Cameron tries to break free from Labour's poverty of thought
Fraser Nelson 4:38pm
I doubt many headlines will come from David Cameron’s poverty speech in Euston today, but for those looking to see him wrestle his way out of Labour’s way of thinking and towards a Tory solution there was plenty to see.
Here’s the problem as I see it. Brown has long understood that metrics are power. He who chooses the yardstick wins the battle – and if he defined “poverty” as the number of people below the 60% median income, he can fake progress. For ten years, instead of tackling poverty, he has used the tax credit system to manipulate the results of this very specific target. And for ten years, the Tories have said nothing. Poverty, they figured, was Labour’s domain.
In his speech, Cameron broke free of this. He drew a distinction between the symptoms of poverty – lack of money – and the root causes. Brown chased the former, he said, and but only the Tories would combat the latter (education, families etc). Brown hails a success if, by a few pounds a week, someone is dragged over the poverty line. Even using Brown's narrow measure there are 100,000 more children “in poverty” than last year, Cameron says. This is the first time I can remember that he has questioned this definition of poverty.
Cameron then mentioned other measurements, such as the poorest 10% getting poorer. He took a gamble saying that the DWP is delaying child poverty data because the picture is getting worse – like Cameron I’d heard that, but he’ll look a plonker if this ain’t so.
The last Labour government gave us 97% tax for the richest people, he continued. This lot has given us this for the poorest. If a single mother with a child doubles her income to £200 a week, she gets to keep £6 of it.
With Chris Grayling’s help a few Brownies were debunked, such as last week’s gem that “almost a million” children had been lifted out of poverty when the real figure was 600,000. Grayling said Timms was also wrong to claim 2m pensioners out of poverty, real figure is 200,000.
Then came IDS, who has tilled the field on which Cameron now seeks to sew. If money alone was the key then giving welfare to a drug addict lifts them out of poverty, he said. In practise, the money goes to drugs. Children of addicts find no food in the fridge or clothes in the cupboards, yet by Brown's definition they are not in poverty. That's why Brown's shallow materialism is an invalid measure, he said.
He went on to list other metrics which the Tories could use to measure poverty. Boys in care make up 0.6% of population but 30% of prison population, he said – so why are care homes serving as prison academies? Social housing now used by younger people, he says, and has become a “dumping ground” for those being written off by this government? And finally, the destitution of the asylum seekers not allowed to work to sustain themselves. If you regard poverty as a narrow problem of money, IDS concluded, you will never change anything. You will spend more and achieve less.
At the end, we had questions. One woman stood up saying she was “from Govan” – ie, not an organisation but part of Glasgow. She gets tax credits, she said, but her husband has been laid off as a joiner because Poles will for £6 an hour do work that he used to do at £14 an hour. What would Cameron do about that? A tense moment – here in a room full of Westminster villagers was a real person, voicing a complaint which we hardly every hear in the mainstream media.
Cameron said he’d simplify tax credits and impose limits on immigration. That’s as maybe, I thought, but EU rules mean he can’t stop any Pole. Cameron finished by saying immigration is good, but has bad effects. It was a sincere attempt to empathise with this woman (who has, she said, ten children to support).
The truth is that no politician can or will do a thing about cheap European migrant labour undercutting natives as long as it’s all above the minimum wage. Cameron was confronted by a loser from mass immigration, and he had no message. Because there is none. In these circumstances, I thought he handled the situation well. I wonder how Brown would do. She’s the type of person whom No10 aides spend a lot of time making sure does not get the chance to pose a question like that to the PM. I’m a strong supporter of immigration, and it left me numb. One cannot say “go tell your husband that’s the way the gloablised cookie crumbles.” If CoffeeHousers can think of what Cameron’s answer should have been, I’d be interested to hear. For once, I had no answer.
Anyway, back to the speech. As Cameron said in Blackpool 2005, this is the start of something. If the Tories are finally breaking free from Labour’s metrics and language, then all becomes possible. Today’s speech was the strong basis to claim the Tories are the party of fighting poverty. Cameron has a dodgy habit of making speeches like this, then saying nothing for months (ie, his immigration speech last autumn). Lets see if he can finish what he today started
Previous
Comments
Chris Heathcote
April 28th, 2008 5:01pmI imagine Brown would have said something about adult training schemes to prepare people for a new career if they find themselves made redundant, which seems like a reasonable way for the Government to step in a provide a hand up. Whether or not any of Brown's schemes have achieved what they intended to do is another matter...
