To wonder WHY parents can't afford to feed their kids isn't being addressed?

[BearPomBear]

Just that really....

I did a check on what my entitlement would be if my husband and I both lost our jobs. We would get around £1800 per month for four people, which sounds like a lot. It includes DLA for my child who has complex care needs and has a lot of medical appointments etc in normal times.

Rent for suitable housing would be £800 a month, council tax is £150 a month, electricity and gas another £80, we need to run one car which costs us around £120 for fuel and insurance (car owned outright), that’s £1,150 before food, any form of entertainment, clothes, shoes and doesn’t allow for anything breaking and needing to be repaired. So £650 for everything else. Allowing £60 a week for food (£230 a month) it leaves £400 for everything else eg phones, tv, wifi, clothes, shoes, insurances attendance at monthly hospital appointments etc. It would be doable - if quite tight - but mainly because I’m well established and don’t need to buy furniture, household appliances, kitchen good etc. If you’re starting out you end up buying these things, going into debt and then can’t get out of it.

Throw in return to school, Christmas, birthdays, school holidays and it becomes a bit of a joyless existence because there’s not much room in that budget for extras. It just takes a couple of unwise choices to get into a hole.

People live up to their means mostly because incomes don't allow much room for saving.

A new car on PPC when you need it for work, kids, family stuff is a lot more relaible than an older cheaper one that you had to save to buy outright in cash and then have to pay to repair, MOT etc.

A new mobile paid for over time makes sense.

But then we are getting into the " TV's and Mobiles" discussion again which is disingenuous, most people who are recieving FSM don't have fancy mobiles or cars on PPC because their incomes would never cover it and they'd be denied the credit. You don't know what people got for Xmas or from family to help.

Some incomes don't allow room for saving. Others do, even if only a modest amount.

And yes, a PCP deal may be better if a car is essential, but that's not true for everyone and again those deals vary massively. Not everyone that has one needs a huge SUV.

The issue around FSM has come to the foreground because of Covid, ie people who prior to March were working (whether or not they were also in receipt of benefits) and are not now - that's who my comments were directed towards, although it doesn't have to be Covid related specifically. People who's circumstances have changed, who have lost jobs, or separated from partners and it's many of them who could have prepared better if they'd been more financially frugal in the past and/or thought about what MIGHT happen. Again, not everyone.

Also, I'm not saying people shouldn't have a phone. But I know people with mobile contracts of £50+ a month, which is crazy. No one needs to be spending that amount when there are so many cheaper options, be it sim only or including a handset, or always having the latest I phone etc.

@AldiAisleofCrap

Getting rid of the benefit cap , the two child limit, the five week wait for UC and the “getting paid twice in one month” issue in UC would help instantly.

Yep, all but one of the above: the DWP have announced that from 16th November, people who are paid early because their normal pay day falls on a non-banking day won't lose UC because they get paid twice in one month, they'll be treated as though the payment was made on the normal pay date.

Mind you, we don't know yet if their "fix" will work properly, but it's a start.

We got the DWP circular at work last week.

Then using the same logic businesses should have been saving for a pandemic too, no bailout for them.

No bank bailout.

No health on the NHS- people could have saved for their insurance.

Etc etc.

Essentially you want to victim blame. Crap agrument unless you apply all of the above too.

next

Saving roflmao!

Not realistic beyond £10 a week, which soon get swallowed up when something goes wrong and you need to replace it, or your child has a birthday, needs clothes.

Or your landlord ups your rent by £150 per month and you have to pay the £125 to the letting company to renew.

Or, there is a pandemic and the cheap food you have had to rely on suddenly becomes scarce. (We went for weeks with pasta, sometimes with cheese, but really that's a luxury item).

Shocked at how totally cossetted some are. Easier to assume that people smoke, or if they aren't dying of starvation, they weren't poor enough.

Plenty of businesses and individuals haven't received any bailout and have had to rely on their own resources.

It's not victim blaming, it's about a sense of personal responsibility. Life is about preparing for all eventualities. And again, not everyone can do that but many people can and should but they don't, and then when the worst happens they never consider how they could have avoided that situation.

But like I say, choose to believe it's all because benefits and salaries are too low, not that it's at least in part because of poor choices.

Oh, but I have skilled up since I have had to survive on benefits over the last few years.

I can and have fixed my washing machine myself twice, replacing the door seal and fan belt.

I also had to fix the cooker.

The fridge is currently terrifying me. We need it for the kids insulin and I'm not brave enough to fix that myself.

Plenty of businesses have received bailouts though haven't they, and incentives to keep their staff on.

One can prepare for all eventualities but a once in a century pandemic isn't really one of the one that is high on the list on those things that people should be preparing for. In fact in a risk/probability analysis that would be one of the lowest levels of risk.

