Not saying I agree either way, but Clegg’s stance has generally been that simply looking at how much money people have rather than what they also have access to as well is a misrepresentation of actual equality.

That’s not to say they’re achieving equality on that factor either of course, it’s just the typical “people in government saying ‘don’t look at just the money’ while those in opposition just focus on it for easy soundbites” Tables turned, same old same old.

Lee – whoever said it was ‘just the money’? You’d have to be insane. Clegg sets up a false opposition, your classic ‘straw man’, in order to defend his position. Any progressive would see you need to increase opportunity AND reduce inequality – it’s not rocket science. Some Lib Dems still believe that.

“if you aim for social mobility instead of equality, you will achieve neither. As our report on Social Mobility shows, the countries with the highest levels of social mobility are those with the lowest levels of inequality.”

Couple of issues with this; firstly the previous government concentrated on equality rather than mobility, I think it’s fair to say that their achievements were vanishingly modest. Secondly, depending on how you measure things, it is hardly a shock that very equal societies have more mobility. However, this could simply be because very little movement is required to get from end to the other rather than because great changes in circumstance. If so, the measurements you are taking are on different scales and are not directly comparable.

So in short, Clegg wants to replace cold beer with warm piss.

“The best way to promote mobility would in fact be to achieve a more equal society.”

You’ve only identified a correlation. How do you know the implication isn’t that the best way to achieve a more equal society is to promote or enable social mobility – through right-wing devices like grammar schools or the low tax incentive?

I wrote an article on LibCon about an hour ago – suggesting we close the NHS and hand out the £100billion it costs to run as a weekly payment to every man woman and child in the country.

This would – statistically – end inequality in the UK.

It would also, however, make the UK far less fair and hurt the poor severely.

Poverty is not the be all and end all – however, it is interesting that the only people who shout about it not being the be all and end all tend to be politicians who want it to be absolutely nothing at all.

Clegg was happy to attack Labour (a government that at least attempted to make income inequality an issue and to reduce poverty) for not doing enough of that.

But now he doesn’t want to give money to the poor – and indeed wants to make those in poverty worse off in everyway – he is happy, like tories always are, to muddy the waters and claim “poverty isn’t everything” as it were.

bah!

Falco

The last government concentrated on both – achieves a certain amount on both – but were, as many of us have criticised for years, woefully unambitious.

The last government was though, the first government since the 60s to do anything at all towards either aim.

And so far there is nothing to suggest this government will do anything on social mobility other than use it as a distraction term to justify dumping more people into poverty.

Clegg – Principles? As a Tory maybe but not as a liberal!!

Ahh the sweet inebriation of power!

How times change eh?

“It is not every day that a future British Prime Minister name checks someone from the rarefied world of social epidemiology. But a few months before being elected, David Cameron did just that.

“Research by Richard Wilkson and Katie Pickett has shown that among the richest countries, it’s the more unequal ones that do worse according to almost every quality of life indicator,” he said.”

“Is Nick Clegg ditching his own principles on inequality?”

Why not?….. he has ditched his principles (if he ever had any) on everything else. He is a compulsive liar, and an empty shell of a human being.

So funny to see the sanctimonious, pompous, goody , goody Lib Dems show us that they are nothing more than a bunch power crazed megalomaniacs.

“For old progressives, reducing snapshot income inequality is the ultimate goal. For new progressives, reducing the barriers to mobility is.”

If Nick Clegg truly believes himself to be a new progressive, the how do the following coalition so-called “radical” policies, among many others, fit into this definition?
!. Eviction of social housing tenants based upon an increase in their income.
2. Elimination of the EMA
3. Trebling of University tuition fees.
4. Cutting the SureStart Maternity Grant
5. 10% cut in council tax credits
This is just a brief and most incomplete list directly impacting social mobility. The list of larger range issues of coalition cuts hitting the poorest families harder has already been extensively demonstrated by many others.

Richard might have tried to disprove Mr Clegg’s argument by addressing his key issue – that dealing with poverty is not the same as lifting people over what is an arbitary measure of poverty based only on income. But nowhere does he offer a defence of income as a measure of poverty, which means his attempt to disprove Mr Clegg is flawed by not addressing the issue.

And somehow he decides that he can disprove Mr Clegg by assuming that a report that shows a correlation between social mobility and lower rates of relative poverty (measured here by income distribution) can only be read to assume that lower rates of relative poverty cause social mobility. Without evidence in his article or his report showing this is the case, I would suggest there is at least an equally strong case that social mobility reduces income inequality (and perhaps therefore real poverty). Unfortunately Richard cannot disprove me using the evidence he has assembled above – it can be read either way, or in fact as this is merely a correlation, it could be related to some other unmeasured factor.

