Dan xxx

p.s. This presumably replaces International Development as the Best Job in the Cabinet.

p.p.s. Please don’t let Hazel Blears do it.

As Antonia points out social exclusion is not just about poverty it covers a variety of things but is largely connected to poverty or causes of poverty. The problem with having a Cabinet position for this is that it is too wide a brief. If someone where to have this job they would need to have some control over every single department because social inclusion requires a join-up policy approach which is achievable only through different departments working together. Thus this cabinet member would need to know about social exclusion issues in health, education, housing, communities, benefits and un/employment to start with. S/he would also need to know about other areas of social exclusion from ICT to public transport to access to financial services etc. Any social exclusion role would, in reality, be powerless because no department would be willing to give power away to another minister and nor would Secretary of States be willing to have to change their own ideas to fit in with what social exclusion minister would want especially if the two saw different methods as being capable of tackling social exclusion. Therefore this post would likely be given matters or relatively small effect.

The main aspect of this role would be to ensure that all departments work together and don’t produce policy which counteract each other or let people slip through the safety net. However I have always saw this as the role of the PM because it’s his/her government and s/he should be ensuring that when the departments need to work together they do so.

In many respects it will be a thankless task with a lot of laborious detailed and locally focused work, below the media radar, only getting notice when they will have to pop-up and call for difficult measures that piss off the Tory press. I agree there may be elements of need to get Hazel into the Cabinet (and I agree we do!) and sort the vacant Duchy of Lancaster but it could have some real positive effects.

I thought the Guardian comment that “social exclusion” was a mealy-mouthed way of saying “poverty” was a bit of a nonsense - ending social exclusion is about far more than ending poverty for poor people now, of course - it’s about stopping people getting into poverty in the future, by eliminating the conditions for it.