Also, people pay their taxes, they deserve to be helped in times of need when its something beyond their control.

Its all very well to sit their and lecture others on personal responsibility, but I guarantee you've been supported by the state in more than one way, its just you choose to discount it when you got it.

"Personal responsibility" is the cry of those who have oodles of privilege.

It's not just about saving though, perhaps you should read my post again?

It's every choice we make, even the number of children we have. Plenty of parents decide only to have 1 child (or even not to have any) because they would struggle to afford their bills with 2 children, or would not be able to support more than 1 child on a single salary.

Thankfully things eventually righted themselves when SS was involved after his teachers caught him taking food out of other children’s lunch boxes.

Heartbreaking!

I could easily afford my children when I had them. I just really, really didn't expect my ex to rape me.

How foolish of all of us idiots.

Preparing for redundancy or job loss is something that can be considered, and is always a risk for anyone in paid employment. There's no such thing as a job for life. It's an unprecedented response to a pandemic, but redundancy or job loss is something many people would face even in 'normal' times.

As for stating I have oodles of privilege, I think you need to check your own privilege and assumptions. I grew up in relative poverty, so have more insight than most, I'm also a single parent who never received any payments from my children's father so I understand the difficulties of surviving in the absence of that, and without any other benefits.

I've not said that the state shouldn't support the needy. That is the role of the benefit system. But personal responsibility is about planning for the worst, and being supported short term by benefits until you're able to improve your situation.

Because it would cost money and resources to fix things and governments don't invest in children really as they aren't voters.

I think that the problem is mainly 2 groups: those who wouldn't feed their child even if they were on a 6 figure salary and those who can't.

Those who won't should be investigated by Social Services and their children supported. If the parents are just evil or addicts then there is no solution bar getting the kids out of there. I don't know how successful treatment for alcoholics and drug addicts are but that's obviously a long term commitment in terms of time and resource.

Those who can't feed their kids may be on zero hour contracts, had years of benefits or wages that don't rise with the cost of living. The government can make a difference with some of those sorts of factors but their friends in big businesses will threaten to sack people because of the increased wage bill.

Single parent, private rent but budget to penny and managed. Cut back during lockdown with extra costs of electric and food due to teenager at home including my own food intake. Doctors found an issues and are really quick in sending me for tests, lots and lots of tests. Each visit cost the same as my weekly food budget. Im feeding a teenager a diet of beans potato and pasta and despite all the help from local business on offer am far too ashamed to go there due to the nastiness of others.

@BearPomBear

Just that really....

Because all the welfare in the world cannot change the value system of a small but significant minority of people.

On Wednesday 21 October, if the Labour Party had won a vote to institute free school meals for disadvantaged children in the school holidays it would not have resulted in any children getting free school meals. It was not that sort of vote. That requires a vote on money and also a resolution of the whole House of Commons. The debate was an Opposition back bench debate without any coercive or executive power. Anyway, that was and is not the best way to help hungry children.

The Government has already spent £220 billion this year on helping people struggling because of the pandemic. In truth it has also substantially increased money for families and children in Universal Credit - by £1,000 this year not including adjustment for inflation. Local Housing Allowances have been increased as well; not including £500 million being made available to help those who struggle with Council Tax bills. The Government has also created a £63 million fund to help people struggling with paying for essentials like food. Charities helping with food have also been allocated £16 million. But let me get to the nitty gritty rather than just quoting figures which make little sense for individuals who have real problems feeding their children.

Free school meals for those whose parents are struggling have been a feature of our education system for many years but in the holidays, normally, the Welfare System is available to ensure children get a decent meal each day. That was changed a little earlier this year because of the pandemic as schools were closed and parents suddenly had to find additional resources to feed their children during the day. More resources were thus given to help struggling families, with free school meals being provided at home for those that needed them (normally including many children on the Pupil Premium). I voted for that measure in the House of Commons. Thereafter, because of the pandemic continuing, the scheme was extended into July and August; by holiday activities and a food programme which provided good meals for vulnerable children.
It is a popular and easy move for the Labour Party to lampoon the Government on this matter when in truth it has done quite a lot to alleviate child hunger already. As I have said earlier, this vote was not the way to deal with the problem and Labour politicians honestly know it.

The Government has thus already given extra money to those that need it to feed their children and, although free school meals is headline catching, it is not the best way of ensuring children are fed. I believe honestly that is the job of the Welfare System which has, quite rightly, been given additional resources to do just that. By the way, under the Government's welfare reforms another 50,000 children in England have become eligible for free school meals recently.
Let me end by stating that locally I am extraordinarily proud of the support provided for vulnerable children and families. This is a crucial point. It is not something provided only over the holiday period but a vital service delivered all year round by Bromley Council. I repeat that; local support for disadvantaged children and their families is constant and consistent for 365 days a year. So, if a parent, guardian or carer feels any local child will go hungry during any school holidays may I suggest they let Bromley Social Services immediately know that fact. If that does not work, maybe they could contact me via [email protected]. I care very much about any vulnerable child and will then ensure that help is provided.

