Injustice, Inequality and the CutsDanny Dorling, public meeting organized by Equality NW5 April 2011, 6.30-9pm, Friends Meeting House, Manchester
5 graphs from the book and 5 new pieces of evidence
Elitism is believing that just a few children are sufficiently able to be fully educated and only a few of those are then able to govern; the rest must be led – unequal in ‘potential’.
?
The tenets of injustice:1. Elitism is essential – for economic efficiency? 2. Exclusion necessary - the poor will always be with
us no matter how rich we are. Because we cannot afford to alleviate poverty?
Public Expenditure (%GDP) International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic
Outlook Databasefor October, Washington, DC, IMF, 2010http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/weodata/index.aspx
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
United Kingdom
Public Expenditure (%GDP) International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic
Outlook Databasefor October, Washington, DC, IMF, 2010http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/weodata/index.aspx
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
United Kingdom
United States
Public Expenditure (%GDP) International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic
Outlook Databasefor October, Washington, DC, IMF, 2010http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/weodata/index.aspx
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
United Kingdom
United States
Greece
Public Expenditure (%GDP) International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic
Outlook Databasefor October, Washington, DC, IMF, 2010http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/weodata/index.aspx
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
United Kingdom
United States
Greece
Slovenia
Public Expenditure (%GDP) International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic
Outlook Databasefor October, Washington, DC, IMF, 2010http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/weodata/index.aspx
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
United Kingdom
United States
Greece
Slovenia
Germany
Public Expenditure (%GDP) International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic
Outlook Databasefor October, Washington, DC, IMF, 2010http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/weodata/index.aspx
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
United Kingdom
United States
Greece
Slovenia
Germany
Spain
Public Expenditure (%GDP) International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic
Outlook Databasefor October, Washington, DC, IMF, 2010http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/weodata/index.aspx
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
United Kingdom
United States
Greece
Slovenia
Germany
Spain
Ireland
Public Expenditure (%GDP) International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic
Outlook Databasefor October, Washington, DC, IMF, 2010http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/weodata/index.aspx
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
United Kingdom
United States
Greece
Slovenia
Germany
Spain
Ireland
Norway
Portugal
Italy
Netherlands
Finland
Public Expenditure (%GDP) International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic
Outlook Databasefor October, Washington, DC, IMF, 2010http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/weodata/index.aspx
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
United Kingdom
United States
Greece
Slovenia
Germany
Spain
Ireland
Norway
Portugal
Italy
Netherlands
Finland
Austria
Sweden
Public Expenditure (%GDP) International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic
Outlook Databasefor October, Washington, DC, IMF, 2010http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/weodata/index.aspx
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
United Kingdom
United States
Greece
Slovenia
Germany
Spain
Ireland
Norway
Portugal
Italy
Netherlands
Finland
Austria
Sweden
France
Those of the world’s 25 richest large countries which are in Europe + USA
Public Expenditure (%GDP) International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic
Outlook Databasefor October, Washington, DC, IMF, 2010http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/weodata/index.aspx
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
United Kingdom
United States
Greece
Slovenia
Germany
Spain
Ireland
Norway
Portugal
Italy
Netherlands
Finland
Austria
Sweden
France
Denmark
Belgium
Rich World Inequality League
Ratio of the income of the best-off tenth to worse of tenth of households
17.7 Singapore 15.9 US 15.0 Portugal 13.8 UK13.4 Israel 12.5 Australia 12.5 New Zealand 11.6 Italy10.3 Spain 10.2 Greece 9.4 Canada 9.4 Ireland 9.2 Netherlands 9.1 France 9.0 Switzerland 8.2 Belgium8.1 Denmark 7.8 S. Korea 7.3 Slovenia 6.9 Austria6.9 Germany 6.2 Sweden 6.1 Norway 5.6 Finland4.5 Japan
The 24 richest countries in the world with a population of 1 million+Source, UNDP world development report 2009, not updated since then.
