|
Child poverty is a "scar on the conscience of the nation" and Labour's commitment to ending it is "non-negotiable", James Purnell told a Fabian Society fringe meeting.
Purnell was speaking at the 'The Child Poverty Challenge' fringe meeting in Birmingham as leading campaigners argued that substantial Progress in this month's budget would be crucial to Labour retaining trust on the government's flagship social pledge. The Fabian fringe was kindly supported by Trade Union Fund Managers.
"For Labour, this is a trust issue," said Kate Green of the Child Poverty Action Group, welcoming the Prime Minister's recommitment to the child poverty targets but noting the scale of the challenge of getting back on track: "I do not for one moment doubt the party's seriousness about its child poverty target. The Prime Minister's moral authority is so much a part of the argument that is being presented. The government can not be seen to back down."
"As the Labour party, we have to absolutely nail the Conservatives on the weasel words they use on child poverty" which are cynical and verging on the scandalous, said Purnell, arguing that the Conservatives have not signed up to the government's child poverty target, though they were pretending to have done so.
Oliver Letwin had first "spun" the idea that the opposition was signing up to the child poverty target but the small print showed this was a mere 'aspiration'. Christopher Grayling had pulled the same stunt, describing ending child poverty not as a target but just "as a widely held aspiration". Yet, Iain Duncan Smith, who was leading Conservative thinking on social justice had described the target as "an artificial measure", because "he doesn't believe in the concept of relative poverty," said Purnell.
"An aspiration is something you can forget about it. A target or a pledge is something you have to deliver on."
"For Labour there is no doubt about this. We have an unyielding determination to end child poverty in our generation. And our commitment to the goal of ending child poverty is non-negotiable. Non-negotiable because it is a scar on our conscience as a nation and it is non-negotiable because it is fundamental to achieving life chances for all children in this country," said the Work and Pensions Secretary in the strongest language yet used by any Cabinet minister in reaffirming the government's commitment.
"For the Tories it is a way of trying to decontaminate their brand, and to try to give them permission to talk about reforms like the Wisconsin experiment in the United States, which led to an increase in child poverty while we in the UK were reducing it," he said.
"Creating a demand and an appetite to achieve our goal is vital to achieve the space in which it can be achieved', said Purnell. But he warned that public attitudes research showed 'a dramatic shift in an anti-welfare direction, particularly among Labour supporters."
'We don't yet have the same pressure on the streets of the United Kingdom', said Purnell, arguing that campaigners on child poverty should be 'honest with ourselves about how that will succeed'.
'We need to win the argument with the public that this will be a two way street. That will give us permission to have a debate about how we increase the role of the state. We need to get permission from the public to make these changes: we get that permission by a clear sense that this is a contract out of poverty where there is a responsibility on the state and on the individual. That is an important part of taking people on that journey'.
Louise Bamfield of the Fabian Society said that Labour's ability to make child poverty a central election issue depended on an internal debate about the electoral strategy which could deliver another victory: the party needed a cause to mobilize its supporters while maintaining a broad electoral coalition:
'The Labour idealists believe we should sprinkle some Obama magic and make child poverty the cause to mobilize and engage our supporters, but the Labour pragmatists worry about whether child poverty could be a vote winner. If we are worrying about Southern Discomfort, could putting the money we need to meet the target actually lose votes and make winning the election more difficult', she said.
Kate Green of the Child Poverty Action Group warned that "You are not going to win hearts and minds if you seem to suggest that most people on welfare are simply scroungers and fraudsters. I don't think a language that is punitive is the right way to build up the argument that the govt wants to build up about giving people giving greater autonomy over their own lives," said Green. "A social contract does underpin the welfare state but we should not have a different social contract for those who are poor from those who are not."
Louise Bamfield said that stressing a 'something for something' approach could give government permission to act, but there should also be greater efforts to challenge misinformation and stereotypes. "People massively overestimate how much people on benefits receive." Bamfield said that Fabian public attitudes research had shown how this was combined with harsh, sharp stereotypes' around 'booze, fags, dog racing and scratchcards'. "Racism in our society is declining, but prejudice about income groups is becoming more prevalent," she said.
For more on this event click here or contact Rosie Clayton.
|
