CPAG says the most effective way to reduce child poverty is to give children's payments to all low income children on the same basis. They say a policy which relies on paid work is not a solution to child poverty.
Any solution to poverty relies on somebody's paid work. CPAG are simply happy for it to be yours and not the child's parent.
"Too many of our children are dying from poverty related diseases. Others bear life-long physical, mental and emotional damage, and grow up to endure poverty as adults," says St John. "The evidence is that families are slipping into ever more desperate situations especially with the implementation of recent very harsh and under-scrutinised welfare reform policies."Asking a sole parent to be available for 12 or more hours work per week after their youngest turns five is "very harsh"? Asking them to ensure their child is enrolled with a GP and attending school in return for state support is "very harsh"?
The short term solution to child poverty is working parents with increased prospects of growing their income and re-partnering, and reduced prospects of rasing a child to become a beneficiary in turn.
The long term solution is people having children when they are in a position to look after them independently, provide security and stability.
A majority of the children CPAG identify as being in poverty were on a benefit at birth or shortly after. CPAG's solution - pay beneficiary parents more - will increase the size of this group. Even Labour, under Clark and Cullen, recognised that reality.
The question is, does Cunliffe? And even if he does, is their solution a price worth paying for a prime ministership?