To think that this is unacceptable in this day and age

[nighttrains]

• An estimated 14.3 million people are in poverty in the UK
• 8.3 million are working-age adults, 4.6 million are children, and 1.3 million are of pension age
• Around 22% of people are in poverty, and 34% of children are
• Just under half (49%) of those in poverty are in “persistent povertyy_” (people who would also have fallen below the poverty line in at least two of the last three years). This is as of 2016/17

This is from fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/

It's appalling for a so called civilised country

I dont understand why allotments are being used as a means to save the poor, haha obviously never had one. Yes good for stress, yes good exercise, fresh air but to save money no. It's cheaper to go to lidl believe me. The only way I save money is on Christmas gifts, as jam, hot sauce and infused gin go down a treat.

Yes and if we don't run these satanic child molesters out of office then we're headed for even worse pain.

People in Sudan, India, Bangladesh and Iraq would be utterly stunned to visit some of these houses and see what poverty means.

I am classed as living in poverty. HA flat which is damp and poorly insulated, living on a fixed income, poor health, unable to work and struggling to meet outgoings. Can’t replace stuff that breaks or get proper repairs to things like heating, household appliances. Yet to millions of people throughout the world my standard of living would be an unobtainable dream. That is something I always think of if I’m heading towards self pity mode. I know it’s not a race to the bottom but UK poverty is very different to
poverty across the world. I think the USA has more true poverty on the basis of healthcare and benefit system.

Stockton on tees rent is not cheap 550 for two up two down no garden. Maybe in comparison its cheap but on just over 8pound an hour it's not and council tax is £85 a month for lowest band one person

One change is that the state steps in where the family used to.
And still does in a lot of countries.
That can be a choice.

@TheSunIsStillShining

Those aren't SE prices either. They also don't factor in miscellaneous expenses (any debts, insurance, car costs, reg fees, uniforms and other school expenses, birthdays, Xmas, etc-yes, poor folks have those costs too and can't always access second-hand!)

Btw, a landlord would be unlikely to rent a one bed to a single parent with two kids as it would be deemed overcrowding. Plus they don't like benefit recipients (if indeed the parent was one!)

People in Sudan, India, Bangladesh and Iraq would be utterly stunned to visit some of these houses and see what poverty means.

That's why poverty is relative and, as such, varies internationally. That also is why a lot of these places (Bangladesh, for instance, is very cheap for persons on, say, a British income (low or not).

Remove the benefits cap, the two child limit, and increase benefit rates so that being on benefits doesn't equal a great chance of living in poverty. No one is saying benefits should equal to wages but they should be at a level that actually does cover rent, utilities, food/toiletries, and basic extras such as clothing, bus fares, etc. Then you won't have these children missing school because they have their period or because they don't have any clean uniform or because they need to spend the day doing illegal cash in hand work to help out. Welfare policies should be designed to help people up, not push them down.

That's not going to encourage people into work if all their needs are met through the benefits system surely?
If benefits cover rent, utilities, food/toiletries, clothing and even bus fares, the only thing really missing is holidays

Cabinfever10 no you have me wrong. People like you are exactly why we should have a benefits system. I'm so sorry for your loss & I'm pleased we have a state system for people like you to fall back on. There should be benefits there to help people through hard times.

What I disagree with is the lifestyle choice. Having kids without being in a stable relationship, having more than you can add rs without state handouts at the point you gave them or with your best guess on the future. E G. If my relationship broke down could I feed my children.

I don't lack empathy, I have a strong belief in personal responsibility.

I would much rather government funding for parenting classes, mental health support ( so that people with anxiety/depression quickly go back to work and being able to parent) learning to cook and budget. The problem is I'd you don't engender a culture of personal responsibility then why would anyone bother to change?

My husband and I both come from working class families. We both decided to go all out to give ourselves the best life possible. It can be done. I would love to see support for more people to break the cycle but you don't do that with passive handouts which mean people can continue to not work or work part time in a low paid job with 4 kids from 3 relationships with a nice quality of life.

My husband came from a background where there was little money. They had one small Christmas present each mum refused to spend money she didn't have.

Very few people should be on benefits long term, it should be for the exceptional few where life has taken an unexpected turn.

@Myalternate

Low benefits don’t make jobs appear in high unemployment areas. Low benefits don’t make employers accept people who can only work school hours over single people who can be flexible. Low benefits don’t make people qualified for the few jobs that do appear.

Low benefits encouraging people into work is a fallacy.

@Cabinfever10 I agree re personal responsibility. Benefits, unless there are special circumstances (and in those cases more money is needed) should be short term. I'm a 'baby boomer', and perhaps surprisingly to some, have experienced real hardship after moving a few hundred miles from home when our DC were young. Our experiences brought a determination to drag ourselves out of it. No more children, and work at whatever we could to support ourselves.

