Never mind Muslims. What about..er...poverty?

John Harris notes in The Guardian yesterday that both the media and politicians present a phony image of affluent Britain. With some 12 million adults still living below the poverty line, he argues, why can't we talk about such economic factors rather than cultural debates on Muslim integration? It's a fair enough point; but raising the issue of poverty and rubbish wages alone won't necessarily lead to greater interest on tackling these issues. One of the successes of the Thatcher-era, and largely acquiesced by a spineless Trade Union movement, has been that for a long period, poverty has become both naturalised and individualised. It is thus seen outside of the arena of politics altogether. If issues on poverty and low-wages don't move people, then progressives have to make headway on issues that do.

This is why on spiked today there is far greater attention given to cultural issues surrounding health and diets, behaviour and free-expression, identity and multiculturalism. This isn't necessarily because they're more 'interesting' or sexy than discussing economnic hardship; but these are simply issues that, to some degree, agitate or motivate people.

Harris is right to suggest there's a reality gap between politicians, the cultural elites and mass society; but he underestimates how there's a growing climate against affluence altogether, particularly for the Tesco-shopping masses he is seeking to defend. Citing the likes of Kirstie Allsopp and political lightweight David Cameron as examples of Britain's lack of meritocracy is fine. But bemoaning them having 'the good life' entrenches a levelling down mentality, whereby having 'too much' stuff is either ethically reprehensible or psychologically damaging. Attacking the rich for being rich won't lead to a trickle down effect of wealth redistribution; rather, it simply stigmatises having material aspirations in the first place.