Let’s be more Frank about the politics of poverty

Last week saw the passing of one of my political heroes, Frank Field, the Labour MP who represented Birkenhead for 40 years. 

We were both graduates of Hull University and I first came across him when studying Social Work because of his work as Director of the Low Pay Unit and the Child Poverty Action Group. Their publications were some of the best sources to understand inequality and poverty.

‘Poverty trap’

In the 1970s, Frank Field coined the term ‘poverty trap’ to explain how a recipient of benefits lost them as their earning increased and remained “trapped” in poverty.  And later as an MP, his dedication and closeness to his community enabled him appreciate, with more clarity than most, the problems caused by welfare systems which were supposed to help.

Like contemporary writer Darren McGarvey, Field knew that the battle against poverty must involve building personal responsibility and incentivizing work: that policy must ‘go with the grain’ of human nature and the reality of self-interest.  It’s a nuance and realism often lacking in contemporary debates. 

Sliding doors moment

In 1997, Field was appointed by new Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to ‘think the unthinkable’ about welfare reform.  Sadly, it did not end well and Field’s recommendations were thought ‘unworkable’ by Harriet Harman and Gordon Brown.

This was a tragic ‘sliding doors’ moment for social policy in the UK where the chance was missed to re-wire the dependency culture at the heart of our benefits system. Radical reform to welfare can only be done humanely at a time of economic boom and 1997 was the perfect time. The failure to act then has had disastrous ramifications since.

Independent thinker

In response to Frank Field’s death, Tony Blair said this:

“He was an independent thinker never constrained by conventional wisdom, but always pushing at the frontier of new ideas. Even when we disagreed, I had the utmost respect for him.”

Its a sentiment echoed in all of his obituaries. Field’s independence of thinking and willingness to contravene the tribal orthodoxies of his own party may have caused controversy, but ultimately this is what won him admiration and respect.   

In an age of polarised thinking we need more Frank Fields. We need to listen less to those who win populist applause in either right or left-wing echo chambers, and more to those willing to bravely challenge both sides.

Mutual respect

There is no clearer example of Field’s independent mindset than his breaking of the ultimate taboo on the left: his friendship with Margaret Thatcher. Despite their different politics, there was a mutual respect for the conviction and courage they saw in each other.

It reminds me of discussions on my university course where I found the left-wing orthodoxy monochrome, self-righteous and frustrating. To even ask the question ‘Why did working class people vote for Thatcher?’ was to invite denunciation. And I was never convinced by the stock answers of ‘selfishness’ and ‘media bias’. The refusal to see just cause in elements of Thatcher’s approach was a continual weakness of the left.

Rooted in faith

And it’s no coincidence that Frank Field’s insights, integrity and courage were rooted in his strong Christian faith. As Nick Spencer puts it in a superb article for Theos:

“He once described his proposals as “about placing a Christian understanding of mankind centre stage”. He reacted against the “sanitised, post–Christian view of human character” typical of the newer, more metropolitan left tradition. It was a view that wrote the “fallen side of mankind” out of the script.”

In our desire to make faith accessible, the church has lost the ability to talk sensibly about the reality of sin and self-interest which affects rich and poor alike. Christian hope lies in overcoming these realities, not ignoring them. Contemporary injunctions ‘to be kind’ are superficial and naïve mantras which produce little fruit. As Nick Spencer continues:

“…his point was that to assume that altruism was the natural or inevitable form of human motivation, the kind of view that informs so much bland humanistic thought today, was not only naïve but to court disaster. Policy needed to recognise the reality of sin and to “wrestle with the angel and the serpent in each of us”.

Grace and truth

For all these reasons, I was grateful when about 10 years ago, a mutual friend sent Frank Field a copy of my booklet Homelessness: grace, truth and transformation.  This led to us having lunch together where he probed me with deep questions about a theology which balances grace and truth and what this meant in practice.  

It can be sobering to actually meet one of your heroes. But Frank Field’s generosity, humility and dissatisfaction with simplistic answers only deepened my admiration for him.

---

• Buy Homelessness: grace, truth and transformation by Jon Kuhrt & Chris Ward
• ‘He made politics human’: Birkenhead mourns beloved MP Frank Field
• Frank Field: faith and politics – by Nick Spencer, Theos