Child poverty in the UK?

davmaggs

gtvlusso wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

I was talking to an experienced professional working in this very area only this morning.

I found out that is not uncommon for children taken away from their parents (into care due to neglect) to be found hoarding food in their rooms or pockets, or to go through the carpet looking for leftovers when left for a few minutes in a meeting room. And this goes on many many months since they were taken away.

I cannot imagine watching a child or teenager rummaging around in my carpet looking for crumbs.

This isn't typically about money, it is due to their parent(s) starving them as they spend their cash on themselves. You could double benefits tomorrow and those children would still be looking through bins.

Extreme, but I agree with you in essence - Sh1t parenting is a huge factor. parents who are too stupid to know about what is important or simply do not care and make out that it is someone else's fault....

Apparently these are well known traits, nothing unusual at all. This tells me that this isn't a rare case or two, but is in such sufficient volumes that its standard and of no surprise to those people dealing with those families.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Paulie W wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Quite interested in views from across the L-R spectrum on the following:

If you claim food from a food bank
- and you smoke, you should have to give up smoking before you can claim food
- and you pay for subscription TV, you should have to give up your TV sub before you can claim food
- and you have a job, you should be entitled to money counselling

There are obviously lots of "and you" options that could be added, but let's start with these two.

- and you can't count to three.

Yes, yes, very good, well done.

Just start with the first two, and if you have enough time at the end, have a go at the third one.

BelgianBeerGeek

Nowt new there then. Child poverty has always existed, and there have always been good and bad parents. Money isn't always the issue. Giving more to parents who prefer to drink cider/smoke weed all day will only go on those things. Same if you cut it. If benefits go from £100 a week to £80, how many of those type of parents would think "I'd better not have a beer today, then"?
The problem is those on lower incomes who are doing their best but are getting squeezed. Wages are not going up, benefits certainly aren't and everything is getting more expensive. Something has to give.

bompington

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Wages are not going up, benefits certainly aren't and everything is getting more expensive. Something has to give.

Just as long as it's not the Sky subscription or the fags

rjsterry

SimonAH wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

My patner is a social worker. I can assure you that there is poverty in the UK. You need to see the world slightly differently (eg using social work case files as a prism perhaps) but poverty is plentiful. The welfare state is goo in principle, but it is complex and does not account for human failings. Children are reliant on adults to claim the right things and then to spend it right. There are shark landlords out there, addiction issues and frankly intelligence limitations to fully availing ones self of the welfare state. It's also perfectly possibly to be working and in poverty, because you are outside of the system or you fall between the cracks in the system.

Is there child poverty in the old eastern Europe? If you believe that there is, it follows that it also exists in some parts of the UK which are equally deprived.

OK, I agree that if you don't help yourself (or even wander into a CAB office and say "can I have some help please?" ) then there are cracks that can be fallen through.

I believe that my opening post was tempered with 'compos mentis' however. If you're suitably impaired by heavy substance abuse you're not going to have it easy - but, truthfully, that's usually self inflicted. If you're mentally impaired then you need social care (which presumably comes with benefit advice?) not a food bank.

The article that RC linked to, whilst very good, basically implied that the majority go to the food bank to tide themselves over whilst social services paperwork got sorted out, or because their benefits were being sucked into servicing high interest debt.

I'm doing OK. Yes RJSTerry I do have a few bikes and a decent house. It is beside the point that there have been numerous periods over the years when money has been too tight to mention (there have been a few oven chip meals in my life too) BUT to call those in receipt of the UK bnefit system without other modifiers such as a smack habit as being in poverty seems rather ludicrous.

I believe fully in a duty of social care for the vulnerable, and don't begrudge the massive fraction of my taxes that go to support it (the cost of the benefits system equates very neatly to 100% of the entire VAT revenue for the country BTW) but poverty? C'mon.

Surprised it took a couple of pages for that one to get a bite . Whether you want to call it poverty or just "very short of money" is beside the point. Children shouldn't be going hungry in this country. Clearly a government needs to have a specific definition of a minimum level of income, below which help is needed, and it has to call that threshold something.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

Children shouldn't be going hungry in this country.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that sentiment, but isn't the issue whether they are going hungry because they are in a family which genuinely does not have enough income to feed its members, or that they are going hungry because the person(s) in charge of the family income are making poor decisions as to how it should be spent?

