The Independent View: A strong agenda for the most disadvantaged – an opportunity for Liberal leadership?

Rough sleeper, Embankment, London - Some rights reserved by Dedly SiriusFifteen years ago this month New Labour heralded their intent to tackle complex and intractable social problems by launching a dedicated social exclusion unit within government. Fifteen years on, the challenges facing people with complex problems such as mental health issues, homelessness and substance misuse are still very real. In fact, there are indications that these problems are on the rise. Last year saw a 14 per cent increase in the number of homeless households. Rough sleepers are growing in number – up 43% across last year in London. There is a need for a new political agenda in this area. As research by IPPR for the LankellyChase Foundation shows, there is a real opportunity for an approach that draws on the best liberal traditions of localism and empowerment.

Labour’s social exclusion agenda had many successes and made significant progress on problems such as early years, health and education – the Coalition critique that Labour’s approach to tackling disadvantage was nothing more than ‘poverty plus a pound’ is untrue. However the reliance on centrally determined targets and measurement often failed to connect with people’s real experiences and needs. For example, initiatives to support people into work made a real difference to groups close to the labour market such as lone parents. However individuals for whom full time employment was a longer term goal such as people with long term mental health issues or addictions often missed out from these programmes because they failed to provide the local, tailored support needed. This meant that it was often the most disadvantaged who struggled to access the support they needed.

Current responses by the Coalition have also shown these centralising instincts. Many initiatives use models such as payment-by-results and social impact bonds. These models may work for some policy areas however they may not work with disadvantaged groups. This is because they make payment contingent on achieving centrally mandated targets rather than responding to the different needs of different individuals. Similarly the Troubled Families initiative delivers intensive support and has shown some positive results with the families that have received the intervention. However by identifying families and measuring success through centrally determined criteria it may miss out those most in need of support.

Moving away from this model is very difficult for governments to do. Centralising control gives confidence that results are being attained and that money is being spent wisely. Localising policy in this area is also challenging. Localising policy can remove some national entitlements.  There is a worry that this could place disadvantaged groups at a further disadvantage. This is particularly the case in the current context of cuts to local authorities’ budgets.

The starting points for a new approach may appeal to Liberal Democrat instincts. Crucial to balancing localism and entitlement to support for disadvantaged groups will be deciding how the most disadvantaged gain power and voice alongside those around them in the community. On some issues such as mental health, service users are well represented and organised through groups holding institutions and services to account. But on other issues such as substance misuse or long-term unemployment, service-user groups are not organised on the same scale and few groups have direct links to commissioning and formal consultation. Empowering disadvantaged groups would help ensure that services were more accountable to those they are intended to support and would have a higher chance of achieving outcomes for the most vulnerable, as well as putting liberal principles into practice.

These local problems require meaningful local solutions. With further cuts to local authority funding announced last week, a new agenda for the most disadvantaged is needed to ensure they get the support they need. This could be a key area for the Liberal Democrats, in local areas and at Westminster, to take the lead.

The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email [email protected] if you are interested in contributing.

* Jenny Pennington is a Researcher at IPPR.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Op-eds and The Independent View.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/32288 for Twitter and emails.

5 Comments

  • Andrew Suffield 24th Dec '12 - 10:52am

    The report linked above is fairly clear, and consistent with what I remember – the long-standing system is working as an immediate palliative. We don’t really have a problem with “people sleeping rough” per se – over half of them spend only one night on the streets, and 90% are found accommodation in under a week. That’s pretty damn good, as a response to a symptom. I doubt it’s possible to make the system much better than it already is, at this end.

    Where we need to focus our attention is on the reasons why people get into this state in the first place – that’s the number which is increasing. Again the report is clear: in 75% of cases it’s because of alcohol, drugs, and mental health issues. Happily, these are high up on the coalition’s agenda, and this is certainly something we should be getting behind. We need much stronger NHS performance on mental health issues, including addiction, and drugs policy based on harm reduction rather than criminalisation.

  • Yellow Bill 25th Dec '12 - 2:20am

    Surely to lay the blame for most homeless people on their addictions is being too simplistic.

    For instance, I play a very small part in the provision of welfare with the Royal British Legion. The Legion has just brought online a unit where homeless ex-servicemen can go to on the way to getting their own place. It does much more though, it tackles any addictions they might have but also the underlying reasons for those addictions.

    I would also point to the Panorama programme of last week, which showed that there is now a causal link between homelessness and the mess the economy of the country is in.

    My third point is a very obvious one. Homelessness is going to shoot up in places like London given the housing benefits cap which will mean that poor families will not be able to afford the rent.

  • Robert Wootton 25th Feb '13 - 12:00am

    Speaking as a “systems thinker” and a cybernetician there is an acronym “POSIWID” the Purpose Of a System Is What It Does”. The structure of the political, taxation, benefit, education and healthcare systems interact to produce addiction, obesity, binge drinking, poverty and homelessness. Every social problem you can think of has been created by the inadvertent, unplanned, accidental social engineering of successive governments over previous decades and centuries. Like the song about building a car by the late Johnny Cash it was built one piece at a time. So the system does not work. These problems can be minimised and dis-solved but is unlikely to happen if the two-party stranglehold re exerts its grip. Labour and the Tories need things to go wrong so they can blame each other when the economy inevitably goes pear shaped. Then the other party gets in by default. It is “Yah Boo” politics and the people and businesses suffer.

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 AvatarLiberal Al 2nd Sep - 6:01pm
    Well said, Matthew.
  • User AvatarLiberal Al 2nd Sep - 5:58pm
    @Simon, I take that your ad hominem approach of calling me 'emotional' instead of defending your 'facts' or addressing the points raised is your way...
  • User AvatarJoeBourke 2nd Sep - 5:44pm
    Churchill writing about the Sudan Campaign and fanatical Islamists a little over a century ago in 'The River War' made a number of observations that...
  • User AvatarJohn Dunn 2nd Sep - 5:37pm
    Joe: So in short Joe, you accept that you haven't a clue who actually downed MH 17? Perhaps you should join the Russian request for...
  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 2nd Sep - 5:36pm
    Sorry, just one amendment: me using the word nonsense was unfair, I know the UK's finance sector has a lot of problems and these used...
  • User AvatarAndi Ali 2nd Sep - 5:33pm
    The Lib Dem friends of Palestine have lost a good friend - we all mourn him.