Child poverty is overwhelming teachers & GPs!

SporeRB

The obvious solution is for the government to provide more school meals, so that the children don’t go hungry.

Instead of providing one free school dinner at lunchtime, provide free meal at breakfast and tea as well.

In my country of origin, poorer students in secondary schools received 3 free school meals per day and the government covers the cost of uniforms, textbooks and subsidises transport fees.

Fabulous

The Conservatives would raise the threshold for pensioners. Starmer has refused to do so. But then we’re not ‘working people’ are we?

Skydancer

There is no excuse at all for children to go to school unwashed. Soap and water cost hardly anything. Brushing a child's hair takes seconds. A simple breakfast of toast is better than nothing. Many people are just lazy.

Seriously! I work for a charity, I have seen clients who have had benefits slashed due to DWP errors! and have no food left (having themselves as parents gone days without eating!) Their prepaid electric meters have run out, so there is no electric to make toast or porridge (even if they had the food!) the fridge doesn't work ditto! There is no hot water for washing and the washing machine cannot be used because there is no electric. If they do not send the children in because of the above it becomes a safe guarding attendance concern and if they do and the kids are in dirty clothes they get judgemental comments like yours!

Why are they on benefits when they have children?

Germanshepherdsmum

Why are they on benefits when they have children?

So nobody ever has bad luck in your world! People get sick, their workplaces go bust, their partners walk out or die!!!

Most of my clients had been in work when they started their families and then awful life events intervened! I have been a single parent when my husband was seriously ill in hospital for 6 months and months after convalescing! I had children when we were both employed!

Honestly the entitled judgemental tone deaf comments of some people on here make me feel physically sick! No surprises that theses will be the same people who have kept the Tories on power destroying our country for 14 years😡

Germanshepherdsmum

Why are they on benefits when they have children?

Hw do children keep away the need for benefits? Do they have some magical power?

If you meant it the other way round (why do people have children when they are on benefits?) then you clearly have no idea of the many ways in which people can suddenly go from being a family (with children) who are working and earning enough, without surprise expenses, doing OK, then Wham! several blows all at once and they have to spend their modest savings to survive.

Is this a suggestion that people on benefits (which could be many reasons) are "not allowed" to have children?

Wyllow3

Is this a suggestion that people on benefits (which could be many reasons) are "not allowed" to have children?

Perhaps they should agree to sterilisation before being allowed to claim benefits😱

Good job that come the election, such blinkered views, as demonstrated on this thread will not be popular in Parliament.

People should not have children which they can’t afford. But don’t worry, Labour won’t except people to work rather than claim benefits. They don’t subscribe to ‘work should pay’, unlike the Conservatives.

Germanshepherdsmum

People should not have children which they can’t afford. But don’t worry, Labour won’t except people to work rather than claim benefits. They don’t subscribe to ‘work should pay’, unlike the Conservatives.

Typical Tory bigotry! Its easy to see you are a Conservative voter! And actually Labour are not planning on giving people money for nothing they however will hopefully support a fairer society and show more compassion towards those who are struggling than people with your views😡

Germanshepherdsmum

Why are they on benefits when they have children?

What? The mind boggles.

When my son was at primary school one of the mothers had eight children and she produced more after he left. Her husband was an agricultural labourer. When my son visited their house and I collected him I saw the biggest tv I had ever set eyes on, and an expensive hifi system. The children were scruffy and grubby and wore torn clothes. They lived and carried on producing babies at the expense of the taxpayer.

Germanshepherdsmum

People should not have children which they can’t afford. But don’t worry, Labour won’t except people to work rather than claim benefits. They don’t subscribe to ‘work should pay’, unlike the Conservatives.

Actually, you are wrong. This LP totally subscribes to everyone who can work, should work!

So they say now! Just wait and see how the benefits bill goes up.

Germanshepherdsmum

When my son was at primary school one of the mothers had eight children and she produced more after he left. Her husband was an agricultural labourer. When my son visited their house and I collected him I saw the biggest tv I had ever set eyes on, and an expensive hifi system. The children were scruffy and grubby and wore torn clothes. They lived and carried on producing babies at the expense of the taxpayer.

GSM sadly and wrongly there will always be people like this, but they are very much in the minority. All of us who’ve worked with people on low incomes, or benefits, have said time and time again that the majority of people on benefits NOW are simply existing.

Back in the day, before the benefit cap, before the two children child benefit cap, before local housing allowances, it did sometimes pay to have many children, not now.

Germanshepherdsmum

So they say now! Just wait and see how the benefits bill goes up.

Let’s just wait and see how the GE pans out and give Starmer a fair trial!

1) No-one's fortunes are static. People may have had children while they COULD afford it, before their circumstances changed

2) How do you know for certain that this couple were living on benefits, GSM ? Did they tell you this themselves, voluntarily? Were they friends of yours, that you were visiting their home and chatting? Or were you visiting as a social worker and that is how you know their business? I do hope you didn't tell them to their face that they should not have had their children - you would have risked being escorted off the premises with a pitchfork.

3) If they didn't have the TV to watch in the evening, just imagine how many MORE children they would have had . Also, if eight children are sitting in front of one television, the bigger it is the better.

Point 3 was a joke, by the way.

Why do people resent the poor having large televisions? If you have a large family going to the cinema or theatre costs a fortune, whereas a TV gives hours of entertainment to everyone for a fraction of the price. To me it makes perfect sense for people with little money and lots of children to have a TV (and one big enough for everyone to be able to see - these days there is little difference in price between large and smaller).

Elegran, an agricultural labourer and his wife, both obviously uneducated (very clear when talking with them), living in a rented cottage with eight children - go figure, as they say. As I have said, I had never seen such a huge tv, let alone the hifi, way more expensive than my very modest system.

Doodledog, that’s fine - but at the expense of the taxpayer whilst the children are wearing torn clothes?

Germanshepherdsmum

Elegran, an agricultural labourer and his wife, both obviously uneducated (very clear when talking with them), living in a rented cottage with eight children - go figure, as they say. As I have said, I had never seen such a huge tv, let alone the hifi, way more expensive than my very modest system.

Doodledog, that’s fine - but at the expense of the taxpayer whilst the children are wearing torn clothes?

You've never lived on a farm have you GSM.? Scruffy clothes are the best as you don't spend all your time worrying if your child is going to fall in a cow pat/step in a puddle/roll in a field/fall in a pond and ruin the new stuff you've just brought him.

Winter nights are long. Agricultural work frequently finishes as the sun sets so a good TV just helps the long evening pass.
Agricultural workers may be uneducated (although I'd say they have valuable knowledge) but they are arguably of more value to society than any legal person. The value of any position rarely matches its financial reward.

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?

You have answered one of my questions without answering it. You don't know for certain that the couple were receiving benefits. A tied cottage may have been rent-free - not a good thing if you leave that employment, but one less bill to pay. They may have had access to farm produce, officially or unofficially, and as Glorianny says, farm children in scruffy clothes were a common sight.

If they were employed, they probably could receive nothing more than child allowances.