What will the General Election and a new government in 2024 mean for children, young people and families in Northern Ireland?
In this blog post, CiNI’s Policy Officer Dr Ernest Purvis discusses the potential of a new Labour government and how this might influence political priorities in Northern Ireland.
In late February 2024, the Academy of Medical Sciences brought together a range of academics, paediatricians and parent advocates from high-income countries across the world to discuss how to make child health and wellbeing a domestic policy priority. The international workshop followed the launch of the Academy’s most recent report on the state of child health in the UK, ‘Prioritising early childhood to promote the nation’s health, wellbeing and prosperity’, which highlighted that infant survival rates are worse than in 60% of similar countries, demand for children’s mental health services has surged, over a fifth of five-year-olds are overweight or obese and one-in-four is affected by tooth decay.
In February 2024, CiNI took part in an international workshop at the Academy of Medical Sciences in London to explore how to prioritise child health and wellbeing in policymaking.
The Academy of Medical Sciences is a prestigious institution, one of the UK’s four ‘learned academies’ alongside the Royal Society, the British Academy, and the Royal Academy of Engineering. It invests in the most talented researchers through its fellowship programme, and its ultimate aim is to advance medical science in the pursuit of improving people’s health. When the Academy speaks, people in government tend to listen. Their report on the state of child health in the UK, published in February 2024, shows that progress has stalled and inequalities are widening. Therefore it was no surprise that Sir Keir Starmer, Leader of the Labour Party and possibly the next Prime Minister, chose to address the stark findings of the Academy’s report at the start of the year, when he outlined how his party would ‘repair the damage caused by years of chaos and austerity.’ However, some campaigners were disappointed that the media effectively distilled Labour’s response to the shocking state of child health down to simply plans for ‘supervised toothbrushing in schools’, provoking cries of the ‘nanny state’ from their political opponents and conjuring up old tropes that point blame squarely at parents for things that they actually have very little power or influence to change (e.g. access to an NHS dentist). None of this appeared to deter policyheads in the would-be government from taking the Academy’s report seriously, and thinking about how they would try and shift the dial on child health outcomes when in power.
The end of austerity?
All current political polling at the time of writing (mid-June 2024) points towards a Labour landslide in the upcoming general election, reminiscent of Tony Blair’s victory in 1997. With a significant majority in parliament, that would give Starmer and his likely Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, considerable scope to reallocate resources and change policy direction on a wide range of issues. However, as many in the political commentariat have already pointed out, any notion that Labour will walk into Downing Street and turn on the proverbial government spending taps is for the birds. After 14 years of Tory austerity, and the immediate aftermath of tax and national insurance cuts that resembled somewhat of a scorched earth tactic, the party have been overly cautious about spending commitments and have pledged to maintain strict fiscal rules around borrowing. Perhaps most shockingly, Labour have refused to guarantee that they would remove the two-child limit and cap on social security that have resulted in some parents no longer being able to provide essentials for their children such as food, clothing and heating.
Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have both said they will stick to strict spending rules. Image credit: labour.org.uk
So, when it comes to how they would prioritise the needs of children, young people and families, what sort of flagship policies are Labour including in their manifesto? At first glance, the headlines don’t look hugely transformative or even positive; but dig a bit deeper and there are lots of things that could complement each other and make a real, tangible difference for children and families. Labour’s first six priorities, described in their manifesto as the ‘first steps for change’, include delivering economic stability (a nod to the spending rules), more NHS appointments, a new Border Security Command, a new publicly owned energy company, a crackdown on anti-social behaviour, and recruiting more teachers. Ok so, potentially better access to healthcare and a boost for education, with shades of the sort of populist New Labour crime policy that produced ASBOs and unnecessarily criminalised vulnerable young people. But what about the new approach to government that Labour plans to pursue? Driven by ‘missions’ as well as priorities. Do they yield any more insight, or indeed, any more hope for those children and families that are struggling?
Labour describe mission-driven government as ‘focusing on ambitious, measurable, long-term objectives’ and a new way of doing things that ‘is more joined up, pushes power out to communities and harnesses new technology.’ Their five missions to ‘rebuild Britain’ include building an NHS fit for the future and breaking down barriers to opportunity. That last one is worth exploring in more detail. According to the Labour manifesto, that means ‘reforming our childcare and education systems, to make sure there is no class ceiling on the ambitions of young people in Britain.’ But what does that look like in policy and practical terms? Labour are promising to deliver a new network of youth hubs, expand childcare and early-years provision, fund evidence-based early language interventions, introduce free breakfast clubs in every primary school, limit the number of branded uniform items that schools require, provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, ban the sale of cigarettes/tobacco to young people, restrict the marketing of vaping products and junk food to stop ads targeting children, strengthen online safety laws, and give all 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in elections. Here is a snapshot of what some of these measures are estimated to cost (taken directly from Labour’s ‘fiscal plan’):
Labour’s estimated costs for additional spending on new policies, and the sources of proposed revenue. The rollout of free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England will cost approximately £315 million a year.
