Opinion: Real solutions to tackle poverty and inequality

Liberal Democrat Voice at Conference

On Lib Dem Voice: Reportage | Live Twitter Stream | Contribute
On the official party website: Conference home

This month when the policy paper ‘Freedom from Poverty; Opportunity for All’ goes before the Liberal Democrat federal conference we have the chance as a party to put forward a radical and unique set of proposals to tackle poverty and inequality in the UK.

If we are honest with ourselves this is a challenge which we have not stood up to for too long. While many people within the party have proposed and put into practice polices at a local level, it is now seven years since we have put forward a coherent package to tackle inequality and eradicate poverty.

After 10 years of Labour the time is ripe for us to make ourselves the only party offering genuine solutions to help the 12 million people still living in relative poverty. It is simply unacceptable that in the UK a person’s life chances still are determined more by their parents’ income and employment than in almost any other developed country.

Labour’s attempts to reduce poverty have come at the price of trapping people in dependency, with means-tested benefits. Labour seeks to move people over an arbitrary ‘poverty line’, rather than giving them the real opportunities which would allow them to play their full part in society.

Labour has failed to tackle educational inequalities, failed to get ‘hard to reach’ groups back into employment; failed to deal with the dramatic shortages of affordable housing; and failed to strengthen the pensions and benefits safety net. The Conservatives meanwhile have no sensible policies to deal with poverty and inequality at all. They want to “roll back the state and roll forward society” in a great leap backwards to nineteenth century Victorian conservatism.

It is time for us as a party to wage a new war on poverty, and give people the opportunities to succeed in life. To establish a real meritocracy where, regardless of background, everyone is given the opportunity to acquire the education and skills to succeed. Where the poorest in out society are no longer abandoned to a childhood spent in failing schools followed by a lifetime of form filling to claim means-tested benefits. But if these aspirations are to be more than merely platitudes, if we are to prove ourselves as a party of substance against two parties of spin, we must take difficult choices, and look not only to the state for solutions but also individuals and business.

For all but the most vulnerable in our society, employment must be seen as the long term sustainable route out of poverty. As Liberal Democrats we must create a new social contract. As a Government we will ensure whatever your background we will give the very highest level of education, when you are old we will give you a good pension, when you are unemployed we will give you the best support possible – but in return within reason the expectation must be that everyone will find and stay in employment. It is unacceptable that in relatively buoyant economy such as ours over four million people come from households in which no one works.

The state has shown itself to be entirely incapable of providing effective employment support, the New Deal has been trumpeted by Labour as the great triumph of employment policy, but the statistics suggest no such thing. Since its creation thousands have been on this merry go round system time after time never finding sustainable work.

Instead I believe we should abolish Job Centre Plus in its current form and fund the voluntary and private sector and make them responsible for delivering the full range of back-to-work support, tailored to the needs of the individual claimant. Research from the UK and experience in Australia has shown that involving not-for-profit and private providers who are far more flexible to local needs delivers better outcomes for the claimant and better value for the taxpayer. Job Centre Plus meanwhile could be given responsibility for administering benefits and linking people up with back to work support.

Employment support is, however, only the final cog in helping people into long term sustainable work. The first and most important is education. Although Labour has invested billions of pounds the quality of education a child receives is still based strongly on the income of their parents: we must break this link. By funding education through the pupil premium we will attach money to the pupils and thus the schools that need it most, helping schools with large number of needy children improve and encouraging schools with a good record to take children with higher levels of needs.

This money, however, cannot come out of thin air – in this paper, we propose it will be funded through sweeping changes to Tax Credits. Although Tax Credits have gone some way to reducing the number of people living in poverty, they suffer the same problems of any complex means-tested benefit: they are expensive to run, take up is comparatively low, and they are highly prone to fraud and error.

