Child poverty in the UK?

SimonAH

If you've seen the news today you'll have heard that Save the Children are launching a campaign to raise money to combat child poverty in the UK.

Now, perhaps I'm being overly cynical and out of touch here - but (assuming you are legally in the country and compos mentis) how is it possible in the UK today with our massive benefits system to have children in a state of poverty? And by poverty I mean hungry and no shoes poverty, not having to make do with a CRT telly rather than a flatscreen poverty.

If the issue is that benefits money is being spent on booze, fags and drugs by parents then that is a different issue (how about non-tradeable food and child clothing stamps as a proportion of benefits?)

Anyhoo - my position is that I just cannot understand how a legally resident child in the UK can be in anything other than the shortest term of poverty (perhaps as some paperwork is completed). Or is it just that our definition of poverty has drifted so far in the last sixty years that the term needs to be redefined to 'not very well off' ?

rick_chasey

They discussed this on newsnight last night, sort of.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19468697

Food banks are in increasing demand.

S'agood article, but then I love Paul Mason.

SimonAH

Ah, so it's payday loans, doorstep lenders and the TV license that are causing the problem.

...so the charity money is required to prop up debt to Wonga.com and loan sharks in reality?

rubertoe

SimonAH wrote:

If the issue is that benefits money is being spent on booze, fags and drugs by parents then that is a different issue (how about non-tradeable food and child clothing stamps as a proportion of benefits?)

I have been argueing this point with some freinds of mine; I would even go as far as paying Bills direct to the supplier rather giving cash; benefits should be used for people who need it to live not to provide people with a certain lifestyle; this inturn would mean that there would be no need for any poverty as the wastage would be limited.

rick_chasey

SimonAH wrote:

Ah, so it's payday loans, doorstep lenders and the TV license that are causing the problem.

...so the charity money is required to prop up debt to Wonga.com and loan sharks in reality?

That accounts for half of people going to foodbanks. The other half of their cumstomers are people who have temporary or permanent loss of benefit/ refusal for a crisis loan.*

But yes. Labour tried to pass a motion to clamp down on pay-day loans but the lib dems (shamefully) and the Tories refused.

Founder of one of the big pay-day loan firms is a big Tory donor I believe.

Don't think £12.50 a month for TV, which probably makes their life that bit more bearable is really the problem mind.


*according to the article.

mudcow007

one thing i cant understand about the whole benefit/ council house thing is when i was growing up, i had 2 brothers an 2 sisters

we had a 3 bedroom house as that is all my mum an dad could afford

me an my brothers were in one room, my sisters in t'other an parents in the other

council houses these days if you have 3 kids, you have to have a 4 bedroom house

2 kids its a 3 bedroom etc, hence why you have "large" family's with mahoosive houses all on the council

greg66_tri_v2.0

SimonAH wrote:

If you've seen the news today you'll have heard that Save the Children are launching a campaign to raise money to combat child poverty in the UK.

Now, perhaps I'm being overly cynical and out of touch here - but (assuming you are legally in the country and compos mentis) how is it possible in the UK today with our massive benefits system to have children in a state of poverty? And by poverty I mean hungry and no shoes poverty, not having to make do with a CRT telly rather than a flatscreen poverty.

If the issue is that benefits money is being spent on booze, fags and drugs by parents then that is a different issue (how about non-tradeable food and child clothing stamps as a proportion of benefits?)

Anyhoo - my position is that I just cannot understand how a legally resident child in the UK can be in anything other than the shortest term of poverty (perhaps as some paperwork is completed). Or is it just that our definition of poverty has drifted so far in the last sixty years that the term needs to be redefined to 'not very well off' ?

There is a published definition of "poverty". IIRC. I've only heard the gist of it, rather than seen it written down, but if it's been correctly relayed to me, you'd see why child poverty can exist.

You may, OTOH, not recognise it as a definition of poverty.

daviesee

Greg66 wrote:

There is a published definition of "poverty". IIRC. I've only heard the gist of it, rather than seen it written down, but if it's been correctly relayed to me, you'd see why child poverty can exist.

You may, OTOH, not recognise it as a definition of poverty.

From the BBC report:-
"The charity defines living in poverty as having a family income of less than £17,000 a year."

rick_chasey

This is the crux:

Safety net
High interest lending to poor people is a boom industry now in Britain. That, combined with low wages and insecure work is what drives people with jobs to the food bank.


