How did we get to this?

I was talking to an acquaintance recently, a nutritionist, who said that there is concern about the ' children of 'museli' parents (her words). These parent are so into 'body perfect' that their children, from very early ages are food wary. This leads to some children being referred due to poor diet: lack of fats and calcium plus lack of energy due to low carb diets!. Developing children need a good balance of carbs /fats/ proteins/minerals etc. Some kids are missing out because of poverty and others through parental ignorance!

Nelliemoser, the actual report does not come out until tomorrow.

www.childrenssociety.org.uk/news-and-blogs/press-releases/Tens-of-millions-of-pounds-of-emergency-support-for-disadvantaged-families-at-risk

As if they do not have enough problems, the government is trying to stop this fund from next April. How dare they?

As whitewave says, if you think this is bad, what is it going to be like when they've made another £30 billion worth of cuts.

Penstemmon Quite a few years go I encountered concern from a school about the welfare and weight of two children who were doing a lot of gymnastics at a very high level.

Probably a pushy sporty mum worried about the children becoming overweight but it did raise some concerns regarding the children's welfare.

Nobody could agree that any children should go hungry [especially in the West, where they certainly shouldn't.]But the buck has to stop at the parents door.We grew up very poor indeed, but I had free school dinners and whatever was on offer for tea.I was neither very thin nor overweight, probably just right.I didn't fill up on biscuits, cakes, crisps and pizza [no pizza back then, but we only had the other things as a treat.]I wasn't starving, but I was sometimes on the hungry side.Our Mother put us first [and would be hungry herself at times.] Whatever we had she would spend on the 'table'. No alchohol, nights out or trips to the hairdresser or nail bar, clothes from second hand shops for herself [and us.] We managed, like many others.Poor families now get help, far more than we did back then.If all Mothers put their children first and stopped spending money on items they don't actually need [as opposed to want] they would do better.Then there would be fewer malnourished children around.This may not be a popular view on here, but it's easy to blame the world and not look at parents behaviour. Cigarettes, alchohol, drugs,
nailbars [I mean why?] large tv sets, nights out, clothes, you name it, people have to have it, even when they are on a limited budget.
I think there are more selfish and feckless parents around than people imagine.

This goverment has to make cuts all round. The next government, possibly a Labour one, will also have to continue making cuts all round.Eventually the economy will come right, it's already getting a little better.The poor will continue to be supported, both those on benefits [though a lot will be told to work if they can, and why not?] and those low paid workers as well. It's never been easy for everyone to live, and there has never been a time when all had plenty, but it seems fair to me.
Low interest rates for years, for those with a mortgage, help with nursery fees, food prices have remained stable too.Very cheap clothing from China[Primark]and lots of charity shops to buy both furniture, goods and clothes.Everyone has to cut their coat according to their cloth.

this is all so sad and makes me very angry. Irrespective of the skills or lack of/fecklessness or whatever of the parents ( and I dont think that is the case in the majority) no child should be malnourished in this country. It is all very well being told that cheap cuts of meat are more nutritious and can be cooked slowly with root veg, lentils etc., but if you are worrying about your power running out and only have a poorly stocked overpriced local shop to buy your food in, it ain't going to happen! All children should be taught domestic science, this is not just a female responsibility. I really do fear that if we have a cold winter it is going to be dire for many people, choosing whether to eat or keep warm.

It is all very well saying what parents on a low income should do but this is not speaking from an informed position because how many of us on GN actually know what low income families earn and have to spend on things like rent etc. before even beginning to consider food.

Good posts GillT57 and whitewave.

No child should be malnourished in the UK, whatever the reasons behind that. We're facing swinging cuts on both statutory and voluntary services. We have housing policies that ship vulnerable families from the London Boroughs to the north west and east, because rented accommodation is cheaper. Councils in the poor areas have been hardest hit by the cuts, as has the community they serve.

Rosesarered, I haven't seen any denials here that there are a few feckless individuals in our society. Always have been, always will be sadly. I feel I'm living in a book like Angela's Ashes, or something written by Dickens when I listen to the justifications for hurting the poorest hardest.

We dehumanise people at our peril.

It seems to me that the only cuts that are being made are those that affect ordinary people and, in particular, poorer people. The so-called cost cutting measures have included:

Re-organisation of the NHS - costing an estimated £3 billion (and this doesn't include the additional, ongoing costs that have arisen from this re-organisation - e.g. £2.5 billion for agency nurses);

The cuts In Legal Aid which have in fact cost more money because people are turning up at Court with no legal representation and there are now frequent adjournments (but solicitors and barristers still have to be paid for their attendances);

The handover of Court interpreting services to ALS (now owned by Capita) about which the Justice Select Committee commented that the interpreters "appear to be costing more money and yet have reduced service delivery to an unacceptably low level". Translation were reported to have gone from £7.9 million in 2012 to £15.5 million the following year.

Revenue & Customs have missed target for prosecution of tax evaders. The estimated annual loss is £35 billion.

A fall in income tax receipts due to the increasing numbers of people in low-paid jobs (and on top of that, the cost of topping up low wages);

The "Big Society Network" which is being investigated by the Charity Commission over allegations that it misused government funding of £2.5 million. It has now been wound up, having used most of the money on projects that failed to deliver.

The estimated £1 billion lost through under-pricing Royal Mail;

An estimated £4 billion per year in subsidies to the rail industry;

£3.7 billion on the Help to Buy scheme which has, as warned, severely inflated house prices and further destabilised the market;

The ever-expanding House of Lords, which now contains almost 800 members (each of whom can turn up, sign in, fall asleep or go home, and be paid £300 (tax free) per day.

And of course the £200 billion's worth of "quantitive easing" by which we paid off the banks' gambling debts - some economists are now warning that the market may require further "quantitive easing".

So, times have been good for those at the top who seem to have no qualms about paying themselves more and more whilst using every trick in the book to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Meanwhile, people on low incomes are accused of buying themselves flat screen TVs instead of feeding their children.

Couldn't agree with you more Eloethan

Thanks Eloethan, I do wish you were in Parliament.

Your post would fit well on the And Another Thing thread where some posters seem to support the cuts and show total disregard for the destructive impact they are having.