Latest news with #SureStart
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on regenerating neighbourhoods: levelling up was a good idea, Labour should reclaim it
A boost to Sure Start-type investment in local children's services is expected to feature in next week's spending review – even while a more comprehensive child poverty plan has been put off until the autumn. Solid evidence, as well as a mountain of anecdotes, support the reputation of New Labour's flagship early years policy. But Sure Start was not New Labour's only way of targeting communities based on need. The channelling of about £2bn to 39 of the most deprived neighbourhoods in England under the New Deal for Communities was another key strand of the Blair and Brown governments' anti-poverty programme. Unfortunately, the idea behind this – that ministers should tackle 'left-behind' communities with dedicated funding – was discredited by its association with levelling up. So central was this brand to Boris Johnson's post-Brexit premiership that a government department was renamed after it. But his promises mostly weren't kept, and the title was dropped last year. Since then, it is fair to say that geographical inequalities have taken a back seat to priorities including health and housing. Champions of locally led renewal have now regrouped. The Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods has not yet come up with a catchphrase to replace levelling up. But Reform UK's 648 new council seats have injected an increased sense of urgency into discussions about the places and voters that are proving most receptive to Nigel Farage's populist, anti-migrant message. Later this month, the commission will publish new research on how English neighbourhoods have fared in recent decades. Hopes have risen that the spending review will see more resources directed towards those that the commission calls 'mission‑critical' due to their high position on a tailor-made index of deprivation. Such funding is, of course, not a panacea. Because community development initiatives are more diffuse – typically seeking to improve health, education and employment outcomes, and reduce crime – they are harder to describe and measure than a project like Sure Start. But Labour's New Deal brought significant improvements, much of which were then reversed by a decade of austerity. Today, about 1 million people in England live in neighbourhoods – many of them in coastal or ex-industrial towns – where the commission believes targeted investment could help arrest a further slide into decline. Micromanagement from Whitehall was part of the reason for levelling up's failure. This is a mistake Labour must not repeat. Regeneration is best done with communities – not to them. It is simply not possible to direct granular neighbourhood improvements from London. If new funding is announced, local authorities and mayors must be empowered to oversee how it is spent without the hurdles of overly complex bidding systems. If that means a role for Reform UK councillors, as well as local Labour MPs, then so be it. The alternative is the corrosive favouritism of pork-barrel politics. Different approaches attract different champions. As Gordon Brown pointed out last week, removing the two-child limit would have a far more dramatic effect on family finances than any number of local family hubs (currently the closest thing to Sure Start). The impact of place-based spending must be considered alongside other investment. But while allocating budgets to struggling neighbourhoods does not sweep their problems away, it does have advantages. Labour should bury the disappointments of levelling up and reclaim the initiative.
