"The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." Blurb on the back of Polly Toynbee and David Walker, Unjust Rewards, published August 2008.
"Since 2000, income inequality and poverty have fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other OECD country." Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, published today.
They can't both be right.
So, who do you believe? Toynbee and Walker? Or the OECD?
Although the OECD isn't always a hundred percent correct in everything it states, in this case there are more than enough indications (from various reputable sources) to indicate that they are correct on this occasion.
The gap has widened, social mobility is down, and a number of other related and relevant negatives have turned out to be the result of the past decade or so of Labour Government.
It is a real pity: many of us, I'm sure, had high hopes back in 1997 of real social improvements in our nation, and have been immensely disappointed that none of it really happened, and we have in reality gone backwards during the years that followed that election in May 1997.
That's the reality, not the spin...
Posted by: John Ward | Tuesday, 21 October 2008 at 10:02 PM
The OECD study might help us to have a more nuanced discussion of this. Labour has done more to narrow the inequality gap than any other government.
And yet they can both be right, in different ways. It depends what you mean.
Overall, the poor have got richer, and the rich have got richer. The poor have done much better under Labour than they did under the Tories. The vastly increasing inequalities were slowed down, and halted. (This 'running up the down escalator - ie holding back a tide of inequality - is something that is quite difficult in itself, given the global trends). The OECD shows today that, after 2000, the gap began to narrow. The lesson is that policy matters. Getting people into jobs, increasing public spending, tax credits and progressive redistribution: these things narrow inequalities. (Something like the 1988 budget: massive increase in inequality).
The gap between those 10% from the bottom and those 10% from the top has narrowed a fair amount. Score most or all of that to the OECD.
But for Toynbee/Walker (who have also stressed these positive developments many times; they are not in the 'nothing ever gets better' camp)and even their publishers' blurb:
The top 1% have done very well - and most of all the top 0.1% have pulled away from the rest. And some of the very poorest have got poorer - benefits have not been up-rated, and so single adults without children on income support (though there have been strong improvements for children, and for pensioners) have fallen behind.
These different trends (the growing inequality between the very top and the very bottom) also help to explain why the Gini coefficient had gone marginally up in the aggregate measure, which gave an 'inequality up, though poverty down' headline, though overall, inequality is reduced across most of society.
Posted by: Sunder Katwala, Fabian Society | Tuesday, 21 October 2008 at 10:39 PM
The folk on my street don't actually need to be told by research groups and number crunching organisations what they already know. What they know is: The rich are richer, the poor poorer, the roads need repairing, the hospitals need cleaning, the banks need policing, everything is going up in price, taxes are too much, you can never find a policeman when you want one, streets are unsafe on Friday and Saturday nights, too much sex and violence on TV and in the movies, the government is all tslk, Ministers tell us the obvious as though we'd never noticed, we're losing the wars in the Middle East, you have to queue for ever in post offices, our schools are almost the worst in Europe, our old age pensions are the worst in Europe. OECD, Mori, Trustme Research - what a joke!
Posted by: john problem | Wednesday, 22 October 2008 at 07:45 AM
My own eyes, dwindling bank account and pension that is rapidly diminishing in value. Unlike the OECD and journalist they don't have any agenda.
Posted by: flipped | Wednesday, 22 October 2008 at 09:35 AM
It depends. OECD are comparing 2008 to 2000. Perhaps Toynbee/Walker have a different time-frame (eg 2008 compared to 70s, 80s or 90s) - I've not read their book, and John (Rentoul) doesn't say.
And they may be using different measures. "Poverty" is a difficult subject, due to changing definitions. I've seen some substantial research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation over the past few years that might reconcile the two views.
Ultimately you have to show the data for what it is. Few people will have the time to look into it deeply. Framing of the issue into soundbites rules, unfortunately. The left will present the "poor getting poorer" line, business will present the "everyone better off line". The data will show something that can't be reduced to either opposite of those polar extremes.
Posted by: RobertS | Wednesday, 22 October 2008 at 11:13 AM
I'm just glad I don't live on john problem's street; the neighbours sound like a right bunch of malcontents.
Posted by: Sam McGinty | Wednesday, 22 October 2008 at 01:14 PM
i wouldn't have thought that BELIEF was whats wanted in such dire economic circumstances- surely we had quite enough of policies based on belief from the sainted but unlamented master blair?
Posted by: jaff | Friday, 24 October 2008 at 10:27 AM