Cameron’s bad take on a good policy

By Dean Brown

In the aftermath of the civil disturbances which affected parts of England in August, the coalition government has been publically airing related policy to see what proves popular and what doesn’t. One of the first potentials banded about is the possibility of evicting the families of those responsible for the disturbances from social housing. But this is proving troublesome. Whilst there is a relevant question to be asked in terms of parental responsibility, it seems difficult to justify a course of action that punishes people for a crime they had nothing to do with. There’s also the potential PR disaster for the government, and local councils, of these families ending up on the street – including young children and the elderly. How will that help social cohesion? It may not even be legal.

In the past week, David Cameron announced a similar sort of policy idea – this time focussing on stripping away benefits from parents whose children play truant. What benefits, how much and in what manner the Prime Minister didn’t grace us with the details of – however, ‘social policy review groups’ are apparently looking into it. Were this to become policy, it could potentially affect far more people than those evicted through the riots (around 65,000 according to figures from last year). But, I find the logic of making families poorer in order to make sure they send their children to school a reductive one. If anything, removing further benefits from people already under heavy financial pressures will disadvantage the children and disenfranchise the family.

Reading Cameron’s speech, I wondered where this potential policy had come from and I was reminded of a similar, but entirely more progressive policy from Brazil. In 2003, the administration of President Luiz Inácio da Silva (or Lula as he is almost universally known) launched the Bolsa Família programme. It is a monthly cash transfer to mothers with low incomes, provided on receipt of proof they are sending their children to school and getting their health checked. The payments are by no means huge, but the political implications were colossal. It made Lula’s administration synonymous with social action on a grand scale and, although its effects on poverty were limited, it has become one of the most symbolically important social policies in modern Brazil. In short, in showed the poorest Brazilian families their government cared.

One of the reasons people feel so alienated from their country is because they cannot see any demonstrable changes that affect them implemented by the government of the day – other than in a negative way. In Brazil, the Bolsa Família programme provided a clear link between the government and the wellbeing of the poorest in society.

In the UK, there may be similar opportunities to make some (ideally additional) benefits dependent on proof on parental academic engagement. Making sure kids are in school is obviously a good start but I think there is the potential go further. Even a small level of payment helping families who can show proof they are actively encouraging their children to learn could strengthen social involvement in a dramatically better way than constant threats to strip away benefits.

Linking benefits to more parent/child academic activity might not be a bad thing, but only if it is seen to be helping those in need rather than hindering them.