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Momentum to revive Sure Start is long overdue – it's been a lifeline for my son and me
Child health clinics, breastfeeding support, groups for new parents, sleep and weaning workshops, speech and language therapy, drop-in physio sessions, parenting courses in child development and mental health, stay and play sessions (including specifically for dads and male carers), music therapy classes, support groups for women and children who have suffered domestic violence, a housing clinic, groups for children with Send and cookery courses. These are just some of the services available to parents in the borough where I live: Islington, in north London. They exist under the banner of Bright Start, a clever – and I suspect slightly sneaky – rebranding of Sure Start. Sure Start was the Blair government's leading early years policy, offering area-based holistic support to families with children under five in England (it was Flying Start in Wales and Best Start in Scotland). But since 2010, as a direct result of Tory austerity, 1,416 Sure Start centres in England have closed. Now that the child poverty taskforce is to recommend to the Labour government a return of the scheme, I thought that it was worth examining what it's like to live in an area that kept it. I didn't realise that Islington had retained Sure Start until I took my baby to be weighed at the local children's centre after the necessity for home visits ceased. There it was, next to the reception desk: a sign reading 'Sure Start', evidence of what had once been a dedicated service for families not just here, but throughout England. Children's centres offered all kinds of services like the ones listed above, and they also provided childcare to working parents, those in need and those entitled to the free government hours. In Islington, they still do. Of the three closest to where I live, two are rated 'outstanding' and one is 'good'. Childcare is in high demand in Islington, and childcare places aren't allocated on the basis of a waiting list but on a complex calculation based on proximity, the age balance of the existing children in the room and staffing ratios. Priority childcare places exist for those who need them most: looked-after children, children whose families are homeless, children whose parents suffer from mental health problems, children with disabilities and other vulnerable groups. Health visitors and other professionals can refer these children to a panel for consideration. It's one way in which the Bright Start services fulfil their remit of helping the most vulnerable families in the borough, an ethos that underpinned the very reason for Sure Start's existence. I owe so much of my experience of early parenthood to Bright Start. As someone whose family does not live close, feeling part of a community has been vital to my wellbeing and to my son's. Like many others, we do not own our flat and we live in an area where we are increasingly surrounded by millionaires (Islington has lots of very rich people in it, but also shocking levels of child poverty). That feeling of community becomes even more important in such a divided borough. Just knowing that there are people there who can help when things get tough means so much. In the three years since I had my son, we have accessed various forms of support, from health visitor advice to sleep and weaning workshops, not to mention some of the best therapy I have ever had. I highlight these things not to boast, but because it's important to emphasise the postcode lottery of parenthood that exists in the UK. Were I a parent living in a borough without these services, I expect I would feel angry reading about the support that exists elsewhere, because everyone should have access to them. Many local authorities do their best and charities try to plug the gaps, but there is no replacement for fully integrated early years services. The Institute for Fiscal Studies recently found that the positive impacts of Sure Start were widespread and 'remarkably long-lasting', producing better health, education and social care outcomes for families who enrolled in the programme. It may sound obvious, but when services are integrated, they communicate better with one another. Referral pathways are more straightforward; professionals understand the systems they are working in and are able to signpost other services that might help specific children and their families, such as benefits and housing advice. If a child has a nursery place and needs an education, health and care plan for when they start school, the parents do not have to apply for this themselves. Supporting and safeguarding those who are vulnerable is less challenging because, with a proper safety net around them, people are less likely to drop off the map, or to feel that no one is looking out for them. Seeing how these services operate first-hand and benefiting from some of them has been, quite simply, amazing. That's not to say the system is perfect: there are funding pressures and high demand, and gaps in services (to cite one example, Bright Start speech therapists don't work with neurodivergent children, who are on a different pathway. As a result those children, who arguably need it most, don't get any one-to-one speech therapy). Nevertheless, it should be a blueprint for Labour, which should reinstate the scheme throughout England. Certainly, it will be a challenge. Concerns raised by a government source include fragmentation of services and cost as barriers to reinstating Sure Start. Neither is a convincing argument. Reintegrating fragmented services may be a challenge, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing, and the payoff is worth it. IFS analysis has found that Sure Start children's centres in England generated £2 of financial benefits for every £1 spent. We know that supporting the youngest in society from the outset means less pain, less social exclusion and less cost later on. More than that, it is simply the right thing to do. Senior Labour figures should visit one of Islington's children's centres and see for themselves how wonderful they are. Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett is a Guardian columnist
