advertisement


We Have Plans......

Ginger said:
So we never had child poverty under a labour government? It only happens under the tories?
Click to expand...
Matters not who is in power, this has to be sorted sharpish.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...inds-45-million-uk-children-living-in-poverty

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ighest-level-since-2010-official-figures-show

Child Poverty has declined significantly since the 1970's up to 2010 where the year on year rise started again, we should be seeing a year on year decline but at the current rate, in around 15 years we should be back where we were during the 1970's, it is no coincidence that when Cameron introduced welfare reform, the rise began it's upward journey, so to answer your question, no, child poverty will always be present, the Tories don't own it, it's a side effect of the economy we live in but this particular government & Cameron's government before it do own the rise we are currently experiencing.
 
Arkless Electronics said:
Nail hit on head. It sickens me to the core the way so many care more about baby seals in the Arctic than about actual human beings in 2019 UK
Click to expand...
We live in a world where making such a choice should not be an issue, never have we been so knowledgeable about the planet & those who live upon it, never have we had the wealth to deal with any issue facing us but we also live in a world where governments have never held so much power, or have the ability to manipulate the voters via fake news, social media & the like, we are a sad species who could, if arsed, make everyday living on this planet a living joy, but here we are.
 
Mike Reed said:
What a peculiar analogy; way over my head.



Dunno about persistent or even suffering, but yes; exactly my point; it's simply poverty, which is and always has been pandemic, regardless of so-called advancing civilisation. I never became aware of the 'child poverty' claim before Gordon Brown, though it may had been political terminology beforehand. I'm of the opinion that it's a misnomer invented for political altruistic grandstanding.
Click to expand...
The links above give some info on child poverty, child homelessness is a whole other issue of course but doubt you would be interested.
Child poverty is not a political term, it is a sad side affect of an uncaring government & an uncaring society, seems you fit well into the latter group by the looks of things.
https://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/178806/03-09_Ending_child_poverty.pdf

Persistent & suffering are good analogies of child poverty or poverty as a whole.

This is the country we live in, the part that very few want to acknowledge or accept.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-moved-out-of-their-local-areas-a6952766.html
 
Mike Reed said:
'It' ? What, general poverty ? Doesn't it happen in the other four richest countries in the world? It always will. everywhere. Many fewer nowadays than before, no doubt, if you use current statistical yardsticks. I grew up in what would now be called 'poverty' but we simply didn't realise; nor did my parents.



What issue, Mull ? I simply asked what the heck WAS 'child poverty' as no-one has been able to explain it to me in rational language. There IS no 'issue' in my mind; simply a question tinged with cynicism.
Click to expand...
Lot's of nonsensical questions followed by zero back up, me thinks you be trolling Mr Reed.
 
Ragaman said:
Lot's of nonsensical questions followed by zero back up, me thinks you be trolling Mr Reed.
Click to expand...

Trolling? Don't be silly ! Only learnt of the word on pfm! I asked a simple question, read a few links offered in explanation, failed to see a definition and now I'm trolling. Come on, my record's better than that. The difference between child poverty and family poverty (as recognised) still eludes me. Nothing to do with politics (which don't interest me), but people here keep bringing in this red herring. Sometimes, I can learn something here, but not always.

Sorry, Mull, if your thread got diverted; not my intention, I can assure you, so carry on enjoying your expose of various injustices currently in vogue, and I'll stick to my puns and hifi interests.:)
 
Mike Reed said:
The difference between child poverty and family poverty (as recognised) still eludes me.
Click to expand...
Then you cannot be reading the links in their entirety, child poverty is borne of family poverty, it is also a symptom of child abuse at home/school etc..where an individual leaves the family home in desperation without shelter/food/clothing etc.., this is a separate issue to what is being discussed here. Absolute poverty in most cases, is where families cannot afford to live, buy food, buy clothing or pay bills, the next step is homelessness, children living in working poverty has risen sharply, those living in sheltered accommodation with their families has also risen sharply. If you believe poverty/absolute poverty has nothing to do with politics, your wrong, something as simple as changing the welfare system can create absolute poverty for many families, this is what we are now seeing after 8 years of this current system taking hold, it will soon escalate again once UC kicks in over the next few years.
Relative poverty is well...relative.... to the economy & your circumstances in general but absolute poverty is where i'm coming from as far as child poverty is concerned, a 3 year old child has no say over their present situation or future so child poverty can be looked at as separate from general poverty where an individual does have the means to act, in some instances anyway though not in all, depending on mental or physical state, general poverty can easily make someone suffering a mental or physical disability become homeless, it takes very little for this to happen as opposed to someone mentally & physically fit, able to work etc..