DH grew up in a rough area, he didn't want DC to do the same and our priority was to live somewhere reasonable, with access to decent schools. Even with both of us working we were never 'well off'. Holidays were visiting family, and for a long time our transport was the van my OH used for work. We recognised that our children would need some qualifications, academic or practical, if they wanted careers rather than just jobs. Fortunately they got into fields where there were opportunities and have developed good careers.

I was a front line social housing worker for some years, and saw how negativity towards education along with inverted snobbery was passed down, and how some children had no family members in work. Some had very difficult living experiences, decent enough social housing, but emotional chaos because of parental choices. What are their life chances?

Disgaceful, and we should all hang our heads in shame

Johnson got voted in as leader of th Tories, cos they needed a fall guy to "lead" the circus
The country voted in Johnson cos he lied and they got sucked in on the wave of mis information and lies by him and the motley crew
Negotiating a better membership was the best route - it needed changing
We now see with alarming and shocking disclosures that consultants on the privatised track and trace are paid £7,500 A DAY, the usual tossers have been wheeled out on selected TV programmes daily, and they have all said the salary is worth it cos the track and trace is brilliant!

Th NHS staff WERE truly brilliant, where's heir massive pay rise?

Gov have done crap, highest deaths, worse financials ( £12 BILLION so far) and they get £3,300 pay rise

That shows what the Tories think of the working people of this country, and who will get rich during this pandemic short term, and their tenure in Gov long term and who will eat cake, probably stale from the bins outside the supermarkets

More billionairs and that failing shower(1000's of them) being paid horrendous sums

I am ashamed at what has happened under successive Tory governments, saying "we can't afford it, labour left us with a mess after their financial crash" IT WAS A GOBAL CRISIS, BIG CLUE THERE ETON BOYS

Just count how many of Johnsons soundbite promises deliver, then decide at the next election - BTW he will be out next year, brexit fall guy

Surely if you work 40hour week you should be able to live modestly without help from state. Unfortunately that is not the case, due to wages not increasing with cost of living. I got divorced almost 30years ago, I worked full time, lived in a flat that I had a mortgage on (cheaper than rent) by the time I paid bills I had 10pound left for the week, going out cleaning stuff, clothes all had to come out of that tenner but if I needed a prescription my tenner was almost gone. I went without descent food quite often. I ended up working in a bar too just to have a social life.

In the north we had garment factories lots of em, all gone. Apprenticeships went bursaries gone its s mess. Our domestic appliance engineers are getting old, new ones are too green to know how to work, it's a bloody mess

If benefits cover rent, utilities, food/toiletries, clothing and even bus fares, the only thing really missing is holidays

Do you really think a roof over someone's head, utilities so they can be warm/washed/have lights/cook, food to eat, clothes on their back, and bus fares so they can go to school/interviews/shopping/medical appointments, etc are luxurious things? They are the bare essentials and right now the amount paid in benefits barely covers it. Living in poverty should not be a punishment for being out of work, unable to work, or unable to find to work. Benefit claimants are as entitled to dignity and humane treatment as everyone else, they should be helped up rather than kept down.

@Myalternate

Remove the benefits cap, the two child limit, and increase benefit rates so that being on benefits doesn't equal a great chance of living in poverty. No one is saying benefits should equal to wages but they should be at a level that actually does cover rent, utilities, food/toiletries, and basic extras such as clothing, bus fares, etc. Then you won't have these children missing school because they have their period or because they don't have any clean uniform or because they need to spend the day doing illegal cash in hand work to help out. Welfare policies should be designed to help people up, not push them down.

That's not going to encourage people into work if all their needs are met through the benefits system surely?
If benefits cover rent, utilities, food/toiletries, clothing and even bus fares, the only thing really missing is holidays

Benefits don’t need to be more, it won’t suddenly make people have a work ethic. It will just encourage more to choose them.

There should be a system in place for short term job loss, bereavement, illness/disability but it should be a safety net and never a choice. Quite how we have ended up with a system that allows people to choose not to work, to do a few token hours an make choices they can’t afford but others have to pay for seems madness. We would be better off spending that money creating jobs and training opportunities. Break the cycle so children see work as something everyone does. Schools can only do so much to encourage children to aim high but their main role models have the most influence.