CAB caseworker Mary Shine says she sees three or four incidents of food poverty each week
And it is hard to see quick solutions: successive governments have shied away from capping the interest rates the payday loan and doorstep lending companies charge. Yet the prevalence of families prioritising debt over food is troubling.

With the benefit disruption problem, it has clear roots in the determination of successive governments to make it harder to stay on benefits long-term.

But whether by accident or design, the rise in JSA "sanctions" - together with recent changes to disability benefits - say the CAB, seems to correlate directly with the growing number of people who turn up at food banks.

The welfare system is creating a new kind of poverty, and the new safety net is not the state at all, but the volunteers sorting the tins and pasta at the Hope Centre and places like it.

You an argue about what actually is poverty and whether you agree wit the official definition, but if families are increasingly having to go to food banks to feed themselves, things aren't right

SimonAH

Hmm, from Wikipedia;

How poverty in the United Kingdom is defined and measuredPoverty is defined by the Government as ‘household income below 60 percent of median income’. The median is the income earned by the household in the middle of the income distribution.[23]

In the year 2004/2005, the 60% threshold was worth £183 per week for a two adult household, £100 per week for a single adult, £268 per week for two adults living with two children, and £186 per week for a single adult living with two children. This sum of money is after income tax and national insurance have been deducted from earnings and after council tax, rent, mortgage and water charges have been paid. It is therefore what a household has available to spend on everything else it needs.[24]

I was right, we need to re-define it as 'not very well off'. And as it is linked to median income it rises with affluence. In Mayfair then you are in a state of poverty if your flat does not have a view of the park?

daviesee

Based on Rick's responses, I would have to say the Government is to blame here.

Maximum 30% APR leaves plenty room for profit and would cut down on spiralling debt.

There would still be loan sharks though. And people stupid enough to use them.

davis

mudcow007 wrote:

one thing i cant understand about the whole benefit/ council house thing is when i was growing up, i had 2 brothers an 2 sisters

we had a 3 bedroom house as that is all my mum an dad could afford

me an my brothers were in one room, my sisters in t'other an parents in the other

council houses these days if you have 3 kids, you have to have a 4 bedroom house

2 kids its a 3 bedroom etc, hence why you have "large" family's with mahoosive houses all on the council

Aye. Same here. I shared a room with my brother for years. T'weren't great, but it's not as though I measurably suffered for it.

Gazzaputt

On Five live they say poverty is anyone with an income below £17K :shock:

FFS get out to Calcutta or like to see real child poverty.

PBo

davis wrote:

mudcow007 wrote:

one thing i cant understand about the whole benefit/ council house thing is when i was growing up, i had 2 brothers an 2 sisters

we had a 3 bedroom house as that is all my mum an dad could afford

me an my brothers were in one room, my sisters in t'other an parents in the other

council houses these days if you have 3 kids, you have to have a 4 bedroom house

2 kids its a 3 bedroom etc, hence why you have "large" family's with mahoosive houses all on the council

Aye. Same here. I shared a room with my brother for years. T'weren't great, but it's not as though I measurably suffered for it.

Last time I looked at this a few years ago, but not ages, it was the opposite. All rooms in a council house count as a bedroom, so single mum, and 2 kids would get 2 bedrooms. Either kids share, or someone sleeps on sofa bed in living room.

rjsterry

Comparisons with Kolkata (it's not been Calcutta for the last 11 years) are pretty specious when the cost of living is so different. Yes, there are worse levels of poverty than in the UK, but that hardly means we should ignore the issue. From the experience of a couple of friends, the problem with council housing is getting a property at all rather than how many rooms it has - mudcow's assertion seems a long way wide of the mark.

There's also something rather tasteless and sad about a bunch of people, all of which have at the very least the luxury of either a computer or a smart phone and generally more than one bike (EDIT actually some of you with a whole f***ing fleet), making pretty baseless statements about what is and isn't poverty.

clarkey cat

On Five live they say poverty is anyone with an income below £17K

FFS get out to Calcutta or like to see real child poverty.

That doesn't mean that if you're in poverty you have an income of £16,999. Chances are it will be MUCH lower.

Also, just because there are children dying of malnutrition and malaria in one part of the world is not a justification for our own children being brought up in comparative, yet still dire, poverty. Both are inexcusable.

The demonisation of the poor by the "still quite poor but not quite as poor" is the one of the saddest things about this country.

DonDaddyD

I want to be brutal and say that there is no such thing a poverty, as I understand it, in this Country. People are relatively poor compared to the relatively well-off, rich and Greg's. But my perception has been shrouded by London's general (and relative) prosperity compared to those elsewhere in the Country.

