Opinion: what the Lib Dems should be doing about child poverty

Written by Linda Jack on 6th May 2008 – 1:24 pm

As the dust begins to settle, some of us holding our collective breath in anticipation of a Boris-run London - and Gordon licks his wounds and wonders if this was all to do with the abolishing of the 10p rate - I thought it may be a good time to start thinking about notions of equality. I wanted to start by looking at the commitment all the main parties have made to ending child poverty.

Last Monday I attended the 4 Children/Barnados conference, addressed by, among others, Nick Clegg (Lib Dem), Michael Gove (Tory) and Stephen Timms (Labour), where a pamphlet, ‘Turning up the volume on child poverty’, was launched. With contributions from Labour’s Ed Balls, Michael Gove and our own David Laws, the pamphlet calls for clear policy commitments from all three parties.

Nick’s speech focussed on education and the relationship between social mobility and parents’ income. He argued for a more flexible system, better maternity/paternity benefits and higher quality childcare available to all.
He proposed extending the childcare tax credit to workless families – “moving money from subsidies for the well-off to support the poorest - instead of the other way around.” And argued that language was a barrier for many immigrant children and that developing English language skills should be a priority for them.

Michael Gove suggested that child poverty was a relative term, his definition was being “excluded from the good life” he was interested in creating a society that was “more cohesive and more equal” and spoke about “moving away from social justice” - whatever that means. He referred to a new Tory metaphor (borrowed from Polly Toynbee) of society being a caravan moving through the desert; the important thing was that those at back did not fall behind. His vision was of a society where people were brought out of dependency, able to take control of their lives. He put a lot of problems down to absent fathers and reiterated that the Tories would “reward commitment”. He lauded the success of Academies and bemoaned the scandal of children not reading by age six. Tories would reward talent and enterprise and create a more meritocratic society.

Stephen Timms welcomed the strength of the End Child Poverty coalition. Labour had committed to the abolition of child poverty within a generation.
He emphasised the importance of a job as a route out of poverty. He also talked a lot about what the government had already done to take children out of poverty.

For me the most challenging speech came from Lisa Harker, co-director at the Institute of Public Policy Research.

While acknowledging that Labour were the only party to have implemented any policies to end child poverty, she criticised the party’s approach as being highly centralised and putting more effort into getting people into work - rather than looking for more flexibility in the workplace.

The Tories, she suggested, were interested in messaging rather than policy, identifying the root causes as addiction and family breakdown, rather than understanding the complexity of issues that lead to child poverty.

She took Liberal Democrats to task for having a hybrid model, focusing on education but with no significant pressure to tackle the wider issues, in particular redistribution.

She identified what she saw as the major barrier to change, namely deep underlying inequalities in society. For her the problem was the underlying
winner takes all culture; a place where working hard is just not enough.

Her solution was to redistribute to tackle the underlying inequalities. Sweden, for example, redistributes through the tax system (and in a much-publicised Unicef Report last year came 2nd in the league of child wellbeing in rich countries, compared with our bottom place).

Lisa saw a real problem with the need for public support which had hardened against the poor, 1 in 3 believing poverty is the result of laziness or lack of will power. Her concern was that in reality tackling poverty is just not a vote winner, although she speculated whether the outcry over the 10p rate would mark a shift in public attitudes.

Finally she challenged us all that we have a great opportunity to up the pace of change, but recognising that there is not a quick fix solution and that any solution requires public backing which is just not evident at the moment.

I left feeling exasperated. As a party we do have a commitment to improve outcomes for children, the pupil premium, more affordable housing, higher child benefit, but there is so much more we could do. The government’s Every Child Matters agenda looks at improving the wellbeing of children and young people across a range of indicators, but equality is not one of them.

I know it’s not a popular position, especially after our recent Tax Commissions, but I honestly believe we need to have a good hard look at what more we can do to contribute to ending this scandal. What was it Nick Clegg said about being radical and taking risks?!

* Linda Jack blogs at Lindyloo’s Muze.


Posted in Op-eds, Party policy and consultation | 55 Comments »

Your chance to shape Lib Dem policy on… the UK’s response to Globalisation

Written by Jeremy Hargreaves on 28th March 2008 – 7:45 am

Globalisation is changing our world.

