The U.K. in 2019 -

GracesGran - I haven't seen anyone posting whose comments suggest they "think 'free love and food for all lets just shake the money tree'.

I do not dispute that some people exploit the benefit system. It would be naive to say otherwise. Some people exploit the tax system and the evidence is that they cost we tax payers much more than the benefit cheats do.

Children are our future. As communities, families, societies, we need to do our best by all children. Especially those who have feckless parents. I agree we should reintroduce the teaching of cookery and all that goes with that, into our high school curriculum. I remember my daughters telling me they were making pizza in cookery. The ingredients needed were one ready made pizza base, one tub tomato puree, a small amount of grated cheese. They grew up in a family where everyone loves food and enjoys cooking so the absence of any proper instruction at school didn't matter. I've helped with cookery/budgeting etc in family centres. I've seen positive outcomes in some of the families who got involved with the family centres/Sure start centres.

I despair at the lack of compassion for the families I worked with.

I'd really appreciate it if anyone could let me know the percentage of the feckless people on the benefit system. I couldn't find it myself.

Teaching kids life skills such as cooking, personal management, finance and budgeting, work ethics, resilience, problem solving, etc at school or in after school clubs seems a very good idea rather than spending it on their health problems, young offenders institutions, prisons, courts, social workers, ... We either break the vicious circle our young are in or help create another generation of ill equipped adults and parents. It's unrealistic to completely eradicate the problem but it's not unrealistic to work and invest to reduce the number to a bare minimum.

While telling us that those who think of themselves as higher beings don't exist on this forum you write like one Joelsnan.

There isn't a money tree - we invented money. Stop fetishising the idea of it. I can almost hear you drool. “The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed.” In order for some to get more they seem to be prepared to let people starve or live in appalling conditions. Work is now the measure of the goodness of a person but work is also "man made" and work now commands man rather than man commanding work. I don't feel the world owes me a living but you clearly believe it owes you more than you want the next person to have.

Iam I am not sure what you are saying in your last post I'm afraid. I didn't write "I haven't seen anyone posting whose comments suggest they "think 'free love and food for all lets just shake the money tree'. " It was in answer to a post I wrote. You seem to quote it as if it was from me.

Excellent post Naheed.

GracesGranMK3
I find your post somewhat confusing.
My comment of free love and food for all lets shake the money tree is in reference to those who are not prepared to accept that within our society there are a few who want something for nothing and are prepared to ignore these to the detriment if those who really need societies help.
In the relevant post there was never any attribution of this sentence to you.
I actually find your comments about me offensive. You know nothing of me or my circumstances, you have obviously not read all of my postings within this thread.

It wasn't to you Joelsnan it was to Iam but I forgot the stars.

My comment of free love and food for all lets shake the money tree is in reference to those who are not prepared to accept that within our society there are a few who want something for nothing and are prepared to ignore these to the detriment if those who really need societies help.

And who might they be, Joelsnan?

Also;

who said anything at all about ignoring those who really need society's help?

Do name names and quote actual words...

As others have already said, spending money on these sorts of resources and support for people who need help with parenting probably saves money in the long run.

The small example of children's diets changing as a result of supplying parents with a basic menu for the week enabled children to not only benefit from healthier food but to maintain that healthier diet long term. Since most medical experts now claim that a poor diet is as dangerous to health as smoking, this will presumably save money in the future.

Forgetting the cost benefit though, isn't it just the right thing to do to try and ensure that children, who in most respects are at the mercy of grown-ups, be supported by the society in which they live, irrespective of the worthiness or otherwise of their parents?

INFANT MORTALITY

since the inception of the Welfare state and NHS infant mortality has dropped consistently decade on decade.

It is still the case for all EXCEPT THE POOREST. The cuts to benefits, in particular housing is beginning to bite hard and babies, the most vulnerable and innocent in our society are paying the cost with their lives.

Since 2015 Infant mortality is now beginning to rise for the poorest in our society.

For the bottom 20% the risk of infant mortality has risen to 5.1 in every 1000, and for the second 20% it is now 4.8%.

“Suffer the little children”

That's a terrible reflection of the society we have become. I simply wonder how it is that those born before the welfare state were so prepared to support and fight for its creation, whereas some of those who benefitted from it are watching it steadily eroded, and quibbling about who deserves to benefit from it.

Do you have a link to that Whitewave? I cannot think how we will persuade those who have benefited from the benefits of the post 1945 changes that they should not pull the rug from under those coming after us.

I appreciate that we are generally "conservative" socially as a nation but surely even the conservativeness should change over time. Is it just that we are a forum which almost exclusively attracts older people? The different life experiences of the young do seem to be producing a different view of the status quo.

It comes from the U.K. statistics authority.

Frank Field is pushing for further information.

Prof. Marmot of UCL Health equity, points out that inequality is increasing and infant mortality amongst the poorest groups appear to be increasing particularly since the cuts really started to hit from 2015.

I got this information from the Guardian this morning, but I’m sure there will be more data to back this up on line.

I actually find your comments about me offensive. You know nothing of me or my circumstances, you have obviously not read all of my postings within this thread.

I actually find many of the comments about those in difficulty both offensive and showing an ignorance of reality Joelsnan and the people making them have no idea if they are actually insulting members on here or not nor do they appear to care. So now we are both feeling offended but I am not sure that takes us any further forward.

There are a few other reasons for lack of housing apart from lack of building new homes:

1. Many people want to stay in their family home rather than downsizing

2. Children having separate bedrooms rather than sharing as we did in the fifties and sixties.

3. Smaller houses being taken out of the housing market because it was often cheaper to extend than to move. This meant that there were/are fewer homes for first time buyers.

About 12 years ago I had a letter published in the Express concerning downsizing - benefits of having a smaller house to maintain and freeing up capital so that money could be provided to help children and grandchildren with housing, university etc.

MaizieD
You seem determined to provoke...sorry not biting.

GracesGran
You too seem to want to take sentences out of context. If it gives you some satisfaction to do so and try and decry someone by doing so carry on. It maybe would help if you had read the whole thread rather than just jumping on one sentence (as another has also done) to do a bit of criticising along the lines of I am more pious than you.
Good for you if you consider yourself to be so.

whitewavemark2
I used to be a midwife,infant mortality is on the rise, poverty does have some impact but there is a more significant denominator for the current rise.

Poverty creeps into practically every thread.
It's predominantly mismanagement of money.

joelsgran I would be interested to know what the significant denominator is.

gb54 correct, but probably not in the way you mean

Whitewavemark2
Stillbirth rates are highest for mothers giving birth over 40 this probably relates to the trend to have babies later in life.
Infant mortality is highest in the most deprived areas and particularly in the Pakistani ethnic group.
You can check out the statistics here:
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/childhoodinfantandperinatalmortalityinenglandandwales/2016
This data is for 2016 though.

Your data seems to confirm the data recently produced. Deprivation = higher infant mortality

Whitewavemark2
Yes, however the ethnicity mentioned has a high consanguineous marriage rate which other ethnicities in deprived areas do not, protecting blood lines is important to them however this often compounds disabilities some being life shortening or incompatible with life. Poor diet often leads to low birthweight babies who sometimes struggle to survive. When Romanians first started to arrive in the early 00’s this was an issue, however, this may have been resolved if they are eating a more nutritious diet.

Graces gran- sorry I misappropriated a comment to you, apologies
Poverty is not largely about mismanagement of money as one poster believes

Good posts Joelsnan very interesting reading the stats on this subject....far, far more to it than poverty.