« Does university pay? | Main | The Dorries paradox »

October 22, 2010



So really you're just saying that you agree with Nick when he writes in the FT today.

"It is a complete nonsense to apply that measure, which is a slightly desiccated Treasury measure. People do not live only on the basis of the benefits they receive. They also depend on public services, such as childcare and social care. All of those things have been airbrushed out of the picture by the IFS....

You cannot measure poverty with a snapshot because people’s lives last longer than a single second. If you want to measure genuine fairness, the question to ask about government policy is what its dynamic effects are, particularly across the generations. How does it change the future course of people’s lives? How does it increase their opportunities? Will it unlock the poverty trap or deepen it?"

Paul Sagar

The latest from left outside might complement the end of your piece nicely, with a reminder to campaign not on stats and claims about regressivity, but on personal impact:


Mike Woodhouse

Increasingly I find myself unable to read anything that uses the word "fair" without defining how they intend it to be interpreted. It was widely used by all parties during the election campaign, and I suspect that each considered their proposals to be "fair" by their own measure - and the others therefore to have been "unfair". Which rather makes the whole thing into an annoying rhetorical device at best, and a heap of bollocks at worst.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad