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?

Agree completely with Chil1234

It is utterly patronising and unhelpful to assume that poverty = inability to cope.

And isn't the difficulty that we have no proper definition of poverty, other than one making poverty 'relative' to others?

Thus the 'poor' of today can in no way compare with the poor of even 50 years ago. What is now defined as 'poverty' would seem like unimaginable luxury to the poor of those days, or even 20 years ago.

I dont think poverty = unable to cope but there are some factors that combined with childcare make it a lot harder to bring up children. I think free childcare places are important and think that cutting funding in areas such as SureStart, parent support and child care settings is a very bad idea.

Its going to happen though and it is going to be detrimental for a lot of low income families.

sorry that first line is meant to say poverty not childcare!

Spero - it's a bit of a con trick, isn't it, saying 'you aren't poor because 50 years ago people were poorer'? Of course your income today should be compared with other incomes today, otherwise we'd be saying damp houses are perfectly fine because our ancestors didn't have central heating.

And Violet, I think you'll find poor parenting is not class-related. There are plenty of shit parents across all income groups, and plenty of reasonable and good ones, too.

It's not straightforward poverty - I was really poor as a single parent pre-tax credits and managed to read to dd, talk to her etc. It's poverty of knowledge and expectation - eg spending money on tattoos and designeresque baby clothes rather than time reading and chatting. BUT if you weren't brought up by 'good' parents, how do you know what to do? Especially when there is very little incentive to stop having children, and not much ambition instilled from the word go at school.
Before any sarky comments - I have done research, most recently Frank Field but also prior to that. Have to be aware of accurate stuff.

Bubble - There are people who are PISS POOR now. I know of two in my immediate circle of friends. They are both single parents, so no surprise there. Both are paying mortgages and get no help with housing costs whatsoever. Neither has any financial support for their children from their exes. When they get paid, their salaries go on mortgage, bills, etc., and they have NOTHING left. (In other words their salaries only cover some of their outgoings). The money they get from tax credits (£55/week in one case, £63/week in the other) pays for their food, travel, school meals, clothes and any other incidental expenses.

I would call that PISS POOR. Could you survive on £63/week for clothes, food for 2 people, travel, haircuts, shoes, household repairs...?

Incidentally, both are hard-workers and have charming children who are doing well at school.

edam - but can't you understand the frustration of many when they are asked to accept that people are 'in poverty' when they have food on the table and central heating and can afford to keep pet dogs?

I know for my mum, she finds this really difficult to get her head round - she grew up with ice on her blankets when she woke up in the winter, one pair of shoes for the whole year etc, etc! Even as a teacher in the 60s she saw utterly dire scenes of malnutrition in inner London.

We have to reognise this in the poverty debate, or you are not going to 'get on side' a lot of basically compassionate people like my mum.

And just one example (of many) from my experience. Single parent dad looking after his little girl. She is morbidly obese. He feeds her nothing but processed foods because he 'can't afford' vegetables (Big bag of carrots in my supermarket is 15p). He is waiting for a social services loan to buy her a trampoline. He can't or won't take her to a nearby park. Which is free. To what extent is 'poverty' to blame for this??

Of course we have definitions of poverty. I would agree that we don't have absolute poverty in this country, unlike some places in the world. We have the welfare state to thank for that. Poverty is relative to what others have, that's the definition that we all use, isn't it?
If all your neighbours all live in 4 bedroom houses and have 2 cars and savings in the bank but you live in a caravan and just about survive on benefits then that's poverty.
I think it's a bit unfair to compare standards of living today with those of years gone by as life is different now. The Tories left a legacy of poverty when they lost power in 1997, rates of poverty were at their highest for decades and we still living with the legacy of that.

purepurple - of course life is different now, and thank fuck for that. My mum couldn't even get a washing machine on HP without my dad's signature in 1973!!

But the problem is that there are lots of us still alive and contributing to the debate who CAN remember when it was different and I for one find it very difficult to accept that someone is in 'poverty' when they have access to a range of goods and services that were out of my reach as a child in the 80s.

I do think we have to inject some realism into the debate. Of course we have to have something to compare 'poverty' with to provide a definition, but we also have to make wider comparisons than simply holding everything up to the standard of a middle class family in Surrey.

Poverty in this country is relative, not absolute. There is a huge difference.

I agree with the op that what traps children is low aspirations, which I think the welfare state facilitates to some degree.

Young people need hope that they can get a job etc.. In some parts of the country there are very few jobs, coupled with the increase in University fees - only 'well-off' kids can aspire to a career. Nick Clegg speaks of social mobility - this is a joke. More effort should be made to redistribute wealth to the whole nation instead of just the SE

bubble - you are looking at it froma very personal point of view, because you dont see people who you would define as poor - but that doesnt mean they dont exist. And what about people without children - who arent entitled to tax credits in the first palce?

My brother is a single guy who lost his job in the air industry, and despite 100s of applications cant find another 1. On basic JSA I would say hes poor, ok he gets his rent and council tax paid but after paying gas and electric he barely has enough money to feed himself - and consequently is losing weight. His fridge and freezer has broken and he cnat afford to get a new one, and the cooker is going the same way. I would call that poverty.

