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

[MiniTheMinx]

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 ?

[Saxie]

I agree that the politicians are not truly representative of the country and that is a big issue. I'm not sure how you fix it though. It seems bizarre and archaic to me that the majority of professionals in this country are from public schools. We should consider our education system a failure until the general population are more fairly represented in all the corridors of power.

As to the issue, how would Cameron & Osborn understand? It is a life so far removed from their own London centric privileged lives.

[jaywall]

What exactly is poverty ? Because relative poverty, which is being discussed in the Op's figures 'could' be defined as not having a smart phone if enough of your peers have one.
It has been defined as not owning branded trainers in the past.
Something i find distasteful when considered against the back drop of real (absolute) poverty in some countries.

[cory]

If the Tories are picking up the pieces, how come the UK is taking so much longer than comparable European countries to come out of the recession?

How come the head of the OBR has written to Cameron pointing out that his austerity policy is holding back economic growth?

[E320]

Do you seriously expect an "instant fix" after 13 years of socialism? You may be too young to remember the then chancellor, a certain G.Brown not changing anything in his first budget BECAUSE there was lots of money in the kitty. Well, I wonder how that happened.
I, personally, do not care for those, who are generous with other people's hard-earned cash.

[MiniTheMinx]

jaywall I think relative poverty is important, it shouldn't be underestimated because it doesn't sit isolated from real poverty.

When thinking about how neo-liberal economic policy has shaped the global economy and how we trade with other less rich nations, it can be seen that third world debt is actually helping to enrich the first world, or rather first world bankers, investors and corporations.

An exert from the first para of the world trade organisations agreement

" raising standards of living, full employment and large steadily growing volume of real income and effective demand"

It must be understood that full employment is not possible under capitalism but isn't even desirable under neoliberalism. Without effective demand you can not have increasing employment, without employment you can not have demand.

Which brings us back to what is relative poverty and what impact does high levels of relative poverty have on the creation of real poverty both here and abroad.

When you consider whether poverty should include having access to the goods in the market place, you can only conclude that in order for an economy to grow and lift people out of poverty, there must be effective demand for all the goods in the market place.......without it, there are no jobs.

[jaywall]

Cory,

Which countries are those? What indicators are you using to suggest they are out of recession ? I assume you mean GDP growth ?

Well the last quarter of 2012 showed 6 countries in the EU grew their GDP, i personally do not think we compare to any of them but perhaps you see us as a new Romania...or lithuania ?

[cory]

Me, I am old enough to remember the Thatcher years. And the total shambles that were the Major years. They did not inspire me with a lot of confidence. Cameron doesn't either.

[MiniTheMinx]

E320

I have every sympathy with tax payers watching there money get wasted. I too pay taxes and I am old enough to remember Thatcher being elected and paul vockers shock treatment, spiralling interest rates, house reps, mass unemployment, strikes, privatisation and the rot thatcher set in motion with her chum Reagan. Thank you.

[jaywall]

Minitheminx

Just a quicky, i need a bath. I disagree, full employment is possible it was possible before the welfare state and it is possible after it, im not quoting anyone here, just personal experience from travelling around ASEAN countries. Seeing what happens when there is no welfare state. This might sound odd, but they have a better standard of 'life' than anyone in this country on welfare. In my opinion.

[MiniTheMinx]

Welfare state is needed as a response to capitalism.

What was the first form of welfare? Education and it came into being after the industrial revolution.

Without the tendency towards monopolisation I might agree with you. Capital accumulates in few hands and the rest of us can not compete. We can only compete with each other for the work available.

[E320]

Mini
I wonder how old you were? Probably not old enough to have benefited from a "good" education?

[MiniTheMinx]

When, during the industrial revolution, under Thatcher or when Brown sold the Gold ?

[NicholasTeakozy]

Bodicea Wed 13-Mar-13 20:04:52

Nothing to do with the fact that the tories always inherit a bankrupt country and have to pick up the pieces and make the tough decisions after labour has frivolously and unsustainably spent all the money??? Did you know Gordon Brown sold all the countries gold in the middle of a boom - when gold prices were at their lowest!!!