Basically, child poverty is on the rise as is absolute poverty for childless families, whoever is in charge they have the means to act & halt it before it is out of control & more people die. It's hard to believe we are even discussing this while living in the UK.
 
Ragaman said:
Then you cannot be reading the links in their entirety, child poverty is borne of family poverty, it is also a symptom of child abuse at home/school etc..where an individual leaves the family home in desperation without shelter/food/clothing etc.., this is a separate issue to what is being discussed here. Absolute poverty in most cases, is where families cannot afford to live, buy food, buy clothing or pay bills, the next step is homelessness, children living in working poverty has risen sharply, those living in sheltered accommodation with their families has also risen sharply. If you believe poverty/absolute poverty has nothing to do with politics, your wrong, something as simple as changing the welfare system can create absolute poverty for many families, this is what we are now seeing after 8 years of this current system taking hold, it will soon escalate again once UC kicks in over the next few years.
Relative poverty is well...relative.... to the economy & your circumstances in general but absolute poverty is where i'm coming from as far as child poverty is concerned, a 3 year old child has no say over their present situation or future so child poverty can be looked at as separate from general poverty where an individual does have the means to act, in some instances anyway though not in all, depending on mental or physical state, general poverty can easily make someone suffering a mental or physical disability become homeless, it takes very little for this to happen as opposed to someone mentally & physically fit, able to work etc..

Basically, child poverty is on the rise as is absolute poverty for childless families, whoever is in charge they have the means to act & halt it before it is out of control & more people die. It's hard to believe we are even discussing this while living in the UK.
Click to expand...
So, if I understand correctly, 'child poverty' is where a family with children is in poverty, and 'poverty' is for childless families. But what is the purpose of the distinction? Are we saying that because children have no means to change their situation, this makes it qualitatively worse? Do we make similar distinctions for disability poverty, or mental health poverty?
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Do we make similar distinctions for disability poverty, or mental health poverty?
Click to expand...
No but someone with mental or physical incapacity find it more difficult to survive by lesser means, it's why the welfare reforms have created such a surge in homelessness, especially amongst those with mental health issues, such individuals find it more difficult to react to the current system which is aimed to confuse those claiming, the form is designed to catch people out by repeating questions in a different guise, the whole aim is to remove people from benefits, this means anyone, not just those who buck the system, there is no policy in place to treat people on a individual basis, this will of course escalate once UC arrives in all it's glory. The appeal process is beyond most who suffer mentally with their health, it's a bewildering process which not only distresses individuals but aims to remove them from claiming support, it's a system which is failing those who desperately need help. The evidence of this is there for all to see, food banks on the rise year on year, poverty escalating, those living in sheltered accommodation on the rise (though this is also due to a lack of housing) which also needs addressing.
Child poverty has a few layers, of which absolute poverty amongst families is one such cause as I said. A child cannot seek work, cannot live alone, there are obvious distinctions between child poverty & general poverty of which absolute poverty affects both. The reason for the distinction is simple, an adult has the opportunity to seek help, a child much less so, if at all, there are many child charities around to explain in full what they do & why they do it, you could also take a look at this https://www.nechildpoverty.org.uk/what-causes-child-poverty
General poverty depends on the circumstances, living below the breadline is the usual expression used, this is wholly different to not being able to buy food or clothing. Many visiting food banks are living in absolute poverty, this has risen sharply since 2010, prior to this general poverty was in decline as was absolute poverty, it will continue to rise year on year despite the efforts of many around the country until it is addressed by government.
Throwing a few million at homelessness will bandage the wound, it may slow down the rate of escalation for a short while but the source of the wound needs addressing where poverty & homelessness is concerned as both are intrinsically linked.
 
Nigella's brother was on any questions earlier arguing that more had to be done about fixed odds betting terminals, as a lot of child/food poverty is because the working poor are always in the bookies spunking their wages on gambling leaving no money to feed the kids.

