In March 1999 Tony Blair pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020. The Chancellor, Gordon Brown, has given a commitment to lift one million children out of income poverty by 2004/2005. Coming on top of the target of lifting 1.2 million children out of poverty during Labour’s first term, the pledge for the second term is bold, radical and incredibly ambitious. Surely an issue with the potential to fire the belly of even the most cynical party member? Even if ‘middle Britain’ remains indifferent, a mission to improve the lot of poor children could not be a vote loser.
So why did the scandal of child poverty barely feature as an issue during the election campaign? Where was the passion? You will not find reducing child poverty in the Labour manifesto’s ‘five pledges’, nor in the ‘ten goals for 2010’, or even, explicitly, in the ‘25 steps to a better Britain’. If you were one of the few people likely to have read the document cover to cover you will find the commitment to ‘help’ another million children out of poverty on page 27. Yet again, poverty was marginalised as an election issue. Poverty may not be an obvious vote winner, but apparent public indifference should not be taken as a fait accompli – genuine radicalism requires political courage and leadership. ]
If one million children were lifted out of poverty in the first term this will have been achieved largely as a result of changes in the tax and benefits system introduced since the March 1999 Budget. A simple addition reveals the significance and breath-taking boldness of the new child poverty target: 1.2 million in the first term plus one million in the second (within three to four years) equals 2.2 million children lifted out of poverty since 1999. If, and it is a very big ‘if’, this target is achieved, child poverty will have been halved since Tony Blair’s Beveridge lecture. If the rate of progress is maintained, the historic goal of eradicating child poverty could be achieved by 2011 – nearly a decade ahead of target.
But perhaps this is the stuff of dreams. The early signs are not promising. Recently published figures reveal that the number of children living in poverty fell from 4.5 to 4.3 million in the first three years of the last government – a fall of ‘only’ 200,000. Has the government the political will and courage to put poverty first when it comes to competing political and spending priorities? The child poverty goal can only be achieved by further significant increases in financial support for families with children. The proposal to introduce a new integrated child credit may provide the mechanism and the political camouflage for redistribution, but where will the money come from? Spending plans have been set until 2003/04, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies warns of a black hole in public finances after 2004, unless taxation or borrowing is increased.
The Child Poverty Action Group is not naïve about the challenge that lies ahead – not least in generating public support. Poverty is not a sexy issue for the media; few journalists have personal experience of it. When it is covered, the predictable clichés are rolled out. If we want the issue reported, we have to play along: the sound bite filmed in front of the weed-ridden garden with a supermarket trolley strategically in shot; not too many trees, preferably a JobCentre with grills on the window. There are some estates in Hackney or Tower Hamlets where camera crews are frequent visitors.
Many believe that poverty – ‘real poverty’ – is a thing of the past. Opinion is often trapped in an outdated, sometimes sentimental, view of what it means to be poor. We do not use the experiences of 30, 40 or 50 years ago as a touchstone for what is acceptable for our health service, education, housing or quality of life, yet too often the standards of the past are applied to what it means to live in poverty today. When the government launched a scheme to provide low income families with computers, a letter in The Times was typical of many responses: ‘Poverty in my day meant children arriving at school with no shoes.’ When CPAG published a pre-election audit of the government’s record on child poverty, the Daily Express described our claim that over three million children live in poverty as ‘tosh’. How can children be poor when so many now have mobile phones?
Poverty rarely excites debate or media interest because it is not adversarial. It is not easy to bang a Labour government over the head about the disappointing fall in child poverty when it takes the wind out of your sails by claiming to want to do more. The good stuff does not get a look in. For example, the Department of Health launches its fruit-for-schools scheme: every primary school child is guaranteed a free piece of fruit a day. The Today programme does not report it because it cannot find anyone who opposes it. Children living in poverty do not have the big guns of the BMA, unions, fuel protesters or the votes of the pensioner lobby.
Yet poverty deserves a greater sense of outrage. There are millions of children who do lack basic necessities, such as a properly fitting pair of shoes, a warm home or three adequate meals a day. And, no, dear Daily Mail reader, you cannot just blame the parents. Independent research shows that incomes are often inadequate to meet the basics, with parents making sacrifices to put spending on their children first. For many families it proves expensive to be poor – higher food prices, lack of (affordable) transport, higher utility charges, scandalously high interest rates for debts incurred to make ends meet.
Low birth weights, higher infant mortality, ill health, doing less well at school – all linked to poverty. We have compelling evidence that poverty leaves a long-term legacy. As adults there will be lower life expectancy; poorer health; greater likelihood of unemployment, low pay and increased chances of homelessness; and drug and alcohol dependency. It is not just a sound bite to suggest that today’s poor child can become tomorrow’s poor pensioner.
Then there is the less tangible aspect of poverty: stigma, isolation, boredom, embarrassment, low self esteem, contributing to lack of ambition and lowered expectations of self and what society can offer. Children cope with poverty by learning to be poor.
The commitment to tackle child poverty should not be doubted. It is an issue close to the heart as well as the brain of the Chancellor. Gordon Brown has shown a dogged determination not to let the issue drop. Speaking at Progress’ Next Left conference in July, Robin Cook emphatically endorsed the commitment by stating that child poverty was issue number one for the new government.
There are exciting opportunities ahead. Labour does now have an unprecedented mandate to eradicate child poverty. But the promise to reduce and eventually eradicate child poverty cannot be achieved without a clear and unambiguous commitment to put children first. The commitment will not hold unless the Labour movement as a whole takes ownership and becomes passionate about the issue. The government must be held to account; praised where credit is due, but criticised and lobbied furiously to ensure that the potential of a second term is not wasted. A number of charities have joined forces to launch an End Child Poverty Coalition. Campaign groups, children’s charities and others in the voluntary sector must do what is needed to keep the issue alive. If that means courting controversy, risking unpopularity (and an OBE), and upsetting a few political egos, so be it.