At the debate called "Ask the Chancellors" on Channel 4 last night, the three would-be Chancellors of the Exchequer were asked if they thought the purpose of government was to create greater equality.
Alistair Darling more or less said 'yes' as did Vince Cable who, I think, started talking about fairness as though it were the same thing as equality. George Osborne talked about fairness, too, and went on to say that the gap between the rich and the poor had increased under Labour.
None of them openly opposed the idea of equality and all of them seemed broadly sympathetic to the idea. Two of them, at least, implied that equality and fairness are the same sort of thing. They should not be allowed to get away with this. Equality and fairness, so far from being pretty much the same, are vigorously opposed to each other.
Imagine two poor men who have nothing except a place to live, a tv and the opportunity to work. One of them gets up and works hard for 10 hours and earns £150. The other hangs around his flat, watching daytime TV.
Now comes the chance to take a test and see whether you believe in equality or fairness.
Someone suggests that the man who worked all day should give half his money to the man who watched TV. That would be equal. Someone else argues that it would not be fair to take from a man who worked and give half his money to one who was idle. It is up to you to decide.
Which side are you on? Equality or fairness? Do you take £100 from a man who worked so that at the end of the day he has an equal amount of money as the man who was idle?
Equality and fairness are not the same thing and it is a trick, used by politicians and lamely accepted last night by the interviewer, to suggest otherwise.
One other thing: if you are on the side of equality in this little thought experiment, what do you think will happen the next day? Do you think that the man who worked for 10 hours will work quite so hard again now he realises that half his money will be taken from him? And do you think the idle man will decide that perhaps he ought to work after all? If the answer two both questions is 'no', you have unveiled at least part of the reason why Communism was such an economic disaster.
Posted by James Bartholomew • Indexed in Politics
Comments (3)
TrackBack (34)
Comments
Equality only exists in terms of mathematics.
'Fairness' belongs in the playground. If you find life 'unfair', do something about it; do not make your inability to self-start the problem of others.
A splendid commentary from James Bartholomew, as per normal.
Posted by: Mara MacSeoinin at March 31, 2010 06:36 AM
"If the answer two both questions is 'no', you have unveiled at least part of the reason why Communism was such an economic disaster".
With respect to your overall analysis of what's wrong with our society - which I find accurate - I'd take issue on this point. I don't think you'd find any communist who'd be into the idea of supporting thousands of feckless wasters to sit on their &rses at home. "From each according to their ability", remember? The classic Stalinist economies of Eastern Europe counted having a job as a right - but also as a responsibility. Goes without saying that you couldn't have a "Stakhanovitch"-type drive to greater production whilst carrying slackers..
The "support the idle" mentality comes not from Communism but from the wet wooly liberalism that's ruined this country.
Posted by: Merlin at April 2, 2010 05:16 PM
Warning: file(http://63.247.138.2/~bartholo/randomquotes.dump) [function.file]: failed to open stream: No route to host in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2010/03/for_the_chancel.php on line 306
Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Invalid arguments passed in /home/bartholo/public_html/archives/2010/03/for_the_chancel.php on line 306
The point is that fairness and equality are not the same thing. As you state. Life is never fair and equal has many sides to it. I have equal rights to vote, to attend a higher education programme, or to be considered for employment without my gender being taken into account - equality with men. If I am asked about fairness then fairness to whom? Its not fair, perhaps I could say, that my age prevents me from joining the army, though I am fit and healthy bla bla bla, but if I was younger I would be considered fit for the army, once again my gender not preventing me - equality. Sometimes we have to be realistic and factual with the understanding of the words fair and equal.
Instead of taking monrey from the man who worked, in your example, to give part of it to the man who DID NOT WANT TO WORK,[it's not fair he gets more money than me because IT IS NOT MY FAULT I AM NOT WORKING] it would be prudent to use a form of workfare - you work for certain benefit payments, because as you say IT IS NOT MY FAULT [no jobs available] I AM NOT WORKING so you are given an equal chance to improve your financial situation. One man works because he has a job - he {presumably] voluntarily looked for work and got it. The other did or did not look for work and in all fairness and all things being equal he now can work for money [benefits], in a job he did not look for or want. But now the two men have equal access to money. AND both pay taxes [fair] so that if the situation is reveresed there is money to pay the benefit. Very simplistic I know. And I am not talking about people who CAN NOT work. Just my thoughts.
Posted by: Jan at March 30, 2010 02:27 PM