A new direction for the NI Executive?
So what does all of this mean for Northern Ireland? Well, if you check out the small print of Labour’s fiscal plan, you will find that their proposals will result in roughly £135 million of Barnett consequentials – that is a significant injection of cash for the NI Executive to spend. It will be up to our local political parties, and their relevant Ministers, to decide exactly how that money is spent. Will they invest in youth work or early language development? Will they hire more teachers, rollout free breakfast clubs, or provide specialist mental health support in all schools? If you ask those who have studied the history of Barnett consequential spending in Northern Ireland, I’m sure they would try and manage your expectations. Putting all the caveats and rationales (e.g. economies of scale) aside for a moment, the NI Executive have consistently struggled over the years to match delivery of new policy elsewhere through the drip feed of the Barnett model. This is undoubtedly due to a lack of political stability (stop-start government and boycotting the institutions), and a failure to plan and invest strategically, as much as it is an outworking of a flawed fiscal framework. Childcare is the obvious example, where over the course of the last decade, the UK government has provided Northern Ireland with its share of the resources to implement free childcare for families and this has been hoovered up by other inescapable pressures.
Perhaps more influential than the quantum, will be the political pressure on the NI Executive to prioritise policies based on what Labour propose to drive forward at Westminster. Unionists, Nationalists and the constitutionally agnostic are always keeping a watchful eye on what’s on offer in Dublin, Glasgow, Cardiff or London compared to their own constituencies, and huge disparities are not politically sustainable. Devolution also brings with it the power to prioritise things differently, based on local needs. According to the Independent Review of Welfare Mitigations in NI, offsetting the two-child limit here would cost roughly £53 million. Add to that a Better Start Grant (£10m), a disabled child winter fuel payment (£4m), the reinstatement of the School Holiday Food Grant (£40m) and you would still have around £28 million left to tackle other issues. These initiatives would instantly lift thousands of children in Northern Ireland out of poverty and help tackle some the worst impacts such as food insecurity. However, seasoned observers will likely tell you that the vast bulk of that £135 million boost to Executive finances, in the event of a Labour election victory and successful implementation of their plans, is destined to plug holes and plaster over the widening cracks of our health and social care system. We live in hope, and there is no doubt that a Labour government would bring a new agenda and open up new conversations in Whitehall. All of that has knock-on effects for our government departments and the direction of travel in a wide range of policy areas. How our local political parties respond will ultimately be shaped by voters in Northern Ireland who will also go to the polls on 4th July.
What will the General Election and a new government in 2024 mean for children, young people and families in Northern Ireland?
In this blog post, CiNI’s Policy Officer Dr Ernest Purvis discusses the potential of a new Labour government and how this might influence political priorities in Northern Ireland.
In late February 2024, the Academy of Medical Sciences brought together a range of academics, paediatricians and parent advocates from high-income countries across the world to discuss how to make child health and wellbeing a domestic policy priority. The international workshop followed the launch of the Academy’s most recent report on the state of child health in the UK, ‘Prioritising early childhood to promote the nation’s health, wellbeing and prosperity’, which highlighted that infant survival rates are worse than in 60% of similar countries, demand for children’s mental health services has surged, over a fifth of five-year-olds are overweight or obese and one-in-four is affected by tooth decay.
In February 2024, CiNI took part in an international workshop at the Academy of Medical Sciences in London to explore how to prioritise child health and wellbeing in policymaking.
The Academy of Medical Sciences is a prestigious institution, one of the UK’s four ‘learned academies’ alongside the Royal Society, the British Academy, and the Royal Academy of Engineering. It invests in the most talented researchers through its fellowship programme, and its ultimate aim is to advance medical science in the pursuit of improving people’s health. When the Academy speaks, people in government tend to listen. Their report on the state of child health in the UK, published in February 2024, shows that progress has stalled and inequalities are widening. Therefore it was no surprise that Sir Keir Starmer, Leader of the Labour Party and possibly the next Prime Minister, chose to address the stark findings of the Academy’s report at the start of the year, when he outlined how his party would ‘repair the damage caused by years of chaos and austerity.’ However, some campaigners were disappointed that the media effectively distilled Labour’s response to the shocking state of child health down to simply plans for ‘supervised toothbrushing in schools’, provoking cries of the ‘nanny state’ from their political opponents and conjuring up old tropes that point blame squarely at parents for things that they actually have very little power or influence to change (e.g. access to an NHS dentist). None of this appeared to deter policyheads in the would-be government from taking the Academy’s report seriously, and thinking about how they would try and shift the dial on child health outcomes when in power.
The end of austerity?
