Do the Tories care about poverty and fairness? According to recent pronouncements, for example Osborne's speech to the “Demos” think tank, the answer is yes. If they were to gain power, would they do anything about it? I doubt it.
 
In terms of rhetoric they have certainly come a long way from Thatcher, who famously derided politicians who ''drool and drivel'' about caring for humanity. Actually, she was forced to apologise for her comment. But Cameron and Osborne would not have made such a slip. The era where greed was king and compassion was held in contempt is an aspect of the Tory brand that they are determined to decontaminate.
 
And Labour has the problem that, having first set specific targets for poverty reduction, those targets are now being missed. In 1999 Tony Blair promised to halve the number of poor children in 10 years and to eradicate child poverty in 20 years. Labour did well in the first five years and about 600,000 children were lifted out of poverty, but it's still below target and on the basis of current budgetary trends, it's difficult to envisage that the 2020 target will be reached.
 
The original target was both challenging and radical. Challenging because, since poverty is defined in relation to median incomes, then you're constantly chasing a moving target in order to meet it. Radical because in its definition of poverty in relative terms it implies the need for a degree of equality of outcome, more than just equality of opportunity, as the mark of a fair society.
 
The Tory response has been astute. Just as the economy has slowed and public expenditure targets have tightened they have chosen their moment to focus on poverty and inequality. Osborne claims to accept the concept of relative poverty, and that the gap between the poor and those on median incomes is too great. He even claims to accept in-work tax credits, the main driver to reduce family poverty.
 
But although the Tories now say they would like to abolish child poverty, they won’t actually commit to Labour’s targets. They say they would like to abolish child poverty, but not when they’ll do it. So it’s a meaningless promise. They say a great deal about equality of opportunity, as do all the main parties, but they don’t recognise that if you are a child brought up in a poor household with accompanying bad nutrition, health and housing then your life chances are blighted from birth onwards.
 
The Tories are aware of the contradictions in their position. To see Chris Grayling literally squirming with embarrassment when questioned on this point on "Newsnight" recently by Labour’s Stephen Timms was very revealing. But Labour generally has been rather slow to point out the contradictions in Tory policy, which is as full as holes as a Swiss cheese.
 
For example, there is much hot air from the Tories about “intergenerational fairness” now that public debt is going up as a proportion of GNP, and they talk about the supposed burden of this debt on future generations. But they don't mention that we inherited a vast and expensive national debt from the Tories and Gordon in Labour’s first years concentrated on paying it off. The Tories are wedded to low inheritance tax, but I don't understand how being born with a silver spoon in your mouth represents  “intergenerational fairness”.
 
I think we could have argued the “fairness” case for IHT better, though clearly some changes were necessary. And anti-poverty could have been explained in terms of enlightened self-interest as much as helping poor people. For example, when British executives relocate abroad they frequently choose Holland over Venezuela, Denmark over Nigeria. That's despite the fact that in Nigeria your salary gives you a houseful of servants whereas in Denmark you can barely afford a cleaner. When given the opportunity, people vote with their feet for societies that are relatively equal rather than those that are polarised.
 
Anti-poverty isn't about the lugubrious IDS braying into the inner cities to pat heads and be nice to poor folks; it's that relatively equal societies are generally better, safer and healthier places to live – for everyone, including those on median and above average incomes. It’s a policy that Labour should promulgate clearly and openly to its coalition of supporters.
 
The task for the government is challenging, and targets may be missed. But it is still far better to keep to the existing policy and maintain its principles.
 
Stick to your guns, Gordon.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

David Cameron’s lecture to the fat and poor in Glasgow yesterday to “take responsibility” was the classic statement of conservatism. If the people are poor, it’s their own fault. Or as Dave puts it, “social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make”. The Glasgow citizens aren’t merely people suffering unemployment, ill health and poor housing. They have “twisted values” that have “eaten away at our social fabric". And as it’s the 21st century we have an update to this Victorian morality – they’re not just poor but they’re fat. So we can attack them for that too.

According to the IFS website, the government is due to publish new figures on relative poverty and income distribution on Friday 2nd May- the day when 99% of active Labour Party members will likely be in bed from either exhaustion or a hangover.

It should not surprise us that again New Labour is claiming that all of society’s ills can be solved through getting people back to work. However, it certainly should disappoint us that this latest attack is made on those most vulnerable in society.

The recent announcement that the UK's fourth largest energy supplier is to raise its prices means the government and the regulator must take decicive action.

Shortly before Gordon Brown’s announcement that there will be no general election in the near future, TMP editor, Chuka Umunna, caught up with Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Ed Miliband MP.

The Joseph Rowntree report "Poverty and Place in Britain - 1968 to 2005", published on 17th July, contained a stark message for Liverpool. The study indicated that the city contains 108,000 households in breadline poverty, centered on West Derby and Riverside, the most extreme levels found in Britain.

II. Poverty

Individual carbon allowances would allow those using less to sell credits to others who continue to use more. Green taxes are flat rate taxes which do not take income into account, and so could hit the poor hardest.

Yesterday's announcement from the Prime Minister on the launch of an aid delivery watch group/dream-team (Bill Gates, Kofi Annan and Bob Geldof) wasn't a huge surprise. Ardent Blairites (myself) see this as quite a necessary evocation of the Labour Party (and by extension - our government's) championing of the holy trifecta of aid, trade and debt. It's what we do, and it's what the Tories don't. Simple.