to not understand why so many poor people...

[nybom]

...are being called "poor" if they can afford:

• cigarettes/drugs
• dogs
• large amounts of takeaways/ready meals
• ready cut fruit, brands, air freshners and other superfluous crap, kids drinks/other products specifically tailored to kids
• to go out drinking
• FF babies
• to leave lights on, have electrical appliances on standby, not to use energy light bulbs, to keep the water running, to put on half a load of washing, to leave heating on at night
• to maintain artificial nails, to have hair extensions
• buy loads of beauty products
• to leave their car engine on whilst going shopping/standing in a traffic jam
• to have themed children's birthday parties with loads of props
• and most of all: have CREDIT cards so they can overdraw

i'm talking of regular habits not just occasional behaviour...

several of my friends are on benefits, so the observations are firsthand and not just assumptions.

a friend of mine (single mum on benefits) got a party bus for her DSs last birthday party (besides loads of presents), this year he's getting a wii (and loads of other presents). WTF?

why don't these people simply save more?

i on the other hand spend less than 100 pounds on a family of four (whilst buying high quality, fresh, organic products) by buying 50% of my shopping reduced/offers, at local markets and a lot of things (like toiletries) from pound shops or discounters. we buy value toilet paper (amongst other things); and i go to the hairdresser twice a year, and only to the beautycian for special occasions such as weddings. the children don't get any toys or clothes from us, as there are enough family and friends who don't know what to buy for christmas/birthday parties. so the kids basically don't cost us anything. we have one credit card and we make sure NEVER to overdraw because of the high interest rates.

i simply don't get it...

Should have spellchecked more post below-times are not so bad I can't afford the letter 'r'...

if it's an unconscious choice it's not a fecking choice is it.

I really don't think you do understand - sorry think you're spouting DM bullshit with no real knowledge of the issues behind the headlines.

oh not the bleeding 1st world/3rd world point again.

Not sure if it was this thread or another recent one I posted about my IL's view of poverty in this country - and how they don't feel the need to compare poverty here with poverty in the 3rd world.

Here in the UK people seem to want to belittle the plight of those living in poverty by pointing out how much "worse" poverty in the 3rd world is. Not taking into account things such as the fact that those living comfortably in 3rd world countries would be considered very VERY poor by our standards.

Even us poor folk are allowed a treat you know.
As I am on benefits I am much more frugal than when I was working and I do enjoy bargain hunting and frugal living.
However, why shouldn't your single mum splash out for her son's birthday? She wasn't being selfish- she was doing something he'd remember. It's a lovely gesture.

YABU and bitter and twisted. You should spend more time living and less time ruminating.

BTW- I don't know anyone on benefits who does anything on your list.

Peachy - yes she did make bad choices - sorry, I forgot about her!

Mumscentre - Well it's too complex (and frankly woolly - after all I'm not a politician, just a housewife from Essex) to go into in any well-thought out detail without sounding like a political manifesto, or Chinese one-child policy or a document outlining a major overhauling of the benefits system! But, for example, I would NOT want to readily fund very young unemployed people to have children who will, in all probability be condemned to a lifetime of poverty and benefit dependency. They will see no way out so they will repeat the pattern, as we all know. It's not inevitable, but it's likely. It's hard to explain what I'd like without sounding like I'm proposing mass genocide for the track-suited classes or enforced adoption of their offspring which clearly I'm not! (Honestly - not even horrid old right-of-centre me ).

But I'm not against offering financial incentives to young women who are 'vulnerable' to have long-term birth control injections. And I would start a very aggressive, pro-active campaign aimed at young women in particular, to make them realise that there are so many positive reasons to wait a while before they become mothers. Then I'd set about creating some positive reasons for them. (With my magic wand, obviously).

Instead of paying young people to be on the dole and have babies willy-nilly I'd like to make it harder/less attractive for them to choose that option. I know you'll say 'but it isn't attractive! It's bloody depressing and demoralising! I know that, and so do you, but they clearly don't seem to be getting the message! But I'd also like to see the government paying companies to take on old-fashioned apprentices/juniors to give non-academic working class kids something to aim for and a bit of pride in learning useful skills. I'd much prefer my taxes to go on creating jobs and proper training for them, than allowing them to languish on the dole, bringing up babies in poverty. But of course, they must be made to take those opportunities. And the only way to do that is to give them no choice. I'd like to see young people coming out of care given much more support until they are twenty one, and purpose built 'supported independence' flats, where they have an on-site warden/foster carer to offer support, or the option to stay with foster parents until 21, or longer if necessary. I'd like to see young people from very disadvantaged backgrounds given meaningful financial incentives to stay (fully) in work, or education and not get pregnant, but they must know that those incentives only pay out under certain conditions. No crime, no babies, and you turn up for work at the job you've been given, even if it's street sweeping. I feel so strongly about the care system in this country I could spit. Children should not be left to fester in care or in a seriously disfunctional home, for years on end whilst well-meaning people try to work miracles with a useless mother. It's tragic that she won't get her child back - but it is even more tragic if that child never knows a stable loving home until it's been so deeply damaged that no-one can make a difference.

