election, expecting that once in office the government would choose to expend most of its energy trying to improve the lives of relatively secure and comfortably off people like me: I voted Labour in hope of getting a progressive and enlightened political party elected which, once in office, would devote itself to doing everything it could to extend help and social justice to the most put upon, suffering and needy in society.
To my shame and regret this didn't happen. Not under Blair. Even less so under Brown. The Labour Party were too busy worshipping the gods and goddesses of free market capitalism to be bothered to intervene or extend a helping hand to pull such unimportant and lowly citizens back into the lifeboat, saving them from the circling sharks and from drowning.
The opportunity has been lost, now, possibly forever.
And that is the saddest and most unforgivable thing of all.
I don't think there's a million miles between us .... and, for sure, the thought was never in my mind that you were attempting distortion.
"The opportunity has been lost, now, possibly forever." It's a possibility that if the current distribution of income and levels of unemployment (which, even in a 'good year', was 1.5 million or thereabouts), conscience at all levels and in all parties will have to take note.
The problem is 'The Culture of Contentment' as J K Galbraith noted. As long as a good-sized majority have their material comforts, the plight of the remaining 10 - 20 per cent may well be ignored.
Would that information be circulated in the national media in the near future(maybe pre election?)
We seem to hear so little of the real statistics and causes.
The real evidence is the New Labour experiment has failed democratic socialists at every turn. Tax payers money has been used to 'buy' items that are not needed such as Trident and the Typhoon aircraft to BAE Systems. Tax payers money has been used to prop up the banks. Tax payers money has been frittered away on PFI for over expensive costs to keep the borrowing off the PBR.
The question is; just how have any of these expensive scams helped achieve a single democratic socialist aim, let alone creating greater opportunity for all in an increasingly divided UK?
With an election on the horizon Gordon is now belated talking up Cross-rail and the Olympics as infrastructure projects but what of the UK outside London?
Terminal 5 - London, third runway at Heathrow - London..... that is all we hear from Gordon - London!
As for quoting poverty figures to 1992.. what about the last 10 years of glorious Labour Government? Oh dear.. not quoting them, are we.
What a surprise.
Anyone who quotes a one sided article deserves all the indifference the article will get.
As Alex says the 270 page book contains a detailed account of poverty and inequality post-1997: there is a 25 page chapter about the overall record and current challenges, detailing overall poverty trends, looking at progress on pensioner and child poverty, and also particularly highlighting "the unspoken challenge" of rising poverty among adults without children, and detailed analysis of key policy areas and public attitudes.
Peter - Inequality (on the gini measure) is at its highest since 1961, while poverty has fallen. The book warns against the risk of creating and locking in a return to Victorian levels of inequality and segregation, particularly if there was a move away from universal services to narrowly targetted provision for the poor.
A very complex issue, got the invite, not sure I will attend though as none of the Parliamentary speakers would really have a genuine interest in this area. Listening to their "intentions" and rhetoric will be more than I can stomach. Good on the Fabians for raising the issue though.
Maybe one day you'll have something constructive to say.
Seeing as we have just announced cuts to whitehall, i would say s smaller state is coming, I think the perfect modle for showing waste is tax credits , A great idea but in pratice all we are doing is taking taxes of people then asking them to fill out forms to get some of the money back(at a cost in both money and errors), If we had used the money that was avalible at the turn of the centtry to create a fair and simple tax system , Then we would all be better off.
ricki