The country wasn't bankrupt when Camoron and Gidiot got their filthy paws on it. The deficit to GDP was still lower than in 1997, now it's way higher, all because of Osberk and his ridiculous austerity policies, which will only ever depress the economy. Labour made the terrible decision to bail out the banks, and it is that private debt which we are now paying off. Wrongly. They are privatising profit whilst socialising debt, and that's immoral.

As for Gordon Brown selling off the gold, it was at the recommendation of his financial advisor, an ex employee of Goldman Sachs.

Unless neoliberalism is overthrown we are fucked financially. It only allows for trickle-up economics.

What the Tories are doing is ideological. They want to dismantle the Welfare State and replace it with something that turns a profit. The problem with this is it will cost more so their 'cuts' are meaningless. They know this and they're knowingly deceiving the populace, for which they should be impeached. It used to be a criminal offence to lie to The House but you see it every day now these scamming thieving cunts are in charge.

[MiniTheMinx]

Well said NicholasTeakozy

In the USA tax rates rose to something like 90% for the very wealthiest, the money was used to invest in spending that would grow the economy and put people into work. This lifted the states out of the great depression. The wealthy were of course livid that they should have to pay decent wages and indignant that they should have to repay the wealth stolen from the workers that created that wealth. So they mounted a fight back......neo-liberalism. Started with the funding of a few academics and will end with the impoverishment of millions.

The great depression followed period of huge income inequality, this latest crisis followed a similar pattern.

The difference this time is that the working classes have been lied to and hogwashed into believing in "trickle down economics"

[Scrazy]

I agree that you cannot compare third world poverty to poverty here in the UK. We pay so much of our income in taxes to prop up a welfare system, we have an infrastructure and relative poverty here shouldn't exist. Money is there for a basic standard of living for everyone. It's where the money is going that is the problem.

[MiniTheMinx]

And where is the money going?

"After the implementation of neo-liberal policies in the late 70's, the share of national income of the top 1% of income earners soared"

"The top 0.1 percent of income earners in the US increased their share of the national income from 2% in 1978 to over 6% by 1999"

"The median compensation of workers to the salaries of CEOs increased from just over 30:1 in 1970 to 500:1 by 2000" Harvey

Estimates are that 2% of world population own around 50% of world wealth, and around 8% of world population owns more thatn 85% of world wealth.

[HollyBerryBush]

Apart from the last term, when else have labour left the country bankrupt?

You're far too young to remember back to Calalghan and Wilson, with Heath and Thatcher picking up those pieces. Slate thatcher all you like, she inherited a bankrupt country and did what had to be done at the time. Hindsight is wonderful thing - her vision was destroyed by Blair, but thats neither here nor there with your comment Apart from the last term, when else have labour left the country bankrupt? - we are still picking up the pieces of gordon Brown as Chancellor, and it's likey there will be another 40 years of picking up those pieces.

[MiniTheMinx]

In the USA tax rates rose to something like 90% for the very wealthiest
Do you really think that is viable today?

NO I don't because of globalisation. Whilst the general population is prevented from crossing nation boarders in search of work due to immigration controls no such controls exist to prevent the flight of wealth and investment.

I also think that whilst the nation is told "we are all in this together" and that we must swallow the bitter pill for the sake of the country, national pride is something done to us because the corporations, businesses and the wealthy have no such national loyalty.

This is why so many people are inclined to keep bleating about the national debt.

[MiniTheMinx]

In 1979 the debt to GDP ratio had fallen and was roughly 47% of GDP, under embedded liberalism the Debt to GDP fell like a brick during the years after the war when we built up the welfare state and the NHS.

It is estimated that the Debt to GDP will be over 100% by 2015, thanks Gidiot.

