The left is about redistributing wealth and power

by Andrew Lomas / @andrewlomas

It was often said of Hugh Dalton that his hatred of the rich seemed more obvious than his love of the poor. Whilst the difference in emphasis is often more nuanced, it is nonetheless a difference that has existed throughout the history of the party. Indeed, the rich bashing side of the debate has re-emerged in style in the past 12 months with the publication of Unjust Rewards by Polly Toynbee and David Walker and the more recent calls by Compass for the Government to establish a High Pay Commission.

The problem with obsessing about high pay is that in terms of increasing social mobility, tackling social exclusion, and improving life chances, income differentials are far less important than the concentration of wealth and power (economic, political and social) in relatively few hands. Amongst others- and Stuart White’s contribution earlier today on LabourList is well worth a read- I would argue that what matters is focussing on redistributing this wealth and power and worrying less about income.

In terms of redistributing wealth, policies such as Child Trust Funds are making a start. Perhaps they could go further, but the principle is in place- that we should build on them is perhaps a debate for another time.

The other aspect of redistributing wealth is inheritance tax which, whatever the right might claim, is entirely just. Not only is an inheritance an unearned windfall, the lottery of birth results in inherited wealth is one of the main barriers to social mobility in the UK and one of the main causes of ossifying social structures.

However, instead of dwelling on wealth I would like to use the limited space I have left to turn to power inequalities and how we might overcome them, not least because I think that this is the area that the left can still have an edge.

Ensuring that power is in the hands of the many not the few is key to broadening opportunity and tackling social exclusion. Integral to this is an understanding of what excludes individuals and maintain social immobility.

A Marxian analysis would place the emphasis on class; whilst this still has some resonance, not least because lower socio-economic groups are hugely more likely to be excluded and have less opportunities, on it’s own it’s not enough. I’ve written before (albeit briefly) on how the advent of the New Left placed replaced class with an idea of countering the discrimination encountered on the basis of gender, sexuality and ethnicity.

The problem with this approach is that it tends to create victims to be catered for rather than seeking to overcome the root causes of disempowerment or create a culture of aspiration. This victimhood often breeds resentment both amongst the victimised and those groups who don’t feel catered for (most recently expressed through support for the BNP) leading to the emergence of new barriers.

If instead we see both of these theories as essentially expressing social exclusion as a function of disempowerment, the redistribution of power (rather than merely legislative or economic measures of redress) starts to look increasingly relevant.

How we go about this redistribution is open to debate. I would like to see communities being given real power to decide budgets and priorities for their areas. I’d like to see constitutional change that takes account of the fact we are moving to a more participatory model of government than the purely representational model of the past; perhaps this could be achieved through the greater use of the internet and citizen’s initiatives or maybe reinvigorating existing local government structures offers a better bet.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers; as we approach conference season however, Ministers must remember when getting into their chauffeur driven cars that the left seeks power to give it away, not revel in its trappings. We forget that at our peril.