A Colourful Vision for Labour: Equality
By Emma.
In 2014/15 (and, despite recent speculation, almost certainly not before) Labour are going to go to the voters of Britain with a vision for Government. This is my first in an occasional series where I give my best attempts to think about what I’d like to see articulated in that vision. These are not policy ideas, though I will offer those elsewhere, but principles that should form the basis of Labour’s policy making. Here I will be posing questions that should help Labour to establish how we move the arguments for Socialism forward and make it relevant to the 21st century and it’s new challenges. I will also start to offer my answers to those questions.
Equality is a surprisingly thorny concept. What seems like a self-evident statement – all people are born equal, should be treated equally and have an equal chance to achieve success and happiness - is so far from true in any recognisable way in the world we live in. Because we live in a world and country where people’s life chances are very much determined by their the family they are born into and by the village, town, city, region and country they are born in.
Any movement towards equalising society means that some people’s children will not have the differential advantages that they have had and have come to expect – that’s what equalising means. As a result, the less talented children of the wealthy could lose financially (though there are real and good arguments to be made that they gain societally). Allowing natural losers among small but extremely powerful and vocal groups to naturally fail is largely considered to be bad politics, even if it’s good policy. So despite the obviousness of the self-evident statement, we do nothing of the sort, nor do we have, or even talk of aspiring to, policies in place that would result in such a society.
Instead, we comfort ourselves with rising tide policies that aspire to life all the boats while sending lifeboats to those most in need. We address severe poverty by alleviating the worst symptoms and we pull people over the line from absolute poverty to relative poverty. All of which is admirable, but does nothing, not a jot, to address inequality. But here’s the thing no one ever says: addressing just one group in society, whether it be through leaving it to trickle down economics or through focusing solely on poverty reduction will not address inequality. Don’t get me wrong, poverty reduction is important. But it’s a reactive measure to the societal problem of inequality. It is not a solution to that problem.
In recent years, the definition of inequality has itself been under question. There have been political tensions both across the political spectrum and within the Party between those who believe that we should focus on equality of outcome and those who believe we should focus on equality of opportunity and those who continue to argue for an equality of outcome.
The ultimate effects of such differing policies would have extremely different effects on society. A meritocracy is a far easier sell, but practically impossible to achieve from an uneven base. While we can all agree that people should rise and fall on their merits, those with more will have far greater chances to embellish their talents than those with less. I simply don’t believe that a true meritocracy is achievable without an even base to work from, and I don’t believe an even base to work from is achievable through a focus on meritocracy. So while meritocracy must be the ultimate aim, we can actually only achieve such a system through a focus now on equality of outcomes.
It is here that the equalities argument usually runs headlong into those who promote fairness rather than equality. Fairness is a word with increasing cache in modern politics, and is at least as often employed by the right than it is by the left. It is an even trickier concept that equality, as it is even more nebulous. Fairness is often deployed as an argument against measures to promote equality (for example, many argue that a flat tax is fairer, despite the fact that it would lead to vast disparities in effect on richer and poorer households). Fairness has come to mean the support of the short term interests of those who lose out to equalities measures, and not the support of the long term interests of gain to the wider society.
Labour has a decent record when it comes to understanding the tensions between fairness and equality and bringing in gradualist measures that promote long term equality at the cost of shortsighted fairness. Internal measures such as gender quotas for the cabinet and All Women Shortlists have proved that we have done the thinking between these two issues and have picked a side that we are moving towards gradually. I am proud of these measures and will be prouder still when they are abolished as no longer necessary. Again I see them not as the ultimate goal, but as steps that must be taken before meritocracy is possible. When you look at the difference between the Labour and Government benches in the House of Commons, you can see that we are making progress. When you lo0k at the way the cuts will affect all strands of equalities, including income and gender, you realise how far we as a society have to go.
Labour are not a revolutionary party, and Britain is not a revolutionary country. We need to think about these matters not like we can wish an equal society into place tomorrow, but as we can work towards one every day. We need to focus not just on the goal but on the journey. Meritocracy is a fine ideal, but is not one that is practicable in current society. Labour must ensure that its work is in changing society in practical and real ways to achieve a place where meritocracy is possible, not trying to impose an unworkable meritocracy at the expense of those in society who would benefit least at present. Meritocracy must be the goal, and the goal must be part of our rhetoric. But there is a great deal of difference between goals and journeys and if we don’t accept that difference and write policies that are attuned to it we will achieve neither goal nor journey. We will get lost.
Tags: All Women Shortlists, equalities, fairness, inequality, meritocracy, poverty reduction