With most means-tested benefits this is accepted, as they can be targeted at a small group of people the Government wants to help ensuring the Treasury can get best value for money. Yet in the case of Tax Credits, 9 out of 10 families are eligible. It is frankly absurd that a wildly complex means tested benefit – which suffers all the pitfalls which goes with that – should be available almost universally. Our policy would be to cut back Tax Credits, targeting them only to those on below average incomes, taking over 2.5 million families out of Tax Credits – thus freeing up money to put into education and the far more widely taken up Child Benefit.

Tackling poverty and inequality is of course a highly complex task which does not stop at employment, benefit and education policies, and for that reason I urge people to read the full policy paper and also the Tax policy paper, ‘Reducing the Burden’. Together these present a radical plan to tackle the inequality that has become rampant under the current Labour and previous Tory Governments.

However, hopefully here I have given a taste of why I believe it is so important that we Liberal Democrats take forward new policies to tackle social inequality, which places equal responsibility on the state and the individual. A social contract such as this is not a new idea, but one which both the Conservatives and the Labour Party have failed to create – and one which I believe we can derive great benefit from if we as a party choose to advocate it.

* Danny Alexander is MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey, and the Liberal Democrats’ Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The policy paper ‘Freedom from Poverty, Opportunity for All’ will be debated at this month’s Lib Dem conference in Brighton on Tuesday, 18th September.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Conference and Op-eds.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/1277 for Twitter and emails.

7 Comments

  • Anyone seen or heard of Ming recently?

  • Lib Dem member 6th Sep '07 - 2:30pm

    I wonder if Mr Jim appreciates the not very nice image of himself he leaves with all these comments. He does sound as he was a rude, drunk man.

  • Andrew Duffield 10th Sep '07 - 7:14pm

    As Danny says, “employment must be seen as the long term sustainable route out of poverty.”

    Pity then, that we still have no plans to reverse Gordon’s doubling of tax on low earners with his scrapping of the 10p rate.

    Had the Tax Commission done the work that last year’s Conference asked them to do by “developing further policies for land taxation”, we might have had the fiscal tool to effect this.

    As Conference acknowleged, “ability to pay” relates to wealth as well as income, yet by scrapping property taxation, pushing ahead with LIT (despite evidence that a fair property tax would be more popular) AND by leaving the income tax threshold well below the NMW, we persist in apparently wanting to shift the burden from the asset-rich to the asset poor – predominantly the young of course. They may not vote much, but this simply isn’t economically sustainable let alone equitable.

    Much as this paper aspires to Social Justice (and there is much to be lauded within it), we really do need to get moving with work to produce the sustainable revenue part of the equation – which Conference has already endorsed!

  • “But snuck in to this motion is an option to abandon party policy on removing age discrimination from the minimum wage. This would be madness, in my opinion.”

    If we got rid of the iniquitous Mandatory Retirement Age (before the ECJ does it for us) we would do much to alleviate poverty among the upper age backet too.

  • hhey

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 22nd Sep - 2:51am
    Someone needs to explain to Clegg that devo on demand will increase resentment about democratic inequality and complication.
  • User Avataralec dauncey 21st Sep - 11:57pm
    Federalism demands either an English Parliament or Regional English federal entities. There really does not seem to be a demand for actual 'state' level entities...
  • User AvatarMack (Not a Lib Dem) 21st Sep - 11:52pm
    @simon Hunt I absolutely agree but this issue transcends everything. Cameron' s duplicity over our pledge to the Scottish People has made me ashamed to...
  • User AvatarSimon Hunt 21st Sep - 10:25pm
    Seems a bit rich for a senior Lib Dem to be blaming the 'old parties' for broken promises and a disconnect from Westminster. Paddy may...
  • User AvatarRoland 21st Sep - 9:29pm
    "(1) The three party leaders neglected to get the permission of their parties to do what they did." [Sesenco 21st Sep '14 - 7:18pm] They...
  • User AvatarGlenn 21st Sep - 9:09pm
    David Allen. I've heard variation on the Tories will barnstorm into power if we do this or don't that for years. The fact is they...