Inequality in Britain

[????]

You see Lady M if you'd been to Grammar skool ud kno ur Latin and Shakespeare....equality got rid of all that.

[Ladymuck]

Ahhh...that Julius..."if you have tears to shed, prepare to shed them now..." and all that malarkey...

You've made a fair point there ????:(. Crap Comprehensive, left at 16 with one O Level (and, as you have guessed, it wasn't in English Literature).

"Et Tu" - Latin? I thought it was French! (My one O Level pass)!

[????]

Sorry LadyM twas meant more light hearted and less pompous than it looks - qualifications have nought to do with brains as you so often demonstrate

[Ladymuck]

No need to apologise ???? - no offence whatsoever was caused.

Thanks for the last bit though...made my day:))!

[BigOne]

No shyt ... tell me something that we don't know ?!!

The quality of my life and that of my young family has gone down the pan since 2001 - let alone the recent recession some of you are piping on about ! Quite frankly I have enough evidence to show that politicians, whatever their political persuasion, are not remotely concerned about addressing the situation for people like me !!

[Ladymuck]

You sound mighty angry BigOne. I too despair over this unfair society that we live in - such despair providing the motivation for this thread. However, there are infinitesimal signs that the political will (at least) to place a fairer society on the political agenda might at last be appearing into view. For a start there is this new Equality Act promulgated by the Labour Party. Secondly, have you not noticed how all 3 main political parties (and the Greens) are now all talking about the importance of a fairer society? For me, it's a glimmer of hope.

[dc]

The Institute for Fiscal Studies reported (7/4/10) that ?The tax and benefit measures implemented by Labour since 1997 have increased the incomes of poorer households and reduced those of richer ones, largely halting the rapid rise in income inequality we saw under the Conservatives.? IFS Analysis

There is also an authoritative report from the OECD that states: "Since 2000, income inequality and poverty have fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other OECD country. However, the gap between the rich and poor is still greater in the UK than in three quarters of OECD countries. OECD Report - Growing Unequal?

The problem of course is the massive explosion in inequality during the 80s. It's a lazy mantra to say inequality has widened under Labour when the reality is that it has clearly performed exceptionally well - especially when compared to the rest - and has at least addressed the issue as a pressing problem rather than encouraging it as the Tories did.

Duncan Chapman

[Ladymuck]

Thought this post-election article interesting. Unfortunately, Labour appear to be excluded from current talks vis a vis a coalition government.

My concern is that, although the Tories spoke about a fairer society etc. pre-election, I have doubts regarding their sincerity/political will on the matter. Certainly they have already stated that they oppose some of the provisions in the new Equality Act and, moreover, that they will not stand by them if they come to power.

Oh dear...

[Ladymuck]

Gordon has stepped down...please...please...please...let there be a red-yellow coalition as opposed to a blue-yellow one.

[Loz]

While politically that may make sense, LM, I'm afraid that stability-wise, blue-yellow is the better option. For Lib/Lab to work, it will still need the SDLP plus the Scottish nationalist and probably the Welsh nationalists, and there will be a price to be paid for that. Which will leave England to pretty much bear the brunt of upcoming cost cutting.

[Brendan]

Yeah but, by your own admission, Labour haven?t exactly delivered a ?fairer? society over the last 15 years. Why would they suddenly decide to do so now?

EDIT: to make clear that this is in reply to LM 2 posts up.

[Ladymuck]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yeah but, by your own admission, Labour haven?t

> exactly delivered a ?fairer? society over the last

> 15 years. Why would they suddenly decide to do so

> now?

You are right, they haven't. However, it hasn't been through lack of trying (e.g. introduction of NMW etc.), as opposed to their predecessors who appeared unconcerned about the issue. Just to be clear, I am not a supporter of any of the 3 main political parties. However, if I have to make a decision, then I do view Labour as the preferred choice when it comes to addressing issues surrounding a fairer Britain. It is, after all, they (and not the Tories) who have traditionally promoted fairness and equality - the early anti-discrimination laws on race and gender for example are evidence of this. Indeed, I do not recall the Conservatives doing anything to ease the situation.

Labour have, to their credit, for some time now at least been acknowledging the scale of the problem and how, in the end, it affects us all. As far as I am aware, the Tories (and the Lib-dems) only relatively recently began jumping onto the "fairer society" band-wagon once the election appeared into view.

Moreover, by promulgating the massive Equality Act 2010, they have at least demonstrated the political will to tackle the unfairness. The Tories, on the other hand, voted against the Bill when it went through to its second reading and there are therefore concerns that they might repeal it should they ever (God forbid) come to power.

[Ladymuck]

Well Loz, it looks as though Labour might have "blown" it in their talks with the Lib-dems...talks are now being resumed with the Tories. Now I'm really worried.

[MitchK]

Why are you so worried about equality, Lady Muck? What is wrong with wealth? Would be interested to know if you work in the public or private sector. Do you own property or not?

Did you see the article in the Evening Standard a few weeks ago as part of their focus on poverty? The woman with 11 kids who was below the technically poverty line. Would love to know your thoughts.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23811226-the-dispossessed-mother-of-11-lives-on-just-pound-7-a-day-per-child.do

[Loz]

Apparently Labour said, 'here's our manifesto', whereas the Tories were willing to bring the Tory and LibDem manifesto in negotiations.

