“It is a remarkable paradox that, at the pinnacle of human material and technical achievement, we find ourselves anxiety-ridden, prone to depression, worried about how others see us, unsure of our friendships, driven to consume and with little or no community life.”
- The Sprit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett
“Levelling Up” is a catchy political slogan. Just right for putting on the side of a bus. Boris Johnson certainly likes it. Most weeks at Prime Minister’s Questions he gets a couple of useful idiots on the backbenches to ask him a soft question that gives him the opportunity to wave his arms around, scratch his head and waffle on about building hospitals and homes (but for purchase only). I guess at present the people have a somewhat different priority, however.
So does this all mean that Johnson is a convert to the evils of inequality? Has he seen the wisdom of using the power and resources of the state to tackle the undesirable consequences of inequality? Is the “Levelling Up” programme the Tories saying they really do need to tackle inequality if the country is to become fairer, better, with opportunity opened up to all?
The Tory Party has always had an uneasy relationship with inequality that has, over the years, swung between it does not exist to a bit of graft and effort will lift anyone out of poverty and lack of opportunity. You could always get on a bike and ride around the country to find work. This has morphed into today’s workless ballet dancer training to work in cyber (whatever that might mean).
We all remember George Osborne’s evidence-free fib that hard working people set off for work in the cold dawn, passing closed curtains that belong to their workshy neighbours living the life of Riley on benefits. Spending all day watching Sky TV and playing games on their mobile phones. Sadly, setting one section of working people against another works (especially if they are migrants) and is regularly deployed to avoid tackling the root causes of inequality. More than once I have had comments made to me that council homes or school places are not available because the undeserving have been allowed to jump the queue. The Tories invented the notion of the deserving and the undeserving poor and it continues to this day.
The question before us now is has Boris Johnson now read Richard Wilkinson’s and Kate Pickett’s research and been convinced that the bigger the gap between the most wealthy and the poorest is, the more likely that society will face a series of problems that are a cost on the state while denying opportunity and providing all sorts of barriers to those wishing to advance themselves? It is not by accident that the country’s MPs and judges, most successful business and sports people are mostly drawn from the 7% of the population that attend public schools (or in proper language schools that provide the best teaching with the finest resources but at a fee that is way beyond 93% of the community).
Just imagine how many medals the UK could harvest at the Olympics if the other 93% had access to the same resources and equipment enjoyed by the 7%. Perhaps there would be more trust in our politicians if Parliament looked more like the nation we live in. The number of female faces and people of colour sitting on the green and red benches do not reflect what is happening outside Westminster Palace. How many MPs have worked in McDonald’s, driven a delivery van, rode a bike for Deliveroo or answered the telephone in a call centre? Most MPs are drawn from the ranks of lawyers, bankers and property developers. All the cabinet went to private schools, usually Eton or Harrow.
Over 30 years of research Wilkinson and Pickett discovered that those countries with the worst records in those areas that are traditionally recognised as indications of a failing society were those with the biggest gaps between the richest and the poorest. Put another way a person born to parents in a council rented flat in a Liverpool high rise (particularly if they are a person of colour) will have little to no chance of becoming a judge in the Supreme Court compared to a white boy born in the leafy suburbs to wealthy parents who can afford to send him to a private school. There is no such thing as the American dream, in the USA or indeed in any other country.
This is important because Wilkinson and Pickett discovered that those indicators we use to measure the quality of life in our communities are worse the more unequal a society is. So quality of citizens’ health, poor quality community life, levels of violence, drug taking, rates of obesity, teenage pregnancy, early death, poor mental health, long working hours, large prison populations, etc etc get worse the more unequal a society is.
In the UK we have some of Europe’s wealthiest areas like Kensington in London and parts of Surrey but also some of the continent’s poorest areas in Glasgow, the Essex coast and Liverpool.
Not only do these indicators impact upon the lives of those directly affected - there is a knock-on effect on the more prosperous who are required to fund the consequences for the state of having to manage this fall out. It goes further than that as the more prosperous become concerned about becoming the victims of crime. Failings elsewhere across society undermines the mental health and sense of well-being of everybody in that society. Society as a whole suffers if large sections are cut out from improving their life chances and by inference the quality, achievements and wealth creation of the whole nation.
This leads to apparent contradictions such as the United States being recognised as the wealthiest country in the world while locking up more per head of its population than most other countries across the world. Indeed, across most of the measures the US does poorly.
In general, the indicators of societal equality are best in Scandinavian countries and many central European countries. Those indicators are, generally, worse in the US and often in the UK.
Returning to Boris Johnson, has he seen the light and now accepts that for all to improve he needs to focus on the inherit evils of an unequal society? Does he now accept that we need to shift the balance from self-interested “consumerism” to a friendlier and more collaborative society? His “levelling up” programme is a shift in the right direction. Improved housing improves health and people’s sense of well-being but building only to buy will limit this effect with Tory ideology getting in the way. Improved broadband offers better work and education chances. Hospital upgrades help with speed and quality of health care but does little to tackle the reasons people get sick in the first place.
Unless there is more to come, Johnson’s programme merely scratches the surface and does little to tackle the income gap and the skills and opportunity gap which arise from income disparity and the restricted opportunities generated by a two-tier education system.
I would suggest Johnson does a bit of reading and comes up with a far more comprehensive levelling up programme properly focused on reducing inequality and all its associated evils. I am not holding my breath.
Comments