The gulf between the richest and the
poorest in
is at its widest since World War II, according to a report commissioned by
Harriet Harman, minister for women and equality. The National Equality Panel
found that the top 10% of the population are more than 100 times richer than
the poorest 10% (whose household wealth is £8,000 or below). It concludes that
driven by class ‘from cradle to grave’, despite billions of pounds spent trying
to narrow the gap.
The government seems to think that this
will “play to Labour’s electoral advantage by allowing it to push through
yet more legislation”, says The Times. In fact, voters are more likely to wonder
why Labour has not made a better fist of addressing the issue during its 13
years in office. The truth is that “such serious social change takes much
longer than a Parliament or three” and these promises of classlessness are
beginning to “grate”. John Major talked of a “genuinely
classless society” in 1990; Blair was still promising meritocracy in 1999.
David Cameron would be wise to adopt a more “understated” approach.
Unfortunately, he’s finding it hard to
resist, says Mary Riddell in The Daily Telegraph. Last week he tried to turn
the Edlington brothers case to political advantage, “citing a social
recession and demanding that ‘pretty deep questions’ be asked about troubled
areas. Alas, Mr Cameron had no answers, ‘pretty deep’ or otherwise, on the
geography of human blight”. But class isn’t the critical issue in any
case, says Harry Phibbs in the Daily Mail. “Growing inequality would not
matter if we were all getting much richer.” Unfortunately, that’s not
happening. “What this report shows is something far more damning.
On several measures the poor under
Labour have not merely made slower progress than the rich. They have made no progress
at all. Defeating poverty is the key objective, rather than defeating
inequality. Labour has failed to defeat either.”