Does Less Inequality Lead To A Better Society?

I have just acquired a copy of a book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett called "The Spirit Level", which I haven't yet read but which argues that more unequal societies are bad for almost everyone within them - the well-off as well as the poor. The authors contend that almost every modern social and environmental problem - ill health, lack of community life, violence, drugs, obesity, mental illness, long working hours and big prison populations is more likely to occur in a less equal society.

There is a very interesting article, in 'The Times' newspaper on 28 April by David Aaronovitch which draws on some of the material in this book to discuss the new Equalities Bill announced by Harriet Harman on 27 April. Aaronovitch says the following in his article -

"If the problem is income disparity, then the answer must be income redistribution. Logically benefits and tax relief for the low paid would go up, as would taxes for the well-off (and not just the rich). The newly un-neglected would then measure their heightened esteem in the dwindling gap between themselves and the better-off, and over time begin to see the value of education, to start reading to their children and stop smoking. Well, it's an ill wind and news of the falling number of British billionaires and Wayne Rooney's half-million tax increase, could (for all I know) be working its magic already.

We can imagine the objections to this. It would, without a culture shift, constitute a reward for idleness, a disincentive to work and require hard-working middle earners to subsidise the workshy. Until such a time, that is, that they learnt not to be workshy".

I need to read the book before jumping to any conclusions but this for me is one of the main problems with the argument that correlates equality with fewer social problems. If the correlation were that simple then giving poor people more money and thus reducing the gap between them and richer people would result in slimmer, more mentally well and less incarcerated people.

I probably parody the book's argument when I say that but it can't really be that simple can it?

Are We Better Off Without Traffic Lights?

Are traffic lights authoritarian and roundabouts libertarian? I got thinking about this today as I drove to and from Guildford and in both directions came across a rather complicated junction where the traffic lights were not working meaning that vehicles coming from all directions and turning all ways had to 'negotiate' with each other as to how we were going to proceed. It all worked very safely, politely and effectively.

Roundabouts (or a lack of traffic lights) allow people to manage themselves. They have freedom to act on instinct and common sense, free of the interference of an outside, bossy and largely incompetent force (traffic lights). When traffic is light, roundabouts work because they don't needlessly stop traffic. When traffic is heavy, they arguably still work, because the traffic simply feeds in and the system just seems to work.

Roundabouts produce consistent, fluid motion, whilst at the same time allowing heavier routes to gain dominance, thereby creating fair outcomes. Traffic lights are hardly ever as sophisticated, and they bossily dictate who has right of way.

Take the mini roundabout for instance. They are brilliant. If there are three exits and entrances, and at each junction feeding in, there is a vehicle waiting, poised to go, you will notice something. Sometimes, each driver will be sat there, much like a lemon, looking to their right to see if that person is going to make a move. Because all three drivers are doing this, for a brief moment, no-one will go. Eventually, someone will make a move. Roundabouts are great, because they allow the dominant, responsibility-taking driver to capitalise, and this exploitation by the dominant driver is helpful to the driver to his or her right, because it gives them a chance to go also, and so on. Everyone wins, but the one with the most gumption gets to go first. In other words, roundabouts encourage independent thought, common sense and responsibility.

Traffic lights are the exact opposite. They are a very authoritarian function in our cities, towns and villages. I'd like to see the evidence that traffic lights help the traffic or marshall congestion effectively and efficiently. I think a road pilot in London a few years back demonstrated that the road that was bereft of speed humps, markings and lights saw traffic move slower and more thoughtfully. Indeed, increasingly streets are being designed where people, bikes and vehicles interact more freely with fewer formal demarcations and there appears to be some evidence that this leads to safer spaces for all involved.

With traffic lights, there are those countless occasions where it's quiet, no-one is about and you're stuck at a red light. Or even worse, you're cruising along at a nice speed and then you have to pull up sharp because the lights decided that was enough. You had to stop and give way to a hedgehog or even worse a badger. Or indeed nothing at all. Then you're sat there thinking, "if I run this now, will I get away with it?" as you furtively scan the area for cameras and hidden police officers.

So, in conclusion, I say "three cheers for the roundabout" and boos all round for the authoritarian traffic light!!

All Around My Hat

I have just got back from watching the folk-rock band 'Steeleye Span' at the Fairfield Halls in Croydon.

They've been around since 1969 and judging by the audience tonight, most of their fans have been around a lot longer than that! Suffice it to say that at 38, I am way below the average age of tonight's audience..

This is the second time that I have seen them in concert - the first time was at the wonderful Sage Centre in Gateshead on the banks of the River Tyne. Tonight was great - very soothing and relaxing and you can't help foot and finger tapping!

