New Internationalist

Rich London, poor London – a tale of two cities

Web exclusive

What would Charles Dickens, born 200 years ago this week, make of Britain’s inequality in the 21st century? wonders David Hewitt.

Garry Knight under a CC Licence

As Britain celebrates the bicentenary of Charles Dickens, born 7 February 1812, his works have arguably never been more popular. Book sales are soaring, big-budget TV adaptations are drawing in millions of viewers, and specially themed exhibitions are being held in museums up and down the country. At the same time, it could also be argued, the central themes of his works have never seemed more relevant.

Driven by his own experiences of childhood poverty, the writer rallied against inequality, using his work to bring attention to what he regarded as some of the key social issues of his time: childhood poverty, rising inequality and high levels of unemployment. Given that these very same issues still dominate the news agenda in modern-day Britain, it’s only too tempting to speculate what Dickens would have made of London today. Is the city, heralded as the finance capital of the world, still home to children living in ‘Dickensian’ conditions on the margins of society?

‘My guess is that Dickens would be surprised at today’s level of inequality’

Certainly, the situation has improved since the Hungry Forties, as the 1840s were known, when children were quite literally starving on the streets of London, or else living miserable lives in workhouses or as child prostitutes. As Alex Werner, curator of the Dickens and London exhibition at the Museum of London, notes: ‘Unemployment benefit, old age pension, a national health service and compulsory education for all children would seem to Dickens a great step forward from what he had experienced during his lifetime in the Victorian period.’ Nevertheless, he adds, “my guess is that Dickens would be surprised at today’s level of inequality.’

That Dickens would be surprised is, in itself, hardly surprising. In a year when London is to host the Olympics – at a reported cost of up to £24 billion ($38 billion) – and with a select few in the banking sector continuing be rewarded with substantial salaries and bonuses, levels of relative child poverty in England are worse than they are in every other developed country in Europe. Quite simply, even the briefest of looks at London in 2012 reveals a tale of two cities.

A socially segregated country

According to the Campaign to End Child Poverty (ECP), four in ten (or 650,000) London children now live in households where there is just £10 ($16) per person per day to cover everything, including utility bills. In Tower Hamlets, the local authority set to host the 2012 Games, 52 per cent of children live in poverty just a stone’s throw from the riches of the City, while in the borough of Islington, the figure stands at 43 per cent. Compare this to child poverty levels of just seven per cent and five per cent for the constituencies of Prime Minister David Cameron (Whitney) and his deputy Nick Clegg (Sheffield Hallam) respectively and the image you get is of a socially segregated country where children living in the capital are being disproportionately damaged by poverty and inequality.

Levels of relative child poverty in England are worse than they are in every other developed country in Europe

Moreover, despite the rhetoric of politicians, prospects for many of those at the bottom rung of the social ladder look set to get bleaker rather than brighter as they are hit by a perfect storm of economic challenges. Just recently, the Institute of Fiscal Studies estimated the number of children living below the poverty line will rise by 800,000 by 2020. And again, it will be those living in London who will suffer worst from a combination of rising unemployment, increased living costs and welfare cuts.

El Bibliomata under a CC Licence
London poverty 1837: Oliver Twist El Bibliomata under a CC Licence

Already, charities working with local communities within London have seen a marked rise in families making use of soup kitchen and food banks. However, a return to the realities of Victorian London, when Dickens and his contemporaries could not have failed to see poor children on the streets of London, is unlikely. Rather, campaigners warn, severe poverty can manifest itself in different ways and can often be hidden. So, while some children with live in obvious squalor, others may look like they are fine, even though their parents are struggling to buy food or clothing. Others still could be racking up significant levels of debt on credit cards or payday loans while managing to keep up the appearance of getting by.

A lost generation

However it manifests itself, childhood poverty can cause lasting damage, both to individuals and whole communities. Just a few days after his 12th birthday, with his father struggling under the weight of the family debts, Dickens was sent to work in a shoe polish factory on the banks of the Thames. ‘It was wonderful to me,’ he would write, ‘how I could have been so easily cast away at such an age.’ It is this ‘casting away’ of a whole generation of Londoners that many charities fear will be the ultimate result of rising levels of child poverty in the capital. ‘Living below the poverty line can trap children into a cycle of poor performance at school and reduced job prospects,’ explains Sally Copley, UK head of poverty at Save the Children. ‘Education is the best route out, but at every stage there is a huge divide between how those from poor backgrounds perform in relation to their peers.’ Moreover, early years poverty has also been linked with a range of mental and physical health problems, again exacerbating the problem and casting the future of whole generation of Londoners aside.

