Economic decline, Conservative austerity and misguided government policy have all been blamed for worsening inequality in the UK, however, this fails to take a rounded view of inequality and leads to debate over economic solutions that neglect local challenges. By defining inequality solely as an economic problem, we enter further debate about inequality as an economic indicator. Critics can readily underplay the impact of inequality in our society by pointing out that relative poverty has remained constant. Inequality must be viewed through the lenses of income, wealth, health and education, all of which are rooted our local communities.
Unaffordable housing, exorbitant early-years education, a lack of GP appointments and job losses reflect a perception of overall decline in the local area. This affects local people and the opportunities they are given. Two-thirds of working-age adults in poverty live in a household where someone works, this undermines the notion that “work pays” and is just cause for the anger felt by so many. Those same communities are experiencing UK firms offshoring to cheaper labour markets and criminal gangs operating with impunity. These are local issues for local people. This perception that life is getting worse and not better has been exploited by populists across Europe and the Americas. All too often, we link this phenomenon to polarisation and a changing media landscape, this isn’t the full story. Populists in the UK are campaigning on those local issues: “Make Work Pay”, “Revitalise British Manufacturing” and “Make Law-Abiding Citizens Feel Safe”. The electorate don’t need to support the extreme policies of these parties to vote for them, they simply need to see a party that is representing solutions to their local problems.
Measuring inequality in our society is complex and often reliant on big data that comes with a subjective interpretation. Within Europe, the UK has amongst the highest levels of income equality with the top 1% estimated to hold 13.4% of the income share. At the same time, the tax and benefit system distributes income and can demonstrate that disposable income equality has remained consistent since the 1980s. With more food banks than ever before and real anger about the cost of living, national statistics to frame answers to inequality risk alienating and provoking already angry communities.
Tolerating inequality contradicts how we embrace Liberty as a core value. We cannot have the freedom to live our lives as we choose where socioeconomic challenges bar swathes of society from opportunities to make the most of themselves. Health inequality disproportionately affects UK communities through demographics and localised health risks (e.g. poor air quality in cities or obesity in deprived areas). In public-sector employment, we prioritise privately educated students for jobs as doctors, lawyers and military officers, neglecting or discouraging those from state schools. For millions of British people, outcomes and opportunities are set at birth – it can be no surprise that trust in our establishment is degrading. Inefficiency in our establishments cannot solely be to blame for widening distrust, a lack of representation within our communities may be the root cause.
What can we do about it?
Inequality is a major concern within our communities. We might not characterise complaints, political disengagement or polarised views through inequality lenses, but we should. We must accept that inequality is not just an economic issue about finances. Instead, it is a local issue that affects the opportunities of everyone in society that results in financial, health and educational outcomes.
A healthier, fairer society that presents opportunities within our local communities would go a long way to resolving how the electorate perceive the inequalities that they experience. Framing inequality through economics at a national level is unlikely to cut through to the electorate. To address this, we must focus on clear, actionable policies that address the vision and values of the Liberal Democrats. These must be locally relevant and address the inequalities that our communities are facing.
* Tom Walker is a party member from Chippenham. Now working in business, his career has been spent as a leader in the British Army with an education in both Economics and Business.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Are we doing enough to insure against climate change?
Don't mention the Isle of Wight Separatists' 1950s terror campaign
Brexit: The Uncivil War - the TV drama with Benedict Cumberbatch
Alex Macfie
Nick Hopkinson
Mick Taylor
expats
peter Wigley
21 Comments
@ Tom Walker, “Economic decline, Conservative austerity and misguided government policy have all been blamed for worsening inequality in the UK”.
Tom, I’m sorry, but as someone who joined the Liberal Party as long ago as 1961, I have to say it wasn’t just Conservative austerity between 2010 and 2015, although I welcome your appeal to deal with the problems of inequality.
“ Tolerating inequality contradicts how we embrace Liberty as a core value”
As a Liberal, I do not believe that we should be seeking a society where everyone receives the same take home pay irrespective of the job they do or how hard they work. Indeed, if we believe that ‘work should pay’, it is essential that those who work for a living should have more take home pay than they could have received on benefits had they chosen not to work. Add to that, as Liberals, we believe in the capitalist model so we must accept that those willing to take risks by investing or starting a business should see the possibility of earning more take home income than if they hadn’t bothered. So, at the least, we should be willing to ‘tolerate inequality’.
