February 19, 2010

Redistribution and Elections Round II

Posted in Labour, Political Philosophy, Politics, Society at 3:44 pm by Paul Sagar

Earlier this week I lamented the fact that Labour appears to have a very solid record on achieving redistribution from rich to poor (though see Tim’s considerations), but can’t make a song and dance about this because “redistribution” provokes a largely negative response from the electorate.

Yet it’s been pointed out to me that the story is a bit more interesting than that. Research from the Fabian Society and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation last year found that whilst people are hostile to the monolithic concept of “redistribution” when they are simply asked whether they are “for” or “against” it, they tend to be far more amenable to the idea of transferring wealth and resources to the worse-off – and in turn, tackling inequality – if it’s explained in more detailed and concrete terms.

The research found that on the one hand:

• It seems that people are interpreting the income gap as that between the very top and the middle, rather than between ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ as conventionally understood.
• Concern about the income gap co-exists with a widespread belief that some inequalities are fairly deserved, and this sense of fairness may be violated by some redistributive approaches.
• Even where inequalities are seen as undeserved (for example, inherited wealth), in some contexts there is a sense that an individual is nevertheless still entitled to their resources.

But on the other:

Despite a widespread belief in ‘fair inequality’, participants strongly supported a progressive tax and benefits system – although they complained that the system is not generous enough towards the ‘middle’ (that is, where participants placed themselves). Participants therefore often supported highly redistributive policies on grounds of fairness, even if they did not particularly favour the idea of redistribution itself.

Many participants wanted the tax system to treat them differently from those at ‘the top’. And, in line with beliefs that the ‘middle’ are under most pressure, they wanted the benefits system to treat them ‘not too differently’ from those at ‘the bottom’. Nearly all participants were happy for lower-income households to receive more support than those in the ‘middle’, but many felt uneasy about benefits that were perceived to be very narrowly targeted.

The research drew this interesting conclusion:

A belief in deserved inequality is one reason why many participants did not find abstract arguments for greater equality convincing. Instead, they preferred arguments for greater equality when they were framed in terms of more proportionate rewards for the level of effort and contribution made.

This suggests that any public consensus about tackling economic inequality would have to include an acceptance that certain levels of inequality are fair. Advocates of greater equality might benefit from explicitly acknowledging this, while questioning whether current levels of inequality meet this criterion.

So why aren’t Labour emphasising their achievements in helping the deserving poor and the deserving middle, to mutual advantage? Alistair Darling told the Fabian Review last January that he thought Labour should “talk-up” it’s record on redistribution – yet it hasn’t happened. Indeed, today Left Foot Forward tells us that Gordon Brown will tomorrow use a high profile speech in Coventry to stick to the narrowly-focused “appeal to middle class voters” that he officially staked out in January.

I can think of at least 6 reasons why Brown and the leadership have decided not to emphasise Labour’s record on poverty reduction, filtered through the lens of explaining it in terms likely to be well-received by the middle classes who tend to decide elections:

• They don’t know about the Fabian research
• The know about the Fabian research, but they think it’s wrong
• They think the electorate are too stupid to understand the arguments the Fabians say need to be put forward to get people to realise they actually approve of redistribution in practice
• They think such arguments take too long to expound and are less effective than making standard appeals to one-dimensional middle class material aspiration
• They are still in a 1992-mindset and terrified of being labeled “Old Labour”
• They think it’s too risky to talk-up redistribution for fear of being misrepresented in the gutter press as taking from the middle classes to give to scroungers.

Some of these reasons are good, some of them are not.

But the thing is, I can’t easily  and quickly think of much else apart from helping the least-well off (and massive NHS investment) that Labour can be unambiguously proud about 13 years after saying things could only get better. Yet I readily recall Iraq, the economic collapse, bankers’ bonuses, ID cards and suspicious authoritarianism, overall increases in inequality, and the 10p tax.

The truth is that Labour just hasn’t got that much to go to the electorate with. One thing it does have, however, is a solid record on helping the least-well off (even if perhaps it should have done more). This is what Labour should be talking about, albeit carefully and in ways calculated to be well-received. Not peddling a narrow vision of “aspiration” more befitting of dogs than flourishing human beings.

Permalink