Scotsman
5 days ago
- Politics
- Scotsman
Labour take a leaf out of the Farage book
US ambassador praises a charity set up by Gordon Brown (Victoria Jones/PA) What should we say, as the sixth biggest economy in the world, about the fact that some children go to bed hungry in Britain? Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Last week the Child Poverty Action Group reported almost a third of UK children, 31 per cent, live in poverty. There's a map showing the worst affected neighbourhoods: 17 per cent of children in Leith were in poverty in 2024, compared with 5 per cent in Corstorphine/ Murrayfield, and 22 per cent across the UK. The government defines poverty as incomes under 60 per cent of the average - £33,800 - so you're in poverty if your household gets less than £20,280 a year, or £390 a week. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Last week Gordon Brown surprisingly praised the government for further delaying a decision to lift the two-child benefit limit. It beggars belief that Brown could support continuing it, whatever the excuse. Bruce Whitehead This harsh policy, dreamed up by that kindly fellow, George Osborne to fund tax cuts for rich people, was continued by Labour, after also removing winter fuel payments to some pensioners south of the Border. The language of Labour politicians is curious. Big Broon writes about "changing" the two-child rule - not scrapping it. And Keir Starmer's Merseyside speech mentioned "driving down" child poverty - not ending it. (They think no-one notices when they use weird words.) So it could become a three-child rule; try explaining that to your youngest quadruplet... The truth is that Gordon Brown had ten years as chancellor, and three as prime minister, to eradicate poverty; instead Labour left office with 17 per cent of children still in poverty. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He writes of polling he commissioned to confirm that, yes, dogs do bark, fish do swim and 75 per cent think poverty is morally wrong! Brown deserves credit for reducing it, for winter fuel payments and funding "Sure Start" to help families. But he inherited a buoyant economy and had ample time to banish poverty entirely, let alone child poverty. It's time Keir's party - Keir Hardie's that is - founded to help labour and workers, actually did so. Starmer's speech showed he'd finally got the message, but he's wasted a year trying to out-Tory the Tories; let's hope he doesn't now try to out-Farage the Faragistas. Bruce Whitehead, Journalist and former Labour council candidate
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Health
- The Guardian
Future of world-renowned children's centre in hands of Reform UK
A world-renowned children's centre that provided the model for Sure Start is on the brink of collapse, with its future in the hands of the newly elected Reform UK leadership of its local council. The Pen Green Centre, which pioneered wrap-around care and learning for preschool children in one of the most deprived areas of the UK, was the blueprint for Labour's totemic early years Sure Start programme in the late 1990s. The early education minister, Stephen Morgan, is due to visit the centre on Wednesday amid reports the government is hoping to reboot Sure Start-style services as part of its child poverty strategy, expected in the autumn. The chair of Pen Green, Adam Cooper, told the Guardian the centre had been struggling to stay afloat financially because of 'political' local funding decisions. 'I'm incredibly worried we will lose the centre. Should it go, replacing it will be impossible,' he said. The centre has been locked in a funding dispute with its local authority, North Northamptonshire, in recent years. The council's previous Tory leadership made no bones about its disdain for Pen Green, cutting its funding from £1m to £300,000 in 2022 despite widespread public opposition. The survival of Pen Green, which is in Corby, an economically deprived post-industrial corner of a mainly affluent county, is being seen as an early test for the council's Reform leadership, which took power after May's local elections. North Northamptonshire's leader, Martin Griffiths, who was a Tory council leader in neighbouring Wellingborough before switching to Reform, has previously visited the centre and is understood to have been impressed by its services. In a statement, the council paid tribute to Pen Green and said it would 'endeavour' to help it: 'In relation to the previous Sure Start scheme, it was extremely respected and successful, and crucially it was funded centrally. When this was withdrawn, the initiative ceased. 