Blair’s tough act is a diversion

    Sometimes when the government talks tough, the reality can be quite
    different – an iron glove wrapped around a velvet fist. Comparing
    political rhetoric with practice can be confusing: Tony Blair made
    his historic pledge to eradicate child poverty only a few weeks
    after committing his government to ending “the something for
    nothing welfare state”. Behind the mantra that work is the best
    route out of poverty, the government has quietly increased income
    support rates for children whose parents do not work, with further
    increases likely when the new child tax credit is introduced next
    April.

    Recent reports suggest that Blair is determined to press ahead with
    child benefit sanctions, despite strong opposition from members of
    the Cabinet. Similar schemes in the US have been shown not to work
    and the government’s social exclusion unit did not recommend it
    after a comprehensive inquiry.

    Any sanctions are likely to be hedged with so many ifs, buts and
    maybes as to be an administrative nightmare, used only in limited
    but no doubt high-profile situations. So why is Blair keeping the
    issue alive?

    It’s a distraction. The government was forced on the defensive
    earlier this year on youth crime. Ministers blamed the parents, and
    the complex issues of crime and truancy were blurred. Few
    commentators have noticed that, less than a year after being
    introduced, targets to reduce school exclusions were dropped.

    Some parents may not take a sufficiently robust interest in their
    children’s education but to put this down to deliberate wilfulness
    and neglect is simplistic and cruel. Schools are not, and never
    have been, happy and secure places for all children. Sometimes
    children will miss school because of the embarrassment and stigma
    of being poor – avoiding the school trip that has to be paid for,
    not taking up the free school meal or fear of teasing because of
    their appearance.

    The proposal is politically loaded. Just as Bill Clinton
    outmanoeuvred the Republicans by stealing their ideological
    clothes, Labour has also, at times, adopted this tactic of
    “neutralisation”. The aim is to broaden your political appeal and
    to neutralise critics. The strategy finds some echo in the
    Conservative Party’s rediscovered, but still self-conscious,
    commitment to vulnerable people. New Labour likes to sound tough
    and look tough but, on this issue, removing child benefit is too
    high a price to pay.

    Martin Barnes is director of the Child Poverty Action
    Group,

    www.cpag.org.uk

    More from Community Care

    Comments are closed.