Child Poverty Action Group argues for material gain but, unlike John Hutton, our focus is those at the bottom rather than the top. His argument that material gain for those at the bottom is contingent on the gross inequality that now exists in Britain is without basis. High inequality is not to be welcomed – it stymies opportunity – and it is not needed. The Nordic countries show that greater equality and low levels of child poverty are perfectly compatible with successful and highly competitive entrepreneurial economies.

Hutton may be technically correct that it is statistically possible to have a society where no child is below the poverty line, while at the same time those at the top are extremely wealthy, but it’s a rather abstract point. He doesn’t explain how this pipe dream is to be achieved.

Look beneath the misleading and unsupported claims and his speech reveals a deeply disturbing philosophy about people. The only personal motivation he recognises is financial gain and the only aspiration, to become rich. It is economism gone mad.

A working parent living below the poverty line is not motivated to sacrifice important time spent with her children to earn enough for multiple foreign holidays and a country pad. She works over-time or multiple jobs so her child gets a warm winter coat, does not have to miss a school trip and can afford the bus fare so they’re not excluded from a school friend’s birthday party. These families are not striving for social superiority, just material security and social inclusion. And what of those who cannot work? What aspirations can carers or severely disabled people pursue if they are forever on the breadline?

No recognition is given to those whose employment choices are driven by social vocation. If you serve the community as a child-carer or are training to be a nurse at the same time as trying to bring up a family, you know your children are at much greater risk of living below the poverty line. It is shocking that those who choose to work for the benefit of the community are so often forced to accept poverty for their children into the bargain. Depressingly, social research suggests that the more our culture celebrates vast material gain, the more people’s values shift to materialism. Without firm moral opposition, Hutton’s philosophy may become self-fulfilling.

There should be other ways in which we can be valued and achieve security for our families than jostling for material success. In his time as Work and Pensions Secretary, Hutton did acknowledge the success of the voluntary sector at helping the people furthest from the labour market into jobs. But he then commissioned and championed a report from a banker, David Freud, proposing that the private sector be given the job of rolling out the successful voluntary sector models. Profit incentives are to replace social vocation. In this case, the values within the voluntary sector have been key to that success. If you factory farm the goose that laid the golden egg it will stop laying.

Hutton’s core message was that ‘the marriage [New Labour] arranged between prosperity and justice is both our defining trait and our biggest strength’. But it’s an unequal marriage without a joint account. While Hutton is busy championing the right for a few to be part of an exclusive club, the child poverty movement is championing the rights of 3.8 million children not to be an excluded class.