The U.K. in 2019 -

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Well JN, we don't get off to a good start with " typical response".

I feel anger and shame that the 4th/5th richest country in the world has poverty. This is not some made up point scoring. I think we can assume that those who write the reports on child poverty know what they are talking about.

You also know nothing about me. I have never in my life attended a socialist march and taken money from the state. I have worked and my husband worked very very hard for 40 years. My 2 sons have never , ever been without employment, possibly as a result of having it drilled into them from an early age that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

I don't see entitled overweight children. I see the gap between rich and poor widening,those who have, sitting at home gloating over TV programmes like " Can't Pay, we'll Take it away". I see very little social mobility.Please, how can a child who isn't fed and spoken to and loved possibly " compete" with one from the higher echelons?
The state has a duty of care, a duty to provide a leg up , to care, to give hope. Not to batter down the products of our rampant consumerism and spite even more.

Lily65
Typical response.
You know nothing of my life to be judgemental regarding my responses.
I believe in a social state however i also believe in social responsibility. I have within my extended family people who consider themselves fully paid up socialists who enjoy a good march to show their sincerity who have never put a penny into to the social pot but have taken every available penny out. I have socialist family members who will only work part time and then will stop working so they get all taxes refunded.
I feel sad that we should encourage people to come and work here and pay taxes to keep people like my family members better off than those currently paying taxes and millions like me who have worked continuously since 16years of age, experienced true poverty in the early years, but worked our way out of it. The workers of my family wonder where we went wrong. I may come across jealous, I am not. I am sad for hard working taxpayers especially those who work full time but who do not claim benefit. I am sad for the truly sick and disabled who are now having to go through the hoops to prove their illnesses because the feckless spoilt it for them. I am sad that taxpayers have to support the low paid in work when it should be an employers responsibility to pay a decent wage.
I think the breakdown of community and family is sad and has impacted severely on social cohesion.
I am very grateful for contraception, but the reduction in family size has resulted in prince and princess children with overblown sense if entitlement (and often waistlines). This is not just UK, The single child polucy led to many entitled overweight children.
I am sad that our grandchildren are not having resilience built into them, I worry if they cannot cope with life now how they would cope if we ever had another war. I am sad how advertising and peer pressure is turning much of our society into Sheeple and that true freedom to be different is being suppressed in favour of 'offence of the month'.

What would your answer be?

joelsnan I think that you might find it has been answered in various academic studies.

What might they be JN?....Why feckless mothers have loads of babies and scrounge off the state? That kind of thing?

Or why poor people can't get on a bike and get a job like my Grandfather did? That kind of thing?

GracesGranMK3
The thing that makes me really angry about this sort of post is that generally, while the writer is quite capable of learning about the challenges of being close to destitution in the 21st century, they just talk about their own self-perceived superior morality and chose not to even think about what it actually means to those trying to organise their lives in the chaos inflicted on them by this government

Whilst the government departments have some culpability with employing agencies to conduct a tick box approach to the benefits system, I do not think that this is the core problem.
There is a major societal question to be asked and addressed.

Many of the comments on this thread condemning the parents remind me of the Victorians and the deserving and undeserving poor. I thought we had moved on from that and recognised that the only way is to help families because this means those children will have a better future.

I agree completely that children turning up at school hungry, angry and confused is down to Rubbish parenting and only that, blaming any government for neglectful parents is ridiculous. … As far as I know there are still free meals for those on very low incomes

The thing that makes me really angry about this sort of post is that generally, while the writer is quite capable of learning about the challenges of being close to destitution in the 21st century, they just talk about their own self-perceived superior morality and chose not to even think about what it actually means to those trying to organise their lives in the chaos inflicted on them by this government.

whitewavemark2, many thanks for posting the MEN article and for your other posts on this thread.
I despair at those who repeat the mantra 'we were poor but not neglected'. I suspect most of those who post on this forum had much less materially than our own children did and that our grandchildren have more than their parents did. We are fortunate indeed.
Anyone who has worked with the families described in the MEN article will be aware that the austerity approach has added to the dreadful life experiences of so many children and families. Poverty isn't just about having not enough money, its about poverty of existence. Mental health problems are high, amongst parents who have no hope of secure accommodation. Their children stand out at school, not because their parents don't love them and do their best for them.
You are right, the article could have been written by Engels during his time in Manchester. Where are the Rowntrees, the Cadbury's - the wealthy like so many posters here, seem to believe that the welfare state will provide.

Viewing the governments proposal to “consult” on the section 21 housing act with a high degree of scepticism would be quite rational.

Last April, and with huge fanfare and fuss the government launched powers to ban slum landlords, estimating that there were at least 10500 causing untold misery to families all over the U.K.

