I don’t like the phrase ‘tackling poverty’. I don’t like it because it casts poverty as a football player we need to bring to the ground – a simple action with a simple outcome. If you’re not ‘tackling poverty’ then you’re clearly a callous individual. Or, to stretch and distort the silly metaphor further you’re cheering him on, hoping he avoids all challenges and wins the day. Any politician that goes on and on about ‘tackling poverty’ (which, let’s face it, is all of them these days) should be treated with caution. Instead you should look at three things - how they define poverty, exactly what they propose to do about it and – this bit is crucial for me – to what extent they acknowledge limits to what government can achieve in this area.

First the definition. I’m not going to go into some long-winded debate about %’s of median income, laffer curves etc. There’s lots of that elsewhere. My point on the definition is simply this – if you get bogged down discussing the technical definition or relatively minor statistical movements in either direction then you’re probably not discussing real poverty as most people understand it – you’re justifying your own party’s performance or attacking your opponents. I’m not denying the existence of relative poverty – I’m just pointing out that if the whole debate takes concepts like relative poverty for granted without explaining them or pointing out their subtleties then it’s a pointless debate. Poverty is a commonly understood word and it describes people unable to support themselves & function effectively in the environment they live in. In Britain today that will, of course, be about more than a room and a square meal but it most definitely shouldn’t be driven by (or be statistically contingent on ) whatever heights of wealth exist elsewhere.

When it comes to assessing what politicians can do about poverty you need to be mindful of the definition debate above. Can you have a sensible discussion about poverty that brackets Tax credits (lauded as addressing poverty despite being available to people earning more than twice the national wage) alongside emergency welfare provision and the like? I’d say clearly not. Most government initiatives to ‘address poverty’ are essentially support mechanisms, things the state provide for people because they don’t have the funds to provide them for themselves. This is fine but it contradicts that age old maxim ‘give a man a fish etc.’ – politicians who lean towards solutions which promote autonomy and help those in need better support themselves should, in my view, get more of a hearing than those who simply mitigate poverty via government support and hand outs. Both are always needed of course but after 12 years where the latter has been by far the more common there’s a very strong case for more of the former.

We have a media culture that makes it all but impossible for politicians to acknowledge their impotence in the face of some social problems. Let’s imagine a fictional government programme to, say, improve reading skills for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The pitch would be around how much of a gift the ability to read is and how children who might have an aptitude or interest there shouldn’t suffer just because there might not be a supportive parent at home. All very commendable and hard to argue with. Proponents might offer up stats on, say, take up rates at libraries or even literacy results in early years schooling as ‘evidence’ of the success of such schemes. Others might question aspects of that evidence and point out that in the worst home environments no scheme can properly address issues like this. In the end you get to a place where – and I’ve actually heard this said in defence of some schemes – supporters will say “well, if it helps one little boy or girl develop a love or reading then it’s worth every penny”. I can say this because I’m not seeking public office but the blunt, unfortunate and uncomfortable truth is that no, it’s not worth it. Politicians should have the courage to acknowledge the limits of government and recognise that a noble cause isn’t sufficient justification for spending public money.