DaveR

The original post was specifically about a report citing stats on income and wealth inequality, and I thought that's what we were talking about. An 'unequal society' can mean whatever you want it to mean, so not much point in arguing about it. However, to answer some specific questions: the benefit system is skewed in a number of unhelpful ways. The present system of incapacity benefit makes it more attractive to be declared unfit for work than to go look for a job. The tax credit system subsidises low wages and creates artificial employment. Housing benefit incentivises dodgy landlords to charge the maximum available for substandard accomodation. I could go on. I also don't believe that the specific problems are evidence/symptoms of an unequal society in any helpful way, because there is good evidence that these are problems capable of being addressed through specific, focussed action e.g. 'sink' schools can be turned around through really good leadership, drug addiction can be treated much more effectively than under the current 'harm reduction' model, and proper training for real jobs works wonders at getting peiople back to work. Inequality is a totem that people attach themselves to because it offends their sense of fairness, but focussing your energies on narrowing the income/wealth gap rather than taking practical steps to address real problems seems to me at best misguided.

How about too many rubbish inner city schools, drug and alcohol abuse/addiction, the almost complete failure of the care system for children, entrenched, long term unemployment, and a skewed benefit system that provides a whole load of perverse incentives?

First time round we didn't know, and it was great - that particualr moment when they say "it's a ....girl!" Secomd time, the scanner told us by accident, but got it wrong, so we had a few weeks thinking we were having a boy, then a late scan (33 weeks) revealed it was another girl. Equally great.

Curse all you like Brendan, but the issue is a straightforward one, and has nothing much to do with suffering, indignity etc. Over time, in the UK, the gap between the richest and the poorest has got bigger, not because the poor have got poorer, but because the rich have got richer, quicker. Some people think that this is an inherently bad thing, and are wont to blame all sorts of other obviously bad things (crime, moral degeneracy, failing schools) on income inequality. I'm not convinced, and in particular I'm not convinced that trying to close the gap through, for example, more overtly redistributive tax policies, will either succeed in substantially reducing the gap or make the slightest bit of difference to crime levels, for example. So yes, I do consider it a valid political stance. A f&ck sight more valid than your sort of mumbo jumbo third way crap that just encourages people to believe that there are easy answers to difficult questions.

LM, my point about NMW was that it did not, over time, have the effect of reducing the gap in incomes between the richest and poorest in the UK. If, like me, you are broadly uncomcerned about that gap, then you can simply appreciate that it has, as you say, raised the living standards of the lowest paid, and be happy with it. If you are looking to reduce that gap, you won't achieve it through NMW, at least not at anything like it's present level. "To be in favour of measures such as wealth redistribution, progressive taxation and the like does not necessarily imply undermining the economic (and other) benefits which the wealthy bring to both themselves and to society as a whole. Ditto refusing to them let them reap [their] rewards. It is not about penalising the rich (indeed, I may well be rich myself one day!!) but more about attaining a fairer and more equal society rather than the unequal and corrosive one which we have at present." How do you propose to close the gap without penalising the rich (intentionally or otherwise)? And what makes you so sure that our society is corrosive because it's unequal, rather than for other more obvious reasons?

The introduction of the national minimum wage has had approximately zero effect on overall income inequality over the last 10 years, because the rich have gotten richer, quicker. That's my point, really - either NMW is a good thing per se (I think it is) or it's an "equality measure", in which case it's a failure. Healthcare (pace Sean) is an interesting one, but I confidently predict that the Obama plan will make little or no difference to inequality of healthcare outcomes in the US i.e. rich people will generally live longer, and healthier. Just like they do in the UK, where we have had a National Health Service for 60 years.

I'm happy to jump in where Quids left off and start bashing the liberal consensus.... I'm not persuaded that either wholesale redistribution of wealth or reducing income inequality are necessarily desirable per se. People (you know who you are) are quick to draw easy links between inequality and all kinds of social ills, but slower in producing any kind of hard data to back up causation (unsurprisingly - there are lots of variables out there). It's easier to fall back on a lazy caricature of evil capitalists, greedy bankers, disenfranchised workers etc., plus a load of anecdotal stuff. Equality of opportunity is an altogether more slippery concept - we're all in favour in theory, but what does that mean in practice? How about we identify the worst, most disengaged parents, and tell them that unless they are more supportive of their kids education, all their kids will be taken away and fostered by 'better' parents? That would probably reduce inequality, and it's arguably the next logical step after compulsory parenting classes. However, I don't see lots of support for that one from the liberals at the back. And that's the problem - once you get keen on this social engineering lark you very quickly bang up against things like 'freedom' and 'privacy'. Or, to put it another way, if I earn more than you, that's really nobody else's business.

A conbination of rising incomes and cheap and easy credit has kept the market buoyant for so long that the nominal value of the equity held by people who bought their first property 10+ years ago is huge. This has kept the market going, both by enabling buyers to keep trading up despite prices rising faster than incomes, amd by providing parents/grandparents etc. with the funds to help out first-time buyer offspring to get on the ladder. It's also not going to disappear any time soon, and this, combined with the fact that in London particularly we are not seeing substantial falls in income or large number sof job losses, is keeping the market going. Over time there will have to be an adjustment but dramatic falls in prices will not happen (I predict) in ED and similar. One/two bed off-plan flats in the outer suburbs and northern cities - 30 - 40% down.