Number banned to date ...........................0

Next I want to address the assumption that if a child living in poverty has behavioural problems, or poor health and other indicators listed above, it is somehow as a result of poor parenting. How often do we read statements like “we were poor, but our parents always made sure we were fed and clothed” or “ bad behaviour is entirely down to poor parenting”

There are numerous studies which directly contradict this claim, including research by the BMA into poverty and health outcomes, but I have used just one produced by the LSE entitled “Income directly affects children’s outcomes”

It begins
“Poorer children have worse cognitive, social behavioural and health outcomes because they are poor , and not just because poverty is correlated to other household and parental characteristics.

It goes on to show that there is abundant evidence that children growing up in poverty do less well than their peers in a wide range of indicators including health and education.

So why does money matter? The reports conclusion is clear
There is a strong causal link between income and childhood outcomes.
Why?
Income is important for a child’s cognitive health, physical health, and social and behavioural development.
A family in poverty is unable to invest in goods and services that further a child’s development and the whole family is affected by parental stress and anxiety in trying to manage on a low income. Parental anxiety and depression is played out in the child’s behaviour. There is very strong evidence to show that increased income drastically reduces maternal depression, a major factor in childhood outcomes.

The report concludes that any reduction in poverty would have important and measurable affect on childhood environment and development.

Given the rise in poverty brought about by the ideological stance of the Tory government, and much steeper rises projected for the next few years reports like these could not be more important.

Engels and Rowntree could have written this article.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/homeless-children-manchester-living-dire-15510000

GrannyGravy13 You say "leave it to the businessmen who know what they're doing".

You mean private businesses like this:

"The bosses of England’s privatised water companies have been criticised for banking £58m in pay and benefits over the last five years while customers have been faced with above-inflation rises in their water bills." ......

"Household water bills have risen by 40% above inflation since the industry was privatised in 1989, according to a National Audit Office report." (Guardian June 2018)

or:

"Experts have blasted Marks & Spencer for 'rewarding failure' as successive bosses pocketed nearly £28million in pay amid a long-term profits slump and a £7billion drop in the retailer's value.

"M&S's profits have slumped by 93 per cent to just £66.8million during a decade of decline as it struggles to stay competitive." (This is Money January 2019)

or:

"When ministers decided to part-privatise the probation system six years ago, they promised to inject “innovation and dynamism” into a struggling sector.

"The collapse last week of Working Links, a key provider, revealed the very opposite: a company crumbling under the financial strain of three lossmaking contracts, managing ex-offenders so poorly that public safety was in jeopardy." (Financial Times February 2019)

The list is endless. Not very impressive is it. Senior executives and CEOs being awarded huge pay rises for poor performance and whose principal method of cutting costs is to sack workers and/or reduce quality.

On the face of it, the proposed consultation re more protection for tenants is a bold step. Given that there are now many people in private rented accommodation, I suspect May is trying to soften the "nasty party" image of the Conservatives because the party is in great disarray and is increasingly losing support.

Nevertheless, I thought, if things improve for tenants that is good. But an article by Vicky Spratt in The I today made me wonder whether this is yet another proposed initiative which is (1) not all that it is dressed up to be and (2) one of those initiatives that seem to be quietly buried. Some extracts from the article:

"As with the letting fee ban, the devil is in the detail. Look closely, and it's clear that the government has been careful to reassure landlords that "ministers will amend the Section 8 eviction process" - so a landlord can evict their tenant if they want to move back in themselves or sell up".

That sounded reasonable to me - there must be some provision for landlords to move into the property or sell it if they need to. However, the article goes on:

"How will they make sure this doesn't become a loophole? Who will enforce it? After all, revenge evictions have been illegal since 2015 yet in the past week alone I've spoken to four people who've fallen victim to one recently."..............

"Where is the announcement on truly secure, longer tenancies? Scotland has them. Where is the specialist housing court promised back in 2017? What about a serious conversation about rent regulations.

"What's the point of banning unfair evictions if landlords can still put the rent up beyond what a tenant can afford?"

Austerity was never a necessity,its ideological .The treatment of people on disability benefits is particularly heartbreaking with thousands ...tens of thousands told they were "fit for work" who hav edied very soon after the judgement ..then there are those whose benefit cuts have made their lives unbearable .These aren't "scroungers" or people who dont want to earn a living they are folk whose lives have taken a bad ,often tragic turn.
Maybe MP's should be made to live on these benefits for a year before they cheer in the HofC when they are informed about yet more cuts .This government has no heart ..not a lot of common sense and is totally incompetent in most things it touches .Sadly its the people who need help most that suffer under them

Yes Grandad it is a consultation I agree, but hopefully something good will come out of it.
In the last ten years our population has grown considerably which has put a strain on housing stock.
More house building is needed, for sale, for rent and social housing, and here in the SE it is going ahead in a huge way.
Getting the landlord/tenant ‘rights’ is a difficult one, it can’t be all one sided, but I believe tenants do need more peace of mind when renting.

