Our elected politicians do what they judge is the right thing to do. And if we disagree then I'll show them the evidence of why I disagree.

Angus Deaton has written a wonderful book, The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality. . . . Deaton's book is a magisterial overview of health, income, and wealth from the industrial revolution to the present, taking in countries poor and rich. Not just jargon-free but equation-free, the book is written with a beautifully lucid style. . . . [P]owerfully argued and convincing.

Low income is related to poorer housing, poorer diet, fewer social amenities, worse working conditions. (...) After adjustment for age, sex, race, smoking, alcohol consumption, sleep habits, leisure-time physical activity, chest pain, diabetes, or cancer, there was still an increase risk of 1.6 for those with inadequate incomes.

For every dollar spent on early child development you save $7 over the life course because children with better early child development are less likely to end up delinquent, involved in crime, unemployed and so on.

There's good evidence that if people are disempowered, if they have little control over their lives, if they're socially isolated or unable to participate fully in society, then there are biological effects.

If the economists are arguing as to whether we need to cut or stimulate, because they're completely opposite policies, and they can't work it out then I would say let us work it out for you. Let's look at the lives people are able to lead, the effect of policies on the lives people are able to lead, and hence the likely effect on health and health inequalities.

In Sweden for example people with PhDs have lower mortality than those with a masters degree. And people with a masters degree or a professional degree are not poor.