Happy to add my name (to whatever is finally agreed) as:
Professor Mick Carpenter, University of Warwick
________________________________________
From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Peter Taylor-Gooby <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 18 February 2016 10:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: letter to the Times about child poverty measures
Dear Kitty and colleagues,
Thanks very much for pursuing this. Very happy to sign, please include my signature.
One thought (disregard if you think this is nit-picking). The word 'measures' is ambiguous. It can mean a plan of action to achieve an end or a means of assessing something. Hence possible confusion over whether the letter is about the (unfortunate) policies of the government (which may well be intended to increase the numbers of poor people) or the proposed ways of measuring poverty (which may well be intended to reduce the number of people counted as poor).
Suggested new text below - but do please disregard if you think isn't a big issue,
Peter
---------------------------------
This week the House of Commons will decide whether to persist in replacing the methods used to measure child poverty in the UK [ abolishing the UK’s child poverty measures, replacing them] with ‘life chances’ measures of worklessness and educational attainment. We urge the government to listen to the Lords and retain the existing way of measuring poverty [measures], keeping income and material deprivation at the heart of child poverty measurement.
Research shows conclusively that income has a causal effect on child development: children in poor households do less well in part because of low family income. Worklessness is an inadequate proxy for children’s circumstances: two-thirds of UK children in poverty live with a working adult.
A recent government consultation showed overwhelming support for the current measures from academics, local authorities, frontline services and others. Just 1% of respondents supported removing income from poverty measurement.
Wider indicators of children’s well-being are welcome and important, but should not come at the expense of the existing poverty measures, which are vital to our ability to track the impact of economic and policy change.
-----Original Message-----
From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kitty Stewart
Sent: 18 February 2016 09:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: letter to the Times about child poverty measures
Dear Colleagues,
The Commons will be debating the Welfare Reform and Work Bill again next week, including the Lords amendment which would retain the existing suite of child poverty measures. The End Child Poverty campaign think it would be very helpful to have a letter from academics on this subject in the Times or the Telegraph on Monday, to keep this in the public eye as far as possible.
I have drafted the letter below, and started gathering signatures. Those who have agreed to sign so far are listed below the letter. If anyone else would like to sign, please email me (preferably today, Thursday!) with your title and institution. My email address is [log in to unmask]
Many thanks and best wishes
Kitty
TEXT OF LETTER
This week the House of Commons will decide whether to persist in abolishing the UK’s child poverty measures, replacing them with ‘life chances’ measures of worklessness and educational attainment. We urge the government to listen to the Lords and retain the existing measures, keeping income and material deprivation at the heart of child poverty measurement.
Research shows conclusively that income has a causal effect on child development: children in poor households do less well in part because of low family income. Worklessness is an inadequate proxy for children’s circumstances: two-thirds of UK children in poverty live with a working adult.
A recent government consultation showed overwhelming support for the current measures from academics, local authorities, frontline services and others. Just 1% of respondents supported removing income from poverty measurement.
Wider indicators of children’s well-being are welcome and important, but should not come at the expense of the existing poverty measures, which are vital to our ability to track the impact of economic and policy change.
SIGNATURES SO FAR
Dr Kitty Stewart, LSE
Professor Sir John Hills, LSE
Dr Tania Burchardt, LSE
Dr Polly Vizard, LSE
Professor Stephen Jenkins, LSE
Professor Lucinda Platt, LSE
Kerris Cooper, LSE
Professor Ruth Lupton, University of Manchester Professor Ruth Lister, University of Loughborough Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, University of York Professor Holly Sutherland, University of Essex Professor Jane Millar, University of Bath Fran Bennett, University of Oxford Professor John Veit-Wilson, University of Newcastle Professor Ruth Levitas, University of Bristol Professor Karen Rowlingson, University of Birmingham Dr Rod Hick, University of Cardiff Dr Martin Evans, LSE Research Associate Professor Robert Walker, University of Oxford Professor David Gordon, University of Bristol Professor Donald Hirsch, University of Loughborough Professor Michael Tomlinson, Queens University Belfast Professor Tess Ridge, University of Bath Professor Adrian Sinfield, University of Edinburgh Professor Nick Bailey, University of Glasgow Stewart Lansley, University of Bristol
|
