And another thing…

I EXPECT to win the National Lottery on Saturday. There’s no doubt – I just have a feeling about it. Yep, my six numbers are going to appear on those magic balls, and it’s about time!

I wonder how much I’ll win? I hope it’s an even number: four or maybe six million. Three or five would just make me a bit uncomfortable, for some reason.

And then, on Sunday, while I’m cradling my cheque and telling it how beautiful it looks, I will be only dimly aware that simply by having become massively richer overnight, I will have plunged a large number of my fellow citizens into poverty.

Because that’s how relative poverty – and income inequality – are calculated. Footballers, pop stars and certain members of the financial services industry receiving astronomically large amounts of cash warp the whole income distribution map so much that, in comparison, those at the bottom end of the scale – even those whose conditions might have materially improved in recent years – find themselves “realtively” worse off and sinking closer to “relative” poverty.

Faced wth such an imbalance, how can any government try to narrow that inequality gap? By taxing the rich more and giving large cheques through the benefits system to the less well off? Well, yes, you could do that, even though it would be insane. But don’t let that put you off.

Yet it will simply not be possible for any government of any persuasion to reverse that inequality unless they impose really punitive taxes on the riches in our country. There may well be a moral (left-wing) justification for doing so. But taxing people for its own sake, as I’ve said on so many occasions, is plain wrong, stupid and won’t work, except to make some puritanical types feel better about themselves.

Theresa May’s response to today’s report was particularly asinine:

I am certainly not going to pretend that inequality was created in 1997, but we need to say why is it after a government with good intentions and a clear policy focus? They tended to have a one dimensional approach… they look at the symptoms not the causes.

This is about dealing with the causes of inequality and poverty, about helping people move up the rungs of the ladder.

“The symptoms not the cause”? As a soundbite, it’s average, but what does it mean? “Dealing with causes of inequality and poverty”? Fine, but how, exactly?

Yes, we have to concentrate on those at the bottom of the pile: get them off benefits and into work, improve educational opportunities, lift people’s – especially children’s – aspirations. It’s all good, but none of that will narrow the inequality gap – at least, not significantly and not while the “super-rich” remain with us.

It’s not all to do with the “super-rich”, of course (much though I’d love to blame all the nation’s woes on football). The children of the professional and properties classes get huge unearned financial advantage through inheritance. You could certainly address that by putting inheritance tax up to 100 per cent (as was seriously proposed by The New Statesman as recently as the 1990s) but such a proposal would only find favour in the mythical Land of Bonkers.

The reason that gap is so wide is not because poorer people are becoming poorer; it’s because those at the top are stretching that gap, pulling it wider with every six-figure bonus they receive and with every half-a-million-pounds house they inherit. And I’m not convinced there’s anything the government can or should do about that, unless you want to go down the route of a return to a Supertax of 98 per cent.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to the newsagent to get me lottery ticket…

SHADOW Work and Pensions Secretary Theresa May today confessed to feeling “devastated” after the monthly unemployment figures showed a surprise fall. Friends and colleagues described her condition as “comfortable”.

Theresa in happier times

THERESA May says there is “a real risk of worklessness being passed on from generation to generation.”

No sh**, Sherlock…

Here is a woman who is either entirely unaware of her own party’s shameful record in government when it comes to benefits, or is trying deliberately to mislead the nation about her party’s history in power.

Today’s news that one in six households in the UK now has no adult at work is truly discouraging. But (and yes, there is a “but”) today, when the number of those dependent on benefits, particularly incapacity benefits, rises, that is a failure of government and, more specifically, of the economy.

When the number of people on long-term benefits rose under the Conservatives, it was a fulfillment of policy, and ministers ticked a box for every additional million chucked on the scrapheap and congratulated themselves on a job well done.

To Labour, long-term benefit dependency is anathema. To the Tories it was a price worth paying to get re-elected.

A RULE about reshuffles is that, whether in government or in opposition, they tend to be initially welcomed by the media. If doubts emerge, it is only in the aftermath, 24-48 hours later.

So the Tories have done well so far to dominate the political headlines on the day a second tranche of cash is to be shoveled into the black hole that is our banking system. And there are some interesting and intelligent moves: Grayling has done well in both his recent positions – transport and DWP – and it will be intersting to see how effective his rottweiller approach will be at Home Affairs.

Theresa May will probably be glad to have her second stint as Shadow Leader of the House finally end. Alan Duncan will enjoy his weekly jousts with Harriet Harman during Business Questios on Thursday mornings. As Coffee House rightly says this afternoon, Dominic Grieve should probably not have been given Shadow Home Secretary last summer when David Davis resigned, and he may well be more suited to Shadow Justice Secretary.

Two negative points, though: I share the disappointment of the business community and a sizeable number of Tory MPs that Cameron has not shifted Theresa Villiers out of transport (though I accept that would have been difficult following a week when he gave her such unambiguous support in her campaign against economic growth Heathrow’s third runway).

And then there’s the DD question. Having accepted the argument for bringing back at least one of the so-called Big Beasts, what is Cameron’s reason for not bringing back David Davis, especially after his tacit admission today that DD’s replacement has not performed well?

Having won the argument for Clarke’s return, DD’s supporters are unlikely to allow the prospect of his eventual return to the front bench disappear from the headlines or from Tory blogs.

I WAS on holiday while the TUC conference was happening, so never got the chance to comment on the silly reaction to Harriet Harman’s speech.

All she said was that the she wanted everyone to “get a fair crack of the whip” whatever their “socio-economic class”; “Equality matters more than ever” and “is necessary for individuals, a peaceful society and a strong economy”.

Pretty much like saying you’re in favour of motherhood and apple pie. But how do the Tories react?

Trying to focus on issues of class and background is “outdated and distracts from the real issues”, according to Theresa May, who seems to think HH has single-handedly restarted the class war.

Why are the Tories so dismissive of helping people, regardless of “socio-economic class”? Maybe they haven’t changed as much as ‘Dave’ likes to claim.