To think it is not poverty to blame.

[goneanddoneitnow]

I see in the news poverty being blamed for childrens bad behaviour and under achievement as well as for health problems.
I think it is attitudes that need changing not income.
If attitudes could be changed through education of parents and students then I think you would find that income and health will improve as a result.
If children are reaching school unable to sit still, listen, share etc, without basic skills and knowledge then what are the parents doing?
And secondly what is the point of free nursery places from age three?
Shouldn't nurseries be preparing children for school?
The majority of the wealthy are wealthy because of the time and effort their parents and family put in and the effort they them selves put in acquiring valuable skills and knowledge.
How many times have you seen big lottery winners lose it all in a few years?

goneanddoneitnow

Your post is very refreshing. I have not read beyond your posts i.e. the replies. However, I do agree with everything you say. Thankfully, poverty does not exist in this country. BTW, when I say this, I would like to point out that not being able to afford the latest 42" telly does not equal poverty!!

sweetgilly - sigh. come to work with me for half a day and i'll show that poverty exists in the Uk. I am a sw :-(

sungirltan - sigh. By sw, i'm guessing you mean you're a social worker. Nuff said.

I repeat, poverty does not exist in Britain.

Sorry, haven't ploughed thru 10 pages, but from the three I managed and this last one it does seem that the debate hasn't moved on much. i.e. 'poverty' in the UK would be unimaginable luxury for 90% of the rest of the world.

While I appreciate that doesn't mean that people are suffering now in the UK due to lack of money, I really don't think it helps the poverty debate by continuing to insist that poverty must be defined as relative to a relatively very high standard of living.

That just turns a lot of people off the debate.

sorry, too many attempts at double negatives. Of course, some people are living uncomfortable and unpleasant lives because they don't have a lot of money. But I query use of term 'poverty' and I still am not sure what it is meant to be relative to.

Spero

I think your post is sensible, wheree's perhaps I should have expanded a little. Having lived in Mali and Mauritainia for some considerable time, i'm afraid that I do get irritated by some tree hugginging Social Worker going on about poverty in this country.

FFS sweetgilly. You sound like a right patronising tosser.

And your one step ahead of her woolly!

sweetgilly its clear you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Still, the weather must be nice in cloud cuckoo land.

You should take up sungirltan's offer before passing judgement. Mile in their shoes etc.

Crikey, the debate is really moving along nicely. Not only do you refuse to engage with the perfectly sensible point made by sweetgilly, you simply call her a tosser.

Way to go!

Right, instead of calling me a tosser, help me with this.

My clients very often have heating, food in the fridge (a working fridge even) and can afford pets, DVDs, playstations, mobiles, trainers etc, etc.

I do have trouble understanding the poverty debate. Poverty relative to what?

HHLimbo

I see no benefit in getting into slanging matches. However, i'm prepared to accept that maybe I did come across as patronising.

As I have said, I have been unfortunate enough to witness real poverty. How about you?

As I have said, this thankfully poverty does not exist in this country.

I'd get rid of all benefits if I was in charge - i'd send the poor kids up the chimneys, yobs down the pits and bring back stocks in the streets. Oh! And for good measure - hanging too!

well, spero is right

which doesn't equate to sending children up chimneys

but then, each to their own straw man

Sweetgilly + spero - yes I have seen real poverty, and the effect it has on people. There have been some very good posts explaining on here, such as;

That poverty plays a role in:
*- behavioural issues

• health issues
• achievement and expectation*

which has been shown by the evidence of many thousands of medical and social studies."

"we have no safety nets: no decent semi-skilled or unskilled work which is secure and has the backing of union to ensure decent t and cs. It is very difficult to feel a sense of pride, or be able to provide for a family under such circumstances."

For poverty, perhaps a more understandable term would be gross inequality - some at the top have obscene amounts of money, while others have so little that they cannot even save up or hope that things will improve for them, because they see no way out or up (even if they do have the basic food and shelter to sustain life). They are often charged a much greater price for things that we take for granted (eg utilities, loan sharks), and are much more vulnerable to being taken advantage of.

2 really good books to understand more about this are
"The Spirit Level" by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, and also
"Economics, a very short introduction" by Partha Dasgupta - this is pocket sized, 160 pages, and explains very complex things in a straightforward way - it has really helped me understand the world much more clearly.

TV programmes such as 'secret millionaire' also highlight the issues of poverty in this country very well.

Plasma tvs ,playstations etc .. I wondered when they would feature on this thread ....

Sweetgilly

Here's the Rowntree Foundation's definition of poverty, which is probably a good starting point, although if you look hard enough you could probably find something wrong with the way they measure poverty:
www.cpag.org.uk/povertyfacts/

Also, has anyone else noticed that we have homeless people living on our streets? I'd describe them as pretty impoverished, too. I've seen the inside of a few hostels for homeless families, too, and noticed quite a few of them (not all) were living close to the breadline. And I'd add old people who die from hypothermia because they can't afford fuel as impoverished...