Liberal Democrats have generally welcomed it – as well as putting forward views about how we should seek to influence its development.

But it is a fact – and it has consequences for own domestic UK economy.

A policy working group chaired by Lord (Robin) Teverson is looking at what Britain needs to do respond to the processes of globalisation and to equip ourselves for the globalised twenty-first century economy.

Their consultation paper – on which they are inviting comments from all party members – looks at several aspects of this.

A first group of questions are around the economic impacts within the UK. What infrastructural and technological developments are needed to enhance the UK’s competitiveness? What is the right role for government in that – and what are the risks of state intervention here? How should governments properly seek to help British companies compete – and how can government and business best work in partnership to ensure the right skills among employees?

Then there are questions about how we should respond to some social aspects. What should our attitude be to increased economic migration? What are the best ways to address the resulting community cohesion questions – and what is the right role for welfare spending here? Does more welfare spending threaten the UK’s competitiveness – or in fact help promote it, as there is some evidence from other countries to suggest?

A third set of issues is around the environmental impacts of globalisation on the UK’s economy: how do we balance reducing the environmental impact of the UK’s economy with our need for competitiveness? In particular how can we do that without simply outsourcing negative environmental impacts elsewhere? And how can we take advantage of the opportunities in this area for the UK’s economy?

How can we promote the different regions of the UK to maintain and develop competitive industries within the globalised systems – and what should different levels of government do to help their local areas, and learn from each other?

Finally – and crucially, I believe – how can we politically manage globalisation? The process of globalisation, and national politicians saying they have no ability to respond in a global economy, and a sense that your job in Tewkesbury can be cut by a decision of a board in Tokyo, is perhaps the most disempowering feature for many people. How can we help people to feel involved in some of these processes – and actually be involved?

The working group would welcome your views on any of these issues, and they will help inform them in developing the proposals that they will bring to conference this autumn.

* Jeremy Hargreaves is Vice Chair of the Liberal Democrats’ Federal Policy Committee (FPC) which is responsible for the party’s policy making. He is also part of the writing group preparing the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto for the next General Election.


Posted in Party policy and consultation | 12 Comments »

Your chance to shape Lib Dem policy on… Transport

Written by Jeremy Hargreaves on 18th March 2008 – 7:45 am

An area which has long been a priority for Lib Dems – and which as tackling climate becomes ever more crucial – is the UK’s transport infrastructure. But in recent years it has not been an area where we have made promoting our policies a high priority.

A policy working group, chaired by Shaun Carr, is now preparing a policy paper to come to party conference – and seeks input and views from party members. Please give yours!

The consultation paper they have produced takes a good look at many of the biggest issues around transport, and asks some highly pertinent questions.

A central set of issues is around the UK’s key major national transport infrastructure. Should the UK have a high-speed national passenger transport network? If so, is our proposed charge on freight on motorways the best way of funding it? If we are trying to encourage freight off the roads, should that too have a dedicated national freight rail network? Is road pricing the way forward – and if so, how can we best do it so that it gains public support?

A second key set of issues are around the carbon emissions which transport generates – currently 25% of the UK’s carbon emissions and the only sector where these are rising. How can we re-incentivise transport to limit that? Do our current proposals on aviation strike the right balance between restraining it, and allowing people and goods to travel? Are biofuels part of the solution to limiting emissions from cars?

And then there are some very local issues: how we do limit local congestion, and promote good quality and affordable local public transport arrangements?

Are our national structures for managing transport right? Should we for example look again at re-integrating train operating companies and management of the track?

And then finally there are safety issues. How do we promote greater safety for people travelling – from passengers on trains and planes, to children at risk from a speeding car in a residential street?

The working group would welcome your views on any of these issues, and they will help inform them in developing the proposals that they will bring to conference this autumn.

Don’t be one of those who complains when this comes to Bournemouth Conference in the autumn, that you didn’t have the chance to contribute – go to the website and contribute your views there, or if you prefer to do so privately, write to the chair of the working group, c/o Policy Projects Team, 4 Cowley St, London SW1P 3NB.

