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

Vote Leave have won two referendums. Can they win a third?

The Remain campaign will hope that it is third-time unlucky for Vote Leave's tried-and-tested approach.

Vote Leave have launched a new campaign today, offering a £50m prize if you can guess the winner of every game at the Euros this summer. They’ve chosen the £50m figure as that is the sum that Vote Leave say the United Kingdom send to the European Union every day.

If you wanted to sum up Vote Leave’s approach to the In-Out referendum in a single gimmick, this is surely it, as it is deceitful – and effective. The £50m figure is a double deception – it’s well in excess of what Britain actually pays, and your chances of winning are so small they can only be viewed through an electron microscope. Saying that “the UK pays £50m to the EU” is like saying “I paid £10 for breakfast at Gregg’s this morning” – yes, I paid with a £10 note, but I got £8 back.  The true figure is closer to £26,000 a day.

But the depressing truth is that this sort of fact-free campaigning works – and has worked before. It’s the same strategy that Matthew Elliott, the head of Vote Leave, deployed to devastating effect, when he was head of the No to AV campaign, and that Dominic Cummings, head of strategy at Vote Leave, used when he was in charge of the anti-North East Assembly campaign: focus on costs, often highly-inflated ones, and repeat, over and over again.

This competition is a great vessel for that message, too, with the potential to reach anyone who has at least one Facebook friend with an interest in betting or football, i.e. everyone. And as my colleague Kirsty Styles revealed yesterday, this latest campaign is just one in a series of Internet-based, factually dubious campaigns and adverts being used by Vote Leave on the Internet.

The difficulty for the opponents of No2AV was, as one alumni of that campaign reflected recently, “how do you repudiate it without repeating it?”. A row over whether the United Kingdom sends £50m or £26,000 – itself £1,000 higher than the average British salary – helps the Leave campaign whichever way it ends up.

Neither Yes to Fairer Votes or supporters of a devolved assembly for the North East ever found a defence against the Elliott-Cummings approach. Time is running out for Britain Stronger In Europe to prevent them completing the hattrick. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.