I'm not sure that everyone queuing up at every food bank is the result of gambling, granted it's a big problem but it's a bit of a cop-out to victim blame everyone who can't afford to buy food.
 
matt j said:
Nigella's brother was on any questions earlier arguing that more had to be done about fixed odds betting terminals, as a lot of child/food poverty is because the working poor are always in the bookies spunking their wages on gambling leaving no money to feed the kids.

I'm not sure that everyone queuing up at every food bank is the result of gambling, granted it's a big problem but it's a bit of a cop-out to victim blame everyone who can't afford to buy food.
Click to expand...
There will always be families (or individual parents) who abuse their kids In this manner, it is thankfully in the minority & certainly not the reason behind the surge in poverty on all levels over the last few years, most families love their children & want what is best for them by sacrificing for them.

Maggie Thatcher, back in the 70's said this, bless her.

“Nowadays there really is no primary poverty left in this country. In Western countries we are left with the problems which aren’t poverty. All right, there may be poverty because people don’t know how to budget, don’t know how to spend their earnings, but now you are left with the really hard fundamental character—personality defect.”

Margaret Thatcher 1978
 
Ragaman said:
There will always be families (or individual parents) who abuse their kids In this manner, it is thankfully in the minority & certainly not the reason behind the surge in poverty on all levels over the last few years, most families love their children & want what is best for them by sacrificing for them.

Maggie Thatcher, back in the 70's said this, bless her.

“Nowadays there really is no primary poverty left in this country. In Western countries we are left with the problems which aren’t poverty. All right, there may be poverty because people don’t know how to budget, don’t know how to spend their earnings, but now you are left with the really hard fundamental character—personality defect.”

Margaret Thatcher 1978
Click to expand...

Her really hard fundamental character—personality defect was easy to see when she denied the mid-morning nutricain hit the kids enjoyed in 1967.

Milk Snatcher.

 
Some people here need to look closely at rates of benefit for the unemployed.

They might also want to look at how long unemployment benefit (JSA) is paid for, even assuming you can get it.
 
Mull, those same people argue over semantics while putting out questionable statistics trying to apportion part of the blame on the 97 on “labour” government. While it did many bad things, it didn’t increase poverty.
Others wail about injustice while blaming Corbyn for not sorting a problem he can’t begin to address.
A Corbyn led government is the ONLY way to begin to solve the problems outlined in this thread. The tories will continue down the same road whoever is in charge and the Lib Dems would do nothing to change it.
 
Mullardman said:
Some people here need to look closely at rates of benefit for the unemployed.

They might also want to look at how long unemployment benefit (JSA) is paid for, even assuming you can get it.
Click to expand...
This is how it currently stands
https://www.dnsassociates.co.uk/blog/esa-rates
https://www.entitledto.co.uk/help/jobseekers-allowance

If your deemed unfit for work by a "healthcare professional" for whatever illness or disability & placed on ESA in the WRAG group, you are placed in the same price bracket as those deemed fit, healthy & ready for work receiving jobseekers allowance, there are additional payments to be had mind, these are attainable by further assessment by a "healthcare professional". Gaining access to these extra benefits is quite a hard slog so if your physically or mentally unwell, the job of securing this extra support for your personal needs becomes almost unattainable.
The support group offers extra payments though claiming free prescriptions etc.. will depend on which section your placed in.
Anyone currently claiming ESA (after Cameron introduced his long awaited reform in 2015) will only be entitled to the new rate, as it stands (though could change at any time deemed fit) older claimants will continue to receive the old rate, this is why those receiving the old rate are targeted first, government want them removed from benefit to be able to place them in the new price bracket, if deemed unfit for work of course, most of this policy is aimed at removing people from ESA & onto jobseekers allowance, this then allows government to stop benefits once the individual is unable to attend interviews etc due to illness & disability, this is when sanctions take hold good & proper & creates a scenario where government have the right to remove someone, who is suffering on a daily basis, but deemed fit for work, from their support & then it's short step onto the street, no longer their responsibility, this scenario is why we are currently seeing a sharp rise in homelessness, especially among the mentally impaired. IDS should be proud of his achievements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top