Child poverty is set to soar under the coalition

Cameron promised child poverty would not increase. The IFS says it will rise by 300,000.

"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

Yesterday brought the welcome news that child poverty fell to its lowest level since 1986 during Labour's final year in power, from 22 per cent to 20 per cent. The party missed its target of halving child poverty by 2010 but it's some achievement that the measure, which tripled under Margaret Thatcher from one in nine children to one in three (the worst in Europe), fell at all during the deepest recession since 1945.

Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that child poverty, which stood at 26 per cent in 1997 when Tony Blair became prime minister, fell to 20 per cent in 2009-2010. The figure is not the result of a general fall in median income.

As Tim Nichols of the Child Povery Action Group notes at Left Foot Forward: "The headline poverty mark is 60 per cent median income, so if median income falls, so does the poverty line, leaving some people who were just below it now just above it. But median income actually rose slightly." Gordon Brown's tax credits may have been derided as hopelessly complex and bureaucratic, but the facts show that they got the money where it was needed most.

Today's release from the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that George Osborne's decision to reduce state benefits will have the reverse effect. The IFS warns that child poverty will increase by roughly 300,000 by 2013-2014, largely due to "cuts to the generosity of benefits and tax credits by the coalition government". It's a finding that 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 to), they will stand accused of being not only unfair, but insincere. It was Cameron, after all, who made the Rawls-like declaration that "the right test for our policies is how they help the most disadvantaged in society" and not the wealthy.

A year later he promised: "We can make British poverty history, and we will make British poverty history." More recently, he pledged that the Budget and the Spending Review would not result in "any increase in child poverty".

There are plenty on the right who have urged the coalition to shift the goalposts and reject the internationally recognised definition of poverty (Imran Hussain, head of policy at the Child Poverty Action Group, defended this definition on The Staggers last year). For instance, Neil O'Brien, the director of Policy Exchange, has argued: "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 percent 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."

But the government, to its credit, has so far refused to abandon the relative measure of child poverty. When Cameron claimed that the Spending Review would not increase child poverty, he used the same definition as Gordon Brown. He may soon wish he hadn't.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Who will win in Manchester Gorton?

Will Labour lose in Manchester Gorton?

The death of Gerald Kaufman will trigger a by-election in his Manchester Gorton seat, which has been Labour-held since 1935.

Coming so soon after the disappointing results in Copeland – where the seat was lost to the Tories – and Stoke – where the party lost vote share – some overly excitable commentators are talking up the possibility of an upset in the Manchester seat.

But Gorton is very different to Stoke-on-Trent and to Copeland. The Labour lead is 56 points, compared to 16.5 points in Stoke-on-Trent and 6.5 points in Copeland. (As I’ve written before and will doubtless write again, it’s much more instructive to talk about vote share rather than vote numbers in British elections. Most of the country tends to vote in the same way even if they vote at different volumes.)

That 47 per cent of the seat's residents come from a non-white background and that the Labour party holds every council seat in the constituency only adds to the party's strong position here. 

But that doesn’t mean that there is no interest to be had in the contest at all. That the seat voted heavily to remain in the European Union – around 65 per cent according to Chris Hanretty’s estimates – will provide a glimmer of hope to the Liberal Democrats that they can finish a strong second, as they did consistently from 1992 to 2010, before slumping to fifth in 2015.

How they do in second place will inform how jittery Labour MPs with smaller majorities and a history of Liberal Democrat activity are about Labour’s embrace of Brexit.

They also have a narrow chance of becoming competitive should Labour’s selection turn acrimonious. The seat has been in special measures since 2004, which means the selection will be run by the party’s national executive committee, though several local candidates are tipped to run, with Afzal Khan,  a local MEP, and Julie Reid, a local councillor, both expected to run for the vacant seats.

It’s highly unlikely but if the selection occurs in a way that irritates the local party or provokes serious local in-fighting, you can just about see how the Liberal Democrats give everyone a surprise. But it’s about as likely as the United States men landing on Mars any time soon – plausible, but far-fetched. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.