John Hutton’s paean to inequality and the rich brings back memories of Margaret Thatcher’s call to ‘Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so’. On the question of inequality, the only real difference between Hutton’s ‘new progressive individualism’ and Thatcher’s reactionary individualism would appear to be that he is at least concerned about poverty. But his attempt to square his enthusiasm for inequality without limit with Labour’s commitment to the eradication of child poverty rests on shaky ground.

It may be the case that it is ‘statistically possible to have a society where no child lives in a family whose income is below the poverty line…but where there are also people at the top who are very wealthy’. However, it is not very likely. Cross-national analysis shows that poverty and the persistence of poverty are closely related to inequality: contrast the Nordics with the UK and the US. Moreover, social mobility is higher in more egalitarian societies than in more unequal ones, which peddle the myth that everyone can make it to the top and that the problem of poverty is primarily one of lack of ‘aspiration’. It is easier to climb a ladder where the rungs are closer to each other and where the top is not detached from the bottom, as it is here. ‘Empowering people to climb without limits’ – Hutton’s attempt to articulate a British version of the American Dream – is cruel to those at the bottom for whom it is fanciful to pretend they can climb to the top of such a long ladder and join the ranks of the millionaires. And it blithely ignores how those who are already at the top can use their privileges to ensure their children stay there. So much for equality of opportunity! Genuine equality of opportunity is simply not possible in such an unequal society.

Moreover, we are witnessing a kind of negative ‘trickle down’ effect from rich to poor. Hutton’s millionaires are distorting the housing market, contributing to what Shelter has identified as rising levels of housing inequality to the detriment of the life chances of many children. And the growing emphasis on material success and conspicuous consumption in today’s consumer culture, beamed into every home through the media, makes poverty that much harder to bear, particularly for children and young people.

Hutton’s ‘progressive individualism’ thus represents a dead end for those committed to the eradication of child poverty. It also offers a picture of a society that I, for one, do not want to live in. Successive British Social Attitudes Surveys, which reveal that the public appear to be more affronted by the levels of incomes at the top than the bottom, suggest that I am not alone.

The good society, for which a progressive political party should be aiming, is a more equal society in which all individuals are able ‘to be the authors of their own lives’ and flourish. It is a society in which health is not impaired by the psychosocial stresses, which researchers such as Richard Wilkinson attribute to inequality. It is a society in which genuine recognition of equal worth and common citizenship is not undermined by the social distance created by the rich pulling away at the top.

John Hutton deserves a lot of acclaim for his political courage in using his Progress lecture on 12 March to articulate the progressive case for individualism and wealth creation.

Hutton set out a coherent vision of why it is essential for the left to embrace the right of individuals to be aspirational. He did not argue this in an apologetic, defensive way – as in ‘it’s a shame we have to accept it but that’s the way the world is’ but actually made a positive case for Labour to be the party of aspiration and of enabling individuals to achieve their full potential. He showed that there is a strategic, ideological, progressive case for ‘empowering people to climb without limits, free from any barrier holding them back – be it background, gender or outdated social attitudes.’

Whilst the policy direction of the government is a sound one, too few Labour politicians seem to feel confident in articulating the ideological reasons why we pursue the policies that we do. Hutton is an exception to that.

Hutton’s speech was important in that unlike many Labour politicians he addressed it not to the prejudices and sacred cows of an internal party audience, but to the wider electorate and their hopes and aspirations. He showed that he understands that ordinary voters, whether they are rich or poor, do not have an antipathy to wealth creation, and do not want to see a cap on aspiration. They want social justice, and they want a society where there is a genuine opportunity for everyone to succeed and reach their full potential. If anything, aspirational views are stronger amongst Labour’s core working class supporters – who want a better material future for themselves and their children – than amongst more middle class voters who are already comfortably off and often want to pull up the drawbridge of opportunity behind them.

Hutton correctly recognises that the very changes wrought by ten years of Labour in government, coupled with globalisation and technological change, mean that the society we are dealing with now is radically different to that in 1997. Labour has to adapt to that rapid pace of change far more readily than it did in the post-war period, when the bulk of the party clung to the ideological formulations of 1945 despite thinkers like Crosland explaining that Labour’s achievement in creating the welfare state was a working class that was aspirational and no longer satisfied with the old statist solutions.

I am very proud that ten years into a Labour government we have ministers like Hutton who have the political courage to look at what our Labour voters – particularly working class voters – want – a society that will give them the opportunities to make their own lives successful and to achieve their full potential – rather than look at what some of our activists think they want. He set out with great clarity the case for why enterprise, individual success and wealth creation are not the antithesis of a modern centre-left agenda, they are central to it.