I'd like the benefits system changes so that it is not more cost effective for people to be on benefits than work. But to do that, jobs need to be created. There are tons of things all around us that need doing. They are not glamorous or always pleasant, but they need doing. People should be paid to do those rather than paid to do nothing. Sorry, it's a bit of a Daily Mail cliche, but it's not without its merits.

It should not be more cost effective for women to live as single mothers than as part of a couple.

I'd like to see people who are not financially supporting their own children through work penalised after a reasonable amount of children, not rewarded for having more. Obviously there are always caveats - I wouldn't recommend public flogging for someone whose third 'baby' turned out to be triplets! And by penalised, you know I don't mean prison and enforced adoption...Don't you?

Oh, I could go on, but it's turning into the TiggyR show. I'm not cold-hearted or naive about what people face in the real world, and I know peoples' lives can turn on a hairpin. I just truly believe that strongly encouraging people to be a bit more responsible for themselves and their own actions/futures will be the best way to empower them in the end. I know it's not easy and I'm sure someone will step in to point out the many flaws in my arguments, but just giving people extra money without any conditions does not work.

OK, I've managed to NOT say 'Broken Britain' or Bring back National Service, or 'PC gorn mad' but apart from that I've pretty much nailed my colours to the mast!

thank fuck you're not a bloody politician with that load of uneducated nonsense. You have just proved you really do have no farking clue

I worked in Nepal for six months before uni. Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world.
Out of Kathmandu there is hardly any proper sanitaion. I had to shit in a pit that was full to the brim and brimming with roaches. The roads kept collapsing into the ravines often bringing bus loads of people with them. People lived in mud huts that got soaked in the monsoon and cattle are still used to plough the fields. Rubbish got burned on the side of the road and lots of children were unshod.
I think that my life on benefits is comfortable when compared with what the people there have to live with but then compared to what I was earning before dd I am struggling. Money goes out as soon as it comes in and it dosn't go on luxuries.

posh - don't even try to compare poverty here with poverty there.

There's no point - and I bet they don't sit comparing poverty they live in with poverty here.

BTW - I used to have to shit in holes in the ground in Zim - and often they were people living very comfortably........different world and all that .

FIL has refused to go on any day trips with us if we hired a car because we're poor and not working - this is despite explaining to him that we did have a little money to be able to do it (last payment from HB - as I'd managed to get a month ahead of myself my last payment was a "spare" one).

This is a man who until 5 weeks ago had never stepped foot out of Zimbabwe!!

So FAQ, if I'm spouting uneducated DM cliched nonsense, let's turn it on its head. You tell me the answer..........How to end the wretched cycle of poverty and benefit dependency?

But the problem is changing people's whole mindsets. You can offer people oppotunities til you're blue in the face, but you can't change how people feel about life.
Sending in some suited, too-chirpy govt rep into the remains of a mining town, whose entire work ethic was destroyed by Thatcher and in its third generation of poverty and unemployment and ordering them all out to work won't help. It's unfeasible to take away all support; there wouldhave to still be some unemployment/child benefit.
Which brings me onto my main point. Yes people are responsible for their actions. But I fimrly believe the so-called culture of dependancy can be traced back to Thatcher. She took away so, so many 'working class jobs.' She took away pride, respect and a sense of community. She left people desperate and demoralised, whole towns and cities of people. She took away the idea of working to support your family. And in her wake she left people desperate, and that's passed on and is what we're seeing now.
No wonder people think 'sod it.' I doubt very much the girls that get pregnant at 16 and unemployed young men who are seemingly happy to do sod all are the grandchildren of the 70's and 80's middle classes.
Sorry, rambling. But my point is, yes educate where you can, yes tryand change people's lives for the better. But why would people trust the government, when itwas bloody politicians that did this in the first place? You can hardly blame people for the choices that they're making now when the work ethic was stolen.
Highest teen pregnancy rates, highest rates of drug addiction, lowest GCSE results etc etc= areas with the highest unemployment figures under Thatcher.
So no, it's not about choice really. It's seeing no other way when what's handed down to you is that shit.

'you know I don't mean prison and enforced adoption...Don't you?'

I knew that, but the thing is- WHAt penalties?

That is exactly the question isn't it?

Cut their benefits and in a significant minority of famillies the kids will be the ones to see the cuts, not the parents.

Cut their benefits and you cut their chances of working- my spare cash if there is any atm is going by for an interview suit if I can get an interview ever

There is also another key thing- the worst off a person ever is IME is when you go back to work; benefits stop paying you becuase you are earning, but you have to get there, pay childcare, catch the bus, eat etc.

You may get some WTC but many people who have been on benefits for a while are then nursing an overpayment becuase of how the system works.

it's not so bad if you're in a weekly paid job, in a monthly one it sucks.

The area here is close to the mining region, the school I mentored at was in a formermining town- thuings are picking up there but still have so far to go (Tredegar).

