London’s ghost kingdom of the poor
Why Labour’s high command was more culpable than most.
By Jason Cowley Published 15 August 2010 21:40
I'd like to congratulate the London Evening Standard on reaching its initial target of raising £1m for redistribution among the poorest people in London.
The Standard's Dispossessed Fund is an example of non-state-driven community power and action of a kind that has no doubt been noticed by the likes of Maurice Glasman, an intellectual outrider for David Miliband as well as Jon Cruddas and James Purnell, both of whom I regret are not running for the Labour leadership.
I contribute to the Standard, and wrote an op-ed column on London poverty for it last Friday.
Here's an extract:
For the long years of his chancellorship, Gordon Brown freely indulged bankers as they traded their asset-backed securities, what Warren Buffett now calls their instruments of mass destruction. Meanwhile, he used the tax receipts raised from financial services to redistribute by stealth. That, at least, was the plan.
It was a frivolous time, when it seemed as if the whole culture was beguiled by the glamour and allure of easy money. The high command of the Labour Party, whose historic mission it had been to reduce poverty and inequality, was more culpable than most.
"We [Labour] are intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich," said Peter Mandelson, creating the mood music for the New Labour years, before everything darkened. "It's not a burning ambition for me to make sure David Beckham earns less money," Tony Blair said in 2001, rejecting a call to raise the higher rate of income tax.
It was as if Labour had lost its language, and it was only voices from the margins of the party, such as those of Frank Field or Jon Cruddas, or compassionate Conservatives such as Iain Duncan Smith, who spoke about the catastrophic effect that entrenched poverty can have on the individual and wider society.
The then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, argued, too, that the exceptionalism of poverty in the capital required a bespoke government response; after a struggle, he at least managed to turn the meagre minimum wage into the living wage.
There was, of course, a parallel that London did not share in the boom -- a city of generational struggle, of long-term welfare-dependency, homelessness and vulnerability, as highlighted by this newspaper's fund for the Dispossessed campaign.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists

















5 comments
The "filthy rich "still govern what passes for Labour thinking. The same banksters values continue, permeating the poison, blairism, throughout the system. Multi-millionaires always reason so. Until the left discovers a socialist conceptual background Labour are lost.
Big Society in action. Cameron will be so relieved he doesn't have to think about this issue any more.
Its not a Big Issue for Cameron.
But it was Labour that managed to get half a million out of poverty. It was Labour that increased opportunity in education particularly nursery and play groups after school and breakfast clubs. But the fact remains, we still have a lot more to do.
A million pounds for a million needy Londoners equals a a pound each. Pointless. Just a PR stunt for the paper and the big name contributors.
Post new comment