I would say that what we are against is people being unable to afford the basics in life and people having equality of opportunity. Beyond that, inequality is not ‘intolerable’.
@ Kira Collins And how, Kira, would you define “the basics of life” ?
As someone who is paying for a grand-child at a private school and a Liberal left of centre person since 1961 I really think Tom needs to relax. The school has transformed her from a bored, neglected State pupil to a highly motivated and competitive student in less than 2 years. We simple have to accept there will always be a level of inequality, it is in the human psyche.
@ Kira,
I don’t think many, if anyone, are seriously suggesting that we should all be exactly equal regardless of the effort we might put in.
The question is about how much inequality, in terms of both income and accumulated wealth, we should be willing to tolerate?
According to the Rowntree foundation, the wealthiest 10% of households own over half (57%) of the nation’s total wealth, while the bottom 50% own less than 5%. In absolute terms, the top 5 families in the UK hold more wealth than the bottom 20% of the entire population.
Would you say this is too much inequality, too little or about right?
https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/
You can talk about Gini coefficients and wealth and income per decile until you’re blue in the face. The core issue exercising most voters is fairness and power – ie, too little of both.
Unless and until our party is willing to lead on this, we will continue to bump along at circa 12% in the polls – or fifth place behind Lab, Con, Ref and Greens.
@David Raw
“ And how, Kira, would you define “the basics of life”
My grandfather used to tell me that when he attended school, he used to go in bare feet as he only got shoes in winter. Shocked by this, I asked if he was embarrassed to go to school in bare feet. His answer was ‘no’ because he was the same as half the pupils in his class.
My point in saying this is that times change and what counts as the basics of life changes. over time.
@Peter Martin
“ Would you say this is too much inequality, too little or about right?”
Forgive me, but this is the wrong question. Our focus, as liberals, should be on those who are struggling to make ends meet and not on income inequality for its own sake. We are not socialists – we are Liberals who believe that capitalism works but that the State needs to ensure that those who are struggling are protected.
@ Kira Collins I had a granddad too, Kira.
He left School at 12 (then the national leaving age) to go down the pit (His father had died age 29 from miners’ lung). Later, Granddad was more than a bit miffed when the mine owners (some of whom were Liberal MPs) cut his wages by 35% in 1921 and by 40% in 1926.
Capitalism works for those who control it…….. (example today ? – the banks) hence radical Liberals have supported co-ownership and land reform. Recommended book…… ‘The Poor have no Lawyers’ by Andy Wightman.
@ Tom Walker, “Economic decline, Conservative austerity and misguided government policy have all been blamed for worsening inequality in the UK”….
Our own Danny Alexander, when Chief Secretary to the Treasury, consistently defended the austerity policies of the 2010–2015 coalition government. He argued that public spending cuts and deficit reduction were unavoidable to restore the UK’s economic credibility following the 2008 financial crisis…
He derided the claims made in a letter to him and Nick Clegg by the heads of the Child Poverty Action Group, Barnardos, TUC, Oxfam, Save the Children and the Equality Trust, that his actions were unfair and affected the poorest in society the most…
Records show that he spent far more time in the media backing austerity than did either Osborne or Cameron..
@KiraCollins. Actually, capitalism no longer works for an awful lot of people. It is now monopoly capitalism and only works for the top decile or so. So, we have to follow the advice of Adam Smith, who didn’t trust business people to be fair and he expected them to conspire against the public. “The government,” said Smith, “must hold the ring”.
Between 1945 and 1979 that happened under both Tory and Labour governments. Mrs Thatcher, aided and abetted by the dreadful Milton Friedman (the man who ignored evidence that didn’t fit his theories) set about dismantling the state as we knew it and giving free rein and much lower taxes to large businesses, with the resultant skewing of income and wealth distributions.
As Liberals we DO have to concern ourselves with income inequality per se because it has become too extreme to allow our society to function properly and is fueling the rise of Farage and his fascists. Without significant income and wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor and low paid, the risk of a Farage government is only too real.
I think Kira Collins is wrong. When Jo Grimond was leader he wrote an article in the Observer (I think it was in the very first edition of their weekend Magazine – anyway, a long time ago) that Liberals believe one of the functions of the state is to prevent people from becoming too poor or too rich. “Too poor” for obvious Beveridegean reasons. “Too rich” because if individuals become too rich then they begin to distort the workings of democracy.