Chris J under a CC Licence
London poverty 2011 Chris J under a CC Licence

Rather than being simply an observer of London in his day, Dickens was also a campaigner for change, believing that, through his journalism, novels and stories he could be a force for good by encouraging his readers to think about those less fortunate than themselves. ‘In some cases, he was trying to persuade government to intervene, for example in relation to poor housing, sanitation and education,’ says Alex Werner. ‘In other areas he was hopeful that wealthy people would contribute generously to charities to help and alleviate the condition of the poor.’

However, while relying on the wealthiest few to have their own Ebenezer Scrooge moment and act according to their conscience is all well and good, many campaigners believe that the government needs to take the lead. Just as the Coalition government’s policies are driving an ever-widening wedge between the richest and the poorest, it is Westminster that needs to take the lead in addressing both the root causes of child poverty and the social and economic inequality that exacerbates it, they argue. ‘It is wrong that more than one child in four lives in poverty in the seventh richest country in the world,’ says Sally Copley. ‘Obstacles like high childcare costs, high energy prices and a lack of jobs that pay a living wage make it hard for parents to provide for their children as they should. Tackling these three areas would help the goverment to meet its target of ending child poverty by 2020.’

David Hewitt is a London-based freelance writer.

Comments on Rich London, poor London – a tale of two cities

Leave your comment







 

  • Maximum characters allowed: 5000
  • Simple HTML allowed: bold, italic, and links

Registration is quick and easy. Plus you won’t have to re-type the blurry words to comment!
Register | Login

  1. #1 dreamsareallwevegot 08 Feb 12

    I have no doubt that Dickens would be turning in his grave. So much of what he condemned then still applies today. But even Jarndyce v Jarndyce (in Bleak House) crumbled in the end. Let's hope that the corrupt businesses and institutions poisoning today's society go the same way.

  2. #2 pwwatson8888 22 Feb 12

    Dickens would be more surprised that half of Asia and Africa appear to have taken up residence in London.

  3. #3 abdul basit 23 Feb 12

    @ PWWATSON8888 , yeah , indeed, how Britons tried their luck in sub-continent, exactly like that, now its our turn to occupy :)

  4. #4 Sakuntala Narasimhan 23 Feb 12

    A superb piece of writing. Thanks NI, for publishing this -- I dont suppose we can see anything like this kind of true assessment, in any mainstream media....
    and it makes me think -- the same comments could be used for Bangalore, the ’SDilicon Valley of Asia’. booming in recent years thanks to IT business and multinational BPOs. The ciyt, once known as Pensioners Paradise, is now a nightmare, completely gone pout of control. Earnings have soared, tru, but the quality of life has deteriorated... so who are we ’developing’ for?

  5. #5 mark 24 Jul 12

    Hi I used to live in London, this was 30 years ago. Back then I was squatting in Brixton, all my friends were doing the same. I did work, if I COULD find work. Most of my friends didn't most just sat in their squats, and shoked dope. Nearly every one I new didn't have a phone. Most of us had one or to changes of clothing. London busese stank like a toilet. I would work five days a week for 60 pounds. Dole was I Think 15, pounds a week.
    I would regularly go without food. I had to travel by tube. From Brixton, to the city With out any money I would just push my way past the gard. or jump over the ticket gates. I now live in Australia. So tell me have things got better for people in London. Mark,

  6. #6 John Stevons 20 Mar 13

    I'm sorry, but as someone who has studied the nineteenth century as part of my degree, there is no way that the current situation can be compared to Victorian London.

    Back then disease would kill thousands, most (as is said) were sent out to work at a young age, housing was appalling (with many families living together in slums), there was a lack of clean water for many, little to no education for many, much higher rates of crime, high mortality rates....

    In short, while the situation may still need work, people have it far better than they did then.

  7. #7 Melania 06 Jul 13

    I believe one of the main issues, if not the most important, governments and other entities such as the UN should be looking at is to tackle human overpopulation. Poor people should not have kids, it is ethically wrong. More education and birth control should be on the agenda of every government.

Subscribe to Comments for this articleArticle Comment Feed RSS 2.0

Guidelines: Please be respectful of others when posting your reply.

Get our free fortnightly eNews

Multimedia

Videos from visionOntv’s globalviews channel.

Related articles

Recently in Web exclusives

All Web exclusives

Popular tags

All tags

New Internationalist Magazine Issue 436

If you would like to know something about what's actually going on, rather than what people would like you to think was going on, then read the New Internationalist.

– Emma Thompson –

A subscription to suit you

Save money with a digital subscription. Give a gift subscription that will last all year. Or get yourself a free trial to New Internationalist. See our choice of offers.

Subscribe