How would you tackle child poverty and improve outcomes?

But you wouldn't be on £45/47k after six years of doing an acceptable job in Tesco.

Araminta1003 · Today 11:02
No, I think addiction is often about trauma, genetics and what you observed in childhood itself

I think it is largely genetic. My brother was an alcoholic with four children. One became an addict (now sober) and the other three said they were terrified of alcohol because of what they observed in childhood and they didn’t want to inflict that on themselves or their loved ones.
Also there are plenty of people who have suffered trauma and don’t become addicts/alcoholics.

No, I think addiction is often about trauma, genetics and what you observed in childhood itself. Most addicts have a traumatic childhood background as well as a genetic predisposition towards becoming an addict. It is not that complicated to understand, you see kids of smokers smoking, kids of alcoholics more likely to drink too etc What you observed in childhood is fundamental not just to your self esteem but also habit, long term health and educational outcomes.

Yes- that's exactly what lifelong secure tenancies would mean. I'm no sure that they would be be massively subsided by the tax payer. They would be paying rent until they die- for a lot longer than you pay a mortgage for. And then another family would live in the house and pay rent and so on amd so on.

Surely addiction is all about self control. I've never smoked.

There's no excuse to be in temp accommodation for nigh on 15 years. Why haven't they moved area to find affordable and suitable accommodation? It's all very well to say they want to stay local for "family or community support" (as is often the reason), but limiting the children's life chances by not having a stable home is appalling.

“It's madness that we encourage nearly 50% of teenagers to attend university, yet nearly 50% of jobs are not graduate level/type jobs. I know of so many, first generation, undergraduates who genuinely thought that their degree in 'Business and Fashion Management' (or whatever) from an ex poly, was going to lead them directly to a glittering career at Vogue, or a buyer for Harvey Nics etc.”

University is more than what you learn there, it is also about initiation in to adulthood and is about social mobility, not just in terms of the jobs you get. A child from a poorer background going to uni gets to mix and potentially then marry into more wealth and education. The child learns the social etiquette just by being around others who are given that in the cradle. And it is supporting the Higher Education industry which is massive in the UK. We need to value it, thousands of international students certainly do and are willing to pay huge bucks for it. I agree that regulation may be required for suitable courses but I think a lot of unis are doing there bit in regards to advising students on careers.

Frankly, young people deserve to go to uni. I think it is the elderly who are entitled in this country, voting for Brexit now increasingly Reform etc when we precisely need a young educated population and a whole lot of skilled immigrants and unskilled ones to support our ageing demographic. Unis should have never charged fees in the first place, it is unconscionable, most of Europe does not do this. Let’s not forget the reason we do this is to help those who need an NHS, that is the vulnerable and old. The young at the very least deserve to go to uni in the first place.

There's probably very little difference in your rents, at the end of the day; the amount you pay is subsidised by the taxpayer (which may include you) so the amount coming out of your bank account is not what it costs to pay for your home. Similar for those in private rent, but the cost is more visible.

Any requirement on the tenancies? Those in four, five, six bed houses can stay forever? High earners, like the Labour Union masters, can stay forever and just buy new Jags with their earnings, while other taxpayers subsidise their housing?

Create more jobs with futures. We used to be a big manufacturing country. Everywhere had some kind of factory making something, where people could get into jobs starting at low skill levels, receive paid in-house training, and progress right up to well-paid managerial or supervisory positions. Now there's far less actual hands on jobs, and those there are seem to be designed to keep people in the same lowly position while only graduates are taken into management roles, and the top brass take vast salaries out of the business. With all the world instability, there are good arguments for bringing back some of the manufacturing that has been outsourced elsewhere. If that means tax or other incentives for companies to set up in the UK, it would seem to me to be a good investment for the future.

Oh! And it was an impoverished home, so I got the full amount of student finance and didn't have to work for the first time since I was 13.

My degree allowed me to: move away from my abusive home, go on to become a teacher, and then work in publishing. Neither of these jobs would've been possible without a degree.

• proper care for adults with addiction and other MH issues.

The problem with addiction, be it alcoholism, drug addiction or gambling, is that however much help is available, nothing can be done to help people unless they want to stop.
Maybe one day there will be a solution to this but until that happens the addict will put their addiction before their family and everything else and so poverty and a chaotic lifestyle is unavoidable.

It's madness that we encourage nearly 50% of teenagers to attend university, yet nearly 50% of jobs are not graduate level/type jobs. I know of so many, first generation, undergraduates who genuinely thought that their degree in 'Business and Fashion Management' (or whatever) from an ex poly, was going to lead them directly to a glittering career at Vogue, or a buyer for Harvey Nics etc.

Of course it bloody doesn't. Those type of jobs are for the very, very privileged few. Most often requiring some very impressive family/social connections and a maybe a degree from Central St Martin's or Courtaulds. Back in the day, my cousin went to St Martin's and secured a job at Elle Decoration when she graduated mainly because her friend's Mum was a sub editor there.

In reality, the majority of these new graduates will end up working in call centres and coffee shops (which they could have done at 18), but now heavily in debt because of the useless degree they were encouraged to take. It's incredibly unfair.

Well it depends on how long they've worked, really. Those who have been replaced by AI truly don't see themselves earning what they used to ever again. They will be in a totally different income bracket now.

In those circs, giving more cash certainly isn't the answer.

Do you honestly think that she would have engaged voluntarily with addiction services?

I feel for them. It's a rude awakening when you realise that you have paid a shit tonne of tax for decades but are entitled to nothing because you have some assets. Whereas others spend their whole life sponging off you and are on easy street.

Fab. Penalise sensible people further.

I'd far rather have proper sugar than artificial sweeteners, which have been shown to have a far greater link to obesity and metabolic disorders. You want to increase obesity? Let's face it, people who want something sweet will still opt for cheap sweet junk over subsidised vegetables.

Most people on benefits work.

I don't know about anyone else, but right now, I know so many professionals who are unemployed.

Many people who work in design and coding and software (IT basically). 2 doctors (one is in clinical research). 2 in finance (my NDNs). Several midwives and nurses. Most of them have been unemployed for the majority of this year and cannot find another job. They're now navigating the benefits system for the first time.

Long term unemployment is affecting everyone now.

I think that they do have a point there. It's why Reform have moved ahead of Labour (based on polling) as the party of the working class. Labour now represent the benefits class and the champagne socialists.

I saw lots of engagement when it was in its prime and there was evidence it was working. We had cooking classes, budgets, maths skills, walking group. There was free childcare provided for those attending groups, counsellors and health visitors on site and for the children there was antenatal group, breastfeeding group, baby massage, baby sensory, bounce and rhyme, toddler session, school ready sessions, reading sessions. Not to mention all the fun days and holiday sessions. All free. I worked in a deprived area and we had 4 children’s centres and 3 out reach sessions across about 10 villages so there was usually something in your area or a short walk away. The centres were the hub of the community . As soon as cons got back in the funding went so the council sold off one building, cancelled the out reach, rented out rooms in the remaining three. Stopped all the courses and childcare and made half the staff redundant.
Now that the services are stretched, offer less and are further apart yes there’s less engagement .

Could you explain what you mean by my conservative views? It would give me a good laugh to start my day.

Waiting for clarification.

All of those things need the parent to want to engage. IME there are still plenty who won't, don't, or can't.

How would that help the children in poverty, whose parents are largely reliant on benefits? A child with two parents working f/t, even on min wage, is not being raised in poverty.

So you think the only people who work are those who share your conservative views? And the rest of us just don't work? Claim JSA?