So far the look at U.K. in 2019 has shown a distressing amount of rising poverty, poor housing and a country divided as never before with hate filled speeches leading to greater violence both verbal and physical.

Next I want to look at what has happened to adult social care. A subject dear to all our hearts given our age.

So the question is - how serious are the pressures in adult social care.
The evidence has been taken from The Kings Fund report.

Spending on adult social care has fallen steeply since 2010,
and fewer people are receiving these services.
This has created mounting concern about the impact on individuals, their families and the NHS. (Those with neither family nor resource presumably fall through the net)
Cuts in social care is greatest in the most deprived areas in England.
Although the government has claimed that it has increased spending on social care ( when doesn’t it claim this for everything?) Funding on social care has in fact fallen in real terms by 17%.
The ability for the elderly to get social care has fallen by 25%.

The impact of these cuts on individuals is hard to quantify, but there can be no doubt that it will have fallen to the individuals resources or as unpaid care by family members.

The steepest reductions have been on community services such as day or home care, thus the government has managed to undermine its own aim of keeping individuals in their own home far as long as possible.

At the present rate of funding adult social care will have a £4.5bn shortfall by next year. Adult social care has experienced an unprecedented 8 years of cuts.

The Kings Fund agree with the NAO that neither the LAs nor national government know for how long the NHS nor care system can continue to absorb these pressures.

The government has failed to protect adult social care from unprecedented cuts in spending........ if reductions continue on this scale it is difficult to see how either the NHS or social care can continue in their present form.

The state has never owned everything - what a ridiculous statement

GrannyGravy13 You said"The UK has moved on from “The State owning everything “, leave it to the business men/women who know what they are doing.

I would not and cannot trust a politician or civil servant to organise an egg and spoon race let alone a multi million pound industry. You only have to look at the H of Cs ???"

But that's not really how it works is it? The French Govt owns a lot of shares in British energy companies, but that doesn't mean that French politicians are running the companies. If the British State owned our energy, British politicians would not be running the company either.

French taxpayers are benefiting, why should that not be British taxpayers.

I just feel that benefits should be a “safety net” not a way of life.

I do know that when people lose their jobs and have a change of circumstances the effects on home/family life can be catastrophic. I do not imagine these are the parents of children turning up at school not having eaten for 2 days.

I do know 2 families on UC and they feed and clothe their children along with the adults smoking and going out for a drink.

GG, I am not picking a fight. My children had hand me downs. Whether we like it or not, life and expectations have changed. Harking back is pointless.

Some people sound very condemnatory, talking about feckless people with the wrong priorities and only being allowed to have a certain number of children. Situations change. People may be well set up but they lose their business, their house.

It actually is the fault of a government who introduced Universal Credit and did not trial it properly. Far more learned people than me have said so.

lemongrove Quote [ So, this government is doing some good for those who privately rent houses, by changing the laws surrounding the terms of tenancies, which will give tenants more peace of mind.] End Quote

lemongrove, the Government is only opening a "consultation process" because of evidence that the Section 21 process is one of the biggest causes of family homelessness.

So, it's only a consultation, and it has taken the current housing crisis to become a national scandal to bring even that about.

The above is to the ever lasting detriment of the Major, Blair/Brown and Cameron governments.

That's is one of the reasons why the Labour party and its affiliated movement(s) will not see a Blair type leadership again for the foreseeable future I believe.

Perhaps the Conservative party could consider doing the same, do you feel lemongrove?

Sorry but all my children had “hand me downs”. As they grew out of as opposed to wore out their clothes

Children grow extremely fast and the schools round here (primary and secondary) have pre loved (2nd hand) uniforms available.

Nobody on here is saying child poverty is not around but it is not all the fault of the government!!!! People have to take responsibility for their actions and having more children than you can afford is rather irresponsible.

and before anybody jumps on me, of course Aldi serve some decent food. There is nothing wrong with a nourishing bowl of soup or whatever. Of course you do need a cooker.

I'm sorry but those of you suggesting parents should cloth children from charity shops and feed them from shops like Aldi are so wrong.

Do charity shops sell shoes, uniforms clothes that kids would actually want?

Is it OK for poor kids to be bullied and humiliated in their second hand clothes ? Whether we like it or not the world has moved on. We don't live in a Hovis advert where Granny scrubs her step and welcomes one and all for a slice of home made pie.

People like the Rowntree foundation don't make up statistics. Child poverty is real and avoidable. It isn't being feckless or having the wrong priorities ( in all cases).