Rosemary Martin
April 28th, 2008 5:24pmthe answer, Fraser, is we should pull out of the EU. Then we could stop that sort of nonsense.
Perry
April 28th, 2008 5:25pmThis poverty nonsense in UK, is in general, a chimera.
Or, in another context, a miasma.
It certainly smells unpleasant.
And - like the BBC, - needs sorting out.
Meanwhile, the free floating agendas make sensibel dispassionate discussion near nigh impossible.
But as always, it is likely that those in REAL need find relief difficult to obtain. Or are reluctant to ask for help.
David
April 28th, 2008 5:28pm"If CoffeeHousers can think of what Cameron’s answer should have been, I’d be interested to hear. For once, I had no answer."
A crib from President Bartlett- the government has to recognise that in taking the good with immigration, it cannot shy away from the fact that there are those who lose out, and are particular hard hit if they are amongst the poorest in society; while he can't promise to prevent Poles from taking such jobs, he can provide opportunites for training and retraining to ensure that her husband can fulfil his potential to seek new and better opportunites.
Bloody hell.
David
April 28th, 2008 5:43pmUm, I didn't mean to write bloody hell. In fact I don't recall doing it. Erk.
MartinSharman
April 28th, 2008 5:58pmIsn't it a little sad that, a bit like Jack Straw saying this morning no-one thought through the 10p rate removal, that Fraser supports unlimited EU immigration but cannot explain to those actually affected by it why it's such a good thing?
Maybe if there were a number of lucid, expert political commentators from Poland willing to do your job for half the wage - you would reconsider your position on this?
Oh I almost forgot - the answer to the question is: "people like me care more about the economy than we care about people like you." Which when you think about it is quite a reasonable position - but political suicide.
Ian C
April 28th, 2008 6:07pmHe could have said (and should but conecting Europe to poverty was probably not on his briefing table though should have been) that the Labour Govt had signed away our ability to control immigration from within Europe and he would take another look at this (and other powers that had been similarly disposed).
Cindy, UK
April 28th, 2008 6:41pmFraser I would love the likes of you to explain what exactly the BENEFITS of the mass immigration we have had under Labour (which you so strongly support) are. Dont even think of trotting out the economic line which has totally been discredited by two former chancellors, a former governor of the BoE, a labour economist and others. People like you make me so annoyed as you do not feel the negative impact at all. This country does not have enough housing for a start, there are currently 1.6 million people on the housing waiting list and of course the east europeans can under cut British workers as they normally live in overcrowded accommodation which lowers their living costs. My objection is not based on racism of any kind as a lot of the people negatively affected by the sheer numbers coming in are children of former immigrants. An example, in Birmingham where there has been an influx of east europeans the unmemployment rate amongst young black and asian males is around 20%. I dont think any sane person would object to immigration but why cant we have it in much lower numbers and managed like other european countries, Australia, New Zealand etc???
CS
April 28th, 2008 6:44pmShe has HOW MANY children???
Chris
April 28th, 2008 7:20pmCameron should have had the cojones to challenge the woman for Govan. Blaming foreigners for your own failure to earn what you think you should is racism pure and simple. She should have been told to get stuffed.
etc
April 28th, 2008 7:41pmHow is it racist? Poles are white too, you know.
TGF UKIP
April 28th, 2008 7:41pmFraser, all this thrilled you, it may have thrilled the rest of the Westminster villagers, perhaps even Polly, but what's the politics of it. I'd be amazed if it gets any TV news coverage tonight or indeed any mention in any of the tabloid Press. Labour "does" poverty but people look to, and now ache for, the Tories to sort out the over spending and consequent overtaxing mess which Gordon has landed them in. Steve Richards and Trevor Kavanagh were both in agreement this morning that the current Troy poll lead, whatever it might be between 5 & 18%, is an unsurprisingly anti government vote rather than any positive enthusiasm for the Tories. It is by fighting on and being serious and looking sharp on this latter ground rather than pleasing Polly by being Blue Labour that they will shore up and solidly advance their position (and Dave will have to be a great deal more convincing on this than he was on Marr yesterday.)
