Child poverty would reach a record high in 2023-24 under the Tories

What point did I concede, Pantglas?

Do you mean that you actually produced some evidence that the cheap council houses were only bought by Labour voters?

by so-called Labour supporters!

Trawling the depths of unsupported comments again I see. It seems the average Tory voter has the same moral compass as the leader of the party and your average ally-cat.

We’ve had this dialogue before MaizieD where you actually conceded the point!

I grew up on a small council estate where the majority of people where staunch Labour supporters and they all changed their allegiance when it came to looking after themselves.

They all now bemoan the fact that their own children can’t get a council house.....and now they all vote Labour again so that more council houses will be built, so that their children can get one and presumably buy them when the tories get in again!

by so called Labour supporters!

And your evidence for this is......?

I actually don't blame anyone who bought their council house at the ridiculously low prices on offer, whether they were Labour, tory or any other party affiliation. Or for selling them at a profit if the opportunity arose. Isn't that the sort of behaviour that has been approved by 'society' for decades?

The downside was councils not being allowed to build any more housing for rental... It was all part of 'shrinking the state'...

Whitewavemark2, you're SO right. My daughter wants to attend some parenting classes, to help her deal with my demanding GS but NONE available. She's a single parent LOOKING for ways to improve. Nothing there.

And reason there aren’t many council houses available trisher, is because loads were bought under Margaret thatchers ‘right to buy bribe’ - by so called Labour supporters!

GG13 I am trying very hard to understand you and failing. You want children who are underfed, whose parents can barely afford to clothe them, and struggle to keep a roof over their heads to take part in the D. of Edinburgh award scheme???? Of course they are going to. Of course they will turn up with the necessary clothing and equipment to keep them warm whilst trekking in the countryside along with a nice organic packed lunch and a posh water bottle. And their parents will of course dish out the money necessary for residential activities and wait patiently to be reimbursed!!
As for contraceptive all the clinics which used to offer help, advice and free condoms have gone. Cut by the Tories.
And far from starting at the wrong end Sure Start was an excellent way of tackling many of society's problems. It gave underprivileged children a sense of worth which stayed with them throughout their school career and into their adult lives. It enabled parents to care for their families and helped them work out problems. Education at secondary level is far too late the damage has already been done. And no one nowadays gets a council house because they are pregnant. There aren't any houses.

I do not agree that some young girls still see a baby (or several) as a way of getting their own accommodation and benefits.

I have tried to explain on here that in 30 years of working with families, the situation is far more complex, and not as some would believe from Daily Mail headlines.

Having babies young does tend to run in families, often girls own parents will have had their children when they were young and there are many reasons for this. It is not usually to get accommodation as there are very long waiting lists, even for (unpleasant) temporary accommodation.

It has been shown that if income is raised above the poverty level people make better choices.

I also know that many resources which were put in place, to help disadvantaged children at an early age, and break the cycle, have disappeared because of austerity cuts.

Please try not to be quick to condemn people if you have anecdotes but no real in depth knowledge.

You are right about the mobile phone Gill. I have just turned my landline into a 'pay as you go' contract, which means people can ring in without it costing me, and, although I can ring out in an emergency, it will cost me. I did this because it is much cheaper to use my mobile to make phone calls. I have got my mobile down to £6 per month.

I also use my mobile as my main internet tool at times. I do have a laptop but I could manage - just - if I didn't. If you cannot use the internet how on earth can you find work, find cheaper necessities, etc.

The problem with decrying what poorer people need is that those doing this either haven't been that poor - I imagine most of us have not - and we are old and some do not understand how much life has changed.

I seem to remember similar arguments when it was decided by the powers that be that fridges should be considered when working out what people needed on benefits. Surely no one could now see the sense in not including them. (I won't hold my breath on that one as I am sure we will get the standard reply of "when we were young ..." by those who are painfully cruel to others).

I have had to stop reading all of this thread as it upset me too much; so much lack of understanding, lack of empathy, and too much victim blaming. But, can I just correct one assumption made by several of the hard nosed Tories on here?
Mobile phones are not a luxury, they are a necessity for the following reasons:
(1) When on UC, it is mandatory to search for jobs online, communicate with the job centre online, make enquiries online, how would people do this without a mobile phone?

(2)A land line is more expensive; I have just renewed mine on a cheap deal with BT and it costs £19.99 per month, a mobile phone can be topped up with £10pm.

(3)If you are in temporary accomodation/short term rental you will not get a landline installed unless you pay a deposit, that landline number changes when you move home, a possible regular occurence.

(4) Just how many of you are experts in mobile phones? I note how many claim that these undeserving benefit claimants 'have the latest i-phone'. You know this how?