That is why I voted against free school meals for vulnerable children in the holidays; because it is being done already in a much better way.

Life is about preparing for all eventualities.

There’s a fine balance to be struck though - things you can reasonably foresee and things that completely catch you off guard. No one goes into a relationship expecting it to be abusive, or plans to have a child with disabilities, or to have life changing health issues. People tend, where they can, to think about known risks but the reality for many is that the current pandemic has exhausted their contingency planning.

Not being able to work in your chosen industry for an extended period of time, being paid a fraction of your usual income while your ongoings were perfectly reasonable based on your previously stable income is going to challenge most people.

God forbid if I did need to go into benefits, my household income would drop by two thirds. My financial planning wouldn’t factor in that level of a drop because it would take a disaster to befall us for that to happen. And I’m not going to try to live on a benefits style income just in case I need to at some point in the future. We’re pretty sensible financially and have contingency funds - we’re very lucky to be able to do that and have still struggled in the last 7 months.

You plan as much as possible but I’ll not feel guilty about the choices I’ve made with every expectation of being able to fund those choices, many of which can’t be changed now.

It’s a pretty miserable existence to go through life always looking at the very worst that could happen and limiting your choices accordingly.

@Tippexy

Not all of us have moved over to UC yet, as I am sure that you will know, so there wasn't any extra £1,000 for many.

Increases in the LHA still do not cover private rental costs for the cheapest available properties.

Bromley is a neighbouring constituency, it is far more affluent and far less populated. You should not deny the lived experience of others under this government, there is a reason your constituency vote tory.

Affordable childcare would help immensely, to be honest. If people could have subsidised nursery places (more than the 30 free hours when the child is older), they'd be more inclined to go back to work full time. Therefore, earning more and needing less benefits.

By the time the children are in school, parents wouldn't be out of work 5 or so years and could progress up the career ladder. Even if it was 'just' a retail job, there would be nothing stopping them working towards retail management, for example.

If children were also in a good nursery full time, they'd also reap rewards, too. And their family could probably afford to do nicer things on the weekend. It all adds up.

Because this government and, frankly, most Tories, even the ones who mean well have genuinely got no freaking idea and truly believe that if you just work hard enough you can get out of anything and are genuinely confused as to why people who are poor don't just take on a cleaning job or a job at McDonalds or whatever (often with comments like, there's no shame in it, my teenager worked at McDonalds for pocket money for years...).

It's the same cluelessness that drives the endless social media comments about a few pennies for eggs, bread and butter.

Relationships end for various reasons (mine ended due to abuse); I only had the children I knew I could financially support on my own in case my relationship didn't last. Maybe I'm just more risk averse than others - I lost my parents at a relatively young age so that may be a factor in thinking I need to be entirely self sufficient.

Sometimes there is an element of luck; I was considering buying a new or PCP car at the start of the year to use for commuting and other work travel. I didn't because I wasn't sure about tying myself to a 3 year deal at a total cost of £8-10k (or investing more in buying a car outright) as there were redundancy rumours at my employers. Right decision for wrong reason as in light of Covid as I'm doing a fraction of previous miles so a better car would have been a waste.

@TomMRiddle my family were poor but didn't receive any benefits. Top up benefits as we know them now didn't exist then, ditto minimum wage. Plenty of people were poor without being on benefits. But I was always fed and clothed. And no I never received tax credits or any means tested benefits. Sorry if that doesn't fit your fabricated narrative. I'll wait for you to apologise for calling me a liar.

@TomMRiddle my family were poor but didn't receive any benefits. Top up benefits as we know them now didn't exist then, ditto minimum wage. Plenty of people were poor without being on benefits. But I was always fed and clothed. And no I never received tax credits or any means tested benefits. Sorry if that doesn't fit your fabricated narrative. I'll wait for you to apologise for calling me a liar.

I don't really understand why your experience in the past is relevant here though. I think it's true that while a lot of people did need and benefit from various benefits etc, there were lots of "poor" people who didn't necessarily get them. But that's because wages were still livable, housing was affordable etc. But when you consider that in London and surrounding areas, just paying for housing and transport can cost a fortune ... of course more people are struggling. I know a young man who works very hard on minimum wage and does something like 50-60 hours a week. Financially, he's doing okay. But... here's the kicker: he's single, no children, living in shared accommodation etc. His room in a house in central London costs him £600 per month. Even with his work ethic etc, if he had children and a partner, it would be a LOT harder for him to survive.