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 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.

Thatcherism saw child poverty grow by 121 per cent

Yesterday we ran a piece on the level of people living in poverty under Margaret Thatcher in response to a claim by Guido Fawkes which claimed the poor had “got richer under Thatcher”. I dealt with a lot of this yesterday; but here is another graph showing a bit more straightforwardly the growth in relative poverty during the Thatcher years.

Did the poor get richer under Thatcher?

A post at Guido Fawkes’ blog boasts that under Thatcher “wages went up across the whole spectrum, including for the poorest”. As evidence, he produces this graph taken from Channel Four Factcheck.