Frank Field's report highlights the coalitions within the coalition
Peter Hoskin 3:12pm
Frank Field's review of child poverty
policy covers a daunting expanse of ground. From breast-feeding to the little society ("the younger sister of the Big Society"), it's stuffed with more ideas than reviews that are
twice the size – and will take some time to digest properly. But, in a way, that's precisely the point. Field's central argument is that New Labour took an overly simplistic view of poverty.
For Brown & Co. it was all about funnelling cash handouts to poor families, often to lift them from just under an arbitrary poverty line to just above it. For Field, it is more about improving
opportunities across the board, with a particular focus on children aged 0 to 5. As the report puts it, "we have found overwhelming evidence that children's life chances are most heavily
predicated on their development in the first five years of life." It is, on the whole, persuasive stuff.
It is also one of the most striking examples yet of the coalitions that are forming within the coalition. When Nick Clegg announced the government's "fairness premium," he placed a similar emphasis on children under five, referring to "these critical foundation years". And, as Tim Montgomerie writes over at ConservativeHome, this approach is also "the strong preference of Iain Duncan Smith and the Centre for Social Justice." It remains to be seen how much of Field's agenda will be transplanted into the statute books, but there is certainly a strong core of support for it.



Previous






Nick
December 3rd, 2010 4:08pm Report this commentFrank Field is incompetent. Here is an MP who thinks the government debt is 175 billion. That's just the government overspend.
The real debt is 6,900 billion.
The bank bail out in contrast, is 20 billion.
It's idiots like Frank Field who are the direct cause of this mess.
It is spend spend spend, and no thought of the consequence or any value.
The end result is that now all that Labour 'investment in people' is that those people have to pay the cash back with interest, and that's the poor.
Ian Walker
December 3rd, 2010 4:25pm Report this commentAll the years that Labour were in power they had the man (Field) and the mandate to do this. They completely and utterly failed.
Make sure you remind them of that, next time they claim to be the party of the poor.
laverda
December 3rd, 2010 4:41pm Report this commentAs a conservative supporter I welcome Mr Fields report. From what I heard him say on the DP today, it is not all spend as you say. He openly says that some years child tax benefit should be either reduced or not increased and the 'spare' money put into helping very young kids (under 3 years old). I think he has a lot of good ideas and should do more work for the coalition. His only problem is Labour, perhaps he should go Independent.
kinglear
December 3rd, 2010 4:59pm Report this commentAs the Jesuits used to say, "Give me a child until it is seven...."
Right On
December 3rd, 2010 5:20pm Report this commentGood old Breastfeeding - mentioned in the same breath as parent's mental health in what's determine's a childrens chance in later life.
World's gone mad.....
Liberty
December 3rd, 2010 5:45pm Report this commentLimiting child benefit to the last two children with suitable notice plus a chain of hostels for girl mothers would do more to reduce poverty than any other measure.
HFC
December 3rd, 2010 6:18pm Report this commentLiberty wrote: "Limiting child benefit to the last two children with suitable notice plus a chain of hostels for girl mothers would do more to reduce poverty than any other measure."
I think benefit in respect of the two FIRSTborn children would be preferable.
We could call the suggested hostels Community Workhouses. The inmates could be put to work to earn their education and keep.
Cynic
December 3rd, 2010 7:23pm Report this commentNo mention of stats that show that youngsters from broken homes do worse than those with two parents, I suppose. If they really were serious about lifting families out of poverty, they'd stop giving financial and other incentives to single teenage mothers.
Noa
December 3rd, 2010 7:44pm Report this commentThe solution to poverty is not taking my money from me and my children to give it to those who don't, won't or can't look afer their own.
It's to ensure they behave responsibly by only reproducing when they can look after themselves.
Noa Zrk
December 3rd, 2010 9:16pm Report this commentgirl mothers? Is there any other kind?
Michael Clarke
December 3rd, 2010 9:22pm Report this commentI am a bit puzzled by this. I had no education whatever until I was five and a half and I still ended up M.A.(Cantab.) Fluke I suppose.
Liberty
December 3rd, 2010 11:09pm Report this commentHFC:
I presume your reference to a 'workhouse' is sarcastic. You must know that teenagers are almost always too young to be mothers and often very needy. It is far better to give them the option of staying home or getting support in a hostel. This is the norm in the rest of Europe - not that any other country has such a huge teenage mother problem as us; mostly because if they have a baby they can leave home, get enough money to keep themselves, a 'nice' flat, get to play with their baby all day and when they get bored visit their friends in the park or in coffee shops. If they get short of money have another baby. This is very attractive to lots and lots of girls.
Fergus Pickering
December 4th, 2010 3:07am Report this commentAh, Michael Clarke, many a bloody fool is a M.A. (Cantab). As your post rather goes to show. Were you brought up by an illiterate prostitute and a career burglar? Now THAT would be something.
2trueblue
December 4th, 2010 6:52am Report this commentI have a lot of time for Frank Field but isen't this the same man who failed to see the implications when Liebore removed the 10% rate? Liebore have made our tax system so complicated that even their own staff fail miserably to understand it. Whatever we do we have to keep it simple and not just look at financial poverty. Our media are vacuous and our childrens aspirations are to be famous, but with little idea of how to run their lives or acquire any real skills that might bring the event about.
Simon Stephenson
December 4th, 2010 12:42pm Report this commentHFC : 6.18pm
"We could call the suggested hostels Community Workhouses. The inmates could be put to work to earn their education and keep."
"Put to work" doing what, pray? Pointless activity that has as an outcome no more than that it has taken place? Or minimally-skilled work of low value that was previously being done by someone else?
What are you trying to achieve here? The creation of value commensurate with the cost to the rest of us of keeping the poor alive? Or just the irrational feelgood factor that these unfortunate people are being reminded continuously that "you don't get something for nothing"?
maddy1
December 6th, 2010 1:43am Report this commentStay in bed all day Frank, it is much too late, baby! Maybe take a leaf out of the left wing book and get the unemployed up at six am. sweeping the streets like in the East!
Back to top