Why a rise in poverty will humiliate Cameron

Osborne and Cameron will stand accused not only of being unfair but of being insincere.

"The right test for our policies is how they help the most disadvantaged in society, not the rich."

David Cameron, Built to Last, March 2006

The latest Institute for Fiscal Studies report, showing that the coalition's welfare cuts will hugely increase poverty, should set alarm bells ringing in Downing Street.

Cameron and George Osborne have chosen, against the judgement of several of their colleagues, to claim that their austerity package is a "progressive" one. Should poverty increase on their watch (as it is now certain, too), they will stand accused of being not only unfair, but insincere.

Without significant changes to its tax and spending plans, there is no prospect of the government meeting its child poverty targets. Indeed, it is likely to preside over the first increase in child poverty in 15 years. According to the IFS forecasts, absolute child poverty will increase by 200,000 in 2012/13 and by 300,000 in 2013/14. As a result, in the words of the IFS, "meeting the legally binding child poverty targets in 2020 would require the biggest fall in relative child poverty after 2013-14 since at least 1961".

In total, between 2010-2011 and 2013-2014, the coalition's plans will increase absolute poverty among all children and working-age adults by 900,000 and relative poverty (defined as households with less than 60 per cent of the median income) among the same group by 800,000. Were it not for a general decline in living standards, as earnings fail to keep up with inflation, the rise would be steeper still.

The coalition is now under increasing pressure to reject the internationally recognised definition of poverty (see here for a defence of it). Neil O'Brien of Policy Exchange, for instance, argues:

The problem with what the IFS is saying is that the measure they use isn't an indicator of real poverty; it's a measure of inequality. It defines "poverty" as being below 60 per cent of the average income.

This is a hangover from the Gordon Brown era. Real poverty isn't the same as inequality. The IFS's definition would mean that there are actually more people in poverty in Britain today than there are in Poland.

Many Conservatives would have preferred Cameron and Osborne to mount a Thatcherite defence of regressive economics from the start. But they have gone too far down the "progressive" path to turn back now. A rise in poverty will humiliate the coalition.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Private renter poverty has doubled in a decade - so where's Labour?

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation named housing market failures as driving poverty. 

Labour’s economic policy task is enormous. It must find a coherent argument that addresses Brexit, the “left behinds”, and a nervous business community. But there is one policy area that should be an open goal – private renting. 

The number of private renters in poverty has doubled over the last decade, according to a new report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Those most likely to fall into poverty are working families – there were 2.8m of these people in 2014-15, compared to 1m a decade earlier.

“Failures in the housing market are a significant driver of poverty,” the report noted, after finding more than 70 per cent of private renters in poverty pay at least a third of their income in rent.

This is particularly the case if you consider the knock-on effect - housing benefit. This benefit was frozen by George Osborne, meaning that by 2015 Shelter calculated rates had fallen behind actual rents in nearly 70 per cent of England. For families out of work, of course, housing benefit is also included in the benefit cap. 

Private renter poverty is easily characterised as an inner-city problem – the kind cherished by the “metropolitan elite”. But in fact, across Great Britain as a whole, roughly one in ten children under 19 lives in a family that is privately renting and claiming housing benefit. The highest percentage was in Blackpool, followed by the Essex coastal area of Tendring, followed by London boroughs. Private renting is a trend that affects both the Remain strongholds and the Leave coastal towns.

So far, Labour has been relatively quiet on private renting. During the summer’s leadership campaign, Jeremy Corbyn promised to introduce “rent controls, secure tenancies and a charter of private tenants’ rights” (a promise he repeated as part of a longer speech in November). But this is hardly a blockbuster campaign. 

And the challenges are great. A convincing renting policy must explain how Labour would deal with a reactionary letting market industry (including pensioner voters), whether renting should be a step to buying, or an end in itself, and how new council and social housing would be allocated.

Labour could also, though, tie a rent campaign into other trends - the growing army of self-employed that find it hard to prove their wages to a landlord or mortgage lender, the working families on frozen benefits, and the employers that find their employees priced out of the local area. And pissed-off tenants are not hard to find. 

If Labour doesn’t move soon on an issue that should be its natural home, the government may steal the keys. In the Autumn Statement, Philip Hammond helped himself to Ed Miliband’s 2015 promise to ban letting agent fees. The government has also set up a working group with members of the private renting industry. (Yes, the government may also be selling off social housing under Right to Buy, but if you never had the option of social housing anyway, this may pass you by.)

Fixing the housing market takes imagination and a steeliness to take on entrenched interests. But if Labour does come up with a solution, it could touch the lives of voters, both Leave and Remain. 

 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.