David Runciman reviews The Spirit Level at the LRB:
There is enough evidence here that equality is a good thing to be able to take it on faith, and to move away from evidence-based politics towards a politics that is, for want of a better word, more ideological.
There are some problems with The Spirit Level, and it’s through exploring these that David Runciman gives Wilkinson and Pickett their due. The Spirit Level is a very good book. It might sometimes trip over itself in its own enthusiasm, but it does convince. Even if it doesn’t, it’s still worth it for the handy collection of references. I wrote to my MP (Martin Linton, Lab.) to ask if he’d read it yet, and if he had, whether he’d be willing to publicly repudiate what Peter Mandelson once said about being “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”. I haven’t heard back. I’m thinking of sending Martin a spare copy because it can only be some practical hiccup – he dropped his copy in the bath and it hasn’t dried out yet, or something like that – and not anything, you know, ideological. He’s a Labour man, after all.
> There is enough evidence here that equality is a good
> thing to be able to take it on faith, and to move away
> from evidence-based politics towards a politics that
> is, for want of a better word, more ideological.
That makes no sense to me.
We have enough *EVIDENCE* to move away from evidence-based politics? eh? if you have EVIDENCE to do so, aren’t you engaging in evidence-based politics?
Well, do you check every door handle of your car to make sure it’s locked, every single time, or do you take it that you’ve already got enough evidence that the car is locked just by checking one handle?
The suggestion, I think, is that ‘evidence-based’ policy making might be a kind of political OCD.
You can read a lot more on this subject at: http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk
Linton was my MP for a bit, and so far as I could see, really was a proper New Labour apparatchik – except not even a particularly successful one. It’s hard to feel sorry that he’ll lose his seat.
What evidence-based policy? If policy (and still more importantly, politics) was based on evidence it might look very different. What we tend to get is policy-based evidence and then policy based on that.
Also, referring to the title, perhaps WW2 was the UK’s substitute for a revolution?
What’s with that bizarre quote? “There’s enough evidence to move away from evidence-based politics”? Would the very act of doing so be evidence-based politics? And if it’s good, why would you want to move away from it?
Yeah, but that’s because I know there’s a system in place that does that, every time, like clockwork unless it’s broken. What the quote seems to be calling for is moving away from the framework that makes it possible. It’d be like the equivalent of going from having a thing on the car saying it locks when you turn the key, to not having such a thing and having faith that the doors will auto-luck when you shut them.