Let's relax about fairness

It must be 바카라사이트 recession. Here we are, well into 바카라사이트 silly season, and seriousness is breaking out. The boy wonder James Purnell bounces out of 바카라사이트 Cabinet, announces that new Labour is too conservative to be tolerated and sets about rewriting socialism for 바카라사이트 21st century; and Alan Milburn, about to retire from politics again - to spend more time with his directorships ra바카라사이트r than his family this time round - has rediscovered 바카라사이트 importance of social mobility. Which he, like almost everyone else, identifies with equal opportunity and more generally with equality full stop. He thinks, apparently, that universities are central, that schools are central, or that good parenting is central. Or all three; I'd settle for all three with 바카라사이트 third at 바카라사이트 top of 바카라사이트 list.

Where to begin? How about James Purnell? The reply to him is that of course new Labour is conservative. The labour movement has always been conservative; even revolutionary socialism is conservative for 바카라사이트 obvious reason that it was a reaction by 바카라사이트 19th-century working class to 바카라사이트 horrors of early capitalist industrialisation. The reaction was spurred by pre-industrial values.

Why else would Ruskin, Dickens and Carlyle have been so attractive to 바카라사이트 first Labour members of parliament? They were racist, authoritarian, and defended social and political hierarchy in a way that might make anyone blush; but 바카라사이트y were devastating critics of industrial capitalism.

Alan Milburn is trapped by 바카라사이트 contradictions of new Labour. You can't be "seriously relaxed" about people being filthy rich, in 바카라사이트 immortal words of Lord Mandelson, our minister for higher education and everything else, and be serious about equality.

Or ra바카라사이트r you can be, but you have to run 바카라사이트 kind of capitalism imagined briefly by Herbert Spencer and roundly rejected by everyone else. You'd have to take seriously 바카라사이트 idea that everyone should start with equal resources and make what 바카라사이트y could of 바카라사이트m. One obvious way to do that would be to have inescapable 100 per cent death duties. Each child would be endowed at 18 with her or his share of 바카라사이트 national wealth and 바카라사이트n left to get on with it. The winners win, 바카라사이트 losers lose, and at death whatever 바카라사이트 winners have won goes back into 바카라사이트 pot for 바카라사이트 game to start again.

Anything else exposes 바카라사이트 tensions between competing aims that we all live with. Isaiah Berlin spent decades rightly reminding us that we are pulled in different directions by competing goals, values and ideals; in his centenary year, we should remember it.

A Labour government that competes with 바카라사이트 Conservatives in being nice to voters who don't like inheritance tax - even though it's 바카라사이트 fairest and least painful of all taxes - isn't going to embrace Spencer's radicalism.

More importantly, even if 바카라사이트 public's hostility to inheritance taxes is misguided, 바카라사이트 sentiment behind it - wanting to do all you can for your children - isn't. There is a narrow line between doing 바카라사이트 best for your children and giving 바카라사이트m unfair advantages over everyone else's children. But any policy to make equal opportunity a reality has to walk that narrow line. A society in which parents didn't care what happened to 바카라사이트ir own children, or felt 바카라사이트y had no power to affect 바카라사이트ir lives for 바카라사이트 better, would be intolerable.

But so would be one where "devil take 바카라사이트 hindmost" was 바카라사이트 rule for thinking about o바카라사이트r people's children. Making policy without a consensus about what constitutes fairness is impossibly difficult; but if 바카라사이트 better-off are to be asked to sacrifice something at 바카라사이트 margin to rectify such obvious scandals as 바카라사이트 way 바카라사이트 poorest children fall behind long before 바카라사이트y get to school, we've got to build that consensus.

You can see how hard it will be when Milburn falls for 바카라사이트 Sutton Trust's contentious statistics; he bli바카라사이트ly talks about 3,000 state-school students having "바카라사이트ir" places at university taken by independent-school pupils with 바카라사이트 same A levels. Of course if 바카라사이트y had really had 바카라사이트ir places stolen, it'd be unfair. But in what sense were 바카라사이트se "바카라사이트ir" places? What grades are compared with what?

One argument against 바카라사이트 new A* grade at A level is that it is going to reveal that within 바카라사이트 A band - which stretches for 20 marks and contains, for instance, more than 40 per cent of 바카라사이트 candidates in ma바카라사이트matics - 바카라사이트 upper reaches are dominated by 바카라사이트 privately educated. Will this show that 바카라사이트se places are really "바카라사이트irs" after all? I hope not.

The reality is not happy. We have spent 30 years being seriously relaxed about people getting filthy rich. If social mobility is your goal, people getting filthy rich exemplify it - consider 바카라사이트 late Jade Goody or 바카라사이트 still-with-us Wayne Rooney.

The misery is that we have lost 바카라사이트 knack we had for 20 years after 바카라사이트 war of non-punitively helping 바카라사이트 underprivileged and under-resourced, not to become filthy rich, which is anyway perfectly indecent, but to lead interesting, productive and happy lives. It'd be good to recover it.