Now, some 60 years later, we are seeing that in spades. Very rich people own the majority of our newspapers, at least one TV channel and umpteen so-called “thank tanks.” They pour out the distortions and disinformation which favour them and their ilk – notably that in the UK we’re overtaxed (we’re,not, we’re about average for a developed country,) that “rising tides float all boats) (they don’t) and that greater wealth for the already wealthy “trickles down” to the bottom of the pile (it doesn’t – it gets sucked up).
What the appropriate permissible ranges of income and wealth are is a matter for debate. I understand that Plato believed a ratio of 3:1 for incomes would suffice, (but then he, didn’t include the slaves.) I would have thought that 10:1 would be ample for both income and wealth. After all George Formby paid 19/6d in the £ on his income and still remained the greatest entertainer ever.
“After all George Formby paid 19/6d in the £ on his income and still remained the greatest entertainer ever”.
Not that bad for a window cleaner !
I’ve enjoyed this lively debate, thank you for all the comments. As people, our perspectives and conclusions will always be different. This reflects our diverse voices and that is only a good thing.
Inequality is only going to become a bigger issue in UK politics and this engagement underlines the important and appetite to engage meaningfully on this subject.
@Mick Taylor, I agree we must be concerned about income inequality in current circumstances, though overcoming this is about taxing the rich, better public services and as necessary paying people more AND about helping people to gain more through training and education, effort and community support. There are NEETS who need better education/training, supportive and stimulating local clubs/leisure activities and other better local services; increasing their minimum wage and temporary job opportunities is not enough. As Tom suggests, this takes us also in the area of improving people’s quality of life which is about more than just money.
@Peter Wrigley: You will be glad to know that the wealth ratio between the richest and poorest is already much lower than 10:1. It is in fact negative. There will always be people on or below zero net wealth because you don’t really own anything unless you have the option to consume it. I would suggest a more useful ratio would be between maximum wealth and mean or median.
You can of course ensure a minimum income so alternatively, you might use a ratio between maximum wealth and minimum income. The number of unemployed people who could survive for a year on the wealth of a few individuals would no doubt be an impressive figure.
@theakes 8th Jun ’26 – 12:20pm… We simple have to accept there will always be a level of inequality, it is in the human psyche….
Most families DON’T have a granddad paying for their child’s private education.. As that is the the norm what ‘level of inequality’ do you find acceptable?
The old adage about “I’m in the lifeboat, Jack; you can try swimming”, comes to mind..
We need to be very fearful of unbridled capitalism. I think it has fuelled inequality and been very damaging. Some people in this thread seem like libertarians to me not liberals.
David Raw 8th Jun ’26 – 6:27pm..“After all George Formby paid 19/6d in the £ on his income and still remained the greatest entertainer ever”.
David, the 19/6d rate was the excuse given by the highest earners for demanding massive % rises..
When Anthony Barber abolished that rate they still awarded themselves the same increases; further widening the inequality gap..
@ Peter Davies,
” you don’t really own anything unless you have the option to consume it” ???
I’m struggling to understand this. Am I missing something or is it just nonsense?
I legally own a pet dog and pet cat. Animal lovers will be pleased to know that I’ve no intention of consuming either of them! When their time comes I’ll bury them in my garden which I also own but don’t consume.
More seriously, a landlord can own a property to be let out without consuming it. I can own shares without consuming them or even part of the company. This is fair enough in most people’s opinion providing that the ownership of assets isn’t concentrated in a few individuals or companies. But it looks like we are heading that way.
@Peter Wrigley: The key word is option. The landlord has the option to let it fall down or bet it on a Lib Dem win in Makerfield. In either case, he will end up without it. Similarly, you consume the love of your dog during its lifetime after which it has no financial value. As to the ownership of your cat, I think it would dispute that.
Inequality must be seen in the round. I appreciate living in the north-west because it gives me easy access to mountains such as in Snowdonia, The Lakes and Derbyshire. Likewise having open spaces close to home contributes to overall quality of life. We need to move towards a matrix that measures what matters to people to compose a measure of equality. Of course, some matters are not so important if you have no food on the table or are afraid to go out.