To ask Scameron and Osborne to hang their heads in shame?

(101 Posts)
MiniTheMinx Wed 13-Mar-13 19:08:53

Within two years, almost 7.1m of the nation's 13m youngsters will be in homes with incomes judged to be less than the minimum necessary for a decent standard of living, according to a new report.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/majority-of-british-children-will-soon-be-growing-up-in-families-struggling-below-the-breadline-government-warned-8531584.html

Some key facts about child poverty

>Nearly 4 million children are living in poverty in the UK (after housing costs)

>The proportion of children living in poverty grew from 1 in 10 in 1979 to 1 in 3 in 1998. Today, 30 per cent of children in Britain are living in poverty.

>The UK has one of the worst rates of child poverty in the industrialised world

>The majority (59 per cent) of poor children live in a household where at least one adult works.

>40 per cent of poor children live in a household headed by a lone parent. The majority of poor children (57 per cent) live in a household headed by a couple.

Note that child poverty boomed after that witch Thatcher took office 1979 !

This is what you get when politics is no longer democratic, when politicians, media and education dumbs people down so that even the working classes trumpet how bloody wonderful neo-liberalism is. How the free market should dictate everything from health and welfare to the price of crisps, your wages and even how valued you are are a human being.

I think The Tories should all hang their heads in shame, IABU ?

LittleChickpea Mon 18-Mar-13 05:07:03

Please excuse the spelling... Predictive text, arrrggggg angry

LittleChickpea Mon 18-Mar-13 05:05:56

MiniAtheMinx I generally get my thoughts from biased publications which support my views with their interruption of statistics etc.  So please don't take any note of my humble rumblings.  wink

Ahhhhhhh the famous Keynesian multiplier. The man that argued that spending wasteful or not was good for the economy.  He even suggested bulldozing half of London down (confused) so we could rebuild it to drag us out of an economic downturn.

I think it works in some cases but it's also flawed.  The model doesn't take into account governments must finance their spending (taxation, bonds ect.).  Unless it goes into debt which then takes us back to the "never never economy".  The money borrowed must be paid back in the future with interest.  This can be a never ending nasty cycle.  Bigger debt = government raise taxes/increase money supply to inflate debt away =  sterling becomes less valuable = it becomes more difficult for us (employees) to pay taxes and/or save. 

Increased tax only takes money from private sector (small and large business) and government thn spend it.  Government will always be less efficient at managing spending compared to private business. Private business use their P&L as performance feedback on their return on investment.  Governments don't have this P&L feedback so everything they do tends to be a guesstimate.  Bottom line, the value sucked out of our economy by public sector schemes will always be much more than what economically we get back.

ConferencePear. The reason people still blame them is they had power here. They were left with a much tighter system of controlling the Financial sector but they willingly relinquished control which allowed Financial sector to do what they wanted.  And to add insult to injury Flash Gorden gave his mate a nighthood.  Evan Crazy Balls has somewhat bitterly acknowledged this.

SomethingOnce Mon 18-Mar-13 00:34:20

Benefits = generous

Hahahahahahha.

People seem to think all the devious masterminds who are out to get them are the people scraping around for £71 per week JSA, and not the multi millionaires running the country.

The thought is laughable. Why are people blaming the little guy with no power?

Yes but your opinion is coming from the view that most are laughing all the way to the dole queue.

They arent. They are trying to survive. Let me assure you that benefits are no luxury. But you cannot expect people who are earning so little to take another drop in income because of the bigger picture.

The problem is not with benefits. No one can "work the system". Benefits have been set at levels that the Govt says people need to live on. Its already at the miminum.

The problem is with low wages, part time hours, zero hour contracts, workfare. All things that the government could fix but they choose not to. Instead they have people like you believing that people are draining the system for the fun of it.

Why can you not see through the propaganda?

ConferencePear Sun 17-Mar-13 22:36:26

The blaming previous politicians argument is wearing a bit thin. They had now power in France, Italy, Spain or now, Cyprus.
I don't really understand economics, but the answer must lie elsewhere.

HappyMummyOfOne Sun 17-Mar-13 22:26:10

I never said most dont want to work but you can find plenty on here that admit they cant possibly work as they have children. Plenty also know how to play the system and work few hours or only have one adult in the household not working as they know the state will allow them to claim. Choosing to work part time or have an adult stay home is a lifestyle choice.

Plenty wont take any work available or increase their hours as they dont want to work for the same money they get in benefits not because it doesnt cover the bills.

DLA is different but as i never mentioned it, not sure of the relevance as its not means tested at all anyway.

People are responsible for their own lives and choices, no government is responsible for that.

MiniTheMinx Sun 17-Mar-13 22:25:35

Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS, née Roberts (born 13 October 1925) is a British politician, the longest-serving (1979–1990) wiki

child poverty rose from 1979-1990 and may have continued to rise btw 1990-98 but I don't have a year by year breakdown.

I am not suggesting that labour tackled the problem either.

Anifrangapani Sun 17-Mar-13 22:18:43

Minx that is my point exactly. Which is why you pointing out that Thatcher took office in 1979 is a red herring in the argument not supported by the statistics that you quote.

MiniTheMinx Sun 17-Mar-13 22:07:56

I dont disagree with any point you make.

Except the fact that you seem to think the majority of claimants dont want to work. The numbers who dont are very small.

The truth is that for many, there arent enough jobs to go round and any that there are wont pay the bills due to being part time or low wage. And thats only Job Seekers.

Tax credits, DLA and Housing Benefit are all in work benefits. So the "benefits are a lifestyle choice" stance is simply false.

How many times must this be explained to you before you actually listen and take it on board?

