Gransnet forums

News & politics

Tory welfare cuts will impoverish 200,000 children next year and more than 600,00 in 2020

(699 Posts)
Gracesgran Thu 08-Oct-15 21:49:08

The Resolution Foundation has found that Tory welfare cuts will impoverish 200,000 children next year and more than 600,00 in 2020.
Their report can be found here and starts:

Measures announced at the Summer Budget are expected to significantly increase the number of children (and households) living in poverty (households with less than 60 per cent of median income). Despite positive action on low pay, cuts to working age benefits mean that most of this increase is expected to be among those living in working households.

Their worry is that this will go unnoticed because "The Welfare Reform and Employment Bill removes the requirement on Government to meet the 2020 child poverty target established in the Child Poverty Act 2010."

etheltbags1 Thu 08-Oct-15 21:54:36

What is child poverty, how can you have children in poverty surely the parents are in poverty too. This puzzles me, why don't they just term it 'poverty'.
If the children are in poverty and the parents aren't then it should be called 'child neglect'.

Gracesgran Thu 08-Oct-15 22:18:53

Does it matter at this point ethelbags1 or would you like to argue about it while these children slip into poverty because of the Tory budget measures.

Your comment appears to show a greater need to protect the Tory reputation than to find out just what the results of their measures will be on children.

durhamjen Thu 08-Oct-15 22:20:03

That's just silly. It means families in poverty.

I have just read htis as well, about the self employed. Apparently when the new minimum wage comes in, it is going to be assumed that all self-employed pay themselves the minimum wage, whether they are earning enough to do so or not.
That means they will lose benefits based on the minimum wage.

For your information, ethel, they might have children, who will be in poverty along with their parents.
However, this government, the party of the working people, is changing the definition of poverty so it does not include how much money goes into the household. How cynical can you get. That will actually mean there are no children in poverty.

Ana Thu 08-Oct-15 22:25:19

I'd still like to hear a definition of 'poverty', I've read so many different versions in the past. Some of those definitions include the inability to afford a yearly family holiday, which would certainly have put my family into that category when the children were young. And indeed, my own DD as a single parent now.

Can someone please explain the definition of poverty, in words please, not by a link.

Luckygirl Thu 08-Oct-15 22:30:31

I think the definition is a bit more scientific than that!

As I understand it it refers to families whose income is 60% or less of the average income in UK.

The current government is seeking to change this definition so that fewer families appear to be poor.

Gracesgran Thu 08-Oct-15 22:34:13

Ana yet another who appears not to care whether the children are actually in poverty but puts knowledge of the definition as a point of argument. If you want to know it in detail and then perhaps reassure us that children are not actually suffering from these changes then surely you can look it up.

Gracesgran Thu 08-Oct-15 22:37:27

Or Ana and ethelbags you could read the OP - you don't even need to read the report, it tells you there.

You seem to want to defend the something that is indefensible surely to most people unless it is untrue. Show that and your posts would have some value.

durhamjen Thu 08-Oct-15 22:38:36

Who would you believe, Ana?

Ana Thu 08-Oct-15 22:43:25

What a presumptious statement, Gracesgran. Just because I ask for a defninition of 'poverty' I'm accused of 'appearing not to care'.

At the moment it is just a statement that's being presented as a fact. If the 60% rule as stated by Luckygirl is true then I know plenty of families in that position who would certainly not regard their families as being 'in poverty'.

durhamjen Thu 08-Oct-15 22:54:32

Not for you, Ana. Institute of Fiscal Studies figures.

There are lots of other disturbing figures and links on their website. Not that the government ever believes them.

Gracesgran Thu 08-Oct-15 23:03:40

It was not in the least presumptuous Ana. You said nothing about any anxiety you may have if the numbers are going to grow in this way so I did not need to presume, you had expressed what was your uppermost concern.

I am sorry if your family did not have holidays but, of course I have no idea if this way by choice because you considered other things more important or because you had no choice. I you were, indeed, as poor as these families you, and especially your children, should have received help but two wrongs never make a right.

You then said Can someone please explain the definition of poverty, in words please, not by a link. I had taken the trouble to offer the forum information. I copied enough to give you an idea of the subject. As someone recently said elsewhere, other forum members are not here to feed you information. If you want to make informed comment you need to inform yourself and this means reading the post you are answering which actually contained the information you wanted. If you cannot be bothered to either read the post or do your own research do not expect your arguments to be taken seriously.

