Repairing Broken Britain?

The ubiquitous Broken Britain theme has played strongly in this election so far and with good reason. As we know from Ipsos Mori, increasing numbers of the population think the country has become a worse place to live in. We can argue, using statistics, to the contrary, but the perception still remains.

Arguments on tackling poverty in the election so far have pitted Labour’s wealth distribution strategy against Tory plans to tackle the ‘underlying causes of crime’. Few would argue the balance between these approaches is right at present. But if David Cameron is arguing that mending Broken Britain is a serious alternative to poverty reduction measures, what does the manifesto tell us about how they will achieve this? And what might it cost?

Let’s take just one of these underlying causes of poverty – drug addiction. After over 10 years of government investment in drug treatment we have lower waiting lists and dramatically more people in treatment, but the problem has not improved.

The sharp rise in heroin and crack use over the last few decades has been contained but use of other drugs such as cocaine is increasing. Cocaine is more popular in the UK than in almost any other European country. In one area of London an astonishing two thirds of child care proceedings are now related to parental drug misuse, placing family courts and social services under huge strain.

Getting people into treatment was just the first challenge. Moving people into recovery and keeping them there should now be the primary goal. So what do the parties propose?

Labour plans to ‘switch investment towards programmes which are shown to sustain drug-free lives and reduce crime’. This cost-neutral pledge fails to acknowledge the changes needed at a local level to ensure housing is available for recovering drug users, along with more intensive treatment, peer support and access to employment.

The Liberal Democrats make pledges on respecting scientific advice and moving drug users out of prison into secure accommodation where appropriate, but similarly don’t take up the urgent challenges outlined above.

The Conservative pledge is more limited still. Drugs featured heavily in the Tories’ account of a Broken Britain – IDS’s now famous epiphany took place on an estate outside Glasgow decimated by heroin use. The manifesto pledge consists simply of adapting an existing provision – Drug Rehabilitation Orders – by linking them to abstinence-based treatment. There is no evidence that this form of treatment is any more or less effective than other forms of treatment – it depends on what is most suitable for the individual. And because it is more expensive we have to assume it will result in funding being switched from existing community programmes.

It turns out the Conservative pledge to tackle ‘underlying causes’ is, in this case at least, just a small variation on the system we already have and there is little to suggest it will have any impact on reducing poverty. In which case the Tories have a problem. With so much staked on the Broken Britain argument people will expect to see results if they win power.

Tackling poverty is not all about money, but cash helps. The Big Society idea of civic renewal could at its most ambitious help create a stronger sense of purpose which is lacking in many lives. But for those the Tories have classed as part of Broken Britain, who aren’t willing or able to engage in society, it is no substitute for providing the housing or jobs they need to get back on track.

Clare McNeil