When Labour came to power in 1997, they inherited a country with deeply entrenched inequality. Many were optimistic they would be able to reverse this, but thirteen years later the gap between rich and poor has widened even further. The richest 10 per cent are now 100 times better off than the poorest 10 per cent.
The origins of this extreme divide began in the 1980s and early 1990s under the Conservative government, with inequality growing by 60 per cent, but Labour have failed to do enough to tackle the problem, despite heavy investment in public services and successful programmes such as Sure Start.
Social mobility has also rapidly declined; a child born into poverty is automatically at a disadvantage. Of course people can, and do, overcome their background and grow up to be successful but this is becoming less and less likely. The best comprehensive schools are closed off to those who cannot afford to live in their catchment areas.
Working in a school uniform shop over the summer, it was hard to ignore the divide between mothers of children who often struggled to afford even the cheapest uniforms, and those with children at schools which charge thousands of pounds a year, who happily parted with hundreds of pounds without batting a eyelid.
In London, inequality seems to be magnified, with areas of extreme wealth a few miles away from areas of extreme poverty. In Kensington, the average life expectancy of a man is now 88, whilst in Tottenham it is only 71, less than it is in countries such as Belize, which are poorer and have no national healthcare system. The richest groups will also, on average, have 17 years longer living a life free of serious illness or disability. These inequalities cause not only physical health problems; it has been shown that the worst mental health is found in rich but unequal countries.
Around 19 per cent of children in London are still living in severe poverty, having to cope with Victorian living conditions. One mother said she had to choose between heating her house or feeding her son.
Another factor in poverty is ethnicity; for example, almost half of families from Bangladesh and Pakistan live in poverty.
Many professions like law and medicine are increasingly becoming exclusively middle class, with few people from poorer backgrounds able to afford the years of training. It is not just lack of money that discourages people, but also social capital. In an article looking at the cyclical nature of poverty, the Guardian noted that ‘the business world operates to a middle class/upper class standard’, which makes it much harder to enter into without parents who can ‘demystify the process’.
Inequality does not just affect lower socio-economic groups but the whole of society. This can be seen even more clearly in countries that are more unequal than Britain, such as Brazil and South Africa. There is clearly a correlation here between the vast gaps in income and the high levels of crime found in these countries. Another effect is the separation and fragmentation of different groups.
Wealthier people may often retreat to gated communities, some of which are entirely self-sufficient, with their own shopping centres and offices, so that there is rarely any need to leave them.
It is a vicious circle; fear of crime leads to the withdrawal of upper and middle class groups from society, leading to further fragmentation and loss of solidarity. With these groups no longer participating in the mainstream life of the city or town, an informal segregation emerges, meaning little or no interaction between people of different social classes. The end result of this is a further increase of fear and lack of trust. Public spaces are often then neglected and abandoned to poverty and crime as the state has retreated and is no longer seen as being able to deal with society’s problems.
Although there is nowhere near this level of segregation in Britain, there are now more than 1,000 gated communities here. Violent crime has actually decreased over the last twenty years but the general perception is the opposite, leading people to feel the need to seek refuge from what they see as an increasingly broken society. As a result, there is an increasing lack of social diversity in areas from schools to workplaces.
Recent surveys have shown that while British people have become more socially liberal over issues such as homosexuality and abortion, they have at the same time become more economically conservative, with significantly fewer people in favour of redistribution of wealth.
If the Conservatives win in May, the situation may get worse. Although David Cameron appears more liberal than his predecessors, he is likely to cut spending on public services, as well as on programmes that have made a difference, such as the tax credit system. There have been some progressions recently, such as an increase in the number of people going to university from all backgrounds, but a lot more needs to be done; a more equal society would in the end benefit everyone.
Related posts:
- Topped-up inequality
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, March 16th, 2010 at 08:29 and is filed under Comment.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Inequality for all
by Katy Galbraith on 16 Mar 2010 in Comment
When Labour came to power in 1997, they inherited a country with deeply entrenched inequality. Many were optimistic they would be able to reverse this, but thirteen years later the gap between rich and poor has widened even further. The richest 10 per cent are now 100 times better off than the poorest 10 per cent.
The origins of this extreme divide began in the 1980s and early 1990s under the Conservative government, with inequality growing by 60 per cent, but Labour have failed to do enough to tackle the problem, despite heavy investment in public services and successful programmes such as Sure Start.
Social mobility has also rapidly declined; a child born into poverty is automatically at a disadvantage. Of course people can, and do, overcome their background and grow up to be successful but this is becoming less and less likely. The best comprehensive schools are closed off to those who cannot afford to live in their catchment areas.
Working in a school uniform shop over the summer, it was hard to ignore the divide between mothers of children who often struggled to afford even the cheapest uniforms, and those with children at schools which charge thousands of pounds a year, who happily parted with hundreds of pounds without batting a eyelid.
In London, inequality seems to be magnified, with areas of extreme wealth a few miles away from areas of extreme poverty. In Kensington, the average life expectancy of a man is now 88, whilst in Tottenham it is only 71, less than it is in countries such as Belize, which are poorer and have no national healthcare system. The richest groups will also, on average, have 17 years longer living a life free of serious illness or disability. These inequalities cause not only physical health problems; it has been shown that the worst mental health is found in rich but unequal countries.
Around 19 per cent of children in London are still living in severe poverty, having to cope with Victorian living conditions. One mother said she had to choose between heating her house or feeding her son.
Another factor in poverty is ethnicity; for example, almost half of families from Bangladesh and Pakistan live in poverty.
Many professions like law and medicine are increasingly becoming exclusively middle class, with few people from poorer backgrounds able to afford the years of training. It is not just lack of money that discourages people, but also social capital. In an article looking at the cyclical nature of poverty, the Guardian noted that ‘the business world operates to a middle class/upper class standard’, which makes it much harder to enter into without parents who can ‘demystify the process’.
Inequality does not just affect lower socio-economic groups but the whole of society. This can be seen even more clearly in countries that are more unequal than Britain, such as Brazil and South Africa. There is clearly a correlation here between the vast gaps in income and the high levels of crime found in these countries. Another effect is the separation and fragmentation of different groups.
Wealthier people may often retreat to gated communities, some of which are entirely self-sufficient, with their own shopping centres and offices, so that there is rarely any need to leave them.
It is a vicious circle; fear of crime leads to the withdrawal of upper and middle class groups from society, leading to further fragmentation and loss of solidarity. With these groups no longer participating in the mainstream life of the city or town, an informal segregation emerges, meaning little or no interaction between people of different social classes. The end result of this is a further increase of fear and lack of trust. Public spaces are often then neglected and abandoned to poverty and crime as the state has retreated and is no longer seen as being able to deal with society’s problems.
Although there is nowhere near this level of segregation in Britain, there are now more than 1,000 gated communities here. Violent crime has actually decreased over the last twenty years but the general perception is the opposite, leading people to feel the need to seek refuge from what they see as an increasingly broken society. As a result, there is an increasing lack of social diversity in areas from schools to workplaces.
Recent surveys have shown that while British people have become more socially liberal over issues such as homosexuality and abortion, they have at the same time become more economically conservative, with significantly fewer people in favour of redistribution of wealth.
If the Conservatives win in May, the situation may get worse. Although David Cameron appears more liberal than his predecessors, he is likely to cut spending on public services, as well as on programmes that have made a difference, such as the tax credit system. There have been some progressions recently, such as an increase in the number of people going to university from all backgrounds, but a lot more needs to be done; a more equal society would in the end benefit everyone.
Related posts:
This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 16th, 2010 at 08:29 and is filed under Comment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.