How would you tackle child poverty and improve outcomes?

[Cindyyyy]

I would back:

• free basic school meals for all from 3 (extras can be paid for) of healthy, veg-based, minimally-processed meals
• investment into school-based pre-school, to be free for all from age 3
• increase school funding massively, pay rises for teachers and nursery staff, investment and subsidies into training
• increase number of SEN schools and in-school SEN provision, as well as PRUs
• subsidised holiday clubs for all parents working full time
• extend SureStart, increase reviews by health visitors. If a child isn’t meeting milestones, earlier intervention and increased checks
• expand apprenticeships

You?

increase school funding massively,

This is what it hinges on and I don't believe it will happen.

I completely believe that the government (any colour) will expect schools to run 'free' breakfast clubs, 'free' nursery provision, 'free' after school clubs and 'free' holiday clubs which I'm sure sounds amazing to lots of working families.

But schools have no money. They are falling down and getting rid of staff (expensive experienced ones first) and have nothing left. No government ever funds anything in schools properly. Schools simply can't afford to prop anything else up.

I feel that this is likely to be exactly the same as 'free' NHS dentistry and 3 hours 'free' nursery places are at the moment. Great if you can find someone nearby providing it, but pretty mythical for most.

It becomes a burden if the parents need state support to have them.

Got to disagree about vouchers. Household needs vary too much. And it is horribly stigmatising. Imagine trying to pluck up the courage to leave an abusive relationship and then finding out that you will have everyone tut tutting at you in the supermarket because you need a bit of support. I really don't think shaming people with vouchers because they need help is a positive thing and anyone who thinks it is would soon feel differently if it was them being told they'd had their travel allowance that month despite needing to get to a work meeting or they'd better put that chocolate bar back as taxpayers are sick of keeping you in luxury. People are adults and should be trusted to spend money in a wise way. If children are being neglected this is not a benefits issue, it's a neglect issue and would still happen if the parents were on a non UC income, though I know that people on large incomes are better able to hide it by throwing money at the situation.

I am going to do the same or at least reduce my earnings to below the tax threshold and live off my meagre savings . I've just had enough.

One thing that never seems to be addressed - I’m not convinced childcare is the answer. It’s proven that children thrive in the early years with a parent (either one) around and I wish this was an option for more people.

But I know a lot of mums (because it’s usually women) would prefer to work and equally some children would be better off in decent childcare rather than with a disinterested parent.

It just feels a bit off that those who are so keen to have children often have to outsource caring for them. It might just be that a positive, loving start in life with the people who chose to have you would address a lot of the issues that arise later in life.

Not saying childcare is bad or wrong but I wonder why this never gets mentioned - is it because we just need parents working at whatever cost?

Only good parents to procreate . No druggies / ferals .

Funnily enough student loans aren’t stigmatised in the same way that benefits are… my ex has had no problem getting a student loan to do some pointless masters degree instead of being made to work to pay for his children!

New Labour wanted 50% of school leavers to go to university.

It sounds great but - are half of all youngsters really suited to it? There was once a range of alternatives (the polys were excellent). When only 10% of us went to university it was possible to give grants, but when half of all 18 year olds go - it’s not.

I hope the expansion of university education will prove to be a good thing but my heart goes out to the youngsters I’ve met who were led to think a degree in golf studies or football studies would lead to a job in those areas (one now stacking shelves, the other helping in a hairdresser’s). Nothing wrong with those jobs in themselves - but not what they thought they’d be doing.

Why free holidays clubs for full time workers, surely they’re also taking home a full time salary??

I’m glad to see a refreshing take on this.

In theory there’s nothing wrong with UC providing supermarket vouchers (for example) but what happens if you get Tesco vouchers and your kids really need school uniform, no problem so off you go to Tesco only to find that they are out of stock in the sizes you need.

Also a lot of UC is spent on childcare costs which the parent pays upfront and then claims the money back. There isn’t really a way of doing that any differently unless you have the childcare provider billing the government 85% and then the parent the other 15% but that’s more admin for everyone involved and the more admin there is the more staff are required to do it.

Thanks for the information, I didn't know if it was them who had said this.

Good point about the unis about the limited prospects, perhaps it isn't the answer.

@CoffeeCantata 50% of 18-19 year olds do not go to university - at that age. It’s actually around 37% - HESA stats. However the workforce in general has around 50% of employees with degrees. We haven’t had grants and awards since the 1980s but we had 10% going to university in the early 1970s. The numbers go up and up and obviously fills the places created when the HE sector all converted to universities and most alternative HE was dumped. You might remember that HNDs were a half way qualification and taught at polytechnics at colleges of HE.

