Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

News Flash: Conservatives Discover Inequality (at Least in the UK)

By Sam Pizzigati, Too Much: A Commentary on Excess and Inequality. Posted August 13, 2008.


In the UK, conservatives don't have to take the blame -- inequality has soared over the last decade with the Labor Party running the show.
Advertisement

Inequality in Britain, the only developed nation in the world with an economic divide that rivals the gap in the United States, came under attack last week -- from the country's Conservative Party. The British "financial gap between the richest and the poorest," charged a top Conservative leader, Chris Grayling, in a nationally hyped speech, now stands "at its widest for generations."

"The gap between the life expectancy of the richest and the poorest is now at its widest since the Victorian era," Grayling would go on to add. "There could be no clearer indicator of a society that is getting things wrong." Such a declaration -- from a top conservative -- would be almost unimaginable in the United States, where right-wingers typically either deny the reality of inequality or minimize its impact. Indeed, this past spring, new federal research revealed a "large and growing" gap between the life expectancy of rich and poor Americans, and no top conservatives made any public fuss.

So what makes top conservatives in the UK more inequality-sensitive? Credit that "sensitivity" to the dynamics of partisan politics. In the UK, conservatives don't have to take the blame for recent surges in British inequality. Inequality has soared over the last decade with the Conservative Party's top rival, the Labor Party, running the show.

Tony Blair and his "New Labor" allies took parliamentary control in 1997. Right from the start, they distanced themselves from "old" Labor Party priorities -- like discouraging the concentration of wealth. New Labor, noted Blairite powerbroker Peter Mandelson early on, would be "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich, as long as they pay their taxes."

New Labor would end up ""intensely relaxed" even when the rich didn't pay any taxes. Under Blair, the world's billionaires made London one of their favorite tax havens, and the Labor Party blew no whistle.

By 2007, the wealth of Britain's 1,000 wealthiest had nearly quadrupled in just a decade. The new British super rich, the Compass think tank observed last year, are "distorting society and recreating Victorian levels of class distinctions as conspicuous consumption, obscene financial rewards, and a new servant class are returning after an absence of over a century."

Britain's poor, meanwhile, are enjoying no similar golden age. Blair had pledged to have child poverty poverty halved by 2010. Child poverty last year actually increased -- by 100,000 kids.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: class, conservatives, inequality, britain

Sam Pizzigati is the editor of the online weekly Too Much, and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
neo liberal means crypto conservative
Posted by: whealeydj on Aug 14, 2008 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
whether Blair-blairite or Clinton-Clintonistas. I hope Barack Obama and Gordon Brown return to the roots of their party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conservatives in the UK...
Posted by: aichbe on Aug 15, 2008 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...are more like Libertarians in the US, whereas Blair's version of the Labor Party is similar to the Neo-conservative hijacking the Republican party.
Labor is less liberal than the US Democratic Party, for the most part, as that role is taken by Greens and other more legitimate progressives.
The main thing is that, in both cases, the title and structure of the original party was retained for the purpose of retaining supporters, while the whole agenda and purpose of the organization is quite different.
Both the Labor and Republican parties have abandoned their traditional roles for much more radical positions on war, economics, trade, and privacy. Both parties have fulfilled their Machievellian purpose of making the ruling class more powerful and wealthy than before, while making their deluded followers less wealthy. This is, of course, an over-simplification of a complex set of circumstances.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We don't want anyone's feelings hurt
Posted by: ClassicLib on Aug 18, 2008 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did I just read that article right or did the lady from the Guardian just say that the reason we need to tax the rich "Hard" is so that people don't get their feelings hurt when they compare themselves to the super rich?

Um,that seems insane.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]