Hi ,

Is child poverty something we should, as a society, try to solve? Put it like that and the question sounds ridiculous. But if you ask yourself that question, you might then want to ask yourself some follow up questions, like "why is the UK the only European country with sharply rising rates of child poverty? Are the policy choices that experts warned would increase child poverty increasing child poverty? Should we do something else instead?" So you can understand why governments over the last decade haven't been keen to ask themselves this question.

This is why the Child Poverty Strategy commissioned at the start of Labour's term in government is an interesting change: it shows signs that people in power are now considering this question. It's not everything we'd want it to be, but unpacking it gives a useful insight into how this government understands problems like poverty and inequality, and well as their will to do something about them. Our co-executive director Priya Sahni-Nicholas has done exactly that in our new briefing on the strategy.

The headline intentions of the strategy are important, if unsurprising: the government restates that it thinks child poverty is a problem and would like to reduce it. But even setting this out is a big departure since, as we just discussed, acknowledging that there's a problem immediately prompts the follow up question of "do you intend to change the thing causing it?" In the case of child poverty, the biggest single driver of it was obvious: the two-child benefit limit, which was pushing over 450,000 children into poverty. However, this is a policy that Labour did not want to change. One of the reasons behind the creation of the strategy seemed to be a vain hope they could keep the limit without continuing to increase child poverty. 

But the consequence of the government seriously asking itself the question of child poverty meant that eventually, after a full year of seriously fighting to not scrap the two-child limit, they were forced to end it. This is the power of the mindset shift Priya finds throughout the strategy: she writes that there's a strong focus on the systemic causes, like low pay and insecure work for parents, or inequalities of income and between regions. There was meaningful involvement for parents and experts in creating it, which again helps the strategy focus on the root causes of the problem.

There are certainly flaws – such as the gaping hole of not addressing inequality of wealth – but this is a significant shift in what the government believes about child poverty, its causes, and the fundamental question of whether we should try to solve it.

We need much deeper structural change to our economy in order to get close to the strategy's goal of reducing child poverty rates by the end of this parliament, let alone to eliminate it altogether. It'll need to include real wealth redistribution, a total change to housing, and action on racial and disability inequalities. But this shift in mindset will make asking those questions much easier. 

A by-election in Manchester's Gorton and Denton has been attracting an awful lot of attention based on who's not running, but of those who are, who would you vote for? Plus: is it more important to support a politician you agree with or stop one you don't?

What else do you think about money and happiness? You said:

• "I think having too much money seriously increases misery and depression. We all need a just society where all have enough to feed themselves and their children, have a decent place to live and access basic services like health and education. George Orwell says that if they have secure work, the working classes are happier than the wealthy. Working as a psycho analyst before I retired, I had a small number of very wealthy patients. They always seemed much more miserable and distressed than my other patients. It felt as if they were sad children who couldn't understand why they were not admired or loved. They tended to feel entitled and couldn't find authentic love in themselves or others. It is, I think, authentic loving relationships that allow us to experience happiness-that and fulfilment in meaningful work."
  
  
• "Having lots of money seems to generate a need to get more money which must be very stressful..."
  
  
• "I know there is a tendency to want to see the human side of the super rich. To illustrate that the arguments against economic inequality don't necessarily demonise the wealthy. But I'm sorry, when some people's reality is choosing to eat or heat then the woes of the rich and famous can do one!"
  
• "I don't know anyone moderately rich, let alone super-rich, but the ones who live more publicly often seem wretchedly unhappy. More generally, contentment and a consistent drive for more aren't really very compatible with each other."
  
  
• "It would be lovely to think that the mega rich are made miserable by their wealth but pretty unlikely, and polls confirm this. Money can buy privacy, space, beautiful surroundings, quiet, best healthcare, best justice, best advice, best travel, best food, best of anything where there's not enough to go round. The rich will inherit the earth because they're best placed to survive whatever comes next."
  
  
• "Among the essentials I would include the ability to take at least 2-week holidays per year in a different, healthy place, away from home. I would also include the costs for a good education and those to remain informed throughout our life (books, newspapers, TV or radio, internet, etc). Essential for me is also money to buy good, healthy food!"
  

We are no longer using X/Twitter. Please follow us somewhere Grok isn't.
Share on Bluesky, Facebook, Threads, Instagram, or LinkedIn.