Woollyideas - surely the point in the situation you describe is that these two friends of yours OUGHT to be receiving financial support from the fathers of their children.

In other words, the problem isn't lack of money, because there are two men out there, earning, or at least CAPABLE of earning, who should be contributing to the upbringing of the children they chose to have.

And its a widespread problem. I think we really need to make a distinction between a lack of money, and situations where the money is there in the system floating about somewhere, but not being directed where it should

I am not saying all poor parents are bad parents.
The children of those who can and do parent well inspite of poverty give their children a far better chance in life. I was one of these children.
I do think money should be spent but it should go on parenting classes so that the parents who never got a chance to learn the necessary skills can learn to break the cycle.
Schools should get much more funding and uniforms, school meals and extra curricular activities etc should be free for anyone below £20,000 a year.
Our school in wealthy area has had funding cut as parents fund raise and buy necessities.
The rich will pay twice through taxes and give all children a more level start.
I am not blaming parents who have not been given the skills but saying they need to be taught them and be counciled to try and change attitudes.
Stating that poverty is a trap and giving up does not inspire your children to try.
Telling them if they work hard and do the homework they hate, they have more chance of getting a job they like and an income to buy luxuries in the future.

Many poor kids were starting to have aspirations to do A levels go to uni etc..now because this government is stopping ema and raising uni fees ...once again it becomes the well off who have these advantages ...I know this, I live on a council estate and have seen the attitude to further education change over the years amongst teenagers and their parents

www.mirror.co.uk/news/health-news/2011/02/12/merthyr-tydfil-has-life-expectancy-lower-than-haiti-115875-22916749/

I know its only a mirror article but areas like this and similar areas around the country are the problem. Its the mindset the people are in they think why bother? whats the point? etc. I can see their point throwing money at them isnt the answer but they need help and support. Soon a lot may not even get that with cuts to funding.

The badly behaved offspring of the wealthy will soon be poor themselves.
If not them then their offspring.
Have seen it in my cousins, children of wealthy doctors.
Spoilt and indulged they have poorly paid jobs or no jobs and want everything handed to them.
That is the attitude that needs changing.

I think that parents who did not do so well for themselves, in some cases push their children to do better than they did.

I never had the opportunity to go to university but I have made damn sure that my children get what I never had.

Thats a good education.

My parents were not poverty stricken but they pulled me out of school to go to a private college when I was 15, this left me with no qualifications barring a Diploma for Shorthand and Typing, it means nothing.

I'm in the poverty trap now, but my children never will be because I urged them to do well.

It does start with the parents, all parents should want more for their children.

Instill in your children that a good education brings a better paid job.

My son will earn more in a year than I have had in the last five years.

ema and uni fees should not be used as an excuse not to get the higher education that lead to careers. EMA has only been in place for a very few years and even the opposition has acknowledged that there are very few 16-18 year old who get it who WOULDN"T carry on with education if they didn't. Arguably it should be targeted - those on free school meals up to 16 perhaps. Uni fees are repaid if and when you get a job earning enough to pay them back. Noone has to find the money up front and it should be regarded as an investment. The current lack of graduate jobs is an anomoly that will correct itself as the economy recovers. I agree with those who say poverty should not be a bar to high aspirations and funding should be targeted at helping parents to help their kids.

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.

Thats a joke right?

"I agree with the op that what traps children is low aspirations, which I think the welfare state facilitates to some degree"

I think thats a big part of it. Eating healthily, having manners, being well behaved and parental input into education has nothing to do with the household income - its down to parenting.

Having a welfare state than enables people to choose to not work or makes them better off than working has had a huge impact on lots of children. They are brought up not having a working role model/s and having all the freebies that the government provide and therefore go into adulthood believing there is no point in working as it will all be handed to them on a plate anyway.

Encouraging teens to have children (which the welfare state does) means that the pattern repeats and many of the children go on to become young mums themselves.

The current benefit system also means that people are better off parenting alone and needs to swing back towards families rather than single people. Too many have children in short term relationships knowing that the state will pay for the children anyway.

Perhaps if we stopped the child related benefits and ploughed the money into other areas so that childrne see that hard work brings the luxuries in life things would start to change.

Is this thread using only a UK-centric definition of poverty?

I ask because if you look at this from a wider, global people who live in UK are very, very rich, with amazingly good provision for free education for all.

In 1988 I could have gone to university, I couldn't afford to go, I wouldn't have got a grant, my parents earned too much to qualify for any help but not enough to pay my living expenses.

I got a job, it paid better than university! I worked in a field that I wouldn't have studied in. I lived at home and commuted for 3 hours a day, I only got 4 weeks holiday a year but it did me more good than pissing around at university for 3 years!

I wouldn't necessarily encourage my children to go to university, 3 years working full time is a far better introduction to life than a few hours of lectures a week for a half the year.

Don't forget that University was pushed and pushed by the last Government to massage the unemployment figures. Then they removed the funding and made it seem more desirable than ever. It was a big con.