[TheOriginalLadyFT]

Same old same old - everything is the fault of the Tories, despite Labour having 13 YEARS to right all the world's wrongs, when actually they just tipped us into an economic black hole

I watched a report on the BBC this morning about people living in what they described as a very deprived area. Virtually every house/flat had a satellite dish, and the bloke they interviewed freely admitted to refusing to get a job as he was "holding out for a good one" rather than doing "something boring and repetitive where someone would boss me about". Another woman, supposed a career advisor, said there were no jobs; the BBC reporter then said there were currently 1,000 jobs advertised within a two mile radius of the report location.

I've seen other tv reports with people moaning about not being able to afford gas bills, when in the background there's a 60" widescreen TV, complete with DVD player and sky box, and the moaner is smoking a fag.

Whingeing about nasty Tories is just sticking your head in the sand about some of the issues this country faces. It might offend socialist sensibilities, but beyond the comparatively small number of genuinely needy people receiving benefits and facing real poverty is a vast gulf of idle buggers who don't want to do a day's work. Plenty of those also think nothing of having multiple children which they then say they cannot afford and who will be "living in poverty"

But hey it's all Cameron et al's fault and sod personal responsibility or a sense of contributing to society, eh?!

YABU

[HeadFairy]

TheOriginalLady no one likes a scrounger its true but where do you put the super rich in all this? How much blame must they take?

[HeadFairy]

I'm really looking forward to the day when newspapers are full of hate filled articles about the billionaire who only pays 6% tax and who gives his non dom wife £2bn bonus to avoid paying tax on it in the same way we see hate filled articles about the poor in this country.

The rich do more damage than the poor to this country, don't pay tax, don't contribute in any meaningful way and then fuck off as soon as conditions become less favourable to them. Well goodbye and good riddance to them I say.

[MiniTheMinx]

TheOriginalLadyFT

Labour having 13 YEARS to right all the world's wrongs

Labour wasn't socialist and hasn't been since Blair gatecrashed.

to right all the world's wrongs

Should our government be righting all the world's wrongs? do we have the right to intervene in other countries? well maybe you think we do, we did afterall push neo-liberal reform on Chille and many other countries.

the bloke they interviewed freely admitted to refusing to get a job as he was "holding out for a good one

I think this probably backs up my assertion that the "liberal" unbiased press is in fact a corporate press. Of course they are bound to edit the programme so that it fits with their agenda

BBC reporter then said there were currently 1,000 jobs advertised

Yes there is work but this problem of poverty is one not just of no work but of low wages. Wages have stagnated for the past three decades and 59 per cent of poor children live in a household where at least one adult works. Of course low wages are subsidised but do you want your taxes to subsidise low wages or would you prefer employers to pay a living wage?

I've seen other tv reports with people moaning about not being able to afford gas bills, when in the background there's a 60" widescreen TV, complete with DVD player and sky box, and the moaner is smoking a fag

Indeed people in poverty often make poor choices but is that not also because state education is failing so many people? Plus I would draw your attention to the fact there must be effective demand for all the goods in the market place.......without it, there are no jobs.

Plenty of those also think nothing of having multiple children which they then say they cannot afford and who will be "living in poverty"

There are two things that set people apart from animals and they are related, production and reproduction. It sets us apart from animals. People have a need to sustain immediate life, ie food, shelter but they also choose to sustain life through reproduction.

Yes people choose to have children but why should that choice be denied them. Should they ONLY be fit for wage slavery and lining the pockets of their employers before they are buried? should that maintains the choice of their employers to reproduce? You do realise that for every 500 workers there will now be only 1 who can reproduce if the uptake of tax benefits excludes you from reproducing.

[Darkesteyes]

We have a satellite dish on the side of our flat but its not been in use since 2005. And to the poster who said someone cant be in absolute poverty if they have a smartphone or mobile phone?
ive seen news reports on tv from poorer areas of SA where a guy had a mobile phone. But he was living in absolute poverty. The phone/flatscreen tv/satellite dish are a handy media stereotype to hang a hat on.