The Independent View: Lib Dems need to champion new ideas for tackling child poverty

Figures released this week by the IFS show that the UK will witness a severe and sustained increase in child poverty over the coming decade, with almost a quarter of British children set to be living in relative poverty by 2020, compared to one fifth in 2009/10. This is despite a projected 7 per cent reduction in real terms median income over the next three years, reducing the amount of income it takes to cross the poverty line.

These figures highlight the growing gulf between the targets set out under the Child Poverty Act, which require the government to reduce relative child poverty to 10% by 2020, and what is achievable under the direction of current and previous policies. Although the Labour government’s efforts managed to lift 800,000 children out of poverty between 1998/99 and 2009/10, this falls far short of its goal of halving child poverty by 2010. A further 900,000 children would have to have been lifted out of poverty in just one year to reach that target. IFS projections also show that even without the change in government, it is likely that child poverty would have increased to 2020.

Nevertheless, the IFS are clear that the goal of ending child poverty is further undermined by the Coalition’s policies. Their forecast suggests that planned changes to taxes and benefits will put 200,000 additional children into relative poverty by 2015/16. Although the Coalition’s Universal Credit is predicted to reduce relative poverty significantly, its positive impact is outweighed by other measures, particularly the decision to link increases in benefits using CPI as opposed to RPI. The IFS modelling also shows that increasing employment and earnings alone are not capable of getting us to the 2020 goal, and significant redistribution would also be required.

Increasingly, the child poverty agenda has drifted away from the realms of political reality and the IFS projections provide a startling glimpse of the mess our approach to child poverty is now in. The Coalition’s recently published child poverty strategy is a hodge-podge of existing plans and proposals, and lacks a clear vision or strategy for achieving the legally-binding targets. The IFS modelling, taking into account planned changes to taxes and benefits, and modelling different employment scenarios, demonstrates that the current child poverty strategy is wholly incapable of ending child poverty. An £18 billion cut to the Department for Work and Pensions is also undermining any efforts which aim to address this.

The IFS puts a big challenge to the government in its report – if you think we’re wrong, and you really can meet the child poverty targets, then show us how. Yet, at the moment, while paying lip service to the idea of ending child poverty, the Coalition is largely ignoring the gap between what current plans are set to achieve and what targets have been set out in law, which risks rendering the Child Poverty Act meaningless. The fiscal constraints the Coalition is operating under clearly make further spending unrealistic, and this will remain the case up to 2020.

The Liberal Democrats started out with a raft of ideas on tackling poverty, which seemed to have dropped off the Coalition’s agenda. It seems strange that while Government policies are leading to increases in child poverty Sarah Teather, the Liberal Democrat Minister for Children, is claiming that “children across the country will have a fairer start in life because Liberal Democrats fought for it and Liberal Democrats in Government made it happen” in her recent party conference speech. Does this expose a rift in the Coalition or is it a blind spot in Lib Dem influence?

The disjuncture between the scale of the challenge and the action that government can realistically take has led the IFS to suggest that the current targets should be revisited. This is controversial in the child poverty movement, but is worth further consideration. Importantly, the concept of child poverty remains misunderstood by the public and has is largely removed from their everyday concerns.

A survey by the Department for Work and Pensions has shown that there is a lack of public awareness about the nature and causes of child poverty. A majority blamed child poverty on parental addiction and family breakdown rather than low pay and unemployment. Focusing on targets, measurements and poverty thresholds doesn’t help because it turns child poverty into a statistical concepts rather than a tangible social problem.

Concerns about child poverty, and poverty more generally, need to be placed at the heart of the current debate around living standards and the economic insecurity facing ordinary families. Linking child poverty to everyday concerns around wages, job security, and the costs of childcare, energy and food, would help to embed anti-poverty strategies in mainstream political debates. To achieve public support for the child poverty agenda it needs to be reframed in a way that clearly links it to the issues that the most people are concerned about.

The research released by the IFS provides justification for re-evaluating our approach to addressing child poverty. Instead of treating child poverty as an isolated issue it needs to be tied into the wider policy context on which it strongly depends. This will help to gain traction with the public as well as provide a more meaningful route to lifting children out of poverty. It is essential that the targets set under the Child Poverty Act are not left hanging as symbols of political rhetoric gone wrong but instead provide the impetus for developing an ambitious and achievable route to improving the lives of children.

Laura Bradley is Researcher at IPPR

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.

Read more by or more about , , or .
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/25563 for Twitter and emails.

3 Comments

  • Laura Bradley 13th Oct '11 - 12:45pm

    Thanks for your comment Geoffrey. I agree that intermediate measures and goals are required urgently. One way the government could make genuine progress would be to focus resources on a particular area, for example under 5s to ensure everyone gets a fair start in life.

    Aside from the important issue of unemployment, the Coalition’s policy on raising the tax threshold also does little to benefit those who need it most. According to some analysis we did here at the IPPR most of the benefit goes to the better off.

  • “significant redistribution would also be required”

    Fine to make this point, but how is this “significant redistribution” to be undertaken in the context of a globalised economy with significant labour and capital mobility within the EU? Increasing relative wages at the bottom end of the scale through direct intervention via the minimum wage is likely to lead to further relocation of production out of the UK and into Eastern Europe as companies look to reduce costs.

    Direct intervention by raising unemployment and other benefits substantially not only increases the government’s budgetary problems overall but also creates substantial incentive problems as regards the rewards of employment versus unemployment. I would be interested to hear Laura Bradley’s views about this issue.

    “Solving” the unemployment problem using government spending presumably requires even higher deficits and therefore higher government debt levels.

    Finally, I would also like to add a footnote about Laura Bradley herself. To quote from the IPPR website:

    “Laura has written articles for ….. Left Foot Forward. Before joining IPPR in 2010, Laura worked as a researcher for Consulting in Place and was previously an intern at the Fabian Society.”

    It is hardly likely therefore that anyone from that background would have anything positive at all to say about Coalition policy on these matters.

    The basic message seems to be that more government spending and more benefits are always and in every case the answer and that any policy that does not follow this (Labour party) line is not worth considering.

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 AvatarMartinB 29th Jul - 5:14pm
    Membership, while up compared with 2012, is still well down on the 2010 level of 65,038. The most surprising figure has to be that Labour...
  • User Avatartheakes 29th Jul - 5:13pm
    Money in the bank, just over one member a constituency rise, probably a person in each who has rejoined after a telephone call from HQ....
  • User AvatarJohn McHugo 29th Jul - 4:50pm
    John - you say it is "really a job for the UN". I agree, But it is also a job for the EU. Britain on...
  • User AvatarCaracatus 29th Jul - 4:43pm
    I was surprised to see how much income the party has and how much it spent, clearly as a party we are no longer getting...
  • User AvatarJohn Ramsbottom 29th Jul - 4:41pm
    The only people bringing the party into disrepute at the moment are those that are continuing to attack Lord Rennard. There was an enquiry which...
  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 29th Jul - 4:30pm
    I'm no longer interested in people's reasons for believing whether or not Israel has a right to exist. The state is there and jews and...