Poverty

The Winter Fuel Allowance was an emotive part of the election campaign, with Labour accusing the Tories of planning to scrap it and David Cameron promising not to. At no point during that debate was it asked whether the WFA was a good way to spend money. Our report earlier this year, Cold Comfort, examined in some detail the demographics of fuel poverty, as well as questioning the logic behind the government’s target. If you take the fuel poverty measure (those spending more than 10% of income on energy) as read, the last government failed utterly to achieve anything on it – as the graph below shows. They introduced the target when fuel poverty was declining sharply and were surprised when it bottomed out and started rising again.

I detest the use of the word ‘Czar’. Everything has a Czar – potato regulation, multi-story car parks and Twitter being my favourite three. But the war on poverty needs to be fought by free-thinking absolutists. The appointment of Frank Field to conduct an independent review into poverty and life chances confirms David Cameron’s, and the coalition’s, non-partisan commitment to social mobility and betterment.   Field presents his analysis in a succinct piece in the Telegraph.  He writes: ‘Over recent decades, the Left and centre-Left’s answer to poverty and inequality has been to spend more money, to redistribute from richer to poorer.

Yesterday, it was Michael Gove's schools agenda. Today, it's the other main reason to get behind the coalition: IDS's plans for fixing the welfare system. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has given a speech outlining them this morning. You can read it here, and I'd certainly encourage you to do so. There are plenty of welcome ideas in there, but none more so than IDS's emphasis on removing disincentives to work from the tax and benefit system. We at Coffee House have banged on about his "dynamic" approach, developed at the Centre for Social Justice, for some time now - and with due cause.

Is Frank Field back? The Labour MP has spent much of his life talking about the poor. Judging by reports today, he might be offered a job chairing a commission on child poverty. This is good news but, as Mr Field has already said, there is not much point in him debating the finer points of poverty definitions. He would need to be given remit to suggest policy. What should those suggestions be? First, he should argue that we need to be a lot less self-indulgent about how we think about child poverty. It may be great to think of ourselves as tackling a major social ill, but the past government’s approach was not nearly as successful as it or its supporters liked to think.

The power of ideas is vastly underrated in British politics. It has become fashionable to dismiss them as "ideology" and declare oneself in favour of "what works".  But the idea of what works is, of course, driven by concepts. As Keynes put it: "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slave of some defunct economist."   I write this because ConHome has just run a piece by Max Wind-Cowie saying, "Equality should not be a dirty word for the Conservatives". I do admire the way Demos, seeing Labour on the way out, is trying to inject as much of its agenda as possible into the Conservative party. But "equality" is, alas, a trap.

Cameron has been fairly bold in entering the debate on marriage, because we don't like do that debate in Britain. Not really - it's private, and we Brits don't like debating private things. Anything which helps marriage can easily be paraphrased as "deploying fiscal incentives to force something which should largely be a private decision". And not by the left, but by our very own Pete Hoskin in the below post. Now, we are a heterodox bunch of baristas here at CoffeeHouse and we do disagree - so here is why I think Pete is wrong. I'd like to have a go offering some of the "convincing answers" he's looking for. Right now, millions of couples are better off apart under the perverted incentives of the welfare state. The Tories would remove this anomaly.