Do any of us in London really know how hard it is to live outside it (mainly in the North) where you can literally spend decades of you life unemployed? Throw in a couple of kids and I can begin to see how poverty becomes an appropriate word.

clarkey cat

Comparisons with Kolkata (it's not been Calcutta for the last 11 years) are pretty specious when the cost of living is so different. Yes, there are worse levels of poverty than in the UK, but that hardly means we should ignore the issue. From the experience of a couple of friends, the problem with council housing is getting a property at all rather than how many rooms it has - mudcow's assertion seems a long way wide of the mark.

There's also something rather suspect about a bunch of people , all of which have the luxury of either a computer or a smart phone and generally more than one bike, making pretty baseless statements about what is and isn't poverty.

Burn the leftie!!!!

clarkey cat

I want to be brutal and say that there is no such thing a poverty, as I understand it, in this Country. People are relatively poor compared to the relatively well-off, rich and Greg's. But my perception has been shrouded by London's general (and relative) prosperity compared to those elsewhere in the Country.

Do any of us in London really know how hard it is to live outside it (mainly in the North) where you can literally spend decades of you life unemployed? Throw in a couple of kids and I can begin to see how poverty becomes an appropriate word

You're so controversial! Can I sleep with you?

mudcow007

PBo wrote:

davis wrote:

mudcow007 wrote:

one thing i cant understand about the whole benefit/ council house thing is when i was growing up, i had 2 brothers an 2 sisters

we had a 3 bedroom house as that is all my mum an dad could afford

me an my brothers were in one room, my sisters in t'other an parents in the other

council houses these days if you have 3 kids, you have to have a 4 bedroom house

2 kids its a 3 bedroom etc, hence why you have "large" family's with mahoosive houses all on the council

Aye. Same here. I shared a room with my brother for years. T'weren't great, but it's not as though I measurably suffered for it.

Last time I looked at this a few years ago, but not ages, it was the opposite. All rooms in a council house count as a bedroom, so single mum, and 2 kids would get 2 bedrooms. Either kids share, or someone sleeps on sofa bed in living room.

there was a tv show on t'other week that was a story about a young single mum with two kids who was looking for a house in or around manchester.

who said she was only allowed to "bid" on certain houses because of the number of bedrooms?

maybe its different in manchester?

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

Don't think £12.50 a month for TV, which probably makes their life that bit more bearable is really the problem mind.

Absolutely not a problem when you don't pay it. It's the big flat screen that you need to get Wonga for.

DonDaddyD

HOWEVER, this:

The charity defines living in poverty as having a family income of less than £17,000 a year.

Irritates the f*ck out of me so I checked their website and found this: http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/node/2598

And so went digging and found: http://www.barnardos.org.uk/what_we_do/ ... overty.htm

Now £17,000 a year isn't a lot and certainly not enough if you have a child or two (you really have to question the responsibility and sense of a parent who continually has children then cannot afford and cannot provide for...) but I am not sure that's what I call poverty.

If you can't afford meat, what's wrong with a salad, veg and chickpeas?

I've been there.

greg66_tri_v2.0

SimonAH wrote:

Hmm, from Wikipedia;

How poverty in the United Kingdom is defined and measuredPoverty is defined by the Government as ‘household income below 60 percent of median income’. The median is the income earned by the household in the middle of the income distribution.[23]

In the year 2004/2005, the 60% threshold was worth £183 per week for a two adult household, £100 per week for a single adult, £268 per week for two adults living with two children, and £186 per week for a single adult living with two children. This sum of money is after income tax and national insurance have been deducted from earnings and after council tax, rent, mortgage and water charges have been paid. It is therefore what a household has available to spend on everything else it needs.[24]

I was right, we need to re-define it as 'not very well off'. And as it is linked to median income it rises with affluence. In Mayfair then you are in a state of poverty if your flat does not have a view of the park?

That rings a bell. A definition that means it could be eliminated by legislating the same wage for everyone, no matter what they do, and no matter how low that wage is set. Even if that could mean the entire population would be living in what we would consider poverty.

rjsterry

clarkey cat wrote:

Comparisons with Kolkata (it's not been Calcutta for the last 11 years) are pretty specious when the cost of living is so different. Yes, there are worse levels of poverty than in the UK, but that hardly means we should ignore the issue. From the experience of a couple of friends, the problem with council housing is getting a property at all rather than how many rooms it has - mudcow's assertion seems a long way wide of the mark.