It is also interesting that the main comparators Richard’s much-depended upon report uses are the Nordic countries, which indeed have lower levels of income inequality and higher levels of social mobility (although I am intrigued to know how this second is measured independently of the first). By consistently using this group of countries, generally regarded as world-leaders, without many other European examples, Richard and/or his sources are presenting a particular image. It is however not properly sampled – I will accept that this may be the only data available (more equal countries arguably being more likely to produce relevant data) but I would suggest not basing conclusions on a sample weighted so much towards one reasonably-common culture. The Nordic countries may provide a model, but as Richard presents them they function to present a clear bias in his analysis. If he had held these up as a model and noted they were incorporated as such, well and good, but without this he is hoping that we read the information there without questioning the sampling.

So, in conclusion, Richard hopes to make us believe he can disprove Mr Clegg not by addressing his argument (which is primarily about the folly of measuring poverty by income inequality alone), but by picking up on social mobility and somehow using a correlation with no further conclusive analysis to show that social mobility must be dependent on income equality, without even mentioning that there is a significant possible bias in his core data. Pretty poor really.

Falco, margin4error:

I don’t think it’s really right to say the last government tried to do something about inequality. They certainly tried to do something about *poverty*, but that’s not the same thing. Blair used to say he didn’t see why the gap between the worst-off and the best-off mattered, so long as the worst-off weren’t living in poverty; and obviously Mandelson was ‘comfortable with people being filthy rich’. Hence a lot of money was successfully funneled towards poorer people in the form of tax credits etc., but inequality remained high because the better-off just kept pulling ahead. This is why I think Ed M’s views on the 50p tax rate etc are so welcome; he’s interested in what’s going on at the top end as well as the bottom.

As for this crap from Clegg – the man sounds more like Mrs Thatcher every time he opens his mouth. ‘Reducing barriers’ is the language of the rich getting richer, the *majority* of the poor getting poorer, and a select group of lucky proles getting a grammar school education, or a cheap house, or some shares in BT – just to make clear that if you’re not rich and successful, it’s not because of ‘barriers’, but because you’re not trying hard enough.

G.O.

As is so often the case – there is something of a gap between rhetoric and action when it comes to new labour.

The rhetoric was very much about not caring whether income inequality rose – and was very much focused on social mobility.

Of course for any impact on social mobility to show through takes about 30 years (typically it is measured by looking at a 30 year old’s income and how it relates to parental income) And so improvements in schooling, which are the most significant influence but which take time to happen – only really hit home when those who were ten when the improvements came through, hit thirty. (We’ll know whether New Labour had much impact on it in about 2025).

However, the fast rising gap between rich and poor seemed to slow. This was in large part due to works programmes to get unemployed people and people with long term disabilities into work. The very poorest stayed just as poor – but there were fewer of them.

Meanwhile taxes on the rich did not continue to be cut as had been the case before.

Like I say – massive lack of ambition – but right direction. just.

G.O.

Can you perhaps explain why there is an objection to large income inequalities so long as no-one is in poverty and everyone has the opportunity to try for the top decile or whatever?

watchman

There are a number of issues relating to inequality.

Most notably – higher inequality tends to result in lower social mobility in the long term.

It also tends towards higher levels of criminality. This is an odd one because some have often felt criminality was linked to poverty – but studies like one of the ones mentioned above suggests that actually it is driven more by the inequality level than the poverty level.

There are also other issues like health concequences that are harder to pin down – in regards to whether poverty or inequality is the significant factor.

But education also seems to have some link to equality as well as just poverty.

I mean in theory one could argue according to your criteria – that everyone could in theory reach the top – and no one is in poverty (not something we’ve achieved in the UK – by a long shot) – that higher crime levels and so on are not important and don’t matter.

But that’s a social judgement that individuals have to make for themselves. As a social democrat by nature I tend to think it is a problem. You may not. I don’t like to presume.

margin4error,

As it happens I think that education is key to reducing poverty and increasing social mobility (possible bias here – my father was a council house resident who went to grammar school, whilst my mum was a primary teacher in the 1960s and 70s and can tell tales of the changes made then) – and that our current system (which does not educate far too many) is one reason for the fall in social mobility.

