Comments on: Labour’s “Robin Hood” legacy

By: Why Clegg is wrong to say poor must accept benefit cuts | Liberal Conspiracy

Thu, 16 Sep 2010 07:51:42 +0000

[…] Democrats have argued that Labour should have done more to reduce inequality. Labour’s redistribution was pro-poor and held inequality in check. Nick Clegg is against it, when his party is not for more of […]

By: Here comes the future « Bad Conscience

Here comes the future « Bad Conscience — Tue, 18 May 2010 10:55:45 +0000

[…] in power and all Labour’s achievements in poverty-reduction via redistributive policies (as confirmed by the IFS) had not taken place?As Giles has angrily pointed out, what happened under Labour was that the gap […]

By: Mary Newsham

Mary Newsham — Sun, 09 May 2010 14:00:04 +0000

Rebecca, the fact is that the rich ‘earn’ disproportionately. Their labour is rewarded excessively and their gains are inflated. Meanwhile, the labours of the poor are grossly undervalued, under renumerated and as such not likeley to ‘bring the poor out of poverty by their own means’.
Labour certainly can take credit for significant work to address the concerns of the poorest but there is still lots to be done to close the inequality gap by dis-advataging the over advantaged.

By: Duncan Hothersall

Duncan Hothersall — Tue, 04 May 2010 07:07:08 +0000

Labour's finest achievement – redistribution of wealth, according to the IFS: http://bit.ly/9FZeC0 @SarahPortsmth @purpleline @GetLabourOut

By: Duncan Hothersall

Duncan Hothersall — Tue, 04 May 2010 06:09:08 +0000

Labour's finest achievement, confirmed by the IFS – real redistribution of wealth http://bit.ly/9FZeC0 #ge2010 #ge10 #ukelection

By: Craig Montgomery

Craig Montgomery — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:42:07 +0000

@EpsomSean, @Selkie needs to work on her shorthand. Explicitly income inequality reduced through e.g. tax and min wage http://bit.ly/aBmILo

By: Sunder Katwala

Sunder Katwala — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:45:13 +0000

@jonathanfryer you agree that IFS proves bottom 20% most significant gainers of tax and benefit changes since 1997? http://bit.ly/aBmILo

By: Sunder Katwala

Sunder Katwala — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:30:02 +0000

@spiderplant88 The IFS report is authoritative on this https://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/03/labours-robin-hood-legacy/

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:58:02 +0000

Interesting point from Mark M

But isn’t this part of the problem with wealth distribution: that a portion of society (the rich here) are giving up increasing amounts of their wealth, and why should they? Why should anyone have to give up what he has earned (other than the fact that we wish to punish those better off than ourselves)?

It is not a sustainable model in the long run – if those wealthy leave, or lose their wealth: who is supporting everybody else? Surely bringing the poor out of poverty by their own means should be the goal of any government activity or taxation in this regard?

By: Compagnero

Compagnero — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:25:27 +0000

Mark M:

The difference will have gone into additional services that the Labour government have creted that the tories would never do. Services such as Sure Start, additional free nursery provision… and these services benefit the poorest most.