Keir Starmer
@Keir_Starmer
In one week's time we can deliver real change - and hope to millions.

twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1202626183822823424?s=20

Sorry trisher I couldn't vote for Labour if they were the only candidate in my constituency.

Alexa whilst I agree with you regarding leisure facilities, the playing fields near these "estates" become a breeding ground for the drug dealers, violence and all manner of things.

The Duke of Edinburgh scheme should be available in all schools (not sure it is at the moment), it is a prime example of team work and involves volunteering, helps with self esteem. Subsidies are available in some areas to help,with any expenses.

The elephant in the room is however, contraception, some young girls still see a baby (or several) as a way of getting their own accommodation and benefits. There are reckless fathers who have never and will never see or support their children.

Education has to start in secondary school to help prevent these situations, as much as Surestart is/was an excellent program it only picked up the pieces. Which of course is better than nothing, but surely children having children is not the best start to adult life or for their babies?

Very poor children in the UK more often than not come from 'estates'where poverty, unemployment, poor educational opportunities, crime, drug addiction, lack of mental health facilities, lack of leisure facilities, and bad public transport form a toxic cocktail that transmits from generation to generation. Parents are hard pressed to keep their heads above water however much they try.

I believe meaningful leisure facilities such as playing fields, involvement in voluntary work, enriched schools, and public libraries are the best catalyst for breaking up the toxic cocktail. Even if paid work is not available in the neighbourhood(which it isn't) the meaningful leisure gives hope for moving out into better lifestyles.

GG13 read the thread again then! As the Tories have substantially cut the educaion budget and caused schools to cut their staff and curriculum to the bare minimum I assume then, as you believe in education, you will be voting Labour. It was by the way the support staff who offered children with difficulties help and encouragement who went first.

Surestart? My DiL was a manager of one which brought all the appropriate children’s services under one roof. Parents were giving parenting classes and it was bringing real results.

Tories sold it off . DiL made redundant all those skills lost.
She now works for the EA.

trisher I have not seen any posters on here advocating that children should suffer because of their parents,
however there are parents who cannot budget, cook or even know the basics of how to be a parent.

In some circumstances doubling their benefits would not make any difference to these children's lives.

In my opinion parenting skills/budgeting/finance should be a greater part of the PHSE curriculum in senior schools. Unfortunately there always has and in all probability always will be chaotic households, other than removing the children into foster homes I have no idea what the solution is.

Really Ug well I will apologise if I missed that but searching through the thread I really cannot see it. Could you direct me to the reply you mean please.

Child poverty cannot be excused. No matter how inadequate the parents, if they are addicts, if they are ill, if they are scroungers, if they are ineffectual their child shouldn't suffer. It is the responsibility of a caring society to provide every child with the basics of life, to ensure they are fed, housed and educated and the Tory government has failed on every one of those.
If you suffered in childhood, whatever the reason, you should be concerned and dedicated to improving life for other children.

There is a huge correlation between poverty and poor mental and physical health, as well as many other negative outcomes, so yes lack of income is definitely a factor. Many of us could find ourselves in dire straits through unexpected adverse events.

I came from a working class background, failed 11 plus and didn't have brilliant parenting. There is however no comparison between then and now, the difference being, my situation was the norm after the war, and I didn't suffer social exclusion because of it. Social mobility was easier, more opportunity, jobs were plentiful even with lack of education, and the poor were not victimised politically as they are today.

You know full well I did answer at the time ybnb so stop digging.

crystaltips rough sleeping and homelessness is multifaceted

It may well be, GG13, but the fact remains that it has risen under the tories. One of the 'facets' is very clearly the tories

We all know what we can do about them, don't we?

Ah yes, those who did escape their relatively impoverished backgrounds and did well crystaltipps- what would you have them do. Remain there and claim benefits, when they were perfectly able to take care of themselves and their families? That would leave even less monies available for those unable, for whatever reasons, to do so.

And for the record you can do well in life without being smug, you can give back in all sorts of ways. I think having come from that background myself it makes me more sympathetic and proactive in doing something about it without the waffle and virtue signalling that goes on these days.

Don’t damn people who have ‘stuff’ as uncaring. In my experience it’s rarely true.

crystaltips rough sleeping and homelessness is multifaceted.

The reasons people leave or lose their home cannot be put in one box, ticked off and blame put on the government of the day.

I am not sure any government has the answer, but providing homeless shelters where help can be provided is a step in the right direction. Lots of these are run by charities, which probably means as long as they continue to receive donations they are not tied to "party politics" and therefore cannot be used as political footballs.

We always get the smug types who say I lived in a council house and just worked hard, now I’ve got three homes and loadsamoney so why can’t they - in other words, the feckless poor/ homeless are lazy and spend their money on fags and booze so it’s all their own fault and are “undeserving”. I wonder why homelessness and rough sleeping has risen hugely under the Tories as well?