Child poverty is overwhelming teachers & GPs!

They didn’t live on a farm Glorianny.

Doodledog

*Doodledog, that’s fine - but at the expense of the taxpayer whilst the children are wearing torn clothes?*
In what sense was the taxpayer paying for the TV, and how did you know?

The husband was a labourer, so presumably worked hard. If the family lived in a tied cottage, as many farmworkers do, they may have had a reasonable disposable income even if there were low wages, or maybe the TV was a present or a prize win - who knows?

Grasping at straws. Even with a cheap rent how can a farm labourer keep his wife and eight plus children without recourse to benefits?

The same way one of my farming ancestors kept his seventeen children, way back at the beginning of the nineteenth century. There were no benefits then, except the perks of being involved in producing food.

Depending on how long this was, it’s likely that there were no additional benefits other than child benefit, which would have quite a lot but would have been paid everyone irrespective of income, unlike now.

If Dad worked it’s likely no other benefits would have been paid as working tax credits wouldn’t have been introduced as yet. To be honest, who on earth would want 8+ children! I have four and that was blooming hard work, though, child benefit aside, we were not eligible for “top ups” as we both worked full time.

Elegran

The same way one of my farming ancestors kept his seventeen children, way back at the beginning of the nineteenth century. There were no benefits then, except the perks of being involved in producing food.

The parish paid benefits pre 1834. That was the system. A few pence or a loaf or two of bread. When the last child of one of my ancestors was baptised in 1700 he was recorded in the parish register as being a pauper - ie in receipt of parish relief. That would have meant he had to display a ‘P’ on his jacket. Another of my ancestors buried her husband on the same day her last child was baptised in 1809. People have no idea how much more fortunate we are today. No, of course I don’t wish to go back to those days - but I don’t forget the suffering of my ancestors and I wish others would also think about their people, whose stories may have been very similar.

who on earth would want 8 children
Probably women like my friend who had no say in the matter.

I would suggest, from experience, a woman who had no wish to work and couldn’t care less how she looked (she was enormous). We all wondered how her husband could stand ‘doing it’. She was truly repulsive.

I’m really not grasping at straws. I know nothing of this family and am neither defending nor attacking them. I just wonder why it was assumed that the tv was bought at the taxpayers’ expense, and why people take against poorer people having large televisions in the first place.

In the past, farm cottages were often free to workers as long as they worked there, there were mail order catalogues and credit if they didn’t have the money upfront, and as I say, a TV is a very cost-effective source of entertainment for a large family.

Farm labourer, eight children, wife not working - not hard to join the dots.

If this family were poor, there were other families that were even more poor. Some families who may seem poor to us are families who have had a welcome increase in income and good fortune. Some of the poorest of children have grown up to make a positive change in society and some children from wealthy families have reached adulthood and have become imprisoned. It is not right to put all struggling families into one category but as GSM pointed out, there are ones that are baffling.

Back to the original question: The OP asked if voting for the Tories will cause an increase in child poverty and more burdens to the GPs and teachers.

(Forgive me CvD66, if I have translated your question incorrectly. That is how I understood it).

Germanshepherdsmum

I would suggest, from experience, a woman who had no wish to work and couldn’t care less how she looked (she was enormous). We all wondered how her husband could stand ‘doing it’. She was truly repulsive.

Doing the cooking, washing, cleaning, and looking after for a large family would take up a lot of her time. She may have grown a lot of vegetables too, which would help feed her brood.

Sorry to burst your bubble Elegran, but the house and children were dirty, their torn clothes not mended and no, she didn’t grow vegetables. For want of a better word, she was a slob. Fat, with greasy hair and a dirty home and family.

So not one of the deserving poor?

No way.

I don't have a bubble, unfortunately. However, neither do I subscribe to the view that the majority of those receiving benefits from the state are healthy workshy layabouts begetting large families for the child benefit and living in squalor. There is plenty of squalor around, and plenty of cheating and grabbing, but no one demographic has a monopoly of any of the vices.

If you had seen this woman your view might be different.

If you raised this little girl that became this woman, your view might be different, too.

Most cottages for farm labourers were tied cottages then, so no rent. Farm labourers were paid little but frequently had other perks from the farm's produce. Children were also permitted do other jobs on the farm.
Perhaps the woman was a slob. Perhaps they and the house were dirty. But if they were raised with love and affection perhaps they were happy.
As for the TV and Hi-Fi, perhaps its no one's business how they spent their money

But if they were raised with love and affection perhaps they were happy.

This!!

I saw them, you didn’t. I wouldn’t have described the children as happy. They could see how their peers were raised and that their peers wore clean clothes and didn’t have enormously fat mothers who didn’t mix with others.

My ancestors were agricultural labourers living in tied cottages - there’s nothing you can tell me on that score that I don’t know already.

Well - that's one family to put on the list of undeserving poor. Anyone able to offer any more to add in?

Superficial snap judgements rule the day.

I am a retired social worker - I saw people and families that would make your hair curl. But never, never did I make snap judgements - I always asked why. The answers to that question were the key to helping.

Okay. I can't argue that. I did not see them. I'm sure it must've been shocking for you. I also have seen horrific instances of children's so-called family life. But back to the original questions: how can we alleviate the poverty felt by children in this nation?

Germanshepherdsmum

I saw them, you didn’t. I wouldn’t have described the children as happy. They could see how their peers were raised and that their peers wore clean clothes and didn’t have enormously fat mothers who didn’t mix with others.

My ancestors were agricultural labourers living in tied cottages - there’s nothing you can tell me on that score that I don’t know already.

My close relatives were agricultural workers living in tied cottages on a farm with no sewage connection and only a cold water tap. So I think I probably have more experience in that field than you have.

It's irrelevant.
No child in 2024 should be living in poverty.
I was listening to the podcast of "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" I read the book years ago when I remember we thought poverty would be eliminated, so little has really changed.

Most people limit their families to one or two children they can afford, if they get into difficulties, losing their jobs etc, help should be there to bridge that gap between jobs, same with rented accommodation if you lose your home rented accommodation that is affordable is hard to find. The benefit system should be there for them. The problem is those that have many children and expect others to pay to raise them. To send children to school dirty and unfed is cruel, everyone has access to water, porridge or cereal is cheap, how can children be happy with lazy parents, living in filth and hungry, to say they are is just stupid. Would you like it,? Teachers are there to teach, not to potty change and wash dirty children, that’s the parents jobs, if they are not up to it, perhaps those children would be better with extended family. The neglected children have to come first and giving extra money to parents that can’t be bothered is futile. Perhaps before school clubs where the children get clean and have a breakfast is the way to go. Know it has to be funded but that would enable the children to see how they should be treated and with a meal inside them, the money should go directly to those children, not the parents, who are terrible role models of parenting, the cycle has to be broken. The parents had the choice their children didn’t..

actually want to kea4n,

Aren't all these parents of large families fulfilling their patriotic duty to replace the current population, (UK has a rapidly falling fertility rate of fewer than 2 children per woman), producing the workers of the future and reducing our need to bring in those awful immigrants?

😇