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

One wonders how the cycle of chaotic family like can be broken and why it goes from generation to generation regardless of the government of colour. It's a complex matter.

I feel the same when some posters spout nonsense about single mothers and those terrible parents who send their children to nurseries as babies, which affects me directly. I'm tempted to come out with some very choice language in response, but (usually) I manage to walk away.

I’m not a Christian either Ug but really why get all defensive when asked a simple question? Just answer you don’t have to default to vulgarity mode.

Simples!

Greetings Urmstongran from one humanist to another

You’ll mean me ybnb Using such vulgar phrases as ‘wind your neck in’ is all they can say when criticised for their lack of Christian values regarding the poor and unfortunate

That was in response to your attack on me (first) asking if I ever so much donated a tin of good to the poor.

I told you that you don’t know the first thing about me or any charitable donations I make through my bank.

So yes, I told you to ‘wind your neck in’.

You were rude.

By the way I’m not a Christian but a humanist.

It is desperate really, as I see nothing in the Tory manifesto that begins to address the problem caused by their austerity cuts.

In 1997 poverty was rising year on year but by the end of the Labour tenure in office poverty of all kinds including pensioner poverty was dropping year on year and had dropped 10% points in the years between 1997 and 2007.

Am amazing achievement and done entirely by funding tax credits and benefits. Work has a small but detectable effect as well.

International Organisation, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, has said 'Government Policy Failings Exacerbate Food Poverty, Violate Right to Food'

(London) – Government cuts to welfare over the past decade have resulted in tens of thousands of poor families in England left without enough food to eat, a clear breach of the government’s duty to ensure adequate food, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.

The 115-page report, “Nothing Left in the Cupboards: Austerity, Welfare Cuts, and the Right to Food in the UK,” examines how deep, austerity-motivated cuts to the welfare system, exacerbated by the introduction of the Universal Credit system and other changes, have left many families with children in England going hungry and dependent on food aid from charities. Many of these families are single parent households led by women. Human Rights Watch found that the UK government is failing to meet its duty under human rights law to ensure the right to adequate food.

“The way the UK government has handled its reduction in welfare spending has left parents unable to feed their children in the fifth-largest economy in the world,” said Kartik Raj, Western Europe researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The UK government should ensure everyone’s right to food rather than expecting charities to step in and fill the gap.”

www.hrw.org/news/2019/05/20/uk-welfare-cuts-mean-families-go-hungry

Great post, Greeneyedgirl! Scientific empirical evidence.

I know many think that you just need self determination to haul yourself out of poverty, and it's easy to be judgemental about the way some poor people make bad decisions for themselves and their children. Sadly it's not so simple, and causes of poverty are multifaceted.

I am interested in neuroscience and there is research to show that for example, poverty damages children's brains. To quote, irregular brain development in low income children has been documented. This in brief, affects ability in reading and maths and memory and is linked to the stresses experienced by these children.

This can affect their life chances as they grow up, and has often affected their parents before them.

If you want to see this interesting research in full it is available on bps.org.uk. This isn't a political site but is the British Psychological Society.

"Every child matters" unless you're a Conservative Brexiteer.

Maybe they could be bought a copy of "A Christmas Carol".

Well there seem to be a couple of hardcore posters who don’t agree with giving help and are quite happy to let the situation continue and degenerate.
Using such vulgar phrases as ‘wind your neck in’ is all they can say when criticised for their lack of Christian values regarding the poor and unfortunate.
I’m only glad that there are many more who feel sympathy, especially for the children caught up in this situation.

There will always be people who are poorer but we are now at a point where they are growing in number and in the desperate situations they are in.

10 years of Tory chaos and this is what we get.

"but until there is some education of families nothing will change"

Good idea! Let's invest in one-stop hubs and call them something like SureStart!

I am sure you are right Tooting families like that do exist, but why do you think they are publicised by the media?

Because it suits the agenda of the right wing proprietors of the Daily Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph and the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation.

My guess is that there are ten or twenty or more genuinely poor families for everyone of the fast food, big tv families you hear about.

I agree with most of the comments. It's not all down to government. Where are the fathers? I watched a news report tonight on poor families shopping at a community shop. Trolleys full of biscuits, cake, chocolates whilst cheaper wholesome food left untouched. As someone said, children in poverty but an up to date (better than mine) TV in the room. And mobile phones. Sometimes parents do not appear to have a sense of priorities. And some have a sense of entitlement. Problem families will always be with us and I not sure what policies will or will not work. Who was it in 19th century said the poor will always be with us. You would think in 21st century things would be better bit sadly no.
You can raise benefits, improve housing but until there is some education of families nothing will change

I do not for a minute believe that the rich are evil, but the fact is that wealth gives enormous power to the wealthy.

