ippr
A reply to Nick Pearce: Why Labour must stick to child poverty targets
First, for the last 30 years, poverty in the UK has hovered close to the one-in-five mark, mostly a little below, but sometimes a little above, but a rate almost double the level of the 1970s and much higher than the average amongst other rich nations. This has been driven by a sustained widening in the gap between top and bottom along with the erosion of life chances.
The North needs more private sector jobs, not less in the public sector
While cuts are inevitable, there are ways to rebalance cuts towards those with the broadest shoulders. Public sector jobs are not the problem.
The coalition has already abandoned the Child Poverty Act
Yesterday on the pages of this blog, Stewart Lansley claimed that I had "hurled a hand grenade" into the poverty debate by urging Labour to rethink its approach to child poverty. Leaving aside the hyperbole of that statement, Lansley's case seems to be that my intervention "chimes with the line being taken by the coalition" in its attempts to redefine child poverty and its causes. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Poverty: The 2010 consensus in tatters
Dropping the child poverty target would mean accepting a level of poverty much higher than almost all countries of comparable wealth.
Where Osborne’s cuts might fall
Where George Osborne's departmental cuts might fall.
Apprenticeships must benefit the North as well as the South
National Apprenticeship week is a great opportunity to celebrate all that is good about our apprenticeships. It is imperative that the government ensure that apprenticeships are not only targeted to work for our young people, but that they provide decent, sustainable routes into employment across the UK, ensuring that our economy as a whole benefits just as much in the North as in the South.