The Independent View: There are now two main government narratives about child poverty

It’s been said that Margaret Thatcher’s governments did two things for poverty. First they increased it. Then they pretended it did not exist. As Alan Milburn prepares to makes his first speech as the Independent Reviewer on Social Mobility and Child Poverty on Tuesday, his task will be to help the Coalition avoid a similar, devastating, legacy.

The last government’s record was far from perfect, but Milburn should advise the Coalition to recognise the very real progress made and learn from the successes just as much as from the failings.

Some Ministers, including Lib Dems, have bizarrely trashed the last government’s poverty record by pretending they were in office for only two years. ‘Child poverty rose by 200,000’ they have claimed. Well, yes, if you take 2005 as the starting point and 2007 as the end point. But if you take 1997 as the starting point and 2010 as the end point, the Office for National Statistics will tell you child poverty was reduced by 900,000.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies attributes this progress in somewhat equal measure to increased parental employment and the targeting of higher support to low income families with children through benefits and tax credits.

The absurd idea that ending child poverty should not involve counting the number of children in poverty is a disturbing and regressive echo of the approach that led to child poverty accelerating in the 1980s and 1990s. We have comprehensively responded to the myth making on measuring child poverty this way before.

Milburn needs also to remind the Government that tackling the scandal of child poverty should be a national priority in the good times but even more so in the bad times. Doing right by these children is also doing right by the economy. By limiting children’s potential, poverty reduces the skills available to employers, and impedes economic growth. Living with child poverty costs Britain at least £25 billion a year.

There are now two main government narratives about child poverty. In the yellow corner is the ‘social mobility’ narrative, led by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg; and in the blue corner is the more emotive ‘bad British parents’ narrative, led by Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith.

The social mobility narrative suggests that with a narrow focus on improving the quality of early years services and schooling, children can flourish and succeed despite material deprivation at home and regardless of being socially and economically excluded from the mainstream of society. The evidence is clear that high quality early education and care leads to improved outcomes for children and the effects are the most long lasting for the most disadvantaged children – hence the importance of this investment. But the most powerful factor is still the home environment, so if you make their parents worse off, chances are you will not get the same effect. And we have no evidence yet of the long-term impact on child poverty of these policies. As readers of The Spirit Level will know, the evidence points strongly to another relationship – that higher social mobility is an outcome resulting from a more equal society with lower levels of income and wealth inequality.

There are fundamental issues that the social mobility narrative does not address. The UK economy has a growing problem of dependency on low pay. In the 1960s, pay accounted for 60% of GDP, but it is only 53% today. Pay is shared less fairly too, with much larger pay differentials between those at the top and the bottom and twice as many low paid jobs in the economy today as there were in the 1970’s.

The single biggest cause of child poverty is therefore the lack of jobs with a decent income that parents can raise their families on. There are far more children in poverty because their parent is a care worker, a retail assistant, a cleaner, a factory worker or a hospitality worker than because their parent is a gambler, alcoholic or drug addict. Around 6 in every 10 children below the poverty line are in homes where there is a parent in work.

The bad British parents narrative (which I have written on before) is a surprisingly literal pursuit of a ‘nanny state’ for its Conservative and Liberal Democrat proponents. It suggests that state services need to intervene much more in the lives of low income families, forcing parents to work and to improve their bad parenting skills. If a parent is in work but the family are still too poor, then it is they – rather than unscrupulous employers – who will face new financial penalties under the in-work conditionality rules of the Universal Credit.

Measured after housing costs, there are 3.5 million children below the poverty line inBritaintoday. This is around 3 in every 10 children and it is about twice as high a child poverty rate as countries like Germany, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Slovenia and Sweden. Are we really to believe that the key difference between theUKand our European neighbours with much lower levels of child poverty is the poor quality of British parents? There is in fact no evidence that low income families are any worse at parenting than anyone else.

Surely it is differences such as better pay and conditions for workers, adequate benefit and tax credit payments, higher state investment in universal childcare provision, more affordable housing and high quality public services that explains why they are doing so much better for their children that we are in the UK.