This includes political power. Although under a so-called democracy, the rich are nor supposed to be able to buy power, we all know they can.

How much money did Aaron Banks spend on promoting the leave campaign before the fraudulent referendum of 2016 and where did these £millions come from?

Why has the report of Russian interference in our democracy been suppressed?

The "plank" actually lived in a very cheap part of the country - sorry, I can't remember where.

Good summary Gracesgran.

The interesting thing is that he really didn't think he was. I think it comes from the mix up the gutter press makes over earnings and wealth. You could be wealthy with very little earning and equally in the top 5% with very little wealth.

Equally earnings at the top can feel very different in different parts of the country. However, if that plank wanted me to feel sorry for him because a) he lives in an expensive part of the country where most of the better-paid jobs are or b) because he may have great income but little wealth I am not going to rush to his defence as he obviously has little empathy for the 95% who earn less than he does.

A person earning £80,000+ pa is in the top five per cent of earners. That was factchecked when some idiot on Question Time claimed that he wasn't even in the top half of earners, despite earning over £80,000.

Obviously, for every surplus there is a deficit, and printing money can devalue it but what governments should have is a series of checks and balances.

My estimation of what has happened (and I'm happy to learn more) is that sadly, although the whole world went into shock over the banking crisis it was not the banks who reorganised themselves, much of the money that came their way seems to have been swallowed up by salaries. It was the people that paid. Banks merged and cut back on people but the do not seem to have developed and invested. An example of this is that many of them still have systems based on old IT which is very precarious.

At the same time that any money the government could reasonably print (quantitative easing) was not being invested in growth, money was also being pulled out of the system by government in an attempt to pay off that debt. This could not work because the double whammy of government cutbacks and no investment in infrastructure (which includes education) meant the debt had to go somewhere, and that has been into huge personal debt. This could be the cause of the next crisis.

The government acted like the poor person does, the person who has nothing to fall back on. In one direction they squandered on the banks just to relieve some of the fear of what is to come and in the other they skrimped every penny. With no investment in himself or capital assets but a skimping mentality that makes only short-term risk averse to the point of hibernation decisions, the poor person gets poorer and loses more: job home, etc. Our country has been run in this way for the last ten years and we are now, like the poor man, on the precipice of personal debt.

There is one other thing I add into my calculations of which party to vote for (not person, they come and go) and that is that we are at a moment of change. The whole world is looking at how to do capitalism better and taking climate change into account. Capitalism goes in epochs. From the 40s to the eighties was one where the consensus was on invest in people and rebuild. It was far more radical than anything the Labour Party is suggesting and yet there was a consensus, not of every economist but of the vast majority. In the 80s we began to move to neo-liberalist Capitalism, which instead of relying on improvement for the vast majority we relied on phenomenal wealth for some feeding into the whole. Both systems ended in a level of failure.

Now we are looking at two parties and I worry about them both. One wants to take us back to Victorian times where individual debt v great wealth fuelled both great progress and unbelievable poverty. The other looks to the 40s where huge progress was made for many but infighting eventually destroyed progress.

I will happily tell you I will vote for Labour but constantly review that decision. I cannot, in all conscience vote for an economy run on individual debt. I believe the direction of Labour Party economics is basically right and hope that as we move into a new era we will learn from other countries.

Some people on here limit their reasoning. A person arning £80,000 a year may or may not be wealthy but they are earning choice. They will need to pay a little more to help sort things out. Wealth on the other hand makes nothing unless it is used except more individual wealth. It did not bring about the investment in huge projects that the Victorian's did; the will to use it did. So some wealth will be taxed too. I can live with this for a parliament; it is so much better than the alternative. But no one can rely on my vote next time until I see what they do this time.

Apology gratefully received MaizieD, thank you. I will read it tomorrow and let you know my thoughts. I'll be very happy to read something that is not slanted left or right wing, just factual.

GGMK3 - because it sounds like an easy way to push more money into the system without some kind of downside, and I'm pretty sure life just ain't like that? Rather a simplistic view but it's getting late and my brain's starting to switch off.

What makes you think other countries don't "opal*?

I apologise that I didn't recognise your question as genuine, Opal.

I'd be really pleased to hear what you think about the site. It's not about left or right wing economics; it just describes how government money 'works'.