There's also something rather suspect about a bunch of people , all of which have the luxury of either a computer or a smart phone and generally more than one bike, making pretty baseless statements about what is and isn't poverty.

Burn the leftie!!!!

Couldn't help juxtaposing the child poverty item with Tim Yeo (MP for somewhere completely unaffected by a massive increase in flights over London) blathering on about how the solution to this country's woes is to build a large strip of tarmac just west of London. I'm sure it'll make the businesses involved a few bob, but 'trickle down' is pretty difficult to spot these days.

clarkey cat

what do you think it says about you that a charity expecting a higher standard of living for children in poverty than you expect for those same children

Irritates the f*ck out of [you]

?

clarkey cat

That rings a bell. A definition that means it could be eliminated by legislating the same wage for everyone, no matter what they do, and no matter how low that wage is set. Even if that could mean the entire population would be living in what we would consider poverty.

always be vigilent against the Red Menace, Greg.

rick_chasey

I may be incorrect, but I believe if you look at the figures, the child poverty stuff did pretty well under Labour (as in, it went down). Not halved by 2010 as promised, but a good step forward.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom ... urs-legacy

That sharp rise in demand for foodbanks is experiencing as reported by newsnight, to me anyway, likely to be indicative of a worsening child poverty problem.

S'a good article that.

greg66_tri_v2.0

clarkey cat wrote:

That rings a bell. A definition that means it could be eliminated by legislating the same wage for everyone, no matter what they do, and no matter how low that wage is set. Even if that could mean the entire population would be living in what we would consider poverty.

always be vigilent against the Red Menace, Greg.

I am not, and have never been, a Communist.

<points finger>

Can *you* say the same?

gtvlusso

DonDaddyD wrote:

HOWEVER, this:

The charity defines living in poverty as having a family income of less than £17,000 a year.

Irritates the f*ck out of me so I checked their website and found this: http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/node/2598

And so went digging and found: http://www.barnardos.org.uk/what_we_do/ ... overty.htm

Now £17,000 a year isn't a lot and certainly not enough if you have a child or two (you really have to question the responsibility and sense of a parent who continually has children then cannot afford and cannot provide for...) but I am not sure that's what I call poverty.

If you can't afford meat, what's wrong with a salad, veg and chickpeas?

I've been there.

This gets even more interesting:

Slightly off track:

My wife and myself have put off having #2 (I have another 2 that I am legal guardian of...now live with their paternal dad) - for the exact reason that financially it would be tougher for us with 2 as we would definitely need a bigger house - I have done the all living in 2 rooms thing and it is not pretty!

However, we have just found out that to get junior into the local primary school, less than 30 seconds walk from my front door, she will be effectively at the bottom of the pick list - being from a stable family environment with no siblings. It turns out that if you have learning difficulties, broken home, low income home/benefits home, or a sibling already at the school - then you will more than likely get a place. For this years intake at our local primary, out of 30 places, there were a total of 6 places for kids from a stable background.

This brings me neatly onto poverty;

My brother in law is on an IVA and permanently in debt - his debt now totals £50k. His income is about £35k. he has a wife that does not work and 2 kids to support, the live in a rented house, where they know the owner who has not increased the rent. My Brother in law is now considering quitting work; Essentially, as a family they could probably get the same income with both parents on benefits and have their debt managed by the agency and a lower rent in a council house - this was the advice from a poverty charity....they would be better of simply giving in, than fighting onwards. The point was then made that his kids would both qualify for local schools places without any fuss!

This country really is bizarre, do it right, get f*cked.

DonDaddyD

clarkey cat wrote:

what do you think it says about you that a charity expecting a higher standard of living for children in poverty than you expect for those same children

Irritates the f*ck out of [you]

?

What it says about me is that I have a different opinion on things.

Compare £17,000 pa to the equivalent salary in Jamaica.

£17,000pa
£1,174.34 per month
£271.00 per week

It's not a lot, I'm not sure I'd call it poverty. I wouldn't want to raise a family on that though, certainly not in London. I'm sure in some towns hit hard by the economic downturn there would be those that'd say "It's a job and it pays, more than I can say for me, I been unemployed for years and had to raise three kids". - That to me would be more like poverty.

It's a little like people saying their starving, you are not starving, you are hungry. Poor.

clarkey cat

absolutely GTV. My bro and his missus work their effing socks off, both full time, with 2 kids and they are hand to mouth. Whereas my aunty has 3 kids (2 dads) has never worked a day in her life and can afford foreign holidays and new cars. she even has savings!!!!