Michael Sweeney
April 28th, 2008 7:42pmThere is no answer to question that to please the woman from Govan that would makes economic good sense. McCain was asked a similar question about NAFTA last week - unlike the protectionist democrats he said NAFTA benefitted the USA and promised retraining and education programs in technology for workers who lost out. Limiting immigration to keep UK wages high would be Canute-like. Being more discriminating about non-EU migrants and overhauling welfare would make more sense. Radical welfare reform would flood the market with more UK based labour to reduce the need for immigrant labour.
Michael Sweeney
April 28th, 2008 7:46pmThere is no easy answer to please the woman from Govan that would make economic good sense. McCain was asked a similar question about NAFTA last week - unlike the protectionist democrats he said NAFTA benefitted the USA and promised retraining and education programs in technology for workers who lost out. Limiting immigration to keep UK wages high would be Canute-like. Being more discriminating about non-EU migrants and overhauling welfare would make more sense. Radical welfare reform would flood the market with more UK based labour to reduce the need for immigrant labour.
CS
April 28th, 2008 8:11pmIt wouldn't be the first time that Kavanagh and Richards have come out with a truism but aren't all pro-Opposition poll leads caused by dislike of the government rather than love of the opposition? How many times must Kavanagh and Richards have come out with the old cliché that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them? Now they're presenting this as insightful political analysis of the current situation. It's about as profound as opining that the government is only unpopular because people don't like having their homes repossessed.
Mr Pompous.
April 28th, 2008 8:31pmArguing from the specific to the general is meaningless - and that means without meaning. It is the linguistic equivalent of an Escher print.
Danvers Baillieu
April 28th, 2008 8:31pmWhilst I am all in favour of cheap foreign labour and think the Poles have been a force for good in the UK (despite the lady from Govan's husband), I recall hearing on the BBC documentary "the Poles are coming" that the UK is one of only a few countries in Europe who will allow them to come in completely unrestricted. Could someone shed any light on this?
Fraser Nelson
April 28th, 2008 10:46pmCS, This Govan lady works too (as a supply teacher) they - never asked for a penny from the state to raise this cricket team of a family. Ten kids sounds like a lot but my father is from a family of nine from Glasgow - so I can sympathise! Chris - I don't know what your line of work is but if a Pole/Kiwi/South African put you out of work for doing it a third of the price I suspect you'd have something to say about it. Cindy, the benefits of immigration are too many to post here. Cultural, economic, demographic (ie replacing the 1,000-a-day who leave) etc. But you’re right – people like me must accept immigration means one thing to those who employ or are served by immigrants (ie, Westminster Villagers) and another thing to those who live with immigrants or compete with them for work/housing. (And if the young black/asian males in Birmingham have unemployment at 20% then they’re doing better than the rest of the city where 21.7% are on out-of-work benefits.) Glasgow, let us not forget, is an immigrant city - the Gale, Pict, Irish, Jew, Pakistan - all strands in the tartan. All Glasgow's daft sectarianism can be traced back to fear about being undercut by Irish migrants. It’s a recurring problem in strong, renewing economies resulting in a strong net gain. But it is an uncomfortable truth for the likes of me that this system which I believe in has its undeserving casualties – and that lady’s husband is one of them.
alastair
April 28th, 2008 11:08pm"Then came IDS, who has tilled the field on which Cameron now seeks to sew"
For shame
J H Holloway
April 29th, 2008 3:10amWhat about
'tough on poverty, tougher on the causes of poverty'
Cameron and Co can have that one for free...
Fergus Pickering
April 29th, 2008 5:34amAll Glasgow's daft sectarianism can be traced back to fears about being undercut by Irish migrants. All? Do you know nothing about the history of Scotland? Fill yourself in with Walter Scott. Old Mortality is the text. Bonny Dundee. It happened a long time ago, but then celts have long memories. Religion isn't just economics. If it were then there wouldn't be a Muslim problem. And there is, isn't there?
Rosemary Martin
April 29th, 2008 8:40amwell said Michael Sweeney- you are right. It makes much more sense to control non- EU immigration and impose radical welfare reform- as they ahve done in USA with good results
Michael Sweeney
April 29th, 2008 10:06amBut Fraser, your own industry has undeserving casualties. Much newspaper circulation is in freefall, editorial staffs have been cut and for many there is greater reliance on agencies. Blogging has taken off and Coffee House has it's own bloggers, but the media is adapting and embracing the new technology. The Westminster Village is up itself, and bizarrely there is a let them eat cake attitude from the likes of Aaronovitch and Ashley to those who complain about Labour. But speak to young Britons, from builders to engineers, and many of them say they'd like to experience work in other countries for a while. Your Glasgow teacher is likely to have friends with property in Spain - but won't complain about Spaniards who see their communities being changed as a consequence.