All good stuff...

The Damned United

I've just been to watch the film, 'The Damned United' at the Kingston Odeon and I enjoyed it even more than I expected to and I had high expectations. The performance of Michael Sheen was terrific and even for people like me who have been close Clough watchers, he was utterly authentic and believable - I thought he was excellent in 'The Queen' too and haven't yet watched 'Frost/Nixon'.

The thing I liked most about 'The Damned United' was its portrayal of the close friendship and bond between Clough and his assistant Peter Taylor - the way their relationship was developed and portrayed in the film was truly touching and artfully done. I also liked the way the film was able to show Clough as both extraordinarily confident and arrogant but also a touch insecure - from what I know about Clough, I think this is probably accurate.

Probably the thing I learnt about Clough from the film was just how strong his obsession with Don Revie was - probably because I knew Clough more from his later Nottingham Forest days in the 1980s, I didn't know as much as I should have done about the situation between Clough & Revie.

A really, really good film.

Lincolnshire - Home of the New Berlin Wall

I have just watched an excellent programme on BBC4 called Timeshift: The North-South Divide which sought to examine if a north-south divide still existed in England. One contributor argued that it did but that the line of the divide had shifted over the last 20 years or so with Grantham and most of Lincolnshire now in the South with the divide starting at the Severn Estuary and ending just south of Grimsby. The programme said that England is more regionally unequal than any other country in Europe and you have to go back to Germany before the Berlin Wall came down to find anything equivalent.

There appears to be no conception of 'being a southerner' amongst people from the South that is close to being comparable to the sense of 'being a northerner' amongst people from the North. This may not be surprising because that sort of sense of identitiy is often a defensive mechanism stemming from being the underdog - for example, there is also more of a Scottish identity than an English one.

The programme reminded me of the controversial report published by the think tank Policy Exchange in the summer of 2008 which argued that a decade of regeneration policies has failed to stop the inequality of opportunity between towns and cities in the North and those in the South East from increasing. The report recommended a series of radical proposals that would reverse the trend and inject a new momentum into regeneration policy. The key recommendations from the report were to increase the size of London by allowing landowners the right to convert industrial land into residential land in areas of above average employment; expand Oxford and Cambridge dramatically, just as Liverpool and Manchester expanded in the 19th century and for the Government to roll up current regeneration funding streams and allocate the money direct to local authorities - controversial stuff and not everyone agreed!

If you get a chance to watch the programme, I recommend it!

There Is No Egg In Eggplant

I've lifted the following from Donal Blaney's blog - it's great fun. He says -

You think English is easy?

1) The bandage was wound around the wound.

2) The farm was used to produce produce.

3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.

4) We must polish the Polish furniture.

5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.

6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.

7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.

8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.

9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.

10) I did not object to the object.

11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.

12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.

13) They were too close to the door to close it.

14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.

15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.

16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.

17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.

18) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.

19) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.

20) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

Let's face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France. Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat. We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth, beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices? Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?

If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? Sometimes I think all the English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which, an alarm goes off by going on.

English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all. That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.

PS Why doesn't Buick rhyme with quick?

Quick Thought For The Day - On Communications

Here's a quick (if not startlingly new) thought for the day about communication -

"Effective communication is not about what you say but what people hear!"

Good night....

Cloughie - Football Genius

I'm watching the excellent ITV documentary on Brian Clough, possibly the most charismatic manager ever to grace English football and one of my childhood football heroes. He provided us with a catalogue of fantastic quotes and one of my favourites is from when he was asked about what he would do if one of his players came to him and said that he had a better idea than Clough about how things should be done. From memory, Clough's response was something like -

"Good, well I'd invite the player into my office, I'd ask him how he thought things should be done, we'd talk about it for 20 minutes and then we'd decide I was right all along!".

Wouldn't it be great (if unwise) to say something like that in a job interview when asked about your management style!?

UPDATE - I don't think much of ITV, but I must say this was a very fine programme - truly excellent...

Nudging Our Way To A Better Future

I'm not long back from hearing Richard Thaler speak at the London School of Economics about his book Nudge which he co-authored with Cass Sunstein who is now Barack Obama's 'nudger-in-chief' at the dull but important sounding 'Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs'.

I'll have more to say about this in later posts but it was an enjoyable and interesting 75 minute session during which Thaler described his ambition as being about, "creating a better world through freedom of choice" - a somewhat surprising self-description given that he often gets described as a nanny-stater. Thaler said that he and Sunstein were experimenting in seeing how far we can go in achieving social change without forcing anyone to do anything against their will.

More to follow...