We don’t believe the analysis

The right policy is not rocket science. Reducing child poverty means better grades in school, higher employment and higher wages. That, in turn, means more tax revenues and less welfare spending for the next generation. For sure, it is a slow-burn investment, but PublicFirst analysis for Action for Children shows a positive rate of return over 20 years, and substantially positive thereafter. Transforming school results by reducing poverty would mean a brighter economic future.

Partly we think this is making the same mistake everyone did about university. Graduates make more money than non-graduates. Therefore if we have more graduates then more people will make more money, thus the expansion of the universities. As it actually turned out those who would have made more money under the old dispensation do so and those who wouldn’t have don’t - but are burdened by £50k in debt and 3 years off a working life.

The other part of the disbelief is that no one here is talking about reducing child poverty. This is that old less than 60% of median definition again - they’re talking about inequality, not poverty. School grades rising because everyone has two pairs of tackies, not one household with Air Jordans, another with Primark, does not increase grades, employment or wages. People are getting tangled up in their own definitions - so many now think that we measure poverty when we don’t, not in the slightest.

Of course, if we actually wanted to reduce poverty:

It is, above all, about poverty. I grew up poor, and know the reality as well as the statistics. Poor children are less likely to have a quiet place at home to do their homework. Their houses are more likely to be cold and damp.

Then we’d make housing cheaper by building more of it. Seven to ten million units should do it. Just abolish the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and successors - proper blow up, kablooie - and watch as we gain a roaring economy fuelled by a housebuilding boom. You know, just as in the 1930s before the TCPA?

That is, the correct plan is to stop planning.

Tim Worstall