Poverty in the capital is an election issue

There are more revelatory case studies today. The reaction was summarised by Prince William, who declared that "I consider the Evening Standard's exposure of hidden poverty a call to arms for us all". Many others, from all over the social and political spectrum, have the same response: that deprivation such as we describe is an affront to a civilised city.

And so it is. But the necessary response goes further than yet more Government initiatives. If a battery of targets could do away with deprivation, the problem would be long solved. The issue needs to be dealt with at many levels and, as we said yesterday, it needs a longer time-frame than that of most politicians, who see no further than the next election. It needs to be addressed in terms of tax and welfare, housing and schools. Politicians need to tackle the trap whereby it may cost a poor person more to work than live on benefits. Fathers must be obliged to take more responsibility for their children.

Education is plainly the greatest single route out of poverty, and we report today on one inspirational school in Tower Hamlets. Morpeth School, whose pupils are from some of the most deprived communities in the capital, has nonetheless achieved extraordinary results in raising children's academic results and expectations. That is in large part a result of inspirational leadership, a factor central government should foster and reward elsewhere.

But for all that the Government is responsible for investment in services and for welfare reform, there are limits to what the state can do. Charities and church groups do an enormous amount at the most basic human level to relieve poverty by helping individuals and families to cope with their immediate needs, or simply by offering tea and shelter to vulnerable people.

Those services deserve our goodwill and support.
But above all, we need to ensure that deprivation and the reforms needed to address it do not get lost in the coming election. Poverty should be a political priority.

What the BBC is for

The BBC director-general, Mark Thompson, has launched an ambitious programme for reforms and cutbacks to the Corporation. It is heartening that, as he does so, he reiterates what the BBC is for: "to inform, educate and entertain", as his predecessor Lord Reith put it, in that order. The core functions of the BBC are simple and much of where the Corporation has gone wrong is that it has lost sight of them. If the promised cuts cause the BBC to refocus on its real mandate, they may be salutary. More money will be spent on programmes, less on administration, a necessary corrective.

The cuts will hurt, of course. They include doing away with 25 per cent of spending on internet operations and abolishing BBC 6Music. As for capping spending on sport at £300 million, it will limit the extent to which the BBC can broadcast important fixtures. But if less of the licence fee is spent on US imports and more on fostering home-grown, intelligent programmes, these cuts will do good.

Everyone should pay

Lord Ashcroft has, late in the day, let it be known that he does not pay tax in this country on overseas earnings. It reflects no credit on the Tories that their chief donor should seek to influence the outcome of the election while seeking to be treated effectively as a foreigner for tax purposes. Influence carries its own responsibilities.