So, on Tuesday, we will be looking to Milburn to remind the Coalition about what the evidence says about why people are in poverty, what works to reduce or prevent poverty and, ultimately, that rising child poverty will be an indelible mark not just on the lives and life chances of children and our national prosperity but also on the Coalition’s legacy.

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.
Advert

9 Comments

  • ……Surely it is differences such as better pay and conditions for workers, adequate benefit and tax credit payments, higher state investment in universal childcare provision, more affordable housing and high quality public services that explains why they are doing so much better for their children that we are in the UK……..

    I agree wholeheartedly. A ‘fairer’ society was my main reason for becoming a Lib(Dem) supporter.
    Two points
    1) There is ‘only one cake’ (be it a Company or government) and, as long as those at the top take a bigger and bigger slice (CEO’s, etc.) there is less and less for those at the bottom. We constantly hear how “Those on benefits are better off than those working”; The coalition’s answer? Cut benefits!. A better way is to ensure those working have a ‘real living wage’.
    2) I was so angered/saddened by Danny Alexander explaining to the nation that, “as harsh decisions had to be made” he supported the broken promises on child poverty…

  • Daniel Henry 12th Dec '11 - 4:46pm

    Agreed with both Alison and Jason.

  • Tony Dawson 12th Dec '11 - 6:50pm

    ” Alan Milburn prepares to makes his first speech as the Independent Reviewer on Social Mobility and Child Poverty on Tuesday”

    I did not realise the Coalition was employing such right wingers. 🙁

    wWll we see Redwood next?

  • I agree 100% also. It surprises me that more Lib Dem supporters aren’t speaking up for a radical change in direction.

  • The point with both the Clegg and IDS narratives on poverty is that it is important to look at the causes of poverty rather than simply observe the consequence and top up the bank balance accordingly. Of course there can and must be a debate about it, and actually it is not clearly so clear cut as an either/or. But it is about a different kind of narrative which seeks to help people overcome the root causes of poverty.

    As long as poverty is measured as an arbitrary line relative to median income, no serious effort can be made to tackle the root causes whether they are inherited (dis)advantage, personal success/failure, or whatever. Indeed, we have the absurd situation where an overall drop in incomes can actually lift people out of poverty, since the median average income and the income of those on basic benefits comes closer together.

    And a quibble on this ‘nanny state’ inference – a ‘nanny state’ is not one where we expect people to take responsibility for themselves and for their families. On the contrary, it is a ‘nanny state’ which takes over those functions and subsidises your choices to take away the risk of making bad ones. That sounds a lot more like a high tax and spend welfare state than either the Clegg or IDS narratives, both of which are (in different ways) about the state handing over responsibility to individuals for their own futures.

  • Tim Nichols 15th Dec '11 - 6:06pm

    @Ben

    “The point with both the Clegg and IDS narratives on poverty is that it is important to look at the causes of poverty rather than simply observe the consequence and top up the bank balance accordingly.”

    If they were serious about addressing the casues of poverty then we would hear Clegg and IDS say that the government’s priorities are full employment and fair wages.

    All we get is vague waffle about opportunity and muddled identification of causes – e.g. debt is seen as a cause of poverty by IDS, but what does he think drives people to doorstep and pay day lenders in the first place?

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.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

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

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User Avatarmatt 18th Mar - 4:57pm
    @Mark We were told that a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and leaving the customs union. We were told we would...
  • User AvatarMark Valladares 18th Mar - 4:47pm
    @ Matt, It’s not clear to me that, even were it to be the current will of the people that we should leave, that a...
  • User AvatarAndrew Brown 18th Mar - 4:42pm
    If we're now staring at the prospect of a crash Brexit, we must move to revoke Article 50. Parliament can then consider the best way...
  • User AvatarPaul Barker 18th Mar - 4:41pm
    So far, May hasn't even asked for a delay. With only 11 days before we crash out we have to make it clear that its...
  • User Avatarmatt 18th Mar - 4:41pm
    Quite simple. Democracy should prevail and we should now leave with No deal to honour the referendum result.
  • User AvatarAndrew Hickey 18th Mar - 4:38pm
    This means that the only options which are in the power of the UK -- rather than something to be granted at a whim of...