* Jeremy Hargreaves is Vice Chair of the Liberal Democrats’ Federal Policy Committee (FPC) which is responsible for the party’s policy making. He is also part of the writing group preparing the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto for the next General Election.


Posted in Party policy and consultation | 1 Comment »

Your chance to shape Lib Dem policy on… Security

Written by Jeremy Hargreaves on 4th March 2008 – 8:45 am

One of the areas where the party is currently consulting members and looking for input – and one which affects nothing less than the future of our world – is on Security.

The working group, chaired by Cambridge University international affairs expert (and Lib Dem councillor) Dr Julie Smith has produced a very easy to read consultation paper asking questions on some fascinating – and crucial – questions.

The first area they look at is terrorism. How well do we really understand the terrorist threat (and its causes)? What is the best way of responding to it – by military means or other ways? How can we most usefully work with governments in countries with a terrorist problem? These are some of the questions that the consultation paper poses.

But this is emphatically not only an international affairs topic – it also looks at what we need to do at home here in the UK to tackle the terrorist threat. Is the state of community cohesion in the UK relevant to the security threat? What causes British-born people to perpetrate terrorist acts against fellow citizens? How do we engage minority and immigrant groups better in UK society?

Threats to our security do not only come from ill-intentioned people. How well do we understand the implications of potential global resource wars for our security? Are we prepared for them? What action do we need to be taking to protect our energy supplies – and what are the implications of that for our relations with the rest of the world?

And indeed what role do we think Britain needs to have in the twenty-first century world? Should we even be attempting to retain our status as a military power which punches above our weight? Leaving aside Iraq – when should countries like Britain seek to intervene in other parts of the world? Should Britain ever seek to intervene in another country on our own? – and if not, what are the implications of that for how we should organise joint operations with other countries and organisations like NATO and the EU, so that they contribute most effectively to our security?

These are all questions which are not only fascinating, but central to the future of our world.

Don’t be one of those who complains when this comes to Bournemouth Conference in the autumn, that you didn’t have the chance to contribute – go to the website and contribute your views there, or if you prefer to do so privately, write to the chair of the working group, c/o Policy Projects Team, 4 Cowley St, London SW1P 3NB.

* Jeremy Hargreaves is Vice Chair of the Liberal Democrats’ Federal Policy Committee (FPC) which is responsible for the party’s policy making. He is also part of the writing group preparing the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto for the next General Election.


Posted in Party policy and consultation | 5 Comments »

Future party policies – your chance to shape them

Written by Jeremy Hargreaves on 4th March 2008 – 7:45 am

One of the features which marks out the way in which we Liberal Democrats as a party make our policies is that they are decided by the members, not just by the Leader and Shadow Cabinet.

We often tend to focus on the fact that all policies have to be voted on by Conference.

But in fact there is another way in which all party members – including those who aren’t able to go to Conference – can have what is probably an even greater influence on what our policies are.

And that’s through the process by which every working group preparing a policy to take to conference, publishes a consultation paper, setting out some background and asking some key questions. Any party member who is interested in developing our policies could and should take advantage of this to feed in their views.

Some party members frequently complain that by the time proposals come to conference it is difficult to influence exactly what the proposals say – but then often don’t take up any of the many opportunities that there are to participate in shaping those proposals at an earlier stage, when this very much is possible.

Working groups are currently seeking views and input from members in three areas. Members can contribute in these areas by attending their consultative session at conference, by writing to the chair of the group (something always open to any party member) – or through the special website that all working groups have. Each group’s site contains the consultation paper, and a discussion forum.

* Jeremy Hargreaves is Vice Chair of the Liberal Democrats’ Federal Policy Committee (FPC), which is responsible for the party’s policy making. He has written three further articles for Liberal Democrat Voice focusing on (1) Security, which will be published later today, (2) Transport, and (3) the UK’s reponse to globalisation - on all of which policy topics the party is inviting members to contribute at http://consult.libdems.org.uk/


Posted in Party policy and consultation | 2 Comments »

RSS

Liberal Democrat Voice is an independent, collaborative website run by Liberal Democrat activists, where any individual inside or outside the party can express their views. Views expressed on this website are those of the individuals who express them and may not reflect those of the party.