The coalition takes a Victorian approach to helping the poorest children ? but there's more to inequality than acute child poverty
The news from the OECD, the rich world's thinktank, that progress on tackling child poverty in Britain has stalled and social spending on families needs to be protected should come as a wake-up call to a coalition intent on slashing back the state.
Despite the rhetoric behind the government's strategy for tackling child poverty, ministers have already come under fire from charities this month for failing to fulfil their legal duties.
While the Child Poverty Act, passed with all-party support before the last election, was supposed to commit future governments to cut relative child poverty to 10% by 2020, the latest figures, from 2008-09, show that 2.8 million, or 22%, of children were living in relative poverty. Relative child poverty is defined as children living in homes with an income of 60% less than the median UK income before housing costs. It's not just the very poorest in society but inequality that parliament agreed to address.
This is a classic problem for the British state, which Labour attempted to constitutionalise with the act. Labour's thinking was that giving all children an equal chance in life was a basic entitlement that British citizens could expect. The best way of achieving this was to ensure that a large section of British society ? those who find themselves below the middle classes ? had a lock on the state's resources.
Note that Labour was not just talking about the very poorest. Money had to be found so that children from ordinary backgrounds could catch up with richer peers. Giving children the best possible start in life meant it is not just the poorest that need help, but the middle stratum of society too.
The social gradient is important to appreciate. Double the percentage of children in the top 10% of households get five or more A* to C grades, including English and maths, at GCSE than those in homes ranked in the top 20%-30% band of households.
This fact was recognised long ago on the continent ? leading to the rise of the so-called Scandinavian solution: high taxes to pay so that the rich pay for the not so rich. This is anathema to Liberal Democrats and Conservatives. Instead, the coalition reaches for a classic Victorian solution ? low taxes, small state ? with a focus on the poor. So we have the pupil premium, a focus on how many free-school-meal kids get into Oxford, and extra money for health visitors for pre-school children in poor areas, in an attempt to get them to the starting line for formal schooling.
While no one doubts this will help, the point is that those struggling to keep a foothold on the second or third rung of society are being penalised as VAT goes up, universal benefits are potentially cut and a price slapped on previously free public goods. The question often asked by government is: is this fair? The answer for many just able to keep themselves afloat in Britain is: no.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/28/child-poverty-inequality
George Soros Aung San Suu Kyi Queen Elizabeth II King Abdullah Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
No comments:
Post a Comment