In 1999, New Labour proclaimed that it would "end child poverty within a generation". Now there's a consultation to redefine that pledge.
Child poverty was defined as those living in households with less than 60% the median income. Under New Labour there are 600,000 fewer children living in poverty today. However 3.9 million remain in poverty by this definition – and the Government failed to meet its 2004/05 target to cut child poverty by a quarter.
A report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that the effect of current policies, "will be to keep child poverty roughly at its present level by 2010 and reduce it by only 260,000 by 2020". This would only be sufficient to reach the missed 2004/05 target. Worse still for the Government, their own statistics show that child poverty has increased in each of the last two years.
Now the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) is running a consultation 'Ending Child Poverty: Making It Happen'. In the Queen's Speech for the current parliamentary session, the Government promised to enshrine its child poverty pledge in legislation. Apparently "legislation will ensure that there is a clear vision and definition of success". However, what the consultation proposes is to re-define what is classed as success, dilute the clear original vision and share the blame for failure more evenly with local authorities.
The consultation proposes three targets, the main one of which is "reducing the proportion of children in relative low income to 5-10 per cent by 2020". While a retreat from the current target, this is still ambitious considering that currently 23 per cent of UK children fit that category – exactly the same percentage that did in 2001 (this compares with 17% in Belgium and just 10% in Denmark). However, the consultation paper states that "action to meet these targets is subject to overall affordability and . . . child poverty strategy, to be refreshed every three years". So if the target is still not being met, expect it to be "refreshed" in three years' time!
The Child Poverty Action Group, said: "so far, the lack of high quality childcare and ill-considered welfare reforms for parents have undermined progress on child poverty", and is urging drastic action in the Budget – now delayed until 22nd April. Gingerbread, the single parent charity, has stated that it would be pushing Government to accept a more ambitious target than that set out in the consultation.
This is a consultation about how to fiddle the statistics, pass the buck, and create grandiose yet meaningless commissions and reports.
The consultation paper can be downloaded from the DCSF website and the deadline for responses is 11th March. At a time of recession, when more families will be plunged into poverty, the Government is bailing-out banks while bailing-out of its commitments on child poverty. It's up to us all not to let that go unnoticed.
Saturday, 21 February 2009
Democracy locally, decisions centrally?
The Department for Communities and Local Government is consulting again in the 'Communities in Control: Real People, real power' series. This time the subject is 'Changing Council Governance arrangements – Mayors and Indirectly Elected Leaders'.
Despite the grandiose exhortations throughout the consultation paper "to strengthen participatory democracy" and to "deliver genuine empowerment to local people", this is solely about making it easier to change council governance arrangements to the Government's preferred mayoral model.
Labour councillors overwhelmingly opposed the mayoral system during the passage of the Local Government Bill in Labour's first term, labelling it as 'dictatorial', centralising power in hands largely unaccountable during the term of office, as the role and powers of ordinary councillors are curbed.
There are currently only 12 councils in England that have the mayoral model and one of those – Stoke-on-Trent – has recently voted to return to the 'leader and cabinet executive' model. Of the 37 where local authorities have sanctioned referendums, over two-thirds have rejected the idea, and none have approved it since Torbay in 2005.
The Government is therefore reforming the process to make it easier. Already the Secretary of State has the power to order a referendum to take place, as it did in Southwark in 2002. However, more often it requires a petition supported by just 5% of the electorate. This hurdle is too high says the Government, and the consultation proposes lowering the threshold to as little as 2% of the electorate, which the Government bizarrely claims would "encourage local people to get involved" by requiring fewer of them to get involved!
The Government is also proposing to allow petition signatures to be added online. Another proposal is that if the local electorate make the wrong decision and reject the mayoral system, then the 'moratorium period' during which another referendum cannot be held will be reduced from 10 years to 4 years.
The average turnout for these referendums has been around 25%, slightly lower than for local elections, and so it hardly seems to have generated greater public engagement. Neither does it seem a worthwhile use of council taxpayers' money to ask them the same question every four years.
The consultation paper can be downloaded from the DCLG website, and the deadline for responses is 13th March 2009.
The Conservatives are even more keen on directly-elected mayors now it seems.
Despite the grandiose exhortations throughout the consultation paper "to strengthen participatory democracy" and to "deliver genuine empowerment to local people", this is solely about making it easier to change council governance arrangements to the Government's preferred mayoral model.
Labour councillors overwhelmingly opposed the mayoral system during the passage of the Local Government Bill in Labour's first term, labelling it as 'dictatorial', centralising power in hands largely unaccountable during the term of office, as the role and powers of ordinary councillors are curbed.
There are currently only 12 councils in England that have the mayoral model and one of those – Stoke-on-Trent – has recently voted to return to the 'leader and cabinet executive' model. Of the 37 where local authorities have sanctioned referendums, over two-thirds have rejected the idea, and none have approved it since Torbay in 2005.
The Government is therefore reforming the process to make it easier. Already the Secretary of State has the power to order a referendum to take place, as it did in Southwark in 2002. However, more often it requires a petition supported by just 5% of the electorate. This hurdle is too high says the Government, and the consultation proposes lowering the threshold to as little as 2% of the electorate, which the Government bizarrely claims would "encourage local people to get involved" by requiring fewer of them to get involved!
The Government is also proposing to allow petition signatures to be added online. Another proposal is that if the local electorate make the wrong decision and reject the mayoral system, then the 'moratorium period' during which another referendum cannot be held will be reduced from 10 years to 4 years.
The average turnout for these referendums has been around 25%, slightly lower than for local elections, and so it hardly seems to have generated greater public engagement. Neither does it seem a worthwhile use of council taxpayers' money to ask them the same question every four years.
The consultation paper can be downloaded from the DCLG website, and the deadline for responses is 13th March 2009.
The Conservatives are even more keen on directly-elected mayors now it seems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)