We need a better understanding of the causes of poverty

By Adam Leeder / @AdamLeeder

On Monday, David Cameron set out his view on what determines a child’s future outcomes. Cameron’s belief is that those outcomes are determined not by that child’s poverty or wealth, but rather are a consequence of the character of that child’s parents. For Cameron, poverty as a determinant of a child’s life chances is “no longer statistically significant” — a big claim.

Cameron was basing his arguments on a recent report by Demos, although he employed some artistic license with Demos’ conclusions — something that has already been well documented by Polly Toynbee.

But another question worth asking is: why has David Cameron chosen a discourse of parental character?

On the surface level, it’s not rocket science: this is an election year and a discourse of parental character ties in nicely with his overall ‘responsibility‘ theme.

But probe further and some interesting insights come to light on why ideas of ‘responsibility’ and ‘character’ as antidotes to poverty hold traction with the general public. Noteworthy here is the research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on ‘The Media, Poverty and Public Opinion‘, which notes that “coverage of poverty is peripheral in the mainstream UK media. The causes of poverty and the consequences of poverty [are] rarely explored.” This was comprehensive research across 150 newspapers, 100 radio news programmes, 75 TV news programmes plus other news and media outlets. Furthermore, where poverty is featured nearly half of the stories featured contained only a journalist’s representation of poverty, whilst only around 12% featured people actually experiencing poverty.

This underlying reality leaves a void in public knowledge filled by programmes such as the Jeremy Kyle Show. Consequently, an image forms in the collective public consciousness whereby a bit of ‘common sense’, ‘stiff upper lip’ responsibility from those in poverty could remedy all of their problems.

A better understanding of both the causes and experience of poverty would lay bare that poverty; character cannot so easily be de-coupled as Mr Cameron suggests.