Indeed, the palce I grew up in suffered massively at the same time from the loss of industry, the sense of absolute loss of hope there was immense

You have to help people find their own reasons to try. I'm wary of promoting work-to-claim schemes because it'll go the same way as the YTS schemes of yesteryear: job losses of experienced people in favour of cheap / free labour. However,promoting voluntary work for charities is a great thing I think as it does help people find the things that motivate them- similarly work trialschemes where people can try different areas and crucuially discover the benefits of a job: there's a lot to be said for inane staffroom chit chat and a sense of contribuition, but you have to try it to know that

well cutting benefits certainly isn't one of them.

Increase the minimum wage - it's completely wrong that for many people being in work leaves them even worse off than when on benefits.

I think the people behind THAWN/THAWP (set up using money from the NDC fund in Thornhill Estate in Southampton) have got the right idea. But obviously as they're still only 1/2 way through the NDC projects it's difficult to know if that's part of the answer.

There needs to be more support in the communities, not just financial, not throwing jobs at them or telling them in school do this/that/the other.

Advocacy, Outreach, Family Support Workers, these are the people that make the real difference. Groups and things for people to do. There's no point throwing money and education at people if there's sod all for them to do.

Poor health and well-being (all three aspects - social, physical and mental) have been clearly linked to those living in poverty.

If you don't do things to improve those then things will never change.

People need to stop looking at the money/benefits part of it and look at the wider issues of the problems that are rife in the areas with such issues.

Carers, and those living with disabilities need to be given more help and respite, they frequently live in disabling environments - this affects their health. Obvioiusly there are many people with disabilities who can never work in anyway at all, but there are many who could - and do actually want to work but the barriers placed in front of them are so great it becomes easier to stay home and claim - but just as with many without disabilities or things preventing them from work being stuck at home on benefits creates poor social, physical and mental health - and so the cycle continues.

To spend a bit more money on schools and the health service than wars, duck islands and porn for mp's husbands? to not penalise schools with poor results by cutting funding and starving them of resources? by providing decent sex education? by offering more vocational course in secondary schools? by providing more midwives and health visitors to visit schools? by opening more colleges? by creating state subsidised gyms and swimming pools (excercise boosts the mood, gives sense of acheivement etc) by offering more adult literacy courses? by subsidising museums and art galleries?
just by generally giving people a sense of self-worth rather than penalising them?

Peachy, brilliant point about voluntary work!

I know i am harking off the topic here, but a simple way to helpcarers is to support the use of nannies for childcare schemes- not only would a Nanny be cheaper for 4 here, it would make ds1's care so simple. Do-able, indeed if we could hire someone from one of the ASD courses they run here to provide after school support.

I understand that there are ways of doing that under TC's now if the nanny is ofsted, but we would be claiming via student childcare grant which has a computer that says no

socialism...only way to go. sod all else has worked.
peachy- form own political party?

What the Actually We are Socialist AND a bit streetwise party?

I wish LOL

love it. and abolish all govt targets, as they are the work of the very devil.

I do think the voluntary sector has a huge role to play in helping people to get back into work.

After I had my breakdown I was referred to homestart, when an organiser came to see me she said the best way in which we can help you is to allow you to help others. She was right, it allowed me to escape a victim mentality and to start building a future.

I would not have been able to get straight back into teaching, my confidence was zero and I had an appalling health record. By working for homestart first of all in a voluntary and then paid capacity I was able to build my confidence, rediscover what I was good at and make contacts in the local community. I managed to keep commitments and with a perfect attendance record managed to repair some of the damage my employment record had suffered. I was approached by a number of people regarding teaching or associated positions as they saw what I could do.

I always thought that was the point of surestart schemes and similar, to enable parents to return to work when they felt able and therefore escaping the poverty trap.

The problem with surestart IME FC is simple- there isn't one here! We don't qualify because our village is well off, but then you live in a fairly niiiiice area too so I expect you know about ruralpoverty and all that

Several of our ex famillies ended up as homestart mentors you know, they were always excellent, some went on to very related jobs- the woman I beat for the Organisers role was one (no idea how I pulled that off).

It's stupid, the volunatry sector saves the state so much money, millions and ocld save even mroe but it suffers from a lack of man power (one of thereasons our fudning was withdrawn I think, althogh that happened after I left).

A small benefits premium for those ocntributing X hours in voluntary work fro approved charities? there's such a variety that some could be done from home, in places with creche facillities or where you could take a child.

if you have aring responsibilties for a disabled eprson or a child under school age your benefit should be set at the premium level anyway- it may not be ideal fro the state but its way different to sitting at home watching JK eating basics ready salted crisps.

Govt targets- thuink! the route of all circumstance ignoring.

Riven - we're having pizza tonight (the huge Morrisons onesx3) and we're have a BBQ with lots of meat tomorrow night

• barbecue ehre ytoo but DH not back fromcarnival building yet and I am on a diet so can only eat healthy stuff. Boo.