'We would welcome long-term centrally funded initiatives to invest in our children, young people and communities … [our] finances are challenging, and our statutory responsibilities have priority. If the Labour government can provide the finances to run initiatives such as Sure Start then they would be viewed favourably by this council.' Maintained nurseries are funded by Department for Education grants but councils have discretion over how the money is shared. Pen Green argues its problems arose when the previous regime chose to redirect extra funding traditionally earmarked for the centre to other nurseries in the county. The education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, visited Pen Green three years ago. She is also believed to be an admirer of the centre, which was created in the early 1980s in a disused primary school and provides integrated nursery, health, family support and social care services for about 1,000 children under five each year. The centre, which is hugely popular locally, has trained thousands of early years professionals, operates a thriving research centre, and attracts hundreds of visitors a year from all over the world seeking to learn from its approach. Lee Barron, the Labour MP for Corby and East Northamptonshire, said: 'Pen Green really is the jewel in the crown as far as children's centres are concerned. It epitomises Labour values and it is something I will fight to protect.' While No 10 and Phillipson recognise Sure Start's popularity, especially with Labour voters, she has in the past downplayed the prospects of a return to the programme's generously funded glory days, saying change 'will not come simply from winding back the clock'. A key Labour mission is to ensure all children, especially those from deprived backgrounds, are 'school ready' by the time they reach primary age in areas such as language development, social skills and even teeth brushing – ambitions that children's centres such as Pen Green argue are at the core of the services they provide. Recent research has found the long-term impacts of Sure Start were positive and cost-effective, producing better health, education and social care outcomes for families who enrolled in the programme during the 2000s. At its peak in 2009-10 there were 3,600 Sure Start centres in England, before austerity cuts reduced government funding by two-thirds, with local authorities scaling back or closing most of the centres by 2018.
New Statesman
28-05-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
How the weather changed on the 'cruel' two-child benefit cap
Illustration by Michael Villegas / Ikon Images Labour is in the middle of a slow-motion U-turn on the two-child benefit cap. Our political editor, Andrew Marr, revealed on last week's episode of the New Statesman podcast that it was Keir Starmer's 'priority' to reverse the George Osborne-era cut to benefits for third-born children, and there have been similar reports over the bank holiday weekend. The government's child poverty taskforce, which was supposed to report in the spring – ahead of the Spending Review and Spring Statement – has been postponed until autumn, supposedly to give the Treasury time to work out how to fund the reversal of the policy. Labour promised in its manifesto to reduce child poverty in this parliament. It had little chance of achieving this with the two-child limit still in place – it is responsible for hundreds of thousands of children living in poverty. Starmer's decision not to lift the cap ahead of the 2024 election was a blow to many within the Labour Party, civil society, and families claiming benefits. The issue emerged again once the party entered government, when Labour MPs voting against the cap had the whip removed. Pressure built yet again in May, when the former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown guest edited a special issue of the New Statesman on Britain's 'child poverty epidemic', setting out the bleak picture of life for nearly five million children in the UK today, and funding ideas to help them. In his strongest intervention yet, in a podcast and YouTube interview accompanying this issue, Brown told the New Statesman politics podcast that the two-child cap is 'cruel', turns third siblings into 'second-class citizens', and said it has 'got to change' – remarks picked up in the press and in the House of Commons. Much has been reported about the influence of Tony Blair and his policy institute on the current Labour administration, but less has been said of Gordon Brown's role. He is close to frontbenchers, such as the employment minister Alison McGovern, and was tasked with a commission on rebuilding Britain's economy when Labour was in opposition – when he was said to have a 'direct line' into Starmer's office. There are reports, for example, that the child poverty taskforce will recommend the return of Sure Start children's centres: another suggestion Brown made in his New Statesman podcast interview. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Reluctant to be seen as a backseat driver, Brown had avoided politically inconvenient interventions since Labour took power – most notably on the party's cut to winter fuel allowance, which he introduced as chancellor. As well as on the two-child cap, he has also now spoken out on that subject, suggesting there is 'a case for' excluding top-rate taxpayers from the once-universal payments. The question now is whether Chancellor Rachel Reeves adopts some of his revenue-raising ideas, including a gambling tax, commercial bank levy, and changes to Gift Aid, to help tackle child poverty. Brown told the New Statesman in the same interview that these funding proposals would be possible without 'breaking the government's tax commitments' or 'breaking the fiscal rules, which, of course, Rachel Reeves is obviously right to be concerned about'. [See more: Letter from Wigan] Related
