ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

Some people, they opined, were better off than others, but to talk of "The Poor" as if they were a single entity was old-fashioned and inappropriate. It lumped together groups whose predicament could be attributed to a host of unrelated factors. For example, when challenged on the vast disparity between life expectancy and levels of morbidity between social groups, ministers would point to breast cancer, the one illness to which middle-class patients seemed more susceptible.

But that was then. Now the Tories have decided that P words are back in vogue – and their long-term aim is to eliminate poverty.

What has surprised many about this announcement is that a party that traditionally focused on middle-class aspirations should apparently be so keen to talk about the less well-off; after all, general elections are supposed to be won or lost in the suburbs, not the inner cities.

But it is the extent of the ambition rather than its focus that is the real surprise. Conservatives are supposed to be realists when it comes to the scope of government – in the past, heady idealism and grandiose claims were left to the left. No more. Presumably, Tory strategists believe big claims will grab voter attention.

In this, they are doing no more than following in the footsteps of New Labour. Back in the mid-20th century, politicians occupying the middle ground tended to talk about concrete matters, things they would achieve within the term of a parliament: raising pensions by £1 a week, building so many thousand homes, cutting unemployment. Now, they promise to make us healthier, wealthier and more wise. Our children will become more clever, our teenagers will stop getting pregnant, cancer and heart disease will be beaten.

So far, Iain Duncan Smith has been modest enough not to set a date for achieving his lofty ambition to wipe out poverty, and he has still to define precisely what he means by it. The government, on the other hand, has promised to end child poverty by 2020.

The danger in difficult areas of social policy comes when politicians are fooled by their own rhetoric. They set themselves goals they cannot deliver

The danger, in these difficult areas of social policy, comes when politicians are fooled by their own rhetoric. They set themselves goals decades ahead that they cannot deliver for the simple reason that they won't be in office; nor can they possibly guarantee these ambitions will be achieved anyway.

On poverty, the government has made some progress: half a million children taken out of relative poverty, mostly the result of lower unemployment; higher benefits for families and the more generous working families tax credit. In spite of some clawback through increased National Insurance contributions, more children will be taken above the poverty line. But with about three and half million below, the task is enormous and the future is uncertain. And the chaos of past weeks, with hundreds of thousands of families not receiving the payments to which they were entitled, will hardly have instilled confidence in the new order.

Ironically, this may be one area where the chancellor could be helped by slower economic growth. With the better-off doing less well, the gap between them and the have-nots will narrow, providing unemployment does not rise and providing he can afford to put money into the tax credit and benefit systems. On the other hand, middle-class feelings about higher taxes may constrain his largesse.

Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that in other areas the government has become noticeably cooler towards ambitious targets. The pledge to deport a set number of asylum seekers has been dropped in favour of a promise to make "continuing progress"; in primary schools, targets have been amended; and in the NHS, the talk is also of fewer, more focused, performance measures.