It's even possible to agree with Neal Lawson and Compass on occasion

n that very liberal manner we have of reaching across the aisle to seek common ground it is even possible to agree, occasionally, with Neal Lawson and Compass. Who tell us that:

On the other side of the coin are the services that are essential to live a good life, which people don’t pay for directly. These are worth much more to people on low incomes, so they help to reduce inequalities.

This is indeed true. The education of a child costs perhaps £5,000 a year - that’s what government tends to pay, perhaps £6,000 for secondary school - and such a sum is a greater portion of a lower income than a higher. Therefore this being provided, free at the point of use, to all on the same terms reduces inequality. The same is true of what ever value we ascribe to the NHS, to libraries, to the existence of unemployment insurance, the state pension and on and on.

We expect to pay for some necessities ourselves. Food is an obvious example, so everyone must have enough money to afford a nutritious diet. There are other essentials that most of us couldn’t afford on our own. Think of education, healthcare, childcare and adult social care. Here, we ensure everyone has access by sharing responsibility, pooling resources and acting together. Without providing these services collectively through public institutions, we would need vast amounts of cash to meet all of our needs.

We can have the most lovely arguments about which parts of life should be paid for directly, ourselves. Further, about how, exactly - with competitive markets even if state financed for example - those collective actions should be organised. But that some of them will be collectively, even state, organised is obvious.

Which is where we do agree with Neal Lawson and Compass. We do provide a number of these things collectively, through public institutions. They do, by being so provided, reduce inequality.

The problem being that we don’t measure the manner in which they reduce inequality. For our measures of inequality - Gini numbers and so on - are of income or wealth inequality. They are not of consumption inequality, the thing which publicly delivered services reduce.

That they do reduce inequality but that we don;t measure the inequality reduction they provide means that inequality is very much less than it is currently measured as being. Even, possibly, to the point that we don’t need or desire to reduce it any further.

At the very least, given that we do have such public services, we need to measure what inequality is after their effects. Some years ago the TUC essayed an attempt. The market income difference between the top 10% and the bottom was perhaps 12 to 1. By the time we added in taxes and benefits, the effects of public services and so on, the consumption difference was about 4 to 1.

Which leads to the question, well, is that low enough? Are we done now? If not how much more is there to go?

For, of course, we can only decide upon what next in public policy by considering how far we’ve already come, can’t we?