No doubt you'd argue that the very fact that they are somehow managing to feed themselves means they aren't impoverished compared to [insert name of poor, third world country] and therefore everything in just fine here in the UK.

.^..last line should say ...IS just fine

Ha ha - is that the new definition of poverty?

Fuking hell - it used to mean you didnt EAT. Now it means you dont get 2 holidays a year.

I can see why the Coalition ringfenced the foreign aid budget, because otherwise the money would be wasted on disgracefully indulgent crap for the 'poor' in this country.

I guess theres a whole industry around poverty now though, that needs to redefine itself regularly or a lot of nice caring types will be out of a job.

Everyone gets free education, free healthcare and if you are a little bit unmotivated and fell in with the naughty crowd at school, a free lifestyle.

There is no poverty in the UK

I come from a poor family. I am 43 and spent a good bit of my childhood in a Glasgow room and kitchen - literally 2 parents and 2 kids in 2 rooms. Until it was demolished and we were rehoused on a council estate. Had free school meals for many years.

Absolute poverty doesn't exist in Britain. Everyone in this country has a roof over their head, enough to eat, access to medical care and education. However we are an unequal country and relative poverty of course exists.

Relative poverty does grind people down as they try to achieve a reasonable living for their children e.g. enough toys, clothes that fit in with their peers, etc.

However, its not just about money. I am one of those people who are now earning a good wage because of parents who valued education. However, although we can have a less unequal society, we will always have relative poverty i.e. someone will always be poorer. But the underclass posters are talking about, would still exist, even if they were all given much more money.

The underclass aren't new in spite of other posters blaming it on the loss of manufacturing jobs. Perhaps this has increased the underclass - I don't know. However if you read any historical information about poverty, the authors write about the underclass - although they aren't always called that.

Joseph Rowntree wrote about families where all the money was spent on drink, leaving the children starving and very poorly clothed. Unfortunately I have met many families like this. My first serious boyfriend came from an underclass family - he joined the army to escape his background.

I don't think there are any easy solutions for these types of families, although obviously projects that target the children to change their lives are crucial. But more money is not the answer. My boyfriends mother, would have just spent any extra money on drink and throwing wild parties.

Just to say, yes there are homeless people, who are poor. But most homeless people can access accommodation after some months sleeping on the streets. Long term homeless people tend to have drug, alcohol or commonly mental health problems which mean they can't hold down a tenancy e.g. have drink and drug fuelled parties and are evicted or don't pay bills and are evicted.

Yes accommodation for homeless families is not nice. I have seen this type of accommodation too. But although it is hard for these families, this type of accommodation is temporary. Families especially will get offered a proper flat or house.

The things that make more permanent accommodation for families undesirable is the behaviour of other tenants e.g. crime, anti social behaviour.

There is really no need for old people to die of hypothermia. It is not just about money, but often more about a poverty stricken past. My grandfather lived in a council house, had a few thousand saved for his funeral, but wouldn't turn on his heating making his house very cold.

But he had lived through real biting poverty where people starved to death e.g. in depression, and got very anxious about spending money as a result. Of course if he was well off he would have felt more at ease about putting on his heating, but the situation was more complicated than mere income.

And just to add I don't think the right thing to do would be to make it a communist country sakura!- christmaswishes

Lordy, there are some people on here who are fucking clueless about this topic. [I reserve the right to use "Lordy" whenever something ridiculous is mentioned]

I take it this rebuttal was to me saying that Japan has the lowest crime rate in the world and , not coincidentally, the smallest gap between rich and poor in the world.

Japan is a thriving capitalist country, you'll be pleased to know.

What it does do, however, is make sure that the country's wealth is distributed well, not concentrated in small pockets of society, because it understands that this makes for a safer, more altruistic society, with good social cohesion.

In Japan a CEO cannot earn more than six times the lowest earner in the same corporation. In the US a CEO can earn over 240 times more than the lowest earner.

All you need to do is compare the crime rates of these two countries.

Japan does create fluff jobs, which you could say is a communist idea, but it works very well indeed. Gives men and women who would otherwise be unemployed a reason to get up in the morning, somewhere to go, a bit of self-respect.

Blue and white collar workers in Japan frequent the same shops, restaurants and cafes. There is no sense of "us" and "them", the haves and have-nots.

Oh Lordy, Sakura, how I would like to live in Japan, or Sweden, or someone similar...

Did you see my link to 'The Spirit Level' website:
[http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/]

Sorry that was meant to be:
www.equalitytrust.org.uk/

Japan and the nordic countries are far more conformist than Britain. Yes this does lead to less crime. However, have also met people in UK from these countries who say they love the freedom in Britain. Depends what you value most.