It was John Major who allowed all HE colleges to become universities from 1992 onwards. It’s not just polys that converted, it was colleges of HE, Colleges of Teacher Training and other specialist colleges. It was too many and led dc with lower grade A levels to get degrees whereas a work based qualification was probably a better route for many but they became difficult to get. Nursing and just about everything else required a degree.

Apprenticeships haven’t opened many doors for 18 year olds as the majority of degree apprenticeships have been going to older people who are already employees. The government are changing this. It’s waaay harder to get a degree apprenticeship at 18 than it is to get on a degree course at a university.

It is indeed letting down young people if the degrees don’t lead to a job. Lots are missold. It matters. We had always accepted law degrees were offered at the better (older) universities (pre 1992) now over 100 offer this subject. 28,000 places. Why? Obviously lots of overseas students study law but there’s a pecking order of quality. It’s a similar story for other academic courses being offered at former colleges of HE. These colleges used to educate people going into local business/imdustry/state jobs and they lived locally. Now these colleges have high rise student flats and locals cannot get housing because students are in them. I don’t believe this was progress.

I fully support people being educated but how we do it matters. And so does the cost. And we should not sell dreams that are not worth the paper they are written on.

I don’t disagree with any of your post. I mentioned 50% as the objective which Tony Blair said he was aiming for.

So much went wrong with it, though - mainly the inferred lower status of vocational careers. I know several university lecturers who’ve seen the results of the nearly 4-fold increase in the student population and (apart from vastly increasing lecturer jobs) it’s not all good. Many degree courses have had to be modified or even created to suit a very different intake and some have not benefited the students themselves.

I remember reading that an academic who saw the 1960s university boom thought that even that ratio of students was too high. He thought that in reality only a small proportion of people really benefit from, or are suited to, a university education. There are other options that could have worked so much better for so many young people.

I dont see all hard working tax payers as selfish and uninterested in equality, just the conservative ones. We could make their votes and therefore their opinions meaningless over time. They can try and move, sure, but we know how Brits fare abroad. Especially in places they cant create a Little Britain.

I still think you’re very prejudiced and judgmental. Governments need to prioritise hard-working people in their policies because they are the ones who make everything possible. Wealth has to be created before it can be shared. You can try relying on the fairies but I wouldn’t recommend it.

Alienate the little people (like me) who show up, get up early in the morning in December, go in conscientiously and work hard for decades and you’re frankly stuffed as a society. Yes, I’m happy to be taxed reasonably so that others can have the necessities but don’t take the p.

So you think the only people who work are those who share your conservative views? And the rest of us just don't work? Claim JSA?

How would that help the children in poverty, whose parents are largely reliant on benefits? A child with two parents working f/t, even on min wage, is not being raised in poverty.

All of those things need the parent to want to engage. IME there are still plenty who won't, don't, or can't.

Could you explain what you mean by my conservative views? It would give me a good laugh to start my day.

Waiting for clarification.

I saw lots of engagement when it was in its prime and there was evidence it was working. We had cooking classes, budgets, maths skills, walking group. There was free childcare provided for those attending groups, counsellors and health visitors on site and for the children there was antenatal group, breastfeeding group, baby massage, baby sensory, bounce and rhyme, toddler session, school ready sessions, reading sessions. Not to mention all the fun days and holiday sessions. All free. I worked in a deprived area and we had 4 children’s centres and 3 out reach sessions across about 10 villages so there was usually something in your area or a short walk away. The centres were the hub of the community . As soon as cons got back in the funding went so the council sold off one building, cancelled the out reach, rented out rooms in the remaining three. Stopped all the courses and childcare and made half the staff redundant.
Now that the services are stretched, offer less and are further apart yes there’s less engagement .

I think that they do have a point there. It's why Reform have moved ahead of Labour (based on polling) as the party of the working class. Labour now represent the benefits class and the champagne socialists.

Most people on benefits work.

I don't know about anyone else, but right now, I know so many professionals who are unemployed.

Many people who work in design and coding and software (IT basically). 2 doctors (one is in clinical research). 2 in finance (my NDNs). Several midwives and nurses. Most of them have been unemployed for the majority of this year and cannot find another job. They're now navigating the benefits system for the first time.

Long term unemployment is affecting everyone now.

Fab. Penalise sensible people further.

I'd far rather have proper sugar than artificial sweeteners, which have been shown to have a far greater link to obesity and metabolic disorders. You want to increase obesity? Let's face it, people who want something sweet will still opt for cheap sweet junk over subsidised vegetables.

I feel for them. It's a rude awakening when you realise that you have paid a shit tonne of tax for decades but are entitled to nothing because you have some assets. Whereas others spend their whole life sponging off you and are on easy street.

In those circs, giving more cash certainly isn't the answer.

Do you honestly think that she would have engaged voluntarily with addiction services?