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?

Well it depends on how long they've worked, really. Those who have been replaced by AI truly don't see themselves earning what they used to ever again. They will be in a totally different income bracket now.

It's madness that we encourage nearly 50% of teenagers to attend university, yet nearly 50% of jobs are not graduate level/type jobs. I know of so many, first generation, undergraduates who genuinely thought that their degree in 'Business and Fashion Management' (or whatever) from an ex poly, was going to lead them directly to a glittering career at Vogue, or a buyer for Harvey Nics etc.

Of course it bloody doesn't. Those type of jobs are for the very, very privileged few. Most often requiring some very impressive family/social connections and a maybe a degree from Central St Martin's or Courtaulds. Back in the day, my cousin went to St Martin's and secured a job at Elle Decoration when she graduated mainly because her friend's Mum was a sub editor there.

In reality, the majority of these new graduates will end up working in call centres and coffee shops (which they could have done at 18), but now heavily in debt because of the useless degree they were encouraged to take. It's incredibly unfair.

• proper care for adults with addiction and other MH issues.

The problem with addiction, be it alcoholism, drug addiction or gambling, is that however much help is available, nothing can be done to help people unless they want to stop.
Maybe one day there will be a solution to this but until that happens the addict will put their addiction before their family and everything else and so poverty and a chaotic lifestyle is unavoidable.

My degree allowed me to: move away from my abusive home, go on to become a teacher, and then work in publishing. Neither of these jobs would've been possible without a degree.

Oh! And it was an impoverished home, so I got the full amount of student finance and didn't have to work for the first time since I was 13.

Create more jobs with futures. We used to be a big manufacturing country. Everywhere had some kind of factory making something, where people could get into jobs starting at low skill levels, receive paid in-house training, and progress right up to well-paid managerial or supervisory positions. Now there's far less actual hands on jobs, and those there are seem to be designed to keep people in the same lowly position while only graduates are taken into management roles, and the top brass take vast salaries out of the business. With all the world instability, there are good arguments for bringing back some of the manufacturing that has been outsourced elsewhere. If that means tax or other incentives for companies to set up in the UK, it would seem to me to be a good investment for the future.

Any requirement on the tenancies? Those in four, five, six bed houses can stay forever? High earners, like the Labour Union masters, can stay forever and just buy new Jags with their earnings, while other taxpayers subsidise their housing?

There's probably very little difference in your rents, at the end of the day; the amount you pay is subsidised by the taxpayer (which may include you) so the amount coming out of your bank account is not what it costs to pay for your home. Similar for those in private rent, but the cost is more visible.

“It's madness that we encourage nearly 50% of teenagers to attend university, yet nearly 50% of jobs are not graduate level/type jobs. I know of so many, first generation, undergraduates who genuinely thought that their degree in 'Business and Fashion Management' (or whatever) from an ex poly, was going to lead them directly to a glittering career at Vogue, or a buyer for Harvey Nics etc.”

University is more than what you learn there, it is also about initiation in to adulthood and is about social mobility, not just in terms of the jobs you get. A child from a poorer background going to uni gets to mix and potentially then marry into more wealth and education. The child learns the social etiquette just by being around others who are given that in the cradle. And it is supporting the Higher Education industry which is massive in the UK. We need to value it, thousands of international students certainly do and are willing to pay huge bucks for it. I agree that regulation may be required for suitable courses but I think a lot of unis are doing there bit in regards to advising students on careers.

Frankly, young people deserve to go to uni. I think it is the elderly who are entitled in this country, voting for Brexit now increasingly Reform etc when we precisely need a young educated population and a whole lot of skilled immigrants and unskilled ones to support our ageing demographic. Unis should have never charged fees in the first place, it is unconscionable, most of Europe does not do this. Let’s not forget the reason we do this is to help those who need an NHS, that is the vulnerable and old. The young at the very least deserve to go to uni in the first place.

There's no excuse to be in temp accommodation for nigh on 15 years. Why haven't they moved area to find affordable and suitable accommodation? It's all very well to say they want to stay local for "family or community support" (as is often the reason), but limiting the children's life chances by not having a stable home is appalling.

Surely addiction is all about self control. I've never smoked.

Yes- that's exactly what lifelong secure tenancies would mean. I'm no sure that they would be be massively subsided by the tax payer. They would be paying rent until they die- for a lot longer than you pay a mortgage for. And then another family would live in the house and pay rent and so on amd so on.