I am horrified and angry about what the Tories are doing. I have shared the information that has created some of that horror and anger. What have you added?

durhamjen Thu 08-Oct-15 23:11:55

Good heavens, Melanie Philips has just said about this on Question Time and used IFS figures. She says that Osborne pinched Labour's idea on the living wage and used it to mask the effects of the cuts, arguing with Priti Patel.

Ana Thu 08-Oct-15 23:14:06

I have offered no argument, Gracesgran, I merely asked for information. My family had to forego holidays because household bill-paying was my priority, since you express an interest.

I have, as I said before, read various definitions of 'poverty' and am still confused - I'm terribly sorry if I didn't express shock horror concern about the state of the nation. I'll leave you to your self-righteous indignation.

Gracesgran Thu 08-Oct-15 23:20:19

I was not interested Ana. It is personal to you and not relevant to what is about to happen but you had introduced it so I thought it polite to acknowledge what you had said.

Look it up Ana I am not employed as your researcher.

durhamjen Thu 08-Oct-15 23:26:17

You can look at my link if you want.

durhamjen Fri 09-Oct-15 00:23:09

The DWP has got a 152 page document on it, if you really want figures and a definition from the horse's mouth. Of course, being DWP, the figures will be doctored by IDS.
He blames 9/11 for him not being a very good leader of the Tory party.

whitewave Fri 09-Oct-15 07:18:24

So 60% of the national average is something over 15000 pa. I did a little exercise earlier in the year assuming a family was on something like 20000 or so if my memory is correct.
Life was pretty difficult at that level, so one can only imagine what life is like at the poverty level. And this Rabble who call themselves our government is going to take awAy eve more from these folk, saying it is a difficult decision! How dare they!
They are destroyers of family life, imagine the stress and distress one must be under trying to bring up your precious children on such an income.

Ceesnan Fri 09-Oct-15 07:31:55

Well, this is a fine example of kind, generous GNetters isn't it.....NOT! A member asks for clarification and is then subjected to patronising and downright rude comments. You should be ashamed of yourselves, but you are probably too busy stirring your cauldrons angry

Gracesgran Fri 09-Oct-15 07:55:03

How was I rude ceesnan . I do not have the do what other's can do for themselves but others have offered links. Apparently this is not good enough and other posters are expected to spoonfeed the information. It is pretty arrogant, in my view to suggest my time is worth so much less that, although the poster cannot be bothered to follow a link and read for herself I or a other forum member should do it for her. The poster has been given a simple explanation and link to more detail, but apparently this is not enough.

whitewave Fri 09-Oct-15 07:59:18

Attacking the messengers cess does not destroy the message, that is what is important. Think of those children.

Gracesgran Fri 09-Oct-15 07:59:27

I feel very inclined to report your post. There is no need for the "stirring the cauldron's" remark.

nigglynellie Fri 09-Oct-15 08:14:07

ceesnan.. This kind of patronising attitude is something that a lot of us on GN have come to expect and that is why we are beginning to avoid these sort of discussions altogether, you just can't win, there's no point bothering, any point you make will just be shouted down! For the record DH and I brought both our children up on a very low income, no government help.of any kind in those days, No family allowance for the first child (remember that anyone?). We didn't have a family holiday for years, clothes from the charity shop, and meals courtesy of my invaluable pressure cooker!!! We didn't consider ourselves as poor, a lot of our friends were in the same position, thanks to the winter of discontent, and the economy of this country being completely trashed by the then labour government. We made the best of things, our children knew they were loved and treasured, and that, as they've since told us numerous times, more than made up for lack of material 'things'. At times it as tough, DH was made redundant and had to take whatever job he could find, and I worked in the evenings and weekends, but we managed and actually felt quite proud of ourselves, but then of course we were war babies and had been brought up to cope in times of difficulty, and not to expect the state to keep us.

soontobe Fri 09-Oct-15 08:24:11

No one can properly discuss anything if a definition is not clarified from the outset.

Otherwise, miscommunications abound.

Gracesgran Fri 09-Oct-15 08:45:53

I am having a great deal of difficulty with this site on my laptop so this may or may not post.

Whitewave is right. Most of the posts (and I have allowed myself to be caught up in it) have aimed of the topic. Which is:

A well known and respected body, using statistical analysis accepted by all governments until the Tories decide to change it in the last few months (although we don't know what to) have said that Tory welfare cuts will impoverish 200,000 children next year and more than 600,00 in 2020.

The children should be what we are thinking about surely.