All current political polling at the time of writing (mid-June 2024) points towards a Labour landslide in the upcoming general election, reminiscent of Tony Blair’s victory in 1997. With a significant majority in parliament, that would give Starmer and his likely Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, considerable scope to reallocate resources and change policy direction on a wide range of issues. However, as many in the political commentariat have already pointed out, any notion that Labour will walk into Downing Street and turn on the proverbial government spending taps is for the birds. After 14 years of Tory austerity, and the immediate aftermath of tax and national insurance cuts that resembled somewhat of a scorched earth tactic, the party have been overly cautious about spending commitments and have pledged to maintain strict fiscal rules around borrowing. Perhaps most shockingly, Labour have refused to guarantee that they would remove the two-child limit and cap on social security that have resulted in some parents no longer being able to provide essentials for their children such as food, clothing and heating.
Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have both said they will stick to strict spending rules. Image credit: labour.org.uk
So, when it comes to how they would prioritise the needs of children, young people and families, what sort of flagship policies are Labour including in their manifesto? At first glance, the headlines don’t look hugely transformative or even positive; but dig a bit deeper and there are lots of things that could complement each other and make a real, tangible difference for children and families. Labour’s first six priorities, described in their manifesto as the ‘first steps for change’, include delivering economic stability (a nod to the spending rules), more NHS appointments, a new Border Security Command, a new publicly owned energy company, a crackdown on anti-social behaviour, and recruiting more teachers. Ok so, potentially better access to healthcare and a boost for education, with shades of the sort of populist New Labour crime policy that produced ASBOs and unnecessarily criminalised vulnerable young people. But what about the new approach to government that Labour plans to pursue? Driven by ‘missions’ as well as priorities. Do they yield any more insight, or indeed, any more hope for those children and families that are struggling?
Labour describe mission-driven government as ‘focusing on ambitious, measurable, long-term objectives’ and a new way of doing things that ‘is more joined up, pushes power out to communities and harnesses new technology.’ Their five missions to ‘rebuild Britain’ include building an NHS fit for the future and breaking down barriers to opportunity. That last one is worth exploring in more detail. According to the Labour manifesto, that means ‘reforming our childcare and education systems, to make sure there is no class ceiling on the ambitions of young people in Britain.’ But what does that look like in policy and practical terms? Labour are promising to deliver a new network of youth hubs, expand childcare and early-years provision, fund evidence-based early language interventions, introduce free breakfast clubs in every primary school, limit the number of branded uniform items that schools require, provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, ban the sale of cigarettes/tobacco to young people, restrict the marketing of vaping products and junk food to stop ads targeting children, strengthen online safety laws, and give all 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in elections. Here is a snapshot of what some of these measures are estimated to cost (taken directly from Labour’s ‘fiscal plan’):
Labour’s estimated costs for additional spending on new policies, and the sources of proposed revenue. The rollout of free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England will cost approximately £315 million a year.
A new direction for the NI Executive?
So what does all of this mean for Northern Ireland? Well, if you check out the small print of Labour’s fiscal plan, you will find that their proposals will result in roughly £135 million of Barnett consequentials – that is a significant injection of cash for the NI Executive to spend. It will be up to our local political parties, and their relevant Ministers, to decide exactly how that money is spent. Will they invest in youth work or early language development? Will they hire more teachers, rollout free breakfast clubs, or provide specialist mental health support in all schools? If you ask those who have studied the history of Barnett consequential spending in Northern Ireland, I’m sure they would try and manage your expectations. Putting all the caveats and rationales (e.g. economies of scale) aside for a moment, the NI Executive have consistently struggled over the years to match delivery of new policy elsewhere through the drip feed of the Barnett model. This is undoubtedly due to a lack of political stability (stop-start government and boycotting the institutions), and a failure to plan and invest strategically, as much as it is an outworking of a flawed fiscal framework. Childcare is the obvious example, where over the course of the last decade, the UK government has provided Northern Ireland with its share of the resources to implement free childcare for families and this has been hoovered up by other inescapable pressures.
Perhaps more influential than the quantum, will be the political pressure on the NI Executive to prioritise policies based on what Labour propose to drive forward at Westminster. Unionists, Nationalists and the constitutionally agnostic are always keeping a watchful eye on what’s on offer in Dublin, Glasgow, Cardiff or London compared to their own constituencies, and huge disparities are not politically sustainable. Devolution also brings with it the power to prioritise things differently, based on local needs. According to the Independent Review of Welfare Mitigations in NI, offsetting the two-child limit here would cost roughly £53 million. Add to that a Better Start Grant (£10m), a disabled child winter fuel payment (£4m), the reinstatement of the School Holiday Food Grant (£40m) and you would still have around £28 million left to tackle other issues. These initiatives would instantly lift thousands of children in Northern Ireland out of poverty and help tackle some the worst impacts such as food insecurity. However, seasoned observers will likely tell you that the vast bulk of that £135 million boost to Executive finances, in the event of a Labour election victory and successful implementation of their plans, is destined to plug holes and plaster over the widening cracks of our health and social care system. We live in hope, and there is no doubt that a Labour government would bring a new agenda and open up new conversations in Whitehall. All of that has knock-on effects for our government departments and the direction of travel in a wide range of policy areas. How our local political parties respond will ultimately be shaped by voters in Northern Ireland who will also go to the polls on 4th July.
