George Osborne is clever enough to know that this one won't wash. In a heavily pre-sold speech today he is going to have a go at Labour for making Britain "more unfair". First, he ought to have taken more care over his research. He opens his trailer in The Guardian this morning with one of the most spurious factoids of recent years, that the gap in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest is "now at its widest since the Victorian era".
This is utter nonsense.
In the Conservative dossier to back up his speech, the source for this is given as the British Medical Journal, 30 April 2005. That article, a left-wing polemic, did not even use the Victorian era comparison: that was used by the authors at the time of publication and went widely unreported (except, sadly, in The Independent), because it is so obviously off beam.
The methodology is misleading, comparing average life expectancy between the best and worst local authority areas. This tells us nothing about inequality of life expectancy over the whole population, merely how concentrated is the distribution of the long-lived and the short-lived. However, even this finding is disputed, among others by researchers at the Office for National Statistics who responded in the pages of the BMJ. They said the evidence suggested that the pattern has been stable over the 1990s.
But even if Osborne weren't relying on dodgy statistics, the case he makes is unconvincing. It was under a Conservative government in the 1980s that Britain became a significantly more unequal society. Since 1997 Labour has made a big difference, even if the hardest indicators to shift may take a generation or so.
I look forward to hearing how the shadow Chancellor, who claims "the progressive agenda", proposes to do better.
The tories know all about progressive issues ask their Colombian buddy charlie. He knows how to get people excited by the major issues. LOL.
Posted by: Witty full witt | Wednesday, 20 August 2008 at 01:33 PM
Why should Government be committed to equality? What does equality mean anyway? It seems to mean that those who work hard and earn more as a result, should be punished and have it taken away to support the feckless. Inequality of income is not intrinsically wrong. It is right though that the government ensures quality education and healthcare and security for all, so they can have a chance to develop and succeed. But the government can't run people's lives for them and should stop trying.
Posted by: Neil Murphy | Wednesday, 20 August 2008 at 01:40 PM
No Neil it means that the disabled and the poor get equality. Are you seriously saying an inherited millionaire like Osbounre just got to be as wealthy as he is by "hard work" but a starving child in africa is just lazy. Grow up Neil.
Posted by: Mickey cool | Wednesday, 20 August 2008 at 02:17 PM
Bizarre, I've just made a similar post on my blog about Osbourne, and the Tories in general, going on about being the Progressives!
Posted by: Labourboy | Wednesday, 20 August 2008 at 04:57 PM
Laughing is this the same Gideon(aka George) 0sbourne who was/is a member of the elite set of Vandal,s and Hooligan,s in the BULLINGDON CLUB(Don,t believe me check it out in wikipedia) out of Oxford University.Apparently David Cameron,Boris Johnson,David Dimbleby and most importantly Nathaniel Rothschild the next Rothschild who will literally inherit the family fortune and the world being that the Rothschild family are the head family of the ILLUMINATI that want,s to MICRO-CHIP the whole WORLD.
Interesting how the FAMILY BUSINESS called DEMOCRACY works.Mmmmm
WAKE UP PEOPLE!HELP FREE THE MASTER TEACHER NOW (www.heisinnocent.com)
Give Care and Take Care
PEACE
Posted by: ANKH | Wednesday, 20 August 2008 at 05:31 PM
"It was under a Conservative government in the 1980s that Britain became a significantly more unequal society. Since 1997 Labour has made a big difference, even if the hardest indicators to shift may take a generation or so."
What's the basis for the claim you make in the second sentence here?
Posted by: Simon Stephenson | Wednesday, 20 August 2008 at 09:07 PM
Yes, and the period between meal-times is longer now than in Georgian times. Also, the time taken to eat fish fingers has plunged. And finger nails grow twice as fast as in the Pleistocene age. All of which has a great deal to do with the mess we're in. Happily, our Great Leader is back from the beach and will fix everything. Oh, sorry. Not for a week or so. He's gone to chat to our athletes. Bet they're glad the games are nearly over. He might have given them a pep talk.
Posted by: john problem | Thursday, 21 August 2008 at 08:05 AM