Paris or Brussels

"Not now Bernard!" by David McKee. Bernard gets eaten by a monster, but his mum and dad don't notice.

These people run activity/sports days in the holidays at Dulwich College/DCPS. Our experience has been very positive. Perform run drama classes - also very good. Neither of the above are cheap but are actually good value.

South from LA to San Diego is also a great drive (and only a couple of hours), and San Diego (and La Jolla in particular) is a fab place. For Bill and Ted-ness, I recommend a few beers here

you can register birth anywhere, but they will send the details back to the local office for them to issue the certificate. If you need the birth cert. straight away I think you have to go to the local one. "airlines don't allow babies under 14 days old" - different airlines may have different rules, but I have flown with baby under 14 days

I flew long-haul (unexpectedly) with my younger child when she was 10 days old Getting a birth certificate quickly was a challenge - I ended up just pitching up at Lambeth Registry Office and badgering them until they sorted it out. I went straight from there to the passport office, dropped off the form, collected the passport the next day, flew that night. The good news is, that was the toughest part done. Probably the easiest flight I've done with the kid/s. Baby fed and slept, I fed, slept and watched movies. My wife had flown a couple of days earlier with our then 3 year old and had a much tougher time (allegedly)

Couldn't resist it

100

"Because those societies that have the smallest wealth differential coupled with social equality are the happiest. From this, all ills stem. Crime, fear, violence, education, job satisfaction - it all stems from this basic tennant." Pedantry first - I'm guessing you mean it all stems from this basic tenet, or maybe premise. There is evidence of correlation between smaller wealth differentials and greater contentment but the evidence for a causative link, and in the right direction, is slim, at best. This is not surprising given the difficulty in controlling for other factors that might contribute to the sum of human happiness, and it does raise questions about whether reducing inequality is desireable per se - I've seen some stats (I confess I forget where) demonstrating a strong correlation between religious observance and social harmony, but I don't see many people arguing for a return to compulsory church attendance. There have always been rich and poor, and it seems pretty trite to say, for example, that the poor are now more likely to steal because the rich are richer (if indeed the poor are stealing more in any event). Anyway, here is an interesting paper that suggests that attituse to inequality is largely a matter of taste: research

Poor journalism is an understatement. Even his opening line is just wrong - the rich have been getting richer, but the poor have not been getting poorer, they've been getting richer; just not by much. There are two big questions - is narrowing the gap between rich and poor a desirable political end, and if so, how do you go about doing it? The current government believes the answer to the first is "yes", but as it turns out, were pretty clueless about the second (or were defeated by some kind of middle-class conspiracy, if you're a sub-Trotskyite paranoid fantasist masquerading as a journalist). I think there is real doubt as to the ability of any government to narrow the gap dramatically, particularly in the short term (and since 1997 is definitely the short term). Very high tax rates just incentivise the very wealthy to 'offshore' their wealth - some figures might end up looking better, but the rich won't actually be any poorer, and the tax take will not rise so little opportunity to make the poor richer. The boring answer, as always, is education, but radical chamges now will take a genreation or more to have an effect, and that's too many electroal cycles to appeal to most politicians.

Obviously, 40 is not that different from 39 or 41, except that 'milestone' birthdays tend to be when we take stock of where we are and maybe where we're headed. When I turned 30 people asked whether it was a big deal, and I laughed - in the period leading up to that I had got married, bought my first house etc., so the idea that a birthday represented some kind of tipping point was obviously ridiculous. Turning 40 was similar; lots of genuinely important things happened between 30 and 40 (birth of kids, death of parent) so just having a birthday with a '0' on the end was pretty trivial. 40 is a great reason to have a massive party. It needn't be anything else.

There was an accident, I think on East Dulwich Road, near the junction with Peckham Rye. I came past on my bike at about 8.45 and there were loads of police milling about on the corner, and what looked like some personal belongings in the middle of the road. There were also about 15 buses backed up on Barry Road, going nowhere.

Tony, if you substituted your last post for the first one you may get more sympathy For what it's worth, I agree with you in principle - this is clearly a local issue rather than a general talking point. Having said that, there has been some debate in the past about how strictly the "ED issues" should be policed, and I guess the easiest way is to say SE22 only. I think a lot of people do look in the Lounge - maybe Admin can tell us?

No one is making any decisions about what matters to ED residents, someone is making decisions about the administration of this particular forum. If anybody (including me) doesn't like those decisions they can go elsewhere. Tony, are you offering to run this forum? Or an alternative forum? Go ahead, you are free to do so.

JustinSmith, why are you here? Or rather, why are you still here? I don't believe in censorship, you can say what you want, but I reckon any reader of this forum who is going to be persuade by your hypothesis has been by now, and it seems a strange place to pursue your single-issue fanaticism. Alternatively, can I recommend this lively thread for your perusal/participation: criminalisation of islam4UK

The provisions allowing non-jury trials in jury nobbling cases came into force in 2006 and although there have been previous applications, this is the first time it's been used. It seems that judges are not generally keen, which is as it should be. The provisions for non-jury trials in complex fraud cases are still not in force as far as I know, so it doesn't seem that the government/parliament are over keen either. Juries are important, but they are not the cure for all ills. I would guess that they acquit more often than a judge would, but that includes acquitting guilty people!

I think they're Chilean or Colombian, rather than Mexican. I used to have lunch there whenever I was (working) at Blackfriars or Inner London Crown Courts, as did many others - always packed, and always good.