BelgianBeerGeek

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Children shouldn't be going hungry in this country.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that sentiment, but isn't the issue whether they are going hungry because they are in a family which genuinely does not have enough income to feed its members, or that they are going hungry because the person(s) in charge of the family income are making poor decisions as to how it should be spent?

But the child is still hungry. Whilst you are are debating whether the guvmit is to blame or feckless parents, the child needs to eat. Hence concentrating on that part of it. It isn't the kid's fault, after all.

rubertoe

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Children shouldn't be going hungry in this country.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that sentiment, but isn't the issue whether they are going hungry because they are in a family which genuinely does not have enough income to feed its members, or that they are going hungry because the person(s) in charge of the family income are making poor decisions as to how it should be spent?

But the child is still hungry. Whilst you are are debating whether the guvmit is to blame or feckless parents, the child needs to eat. Hence concentrating on that part of it. It isn't the kid's fault, after all.

Food Vouchers instead of Beer Tokens

greg66_tri_v2.0

rubertoe wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Children shouldn't be going hungry in this country.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that sentiment, but isn't the issue whether they are going hungry because they are in a family which genuinely does not have enough income to feed its members, or that they are going hungry because the person(s) in charge of the family income are making poor decisions as to how it should be spent?

But the child is still hungry. Whilst you are are debating whether the guvmit is to blame or feckless parents, the child needs to eat. Hence concentrating on that part of it. It isn't the kid's fault, after all.

Food Vouchers instead of Beer Tokens

Given direct to the children? Bypassing the parents? Nice if it could work that way.

bompington

rubertoe wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Children shouldn't be going hungry in this country.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that sentiment, but isn't the issue whether they are going hungry because they are in a family which genuinely does not have enough income to feed its members, or that they are going hungry because the person(s) in charge of the family income are making poor decisions as to how it should be spent?

But the child is still hungry. Whilst you are are debating whether the guvmit is to blame or feckless parents, the child needs to eat. Hence concentrating on that part of it. It isn't the kid's fault, after all.

Food Vouchers instead of Beer Tokens

I've got an idea - we could set up charities where people who were hungry could go to get food. We could call them "food banks" or something like that.

greg66_tri_v2.0

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

But the child is still hungry. Whilst you are are debating whether the guvmit is to blame or feckless parents, the child needs to eat. Hence concentrating on that part of it. It isn't the kid's fault, after all.

Where that problem exists, it is very acute.

In all seriousness, what is the solution there though? Take the child into care? Feed them under supervision? Something else?

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Children shouldn't be going hungry in this country.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that sentiment, but isn't the issue whether they are going hungry because they are in a family which genuinely does not have enough income to feed its members, or that they are going hungry because the person(s) in charge of the family income are making poor decisions as to how it should be spent?

It's obviously a mixture of both, though the second is plenty harder to qualify for many many reasons, and is likely to be the minority, despite the anecdotes you read in the paper and on here.

rjsterry

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Children shouldn't be going hungry in this country.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that sentiment, but isn't the issue whether they are going hungry because they are in a family which genuinely does not have enough income to feed its members, or that they are going hungry because the person(s) in charge of the family income are making poor decisions as to how it should be spent?

But the child is still hungry. Whilst you are are debating whether the guvmit is to blame or feckless parents, the child needs to eat. Hence concentrating on that part of it. It isn't the kid's fault, after all.

Quite. The primary issue is the malnutrition. The causes - could it possibly be more complex than the nice binary choice of bad government or bad parents? - are an important issue but secondary to the child's need for food.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Children shouldn't be going hungry in this country.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that sentiment, but isn't the issue whether they are going hungry because they are in a family which genuinely does not have enough income to feed its members, or that they are going hungry because the person(s) in charge of the family income are making poor decisions as to how it should be spent?

It's obviously a mixture of both, though the second is plenty harder to qualify for many many reasons, and is likely to be the minority, despite the anecdotes you read in the paper and on here.

What makes you say that: empirical evidence; impression; anecdotal evidence; other?

clarkey cat

bompington wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Wages are not going up, benefits certainly aren't and everything is getting more expensive. Something has to give.