@Ted27
Schools can and do provide laptops and pay for internet for disadvantaged pupils through Pupil Premium funding. One of my relatives is a single parent on benefits. They cook healthy food and can afford heating. The save by not spending on socialising, outings and holidays and welcome handed on clothes. Also by not smoking or drinkImg. Her 12year old does gardening and other jobs for pocket money so she can save up for the outfits or stuff she likes. She feels great when she earns for what she wants to buy and she understands the value of money obtained through her own efforts. Many students of working age work throughout their courses and do 2 or 3 jobs in the holidays or go to night school. And even live at home to save money. This is the norm in many countries round the world too. When I was a student with no parental support and not entitled to benefits I worked in a bar and in the student canteen where you got free meals as part of the job and in the holidays in an office all day and a factory in the evenings. I had to get two buses to the factory and on my first day got docked 15 minutes pay because I was 5 minutes late looking for the production line. When I subsequently retrained, I travelled 10 miles, 3 evenings a week with 2 children and a baby to the college nursery so I could go to night school. It’s not easy but a person if able may wish to choose to take responsibility for their own life. This is a positive thing. I understand that there are people who are sick, vulnerable or for other reasons cannot do this but there are others who could readjust to their reality and take responsibility. It’s incumbent on everyone who can to contribute to those who cannot. That’s what a caring society is.

Surely if you work 40hour week you should be able to live modestly without help from state. Unfortunately that is not the case, due to wages not increasing with cost of living.

Very very true, and there are old names for the classes of people thus created by that fact. Such as “serfs”, “servants” and even “slaves”.

Which is why people are angry. We are being turned into a nation of masters and servants once again.

I’m so bored of people trotting out this person or that person they know who manages a lovely simple life on benefits.
How is a twelve year old doing manual labour to get a little money for outfits or stuff she likes a good thing? It’s depressing. She should be being a child still not working and learning the value of money. There’s years left for that. She feels great when she gets the money she’s earned? I bet she’d feel a lot better if her mum could afford to buy stuff for her.

Benefits are shit and anyone who dresses it up as a lovely simple life where someone scrimps and saves and has fun doing it is absolutely delusional.

@Marisishidinginmyattic

I’m so bored of people trotting out this person or that person they know who manages a lovely simple life on benefits. How is a twelve year old doing manual labour to get a little money for outfits or stuff she likes a good thing? It’s depressing. She should be being a child still not working and learning the value of money. There’s years left for that. She feels great when she gets the money she’s earned? I bet she’d feel a lot better if her mum could afford to buy stuff for her.

Benefits are shit and anyone who dresses it up as a lovely simple life where someone scrimps and saves and has fun doing it is absolutely delusional.

Absolutely. All this nonsense does is perpetuate the myth that benefits are enough to live on. It makes me really angry.

I agree

My son has had a paper round since he was 14 and is doing training today for his new Saturday job. But he is 16, and the money is his for extras.

I wouldnt have wanted him to be out working at 12.

My first temp job after uni, I didnt have bus fare so I walked 3 miles to the factory. So what - I was 22, fit, healthy, it was for a few weeks, not a lifetime. Nothing virtuous about it.

Just twist your flat cap and bow your head thanks for the grool master

My best friend is a teacher at a school in London in a area where poverty is high. She said that she sees many of her students hungry and her school has breakfast clubs and also the girls not even having sanitary towels where my friend would always have spare packs so she could give to her students when they need it. During parents evening though, their parents would come along with their eyelash extensions, nails done and dressed in designer gear. My friend also lives local to these families and would see them sometimes and again with lash extensions, nails done and all dressed in designer gears. Yes the benefits aren't enough but sometimes it does come down to prioritising needs and luxury.

Of course the cost of living has changed compared to when I was young when my mum was a single mother on benefits but I remember she would budget, cook from scratch and never leave us going hungry. All our bills were paid, we never missed out on any school trips due to its costs and our activities would be going to the park, picnics (sandwiches) , visiting friends and family not spending Saturdays in Westfield or doing any activities which would cost money.

I have seen the same thing in schools in the north to be fair.

There are two narratives of equal validity. One is that one, which also is not entirely new - it’s what the phrase ‘fur coat and no knickers’ was invented for.

The other is the fact that working a 40 hour week no longer gives you the same standard of living in most parts of the country. A lot of it comes down to house prices and the prevalence of private renting.

I’ve thought that as a society we are supporting the wrong values for a long time. We no longer support people who will work and save and build their assets: we (I count myself in that number) have been abandoned as ‘able bodied’ to the exploitations of private rent wholesale.

Of course the cost of living has changed compared to when I was young when my mum was a single mother on benefits but I remember she would budget, cook from scratch and never leave us going hungry. All our bills were paid, we never missed out on any school trips due to its costs and our activities would be going to the park, picnics (sandwiches) , visiting friends and family not spending Saturdays in Westfield or doing any activities which would cost money.

Comments like this are silly too. You were a child. Parents hide financial worries from children. She may have been crying every night worrying about money. She might have been begging and borrowing every week. She might have been doing cash in hand odd jobs when you were at school. She might have had a boyfriend subbing her money. But no, it’s another “we lived the simple life and loved it” nostalgic tale.