As to crime and health, there are numerous factors involved – reducing these to correlates of poverty will never help with the problems (I am concerned with both – social coherence and personal happiness are two important values, so long as society and happiness are defined by the people not the government).

I think though that your answer is conflating short-term issues (crime, health) with long-term (social mobility). I suspect those areas with the lowest income inequality in Britain may be those with the worst health anyway – whether this supports or opposes my position is as debatable as Richard’s original figures. Overall though, if your focus on income inequality reduces social mobility, I would see this as detrimental, and I fear this is what has happened in some cases.

Incidentally, and purely anecdotally, I’d say the biggest barrier to social mobility amongst the young in this country is lack of motivation – they cannot see why they should try. This is only a few, but apart from in very good schools it brings down many. So perhaps in the long term, rather than quibble about numbers and correlations, the smart thing to do would be to consider how to challenge attitudes of apathy and entitlement.

17

I shouldn’t imagine the bias discredits the evidence – education is almost certainly the most important issue for both – and as the first in my family ever to go to uni – or get a-levels – I’m glad of the priveledge I had.

And I agree that the collapse in education standards in the 80s at the lower end oft the social spectrum is probably the single biggest cause of the rise in immobility in recent studied.

I would also agree that focusing on inequality – to the detriment of social mobility – would be a shocking move. Hence the article (long gone now I assume) that I posted on here ages ago about solving poverty by scrapping the NHS. (a bad move all round, but would massively reduce income inequality)

However – I’m not sure I can think of any measures that really do that. I mean I could come up with lots, but not ones that anyone in politics is close to suggesting.

And I agree that motivation is a problem. I want to punch everyone who ever tells their kids “why bother?” or worse “I didn’t go to school and it never done me no ‘arm” – but again, there are arguments about that being linked to inequality – because perception plays such a strong part in motivation.

As I say – I fear that Clegg’s talk about social mobility rather than inequality – is in fact a sign that he doesn’t want to be judged on the inequality his policies will increase – and that he needs an excuse for doing nothing about it. That tends to be the case when politicians talk up mobility at the expense of equality. It has never yet seen them focus strongly on mobility instead. (New Labour came close by actually doing small ammounts on both)

Watchman

“Can you perhaps explain why there is an objection to large income inequalities so long as no-one is in poverty and everyone has the opportunity to try for the top decile or whatever?”

Because there’s good evidence that large income inequalities aren’t just correlated with all sorts of social problems, but actually cause those problems.

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/

The day this rancid little snake-oil salesman is consigned to the political dustbin of history will truly be a time to rejoice. Come the next General Election the battles will be much bigger in our ravaged political landscape, plagued by the massive poverty unleashed by the vicious gang we’ve got in now, monkey and organ grinder both. The Lib Dems, Quisling-Judas scum, will be ground to nothing in the broader fight, and will mean nothing. But a small joy will certainly be found in watching key Lib Dems lose their seats. Clegg’s constituency has lots of students. Come on kids, kick this callous, fatuous, mendacious little fucker out of Parliament, and on to the parastic boardrooms and banks which are his natural habitat anyway.

20

Some believe the tories have offered Clegg an eventually nomination as a european commissioner as his last reward and get-out option when the coalition comes to an end.

@G.O.

“but inequality remained high because the better-off just kept pulling ahead. This is why I think Ed M’s views on the 50p tax rate etc are so welcome; he’s interested in what’s going on at the top end as well as the bottom.”

I seem to remember an awful lot of Labour inititives on inequality, not just poverty. The main thing though is why should anyone care if x is significantly richer than y provided that x can live to a good standard and has opportunities to improve their situation further, (otherwise known as social mobility)?

“Because there’s good evidence that large income inequalities aren’t just correlated with all sorts of social problems, but actually cause those problems.”

I’d have to take issue with “good evidence” here. The Spirit Level lot are hardly clear of bias and selective sampling.

Falco

“I’d have to take issue with “good evidence” here. The Spirit Level lot are hardly clear of bias and selective sampling.”

They’ve been criticised on those grounds by marginal figures outside of peer-reviewed journals, and rebutted those criticisms (often by pointing to the ‘selective sampling’ of their critics). Until I see research that undermines their position and is of a high enough standard to make it into the peer-reviewed literature, I think it’s reasonable to think they’re winning the argument.

(And in terms of bias, I don’t see why they’re any more vulnerable to that criticism than – say – a medical researcher who discovers that drug X cures disease Y and goes on to campaign for wider use of X. You wouldn’t then say ‘well, you would say X cures Y, you’re a pro-X campaigner’!)