<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Feminist Philosophers]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Jender]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/author/jenderjender/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[&#8220;Go easy on&nbsp;equality&#8221;]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>The UK&#8217;s Communities Minister <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8129799.stm">has said</a> that equality isn&#8217;t necessarily the best goal.  OK, I&#8217;m thinking, maybe he&#8217;s going to discuss the Difference Principle (Rawls&#8217; principle dictating that inequalities are allowable only if they&#8217;re to the benefit of the least well off)- that would be an interesting thing for a political to do!  But no&#8230;</p>
<blockquote><p>Basing fairness purely on &#8220;society&#8217;s response to those in greatest need&#8221; risked being unpopular, he said.</p></blockquote>
<p>Hmm, that actually sounds pretty close to the Difference Principle so that&#8217;s definitely not what he&#8217;s going for.  What, then, is this Labour politician arguing?</p>
<blockquote><p>He told the Fabian Society: &#8220;We must confront the difficult truth: that this form of egalitarianism, the one that defines fairness solely in terms of society&#8217;s response to those in greatest need, is badly out of step with popular sentiment.<br />
&#8220;A rejection of inequality &#8211; both absolute, relative and of opportunity &#8211; is absolutely core to who we are. But we will be more successful &#8211; not just electorally but in challenging unacceptable inequality &#8211; if we adopt and own a different, more nuanced view of fairness and equality.&#8221;<br />
Mr Denham said Labour had to relate to the aspirations of people on middle incomes, adding that this group felt excluded by policies and language aimed at &#8216;the poor&#8217;.<br />
He said this group were in fact more concerned about those in higher social classes.</p></blockquote>
<p>Rejecting inequality is core to who we are, but we need to adopt a *different* view of equality.  One not so concerned with, well, equality.  What should it do instead?  It&#8217;s very unclear&#8211; but looks like the idea is to focus on the aspirational middle class.  So there you go.  (Thanks, Mr Jender!)</p>
]]></html></oembed>