Gross inequalities existed in Britain during the period in which the great economist, JK Galbraith, was formulating his thesis on the socio-economic make-up of society. But the palpable disparity of income and residence at the time between the well-off and the majority did not lead to revolution
For Marxists, the mantra remained the same. It was workers versus bosses, or labour versus capital. Yet in the UK, a combination of clever one-nation conservatism, deference and generally rising living standards were enough to avoid the reaction seen in other parts of the world. Outside of this country, the level of inequality between the very rich minority and the very poor masses formed a breeding ground for genuine uprisings.
Books such as The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, published in 2009, have formed a very persuasive backcloth, particularly for those on the centre and left, as to how more equal societies lead to greater distribution of wealth and, as a corollary, social cohesion and wellbeing. Nonetheless, the debate is open as to whether a more equal society will come through the development of opportunity for everyone, rather than via concentrating on welfarism and top-down distribution to attempt to make everyone equal.
Cash transfer—taking not only from the rich but also the comparatively well-off and redistributing it to the poor—is still strongly favoured on the moderate and far left of politics. The question often ducked, however, is how to achieve the consent of the people to this process, which historically was done by emphasising mutuality and solidarity. This aspect has been missing, for instance, from the important dialogue regarding whether the government should lift the two-child benefit limit.
In considering this, it is important to recognise that social injustice arises from shared experience of deprivation, poor housing and indifferent schooling. In other words, one’s own neighbourhood can lead to a life-long denial of success. The “critical mass” of people collectively experiencing a poor start emerges from generational disadvantage, a matter outside the control of any individual at any one time.
I’m talking here of massive disparity in wealth. Put crudely, if a relative leaves you a house of even modest proportions in London and the southeast, it’s the equivalent of winning the lottery. Yet if you grew up in rented accommodation, no such asset is available to transform your life chances.
In 1997, the incoming Labour government, in whose cabinet I served for eight years, conducted research through the Department of Education and Employment to look at how it might be possible to provide greater equality of opportunity to those without prospects of inheriting assets within the family. This work resulted in the development of the Child Trust Fund. Beginning on 1st September 2002, tax-free savings accounts were opened by the government (initially £250) for all eligible children, who could then draw down upon it when they were 18. The programme ended on 2nd January 2011, when it was abolished by the coalition government.
But even where governments do not pursue policy to redistribute assets across society, there is one asset that remains immediately available to us, and which accumulates success for every individual: education. The very antithesis of the “trickle-down” economic philosophy is empowerment, enrichment and therefore education and life-long learning.
In the lead-up to the 1997 general election, a group of individuals in the political, educational and child development sectors started to put together a UK version of a groundbreaking initiative developed in Seattle, in the United States—described there as Head Start. This became the early Sure Start programmes.
Sure Start was a holistic approach to investing in the community. The programme developed in the parent self-belief, confidence and engagement with education, as well as nurturing children from birth. Crucial factors in the early success of Sure Start included embedding each project at a local level and ensuring cross-departmental collaboration. As education secretary, I was able to identify resources and work with the Treasury on the one hand, and—in partnership with my longstanding friend, the late Tessa Jowell—the Department of Health.
A 2024 report on the long-term impacts of Sure Start by the Institute for Fiscal Studies clearly spelt out how effective the programme was. It found that children who lived within 2.5km of a Sure Start centre in the first five years of their lives scored an average 0.8 grades higher in their GCSEs than those who did not; and for children from low-income families, the score was an average three grades higher than those in similar circumstances who did not have access to Sure Start.
Yet another transformative element of education is to foster engagement in societal issues—let us call it “active citizenship”. Longitudinal research has identified a marked improvement in outcome for young people when citizenship is incorporated into the curriculum. It is a misnomer to talk about “left-behind towns”—but it is true that it is a challenge to make sure social capital is developed so that the strength of community can help to lift the wellbeing of a whole area. It is life-long learning, however, which will transform the opportunity of adults. This will in turn impact their children.
Much is now spoken about artificial intelligence, robotics and the likely impact they will have on the nature of work and how individuals are able to cope with rapid change. I saw, in the 1980s, as leader of Sheffield City Council, the way in which funding from the European steel and coal community was used in endeavouring to re-equip those losing their jobs. However, the jobs they were training workers for were already overtaken by the technology of the moment. That is why any education system should create opportunities for all learners to take on new working methods and command of evolving technologies, rather than being victims of it. Appropriate reskilling enables the individual to gain command of technological advancement. It therefore enables people to fill the jobs of the future, rather than experiencing unemployment because of rapid change.
None of the challenges which face the nation—net zero, sufficient housing for the future, dignified care where it’s needed—can be faced without a skilled workforce. Past transformations have left whole communities on the sidelines. Success can be found in the development of human capital through education; social capital through community and citizenship; and material capital by narrowing the gulf between those with land and property and those without. In essence, what we need is joined-up government. Such a holistic approach would turn “missions” into reality by enabling individuals to contribute to their own success and that of the community around them.
This is an edited excerpt from ‘Making Equal: New Visions for Opportunity and Growth’ edited by Graeme Atherton and Peter John (Emerald Publishing)