No, I think addiction is often about trauma, genetics and what you observed in childhood itself. Most addicts have a traumatic childhood background as well as a genetic predisposition towards becoming an addict. It is not that complicated to understand, you see kids of smokers smoking, kids of alcoholics more likely to drink too etc What you observed in childhood is fundamental not just to your self esteem but also habit, long term health and educational outcomes.

Araminta1003 · Today 11:02
No, I think addiction is often about trauma, genetics and what you observed in childhood itself

I think it is largely genetic. My brother was an alcoholic with four children. One became an addict (now sober) and the other three said they were terrified of alcohol because of what they observed in childhood and they didn’t want to inflict that on themselves or their loved ones.
Also there are plenty of people who have suffered trauma and don’t become addicts/alcoholics.

But you wouldn't be on £45/47k after six years of doing an acceptable job in Tesco.

How does wealth inequality relate in any way to poverty? The wealthy are not taking money forcibly from poor people. They are not claiming benefits, not draining services (often the opposite) and are often providing employment for others. How would poor people be better off if we had fewer millionaires, other than by reducing the number of millionaires by taking their money?

I would make it illegal to own more than three properties.

One of the reasons why there is a housing shortage is because there are areas where one person owns 30 or 40 or even more houses, meaning that there are none, and that person essentially sets the rent and conditions for living in that particular area.

Also the fact that the houses are bought up by a couple of people means that house prices are higher because there are less of them available.

Make it illegal to own more than three properties and those other properties would have to be sold, meaning that there would be more on the market, the prices would drop, more people could afford to buy them, and we all know that the cost of a mortgage is less than it costs to rent.

I'm a private landlord. Myself and DH worked hard to buy our own home and now have a rental property too. The rental will help pay for our teenagers further education, deposits on homes and money for old age and inheritance for our children.

Why should I be penalised for actually working hard, making good financial decisions and thinking about my children's future.

I have seen cases of families " crying poverty" but the real ones are few and far between.

Countries with the worst child poverty and highest birth rates, combined with little welfare support tend to be developing countries, where women have little say in whether or not they have sex or continue pregnancies - once again, men are generally the problem.

Increasing the availability of contraception has shown demonstrable reduction in child poverty, but this applies less in developed nations where contraception is generally easy to obtain, because people then make the choice to continue to have children as somebody else will pay and they won't die.

The problem is that you are confusing needs with wants. Needs are sufficient shelter, food and water, and heating.

It should be far more shameful or stigmatising to not feed your children than to use vouchers to feed them.

If you can't afford chocolate after you've bought food then you can't afford chocolate.

You'd have more to pay for your travel if you had vouchers for food.

Neglect by parents with money is not the issue here, poverty is. There are plenty of parents in poverty who do not neglect their children, but also plenty who do, and the money is largely irrelevant. Crap parents will be crap parents, no matter how much money you waste on them.

"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."

There's a far easier way; childcare provider prepares bill (showing 85/15 or whatever split) and agrees it with parent. Childcare provider sends bill to government; government pays full bill and reclaims 15% from parent via tax. Childcare provider gets paid promptly. Government can garnishee wages/tax/benefits of absent parent if necessary.

Of the nearly 7m people claiming UC, approx 37% are in work - the percentage gets lower (to around 30%) the further north you go. So not "most", by a long shot.

Bloodyhell here we go again, people on UC unless disabled or are a carer HAVE TO FIND WORK if in a couple one of them have to work a certain amount of hours to make up UCs criteria for that wage.
And the other person has to work a certain amount of hours when there children are aged 3 and above.
So unless they are having children every few years until pension age (very unlikely)they will be sanctioned and there UC taken away!!

Also vouchers, my husband works full time, I am a carer to a child who has complex needs.
1 to 1 at school (they are part time as well).
We do get a top up of UC because of my child, why should I be penalised with having to use vouchers!

And the people that are saying it would stop parents abusing money, it won't!
The parents that put their children first will do regardless.
The parents that don't will sell there vouchers (for less) regardless.

Unfortunately there is no helping a very small amount of parents no matter what help and support you give them.
And it's these children that need the most if not the cycle continues.

But I do agree sure start was beneficial to a lot of parents and it had no stigma to it.
People were accepted and supported no matter who you were.

There is no village anymore, no support systems in place any more.

Same as DH and myself. We own a few flats abroad and rent it out. We'll retire in that country and live off all that money we've saved.

There are nearly one hundred midwifery related vacancies on NHSJobs.com, and hundreds of B5 nursing jobs advertised. The NHS is desperately short of staff, and I find it incredible that your friends/neighbours/acquaintances with medical qualifications cannot find work.