James J
April 29th, 2008 10:55amWhat are these bipedal work units complaining about ,seems to be our political classes view of this woman’s complaint.
JR
April 29th, 2008 11:00amI'm glad, of course, the tories are putting ideas forward on this issue. Of course poverty is about much more than having 59% or 61% of median income.
However I still see very little of substance here on tax credits and how you maintain work increntives whilst not drastically lowering vulnerable peoples' incomes.
The government have looked at a refined definition of child poverty including social factors but too big a risk given the Blair pledge based on the 60% relative measure (and if ever his ignorence of figures was demonstrated).
Fraser Nelson
April 29th, 2008 11:27amDanvers, the UK - with Ireland and Sweden - allowed Poles in without restrictions. We were the most attractive to low-skilled workers as our minimum wage is the highest - the "worst case" scenario wasnt that bad. And they wouldnt be involved in a Dutch auction with each other. France etc put restructions but promised to lift them over time. Now Poles have far more countries to choose from - and judging by the queues for Visas outside the Polish Embassy in New Cavendish St they are heading out of the EU altogether. There's a killing to be made in the gulf at the moment. This may help Brown, actually. As 82% of his "new jobs" are accounted for by immigrants, when the economy contracts and employment falls they may just nip off to the Dubai rather than bolster the dole queue. And Fergus, I doubt you seriously dispute that sectarianism in Glasgow has its roots in labour market feuds. Of course there are other elements, but no one think's it's all down to a dispute about the Real Presence.
JR
April 29th, 2008 12:18pmFraser - interesting point on what the impact of a slow down in the economy and reduction of employment would actually mean.
In some sectors (e.g. construction) I think you're right but I think our low wage service economy is more durable than other sectors.
An equally likely impact is very considerable wage constraints in traditional indigenous middle class jobs supported by increased competition from educated imigrants from the EU with newly aquired language skills (having worked in low wage service jobs). Now that would be 'interesting' politically.
Michael Sweeney
April 29th, 2008 1:13pmSpeaking of Poles and the Conservatives, check this out:
http://www.backboris.com/polish/
The Poles are anti-Ken!
Chris Forte
April 29th, 2008 1:59pmI have worked in the construction recruitment industry and can categorically say that i never came across a polish joiner willing to work for 6 pounds an hour. I was in the industry for over three years and during that time £12 was as low as we could pay them. Therefore if her husband was a proper joiner he wouldn't have had too much trouble. I would therefore conclude that he was more of a labourer/handyman masquerading as a joiner and if he has since been found out then that's just tough. Failing that the lady in question was an opposition plant.
Fraser Nelson
April 29th, 2008 2:45pmChris, that did occur to me. Someone joked to me that Cameron's response to her should have been "Just £6 an hour? Wow - do you have his number?". I suspect that suspicion of minimum wage joiners is greater than the phenomenon itself.
James J
April 29th, 2008 2:58pmChris Forte, Only if you mean by opposition the BNP as I can’t see Labour ‘planting’ this question. It hardly shows Labour’s determination to support the British working class. It was their policy to open our borders, not the wicked capitalist Conservatives.
Jo
April 29th, 2008 4:11pmVery odd answer for a conservative politician.
Two answers strike me. Someone has to house-manage the cricket team. Is it so wrong for hubby to do it and is so wrong for him to have an allowance to do it? Business there for a start. Gather round all the other cricket-teams in the neighborhood. Male role model to boot.
Joining is hardly unskilled. Have you ever tried it? We are not talking about bashing a crooked nail into some manky wood. The question is how we can put the skills in our community to use so they have the value equivalent to supporting 10 kids, maybe one or two more, the exhausted wife, a couple of Poles and their ten kids and their exhausted wives.
We can begin with the issue and work with it. Our lives, our skills, our passions. Begin there!
To put a Kiwi full stop on it, if every time a problem arises it goes into the 'too hard basket' can we make a new rule - all the next MP's must be Poles?
John Fisher
April 30th, 2008 11:42pmOne obvious answer (if impolitic) would be to suggest taking advantage of freedom of movement within the EU and move the family to Poland, where the cost of living is lower. The parent who earns less goes with them, the other stays in the U.K. and remits money to them.