On the bright side, a Tory/LibDem coalition is really good news for civil liberties. We may actually get some now.

[Brendan]

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why are you so worried about equality, Lady Muck?

> What is wrong with wealth? Would be interested to

> know if you work in the public or private sector.

> Do you own property or not?

Why should what someone owns and/or where they work influence their opinion and morality? I'm interested to know.

I don?t think the problem is with wealth but in the deprivation and social problems that excessive discrepancy causes.

[Ladymuck]

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why are you so worried about equality, Lady Muck?

> What is wrong with wealth? Would be interested to

> know if you work in the public or private sector.

> Do you own property or not?

I am not worried about equality - I wish there were more of it. There is nothing wrong with wealth per se. Indeed, I do the Lottery every week (just like you) in the hope that one day I may become rich myself. I have worked in both the public and private sectors from the snootiest/largest City Solicitors' firms to the more humble pro-bono legal organisations (and much in between). I live in a house jointly owned with hubby (though whether or not "we" own it is a matter for debate). I trust this answers all of your questions.

Yes, I am being flippant. But seriously, as alluded to above, I have nothing against wealth. It is the unequal distribution of it, and the associated problems which this leads to, which I find unfair.

[MitchK]

Fair point but I think it can matter. It just comes down to the haves and the have-nots at the end of the day.

What do you think about the article in the Standard?

[Ladymuck]

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>It just

> comes down to the haves and the have-nots at the

> end of the day.

I am intrigued. What do you mean by this?

[MitchK]

Do you really do the lottery or are you joking? Incredible if so. What is the point?

What do you think about the woman in the article? I know it is only one isolated example, but do you instinctively feel sorry for her or do you think she should take responsibility for her actions? Do you think we should subsidise her and her family?

Got to head off now though I'm afraid.

[Ladymuck]

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you really do the lottery or are you joking?

> Incredible if so. What is the point?

I fail to see the relevance of this curious line of questioning/comment. And what is so "incredible" about playing the Lottery? Gambling and holding moral beliefs around a fairer society are hardly mutually exclusive - as far as I am aware.

What is the point of playing the Lottery? To become rich overnight and never having to do a day's work in my life ever again of course. LOL! A bit like you really (with the exception that I don't "hate the rich"):

Posted by: MitchK March 24, 01:49PM

I hate the rich, although I do the lottery every week so one day I can be just like them.

Now, what did you mean when you stated: "It just comes down to the haves and the have-nots at the end of the day"?

[MitchK]

Good morning

My earlier lottery comment (you did your home work!) was ironic, or supposed to be. I don't see the point of it. You are very concerned, fairly, about the impoverished in society and the need for a more equally balanced distribution of wealth. But at the same time, you are gambling with your money in order to try and make yourself a lot richer than most people.

I couldn't care less whether people do the lottery or not ('just a bit of fun) but people should realise that the way to improve your own status (I am not talking about you as I do not know you, just a general point) is education and hard work. I do despair when I see a Betfred outside a housing estate.

In terms of haves and have nots, my point is just that people typically fall into one of two camps - they feel they have a small piece of the pie and resent that someone else has more, or they are happy with what they have and want to protect it.

In terms of equality, what do you feel about the disparity between countries? You would like to see more equality in this country but what about globally - should we transfer more of our wealth to e.g. African countries so that they are not so poor, relative to us?

So can I take it you are not happy that the Tories are back in power? I would have thought the Lib Dem policy of no tax under 10k should please those who want to see more equality?

[Loz]

Harman's equality bill called more for all-women shortlists. Stuffing Parliament with more middle-class, Oxbridge-educated lawyers - male or female - will hardly improve things.

I would suggest that more 'non-lawyer' and 'non-Oxbridge' lists would lead to more equality in Parliament. Possibly even the occasional 'working-class only' shortlist wouldn't go astray, either.

[Ladymuck]

Just quickly popping in to briefly respond to a couple of outstanding questions from MitchK ? questions which I had (previously) decided to ignore for reasons which should become apparent.

What do you think about the woman in the article?

I do not possess sufficient information on Barbara Harriott to make a sound character judgement. I can only assume though that this "dispossessed mother" must have been pretty desperate to permit the Evening Standard to use her and her family for their own (questionable) purposes in this way. I hope they paid her handsomely.

What do you think about the article in the Standard?

Other than I believe it to be right-wing Tory-Press fodder to be foisted on whoever can be bothered to read it?

Well, I'll begin with the beautifully composed photograph. The subject (the family group) is well spaced out, in focus, with little clutter to detract from it. There Ms Harriott, a single mother with not 2, 3, 5, or even 8 children ? but 11 - sits, no husband by her side. Oh, and look ? are my eyes deceiving me, or is she black? Ah wait ? there is more...yes, we are told that her children are from 5 different men. Shocking! (That the Evening Standard considered such minutia to be important, that is).

Typical right-wing media manipulation in my opinion.

[MitchK]

Clearly the Standard is right wing but the article I think was supposed to make us sympathise for her and was not written in a particularly critical way.

But it does raise the issue of people needing to take responsibility for their actions and not expecting the rest of us to bail them out when they get themselves into trouble.

Anyway, thankfully the Tories are back in, I believe IDS is in charge of Welfare and Pensions so bad news for the slackers and welfare junkies.