Just as long as it's not the Sky subscription or the fags

you should go into politics Bompington.

bompington

clarkey cat wrote:

bompington wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Wages are not going up, benefits certainly aren't and everything is getting more expensive. Something has to give.

Just as long as it's not the Sky subscription or the fags

you should go into politics Bompington.

Damn, someone discovered my secret identity

Dave

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Children shouldn't be going hungry in this country.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that sentiment, but isn't the issue whether they are going hungry because they are in a family which genuinely does not have enough income to feed its members, or that they are going hungry because the person(s) in charge of the family income are making poor decisions as to how it should be spent?

It's obviously a mixture of both, though the second is plenty harder to qualify for many many reasons, and is likely to be the minority, despite the anecdotes you read in the paper and on here.

What makes you say that: empirical evidence; impression; anecdotal evidence; other?

Depends how you define it, you can swing it anyway you want. Take a look at the Paul Mason article.

RJS is right. It's all about the kids getting fed, clothed etc.

The blame game is a little fruitless. Everyone has their own axe to grind on that one and it doesn't solve the problem.

People need to accept that some people are better parents than others, and when the parenting is a problem, the state should intervene. That doesn't always mean social services. It may just mean a bit of financial support and guidance.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

But the child is still hungry. Whilst you are are debating whether the guvmit is to blame or feckless parents, the child needs to eat. Hence concentrating on that part of it. It isn't the kid's fault, after all.

Where that problem exists, it is very acute.

In all seriousness, what is the solution there though? Take the child into care? Feed them under supervision? Something else?

According to the Mason article, a few things.

Don't stop benefits to families who will be forced to go to the foodbank if they're without them.

When downturns occur, focus more heavily on cracking down on things like loan sharks.

If the article is correct re-pay-day loans, legislate against those etc.

clarkey cat

part of the problem is that children can more easily slip through the cracks now as the close-knit communities of yesteryear are just that, history. The days when a village of people, who all worked at the same factory or mine and all looked out for each others kids are gone. They are replaced with huge pockets of unemployment, ensuing social isues of crime, drugs, obesity and everyone is looking out for number 1. The ones that cant, or wont, are left by the wayside: branded lazy, feckless, irresponsible scum.

jonginge

Recently seen some of the tv ads for payday loans during the vuelta highlights: 1700% APR. Oh em gee

walkingbootweather

Greg66 wrote:

In all seriousness, what is the solution there though? Take the child into care?

Don't be ridiculous. If you took the children into care who would program Sky+?

More seriously when the Welfare Reform Act starts to bite next year things are going to get a whole lot worse.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Children shouldn't be going hungry in this country.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that sentiment, but isn't the issue whether they are going hungry because they are in a family which genuinely does not have enough income to feed its members, or that they are going hungry because the person(s) in charge of the family income are making poor decisions as to how it should be spent?

It's obviously a mixture of both, though the second is plenty harder to qualify for many many reasons, and is likely to be the minority, despite the anecdotes you read in the paper and on here.

Even if it was a 50/50 split between the two, has any government in any era managed to tackle bad parenting at source? We've become better at picking up the pieces but there's no realistic way of stopping people who aren't prime parenting material from having children.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Children shouldn't be going hungry in this country.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that sentiment, but isn't the issue whether they are going hungry because they are in a family which genuinely does not have enough income to feed its members, or that they are going hungry because the person(s) in charge of the family income are making poor decisions as to how it should be spent?

It's obviously a mixture of both, though the second is plenty harder to qualify for many many reasons, and is likely to be the minority, despite the anecdotes you read in the paper and on here.

Even if it was a 50/50 split between the two, has any government in any era managed to tackle bad parenting at source? We've become better at picking up the pieces but there's no realistic way of stopping people who aren't prime parenting material from having children.

True.

clarkey cat

far be it from me to defend payday loan companies the APR figures do massively distort the true cost of credit. APR is a calculation which based on the interest rate for a set period, plus any othr charges for the period, extrapolated over a full year (including compounding at the end of each set period).

So, if I lent you a tenner for a week with an interest charge of £1 and an admin fee of £1, that is 20% over a week roughly. Even without compounding that comes out at over 1000% pa.

