The Labor Party has given us a strong start in the fight against child poverty. Now he should raise taxes to keep it | Polly Toynbee

AAs the budget approaches, outrage from the Tories and their supporters in the media reaches boiling point at any mention of proposed tax rises. No word on what they will do about the collapse of public services. Misleading claims about how much the rich already pay (no, the top 1% don’t pay a third of all taxes) and rants about taxes being at their highest levels since the war never acknowledge that the UK collects less than most of us more successful neighbors. . The Chancellor, regardless, needs to raise all the billions possible, making the most of those “broad shoulders” who are now fully vehemently defending capital gains, private school fees, private equity loopholes, agricultural tax shelters and farm tax avoidance. inheritance. People don’t need to be reminded of the dismal state of Britain’s public sphere, how it has fallen into disrepair while the wealth of the top earners has grown rapidly over the past decade.

To grasp this reality, I visited Seashells children’s center in Sheerness, Kent, which was soon to close. Some 49% of children in Sheerness live below the poverty line, but the purpose-built Sure Start center remains an example of Labour’s best social program: Seashells was visited by Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. It’s a rare survival – most of them closed in Kent a long time ago, and those that remained under the last government were rebranded as family centres. Kent, like many deeply indebted councils, is burning through its reserves: just one example of the continuing legacy of the past government as council cuts are set to continue. Jim Duncan, director of Seashells, who has been here since it opened in 2002, is heartbroken at all that will be lost to this community. The 200-place nursery will remain open and funded by government levy, but everything that made Sure Start a success will be removed.

He takes me through rooms full of children busy with activities, bustling with life, with rest and games and singing for parents and babies. The posters tell the story of warm care for families. It is staffed by midwives and nurses and provides parenting classes from ‘understand your teenager’ to infant massage, counseling, reading, literacy and social skills, helping mothers talk, read and play with their young children. Those fleeing domestic violence know that they will be helped here. The food bank and food pantry keep local children from going hungry. Parents can receive advice on education, employment, benefits and budgeting. There are fun days, outings and parties for families who can afford few treats, with swimming lessons at the local pool and second-hand clothing swaps. In total, about 2,000 families come to Seashells for something here, in the heart of a community where there is nothing else. All of these Sure Start staff and their expertise, as well as most of these services, will be lost to next year’s cohort.

Does it work? When “Sure Start” was dropped from George Osborne’s early versions, so did its careful monitoring. But now the Institute for Fiscal Studies has analyzed its long-term good results: Sure Start children, especially those from the poorest families, saw significant reductions in hospital admissions under 15 and improved GCSE grades. Research showed that the positive effect was six times greater for children eligible for free school meals than for those who were not.

With bitter indignation, IFS director Paul Johnson concludes: “Of course Start achieved its goals, then we threw it away.” It notes “large positive effects on language, communication, numeracy and the social and emotional development of five-year-old children from poor families” that persisted through to GCSEs. “It is wonderful that we now have such good and convincing evidence,” he writes, and takes a swipe at the last government: “It is also a tragedy and a study in how good policy can be lost.” In his opinion, it was a case of “not invented here syndrome.” If another party brought it, then we will get rid of it.” As for the money, he says, “It almost certainly brought benefits considerably greater than it cost.”

Instead of Sure Start, the Tory government has funneled funds into childcare, seeking only to force parents into work, with nurseries staffed by low paid people, often with little or no qualifications. Warehousing of children was a complaint from those who saw the difference between the predominantly private, for-profit child care centers and what Sure Start once was.

Now the main question hangs in the air. When will Labor bring it back? Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has always made early years her top priority as she creates urgently needed nurseries for everyone, mainly in primary schools with extra places. She rightly emphasizes education and early childhood development rather than just childcare. But she never lets the words “Sure Start” leave her lips, even though I’ve visited the best of them with her. I hope this isn’t Paul Johnson’s “not invented here” syndrome. extending even to the previous Labor government. This is most likely due to fear of announcing unpaid expenses. If all goes well, if the Chancellor does boost the economy and bring in more money for spending, Labor will surely follow the facts and build back better than they did last time.

But none of this will happen in time to save the Seashells now, even though they hope to deliver a petition with 5,000 signatures to the council this week. Councils do not expect any benefit from this budget, although, as for all Whitehall departments, the “return to austerity” promises to remain at inflation levels. It is cold comfort for public services to know that they have at least escaped the vandalism caused by the last chancellor’s planned cuts. Just six surviving Seashells services will be relegated to council office premises, which Duncan warns are completely unsuitable, with no open space, not open every day, mixing toddlers with often angry adults, including drug addicts queuing for other services.

The Labor Party has set up a child poverty working group which will report to the spring spending review. He will not find a shred of new evidence, since every aspect of child poverty, its causes and solutions, has been carefully analyzed over many decades. Johnson concludes: “We know that poor children grow up with poor life chances. We know how to improve this. The choice is ours.” What we don’t know is how to stop the riotous lobbyists of the rich and their media protesting and distorting even modest tax rises when the gap between Britain’s richest and poorest is among the highest in Europe, a child’s chance of escaping a poor past gone awry, and the birth becomes a destiny more certain than before.