‘We welcome the fact that Conservatives are taking seriously the scandal of four million children in poverty in the fourth richest country in the world. But their proposals miss the point that without real income redistribution to close the inequality gap we will never reach that goal.’ – Kate Green, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group
‘David Cameron’s commitment to match Labour plans to abolish child poverty by 2020 is welcome. Under Labour the child poverty targets have been a strong statement of our society’s values and have driven policy and investment decisions by government.
It must be right, as Teresa May said on the Today Programme, to look at the causes of poverty when developing policy in this area, but the Conservatives must acknowledge that the causes of economic deprivation are also symptoms of it. Yes, family breakdown and benefit dependency leave families in poverty, but economic deprivation causes family instability and ill-health. No credible commitment to end child poverty can ignore income levels. Social activism and entrepreneurship are important but no substitute for direct government intervention, such as tax credits, which raise family incomes.’ – Claire McCarthy, director of public affairs at 4Children
‘We’re pleased that David Cameron has re-affirmed the Conservative party’s commitment to ending child poverty by 2020. The Child Poverty Bill is a vital mechanism for achieving this goal, and it’s great that it has cross-party support.
We know that tackling child poverty needs action on a range of fronts – we’re particularly keen to see more measures to make work family friendly. Tackling low incomes both in and out of work must be a fundamental part of the strategy. Investment in Child Benefit and Tax Credits has been vital in lifting children out of poverty to date, and will continue to be necessary if the 2020 target is to be met. Child poverty currently costs the UK around £25bn a year, and damages the experience of childhood for four million children. Ending child poverty will need a shift in resources towards children, but this is a price worth paying.’ – Kate Bell, head of policy and research at Gingerbread
‘Ending child poverty is proving one of the hardest challenges for Labour to tackle and more money is needed to target benefits and tax credits at the poorest children. It needs an active state which provides tailored support for families (for example through Sure Start, another key service which would be at risk under the Tories), rather than one which leaves them to the perils of the market. I don’t believe Cameron can deliver on this pledge when he is committed to cutting taxes for millionaires. And his judgemental and spiteful tax breaks for married couples will not only damage gender equality, but will come at the expense of poor children in single parent families.’ – Kate Groucutt, chair of Young Fabians and council candidate in Islington
Good to see the comments of those who know about child poverty all grouped together. Sure Start Centres were designed to be in the hands of the community, not state bureaucracy. It is where local authorities have decided that they are the best suited to running them that they have been least successful. In the (now Tory) borough where I work, the Children’s Centres struggle to reach the parents who might most benefit because somehow (and I don’t know how, I am not interested in knocking local government officers just for the sake of it) staff can’t do this. Whereas strong community anchors can. But this is not Tory argument, although David Cameron may be trying to steal it.
In relation to the statement above I don’t think we should fall into the trap of local authority versus “community anchor” (whatever this is, presumably a person?).
Camden rolled out Surestart and children’s centres early on, to great success: to which the new Tory/Lib dem administration still benefits, despite some cuts. One of the best is a charity (Coram’s), but then the ‘state’ ones are good too. Both involve members of the community in working and running them. This is because they are linked together by a historically good council department, not floating alone in isolation.