Compare that against unauthorised overdraft charges (another source of funds for someone cash-strapped at the end of the month)- say £12 flat fee and 30% p.a. default rate. You go over by £1 for 1 week.
Extrapolate that over a year... and its about 70,000% APR.

woodnut

Just read through the thread......

clarkey cat wrote:

There are tens of thousands of parents in this country who don't give a toss about their kids. They see them as a hindrance to the lifestyle they believe they should lead.

steady on mate, not everyone who sends their kids to boarding school is like that.

Brilliant

jedster

If the article is correct re-pay-day loans, legislate against those etc.

To pick up on this specific point but also generalise it, you have to be really careful about the reaction
x is bad
something should be done
let's get the Government to outlaw it

What would happen if we legislated against pay-day loans? Very much the same success as legislating against heroin. The business would move into the shadows where really nasty people use more aggressive approaches than guilt trips to make people pay up.

I also dislike the use of the word poverty, particulary when they don't say what they really mean which is "relative poverty" or low income. I do think we should (and do) have a safety net which is sufficient* to keep families WELL ABOVE what most of would regard at absolute poverty.
*provided parents are not totally irresponsible
We will never be able to prevent truly feckless parents from leaving their kids in a parlous state. Somethings we can do - free school meals is the obvious one. The whole point of them is to ensure that every kid, however bad things are at home, gets at least one proper meal.

I'm afraid that I think on balance the sanction approach that penalises people for not looking for work is necessary despite the consequences. I also think we need the food banks as a back stop so that the pnalty is not TOO severe, particularly on kids who are not at fault. I'm going to make a donation to a relevant charity today.

J

woodnut

I'd be interested to know if anyone on here actually, personally, knows someone who deliberately stays on benefit and deliberately avoids work. I'd be prepared to bet there's not many. Read about it in the Mail/Express/Telegraph whatever, "heard about someone from a friend of a friend," maybe.
Most of us are just a redundancy letter, or even a big interest hike away from being plunged into what we would certainly experience as poverty, relative or not.
Subjectively (and remembering I live oop North), I certainly seem to be seeing a lot more poverty than in the last 15 years.

daviesee

woodnut wrote:

I'd be interested to know if anyone on here actually, personally, knows someone who deliberately stays on benefit and deliberately avoids work. I'd be prepared to bet there's not many. Read about it in the Mail/Express/Telegraph whatever, "heard about someone from a friend of a friend," maybe.
Most of us are just a redundancy letter, or even a big interest hike away from being plunged into what we would certainly experience as poverty, relative or not.
Subjectively (and remembering I live oop North), I certainly seem to be seeing a lot more poverty than in the last 15 years.

My sister.
My sister's friend.
My stepson's son's mother.
Her brother.
There's 4 to be going on with.....
Edit:- Oh, and the 22 year old next door. Make that 5. Probably more.....

bompington

woodnut wrote:

I'd be interested to know if anyone on here actually, personally, knows someone who deliberately stays on benefit and deliberately avoids work.

I do. I teach their kids, and if I could tell you (I wouldn't be allowed to, not even heavily anonymised) the stories of extreme fecklessness that I have seen, it might turn you into someone who considers the Mail a bit pinko.
Except that in a lot of cases, it's all they learned from their feckless parents, and so on ad infinitum.

jedster

woodnut,

There was a really good/serious BBC documentary (or Newsnight special?) a couple of years ago that showed a bunch of focus group discussions between a US academic specialising in welfare/work and groups of people living on benefits in various parts of the country. It really wasn't going for Daily Hell headlines. It was exploring the question of whether society should allow people to choose to live on benefits or require them to go out and work if they possibly can.

What was striking is that many of the focus group members expressed the view that it was unreasonable to ask them to work for 110 if they could stay at home and get 100 on benfits (all net of costs). They used quite strong language about minimum wage jobs describing the pay as ridiculous. Note we're not talking about people LOSING money by working just not really earning enough extra to justify them getting up/ stepping away from the TV/etc.

The academic explained that in the US society had decided that people had a moral duty to earn money rather than live of other people if they could. Choosing to live on benefits was not an option. The focus groups were not impressed!

So to answer your question, I don't personally know people who choose to live on benefits rather than work but I really think they do exist. It must be true or we wouldnt have to bring in labour from Romania to pick fruit etc.

J