[A-List] UK today: Paul Foot's commentary

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Adding up to much less

Paul Foot
Wednesday November 26, 2003
The Guardian

On September 26, the leader of the House of Commons, Peter Hain, was on the
BBC's Newsnight proclaiming the progressive reforms of New Labour. High on
the list, he claimed, was the closing of the gap between rich and poor. "If
you look at the figures," he said, "the bottom tenth of the population have
seen their incomes increase by 15%, while the top tenth have seen their
incomes reduced by 3%. That's redistribution."

This seemed so unlikely that I contacted the Office of National Statistics
(ONS), now attached to the Cabinet Office. To my surprise, the figures it
gave me confirmed what Hain said. The earnings of the poorest tenth, they
revealed, had risen steadily since 1997, but, astonishingly, the earnings of
the richest tenth, after growing even faster every year until 2001, suddenly
and sharply went down in 2002.

I went back, twice, to the ONS, requoted the figures they had given me,
expressed my doubts, and asked for an explanation. Back came the reply that
the figures had been "double-checked" and were "correct".

No doubt about it, then. Peter was right and my scepticism was wrong. But
wait. Early this month, the ONS sent me a new set of earnings figures,
updated to 2003. They flatly contradicted the figures given to me
previously. They showed a steady annual increase in earnings for both the
poorest and the richest tenths at about the same rate from 1997 to 2003.

What was going on? I consulted Incomes Data Services, a specialist in such
matters. Its explanation was rather shocking. "The ONS," it said, "has made
a mistake. It has given you the upper quartile (quarter) figure for 2002
when it should have given you the highest decile (tenth)." The real figures
for the richest decile showed a steady rise in earnings in every year from
1997 to 2003. So, under New Labour, the rich are getting richer and the gap
between rich and poor is getting wider.

The ONS now admits its error, and has apologised to me. Where does that
leave Peter Hain? His spokesman tells me that Hain's claim on Newsnight was
based on a survey by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, whose press release
concluded: "Focusing on (tax and benefit) measures that directly affect
household incomes and spending shows a progressive pattern, varying from a
boost of more than 15% to the incomes of the poorest tenth of the population
to a loss of nearly 3% for the richest tenth". That says, vaguely and almost
incomprehensibly, something rather different to what Hain claimed.

Much more specific and reliable are the latest figures from the Inland
Revenue on the distribution of marketable wealth - which includes rent,
dividends and other windfalls of capitalism. They show that the richest 1%
of the population had 20% of the nation's wealth in 1996 and, thanks to
Peter Hain and New Labour, 23% in 2001. This is a bigger, quicker leap in
the booty of the mega-rich than anything achieved under any other postwar
government, including Thatcher's. As for the poorest half of the population,
they had 7% of the wealth in 1996. And after the first four caring years of
New Labour, their share dropped - to 5%.

· Hats off to Hari Kunzru for sticking two fingers up to the Mail on Sunday,
and refusing to accept its prize for his book, The Impressionist. He
complained about the revolting media harassment, led by the Mail, of people
who seek asylum in this country.

An interesting contemporary example was the sad case of Esrafil Tajaroghi, a
gay man who fled from the murderous moral police in Tehran and the edict of
a former Iranian justice minister that homosexuals should be sliced in two
with a sword. Somehow, Mr Tajaroghi smuggled his way to Britain. The
Blunkett bully boys refused him asylum and ordered him to leave the country.
Panic-stricken, isolated and desperately ill, he walked into the Manchester
Refugee Centre, set himself alight and died in the flames. Such was the
media indignation that his frightful suicide was not reported in any
national newspaper.

There was once a disgusting demagogue called Horatio Bottomley who became a
newspaper proprietor and plagued the British people for years with
militarist and xenophobic drivel. He received a lot of support in the House
of Commons, but then suddenly his career collapsed. With the help of some
corrupt accountants, he swindled gullible suckers among the public with
so-called "victory bonds". He was caught, charged, convicted and sent to
prison.