Public Expenditure (%GDP) International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic
Outlook Databasefor October, Washington, DC, IMF, 2010http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/weodata/index.aspx
3839 40
41 41 40
43
47 4745
4443
4241
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
United Kingdom
Talk of cuts returning us to ‘2005’ are disingenuous‘Still’ 3% higher than 2002 by 2015, but much higher unemployment,lower wages so more in-work benefits needed, an aging populationso higher health costs, some 51% of women attending university sowhy not 51% of men, higher school costs, and debt payments tomake, and – in 2002, no Iraq war to pay for (‘defence’ up 2% ’01-’05).
Thanks to Jon Swords for this and next three: http://www.envplan.com/graphics_a.html
Three terms: £10bn under, £31bn over (progress), £74bn over (bail-out)
£22bn more in 5 years +20bn
+£14bn ▼
3839 40
41 41 40
43
47 4745
4443
4241
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
In short. The 1st Labour government saved moneyThe 2nd Labour government moved spending towardsthe European Union norm – but still much lower.The 3rd Labour government (2005-2010) reducedspending as a % of GDP until the crisis of 2008.Sources – Jon Swords (1997-2008), and IMF
2005 election notional resultsConservativeIndependentLabourLiberal DemocratNationalistRespectSpeaker
May 2010 General Election WinnerConservativeGreenLabourLiberal DemocratNationalistSpeakerVacant
Spot the difference…. 2005 to 2010
Each parliamentaryconstituency isdrawn with its arearoughly proportionalto its electorate.
2005 results havebeen projected onto 2010 boundaries.
Are we becoming more segregated by voting?
1918
1945
1966
1992
Voter segregation now risen for the seventh general election in a row. Only 1918 more segregated than 2010.
2010
The tide changed 1968-1974
• The rise in electoral segregation has coincided in Britain with the increased acceptance of arguments that suggest some people are worth much more than others. Justifying injustice.
• In 2010 the Sunday Times Rich List 1000 were each ‘worth’ £335.5 million (+30%).
• In 2011 the UK billionaire count rose by over 10% …. as did unemployment.
A small number believe prejudice is natural, greed is good and despair is inevitable…
• They have come to believe that most others are naturally, perhaps genetically, inferior to them. And many of this small group believe that their friends’ and their own greed is helping the rest of humanity as much as humanity can be helped; they are convinced that to argue against such a counsel of despair is foolhardy.
Income inequality has risen – before & after taxlines below are share of the best-off 1% (‘Injustice’)
2011
2011
Inequalities in health (‘Injustice’). The two lines below are how more often people in the poorest areas die aged under
age 65, and how less often those in the best-off areas2010
2010
Rise in anxiety and depression amongst older adolescents in the most unequal affluent countries (source – ‘Injustice’)
There was a rapid rise in the number of older school children reporting concerns 2008-2009 before the government cancelled the ‘TellUs’ survey in summer 2010. How anxious would you be now – if you were age 15 today?
Politically it is very hard for the last government to blame this one for rising inequalities. Health
Inequalities 1999-2008 (summary):
Figure 3. Inequalities in life expectancy between areas in Great Britain 1999–2008 Source: Difference between the best and worst-off districts, 1999–2008 (ONS).
But health inequalities may have finally fallen slightly in 2009 between areas.
Almost everything that could be done to increase them is occurring now. Especially in housing....
Conclusion: The near future really will be very different, because, for at least the last six human generations, the near future has changed radically with each single generation. Don’t despair that there won’t be change. Don’t assume it will be for the better, nor necessarily for the worse. The very least we can do is describe clearly the crux of our present predicament – that much that is currently wrong is widely seen as either inevitable or justifiable.
There are many alternatives, elsewhere in the world today, in our past, and in our imaginations and aspirations.
Tax the wealthy (reparation), cut what is waste (war), don’t saddle future generations with debt (fees), understand that inequality causes poverty, concertina down incomes in the public sector and for any subcontractor, introduce a ‘right to sell’ to deter housing speculation, stop blaming immigrants – so many alternatives – so where to start?
Top Related