HappyMummyOfOne Sun 17-Mar-13 21:59:47

Wannebe, just because i disagree it doesnt make my opinion invalid.

Plenty on here alone who believe they have the right to not work or to work few hours. People are told that having children costs very little and not to worry about finances as plenty of money will be handed out by the state.

I believe we should have a welfare state to support short term between redundancy or where serious illness strikes but i believe that people should be financially responsible for themseves and the choices they make including having children. If you choose to not work, work few hours, have children etc then its nobodies fault but your own if your household income is deemed low. Whilst jobs are not as abundant, work is out there for those who are not picky.

MiniTheMinx Sun 17-Mar-13 21:52:54

grew from 1 in 10 in 1979 to 1 in 3 in 1998

How much clearer does it need to be, it isn't an ambiguous statement confused where does it say the figure grew in the YEAR 1979 !

Anifrangapani Sun 17-Mar-13 21:37:28

The comparison between 1979 and 1998 doesn't necessarily mean the increase took place in 1979. It could have bumbled along at 1:10 for 15 years and then increased. I am no appologist for the Thatcher years but I hate the misuse of statistics to prove a point.

HappyMummy

You have been on these threads for months now, and you are still talking the same nonsense.

Do you actually read replies to your posts? Do you ever try to see it from a different perspective?

MiniTheMinx Sun 17-Mar-13 21:27:09

So we should send 1 in 3 children back

People are not choosing not to work, 1000 applicants for one job with Costa coffee, NMW work. Get real.

HappyMummyOfOne Sun 17-Mar-13 21:04:34

True poverty doesnt exist here, the lack of internet or a smart phone being indicators prove that.

Its no governments fault, children are bought into the world by their parents. If the household income cannot support them then thats nobodies fault but theirs.

If circumstances change as they can in life, many dont have a back up plan or claim its impossibe to work and parent. How many choose to have a none working adult in the household and expect the state to step in and top up their income as they wish not to work.

Stricter benefits where people cannot chose to not work would result in more people self supporting and only having children that they can afford. Future generations will benefit from a good work ethic and a country that promotes work not benefits as a lifestyle.

MiniTheMinx Sun 17-Mar-13 20:46:25

Shelly The proportion of children living in poverty grew from 1 in 10 in 1979 to 1 in 3 in 1998. Today, 30 per cent of children in Britain are living in poverty.

The proportion of children living in poverty grew from 1 in 10 to 1 in 3. Thatcher took office in 1979.

LittleChickpea you must be listening to some fairly obscure economists grin because even Stiglizt and Paul Grugman have distanced themselves from neo-liberalism and are calling on the IMF and the Governments to move from austerity to Keynesian economics.

during the period of embedded liberalism 1945-1979 the debt to GDP ratio was the healthiest it has ever been. I think the only period in which debt to GDP was better was the end of the 18th century !

The reason the debt fell and output rose is because of several factors not least because workers were earning a higher percentage of national income, some industries were nationalised and corporate taxes were higher.

ShellyBoobs Sun 17-Mar-13 20:08:46

The proportion of children living in poverty grew from 1 in 10 in 1979 to 1 in 3 in 1998. Today, 30 per cent of children in Britain are living in poverty.

So the proportion of children living in poverty reduced between 1979 and 1998?

What's your point?

LittleChickpea Sun 17-Mar-13 19:51:15

we have raised living standards using borrowed money at the same time as the world has become more competitive

Yes we and other countries have used borrowing to buy our way out. But globally only three of the ten large developed economies have started to pay their debt (South Korea, US and Australia) whilst the rest look to have continued to increase their debt.  Will this drive competition, not sure.  One to research I think. 

Personal and financial sector debt looks to be improving but public sector debt is continuing to rise. This is were the defficult decisions need to be made.  Do we borrow / spend? Will this work?  I am not convinced because we are getting more into debt but producing less income to service the debt.  Borrow to spend more on infrastructure, maybe but not buying it.  We would get a spike in economic activity but would it create lasting employment? Doubt it, unemployment would likely increase post project completion.  Plus Britain would need to get further into debt to support this and it takes us back to the never never model. Spending from the future (our kids futures) to benefit us today.  

I am no expert but I just do not want to burden the next generation with our debt.  It's like leaving our kids an inheritance but instead of giving them cash to help boast them etc., instead we send the bail lifts to their door.  Bit dramatic I know but you get my point.  

there is no easy fix, just more more work and less money.

Agree with that completely.  Thank god I am not one of the people trying to resolve this. 

Well said.

Darkesteyes Sun 17-Mar-13 17:36:51

Heres a novel idea. If one company is using 100 workfarers then the work IS obviously there. SO FUCKING PAY THEM.

FasterStronger Sun 17-Mar-13 17:13:16

we have raised living standards using borrowed money at the same time as the world has become more competitive.

and everyone is living longer.

there is no easy fix, just more more work and less money.

LittleChickpea Sun 17-Mar-13 14:50:57

LaLeeMooLoo that's a killer question.  Lets hope our politicians have the answer.  But even if they did/do i doubt they would have the will to carry it through because no one wants to make vote losing decisions even if they are right for the country.  The other question is "is Britain suffering from a liquidity (cash flow - short term financial obligations) crises or is it a solvency (ability to meet our long term financial obligations) crises?".  All I know is we need to find a way of getting rid of the debt because it is chocking our economy but doing that will involve pain. Pain = Lost Votes

I don't think borrowing is the answer.  All we are doing is taking from the future economy (our childrens future) to prop up today's economy.  It's the never never model..

I also agree with a number of points Orwellian makes.  

mrsjay Sun 17-Mar-13 14:43:13

you can ask them they wont though they will have their heads held high in their mansions , they dont care a jot

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now