The Gap

[DanaC]

There's been a lot of talk recently in the UK about 'Narrowing the gap': reducing the inequalities which exist in our country.

The town I live in is not a big place, yet within this little northern town the disparity between haves and have-nots is staggering. When I say town, I refer to the larger unit, incorporating a number of villages outlying the central town. The life expectancy of a child born in the part of town where I live is ten years greater than the life expectancy of a child born in the part of town I represent in council. Ten years.

Here's where I live.....and then where I represent.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Is the trash and graffiti brought in by tourists? The government can only do so much without totally controlling peoples lives.

[Cicero]

I just wonder how people intend to narrow the gap? Any news on that?

[zippyt]

About the Only way that could happen is to do away with money ,
Every body in the same color jump suit , every body in the same style house , every body works for every body elses good ,
Oh wait , they have tryed that , it was called comunisum

[DanaC]

Narrow the gap, not eradicate it. Total and absolute equality in all measures is improbable if not impossible.

There are things that can be done. I would say our council has a very poor approach to regeneration. It's led to a rather piecemeal picture. The neighbourhood management schemes are starting to make a difference but often in conflict with rather than in conjunction with the council. Not taking seriously the need for affordable housing and allowing ghettoisation of social housing. There are councils that do this stuff a lot better than us :P

Narrowing the gap is possible. But it takes a little more focus and will than we seem to be giving it.

[lookout123]

Narrowing the gap is possible.

No it isn't. Those with ambition and motivation and a bit of luck will always find a way to raise the bar a bit more whenever the challenge is there.

Bringing the lower levels up to a higher standard is possible and a worthy goal, but don't fool yourself into believing that the gap will narrow by doing that. Those on top don't stand still.

[DanaC]

I disagree. I think the gap can be narrowed in many important ways. In terms of finances, yes the gap will probably always be the same. In terms of life expectancy and teen-conception rates, smoking and heart disease, economic opportunity (note, opportunity, not success). The gap can be narrowed.

[skysidhe]

Not the worst neighborhood you could represent. The gaps are huge in America and in 3rd world countries where there are virtual slums. The neigborhood you represent looks rich by comparison.
I think a little litter and graffiti patrol and it would look OK. No worse than the apartment complex I live in. It is as if it fell from the sky smack dab in between the tree lined streets and brick middle income houses. This used to be the rich neighborhood. The rich do get richer and the middle income people are the new poor.

[DanaC]

I guess it doesn't really translate in a couple of pictures. It's a deprived area in terms of the levels of unemployment and disaffection, some of the highest levels of teen-conceptions in the country and very high crime rates. Those houses are primarily ex-council houses now owned by a third party non-profit social housing company. Most of the work in the area has dried up and culturally, it has some of the least mobility in the borough. In fact there are significant chunks of the ward so deprived that as a whole it sits within the worst 20% of the country in the multiple deprivation index.

[skysidhe]

ahh! Housing! I see. There's no way to commute out of the area for work? Probably no work incentives?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I disagree. I think the gap can be narrowed in many important ways.

But why should the goal be narrowing the gap at all? The goal should be improving the lower strata, period--who cares what level the upper strata is at? You could just as easily 'narrow the gap' by bringing down the successful, if fairness were your goal. And yes, I do understand that complete evenness is not your goal, but I honestly think the semantics affect the attitude, which will determine both the methods and the outcome of your efforts.

[Sundae]

It probably helps to know the type of areas and spot the signs that way.
Dana to me those photos spoke volumes.

I was so lucky to grow up on a reasonably affluent council estate, where people were upwardly mobile and the houses in good repair. And luckier yet to live on the edge where it butted up against open countryside.

Things can change. Don't lose your vision.

[DanaC]

But why should the goal be narrowing the gap at all? The goal should be improving the lower strata, period--who cares what level the upper strata is at?

What do you think I mean when I say 'Narrow the Gap'? It means focusing attention on improving the lower strata, bringing them up nearer to the standards enjoyed by the better off. Narrowing the gap in health terms means improving the health of deprived communities and striving to bring the life expectancy of those communities into parity with the better off communities.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Narrowing the gap in health terms means improving the health of deprived communities and striving to bring the life expectancy of those communities into parity with the better off communities.

I totally applaud your efforts, believe me. What I'm nitpicking over is the mental approach to the problem, if that makes sense. As long as the standard is in any way viewed in light of what the better off communities have, the focus is always going to subconsciously be on entitlement. Should I have an abundance of food because my neighbor has an abundance of food, or because it's a good thing for me to eat well? One is an external justification, the other internal. Internal justifications are always going to be more effective. Raising life expectancy is good--period. Lowering teen conception is good--period. These should be the goals. When the goals are couched in terms only of matching what someone else has, the motivations become tainted. On some level, you stop being able to objectively determine what is good or bad, only what is more or less than that other guy. I know it's semantics, but like I said, I think attitude is the biggest factor in helping people help themselves, and the attitude of examining what other people have first is a destructive one.

[DanaC]

It may be destructive for me as an individual to focus on what other individuals have. But at a policy level, it is useful for politicians to look at those areas of prosperity and those areas of deprivation and ask questions about why those disparities exist to their current extent. Individuals are responsible for themselves. Government (local and national) is responsible for looking at the wider picture

[eta] an individual is not responsible for the culture and economic circumstances in which they grow up. Many of the inequalities which most trouble us as a nation begin at a very young age and often at birth. It is right, in my opinion, for a country as relatively wealthy as Britain to ask the question, why do some of our communities have a decade less of life expectancy than others? It is also right to ask the question, why do some of our communities have higher levels of teen conceptions than others? It is not simply 'individual failure' when it affects such large numbers of people clustered together and is found so little amongst other large groups of people. These are societal problems and societal problems require a little more than individual effort to overcome.