Save the Children launches appeal for children in the UK

[Vagaceratops]

BBC link

And it will get worse :(

The first time they've had to appeal for the UK.

My children would bump up the statistics in the questions answered by children in that report, it doesn't mean anything. It certainly doesn't mean we are in real poverty. Children from families on a relatively good wage would say their parents are finding it harder to afford things, are cutting back on things, have missed out on school trips and that their parents are stressed about money.

Child poverty is a horrible thing whatever form it takes, but we need to remember that we are talking about relative poverty in the UK, not actual poverty poverty.

It is up to parents as much as it is up to the government to eradicate child poverty, and for some, that will mean not having children. Yes, I realise that is an unpopular opinion on MN, but it's true. Children are a privelidge not a right, and someone's desire to have children does not outweigh a child's right to not live in relative poverty.

The majority of our grandparents will have grown up in what we call poverty today, it didn't stop many of them making a success of their lives.

We always need to remember that it is absolute poverty that matters, not relative poverty.

It says
"The report quotes last month's Department for Work and Pensions figures which showed 61% of children in poverty had working parents. It urges the government to encourage more employers to pay above the minimum wage so that workers can provide for their families.

It says the new Universal Credit system should let working parents keep more of their earnings before benefits are withdrawn and urges the government to pay 80% of childcare costs for the poorest families.

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: "Despite £150bn being poured into benefits and tax credits over the last decade, the previous government's approach to tackling child poverty has failed with the UK missing its own 2010 child poverty targets.

"The government remains committed to eradicating child poverty, but we want to take a new approach by tackling the root causes including worklessness, educational failure and family breakdown.

"And our welfare reforms will improve the lives of some of the poorest families in our communities, with the Universal Credit simplifying the complex myriad of benefits and lifting 350,000 children and 550,000 adults out of poverty.""

You can come and see child in poverty in my 3 world country where toddlers live in the street and eat out of rubish bins. I know there are lots of failies 'strugling' and I saw that single mother today at breakfas news who got redundant 2 years ago and is woried about money. I bet she won't clean someone's house while her son is at nursery/school for cash in hand, nor become a childminder and work from home and herself to improve her life. Her job is gone and after 2 years she couldn't find anything else? How do the foreigners who come here on limited visa and barely speak english manage?

The campaign urges the government to focus on benefits for low-paid families and ask employers to pay a living wage.

That's always the answer isn't it? Give the poor people more money.

Before we do that I'd like to understand why these people are in 'poverty'.

I know quite a few people who are on benefits and manage perfectly well. They don't live an extravagant lifestyle but there's always enough for the basics and the occasional night out. Then there are others who no matter what they get are in perpetual debt.

Without any meaningful stats on why those children are living in poverty, having a campaign to focus on giving more money out seems a bit premature.

Give more money and they will never leave the sofa andturn the TV off. I wouldn't.

And I am talking about lazy folk who thinks they deserve to do one kind of work only and are pick on jobs. Not the ones with very young children or ill.

And therein lies the problem complexo. How do you identify who are poor because their parents are idle & feckless? And who are genuinely in need?

The best example I can give is I used to know two single mothers. Both had been on benefits for a long time. One lived in a nice rented house and could afford the occasional night out with friends. The other was struggling to heat her home and buy food. Why the difference? Well because one lived within her means and spent money on priority items like paying bills. The other smoked 20 cigarettes a day, had huge debts from overspending and insisted on buying her kids the latest gadgets for xmas so they didn't miss out.

How do you ensure you give extra money to those who NEED it and not to those who just need to change their spending habits?

''We always need to remember that it is absolute poverty that matters, not relative poverty.''

Why?

it says 61% are working, so hardly the feckless job shy?

who will look after the kids when she is cleaning? and to be a childminder you need to do at least a 9 month course, it may not be available with childcare in her area, or her house may not be suitable.

There are people in poverty in UK. Notably asylum seekers who cannot work and those with no access to public funds.

As well as that women who are separating or fleeing DV have a hard time, it can take months before benefits and houseing are sorted out and in that time they have to rely on handouts, when they do get housing they have no furniture, beds, clothes so have to decide if they are going to spend on beds/washing machine/clothes for themselves and kids/bills food etc. While in bed and breakfast they still have to pay rent.

Also families who do work as cleaners etc, often travel costs are high.

also those separating and being housed still need to get their kids to school, and have to pay for buses every day to do so as wont be housed in same area.

I bet she won't clean someone's house while her son is at nursery/school for cash in hand

This is a corker of a comment. Where are all the cleaning jobs? And assuming there are enough opportunities, do you really advocate people working cash in hand?

Smellslike, because relative poverty is often down to personal choices which the government is not responsible for. And because relative poverty doesn't mean that people have so little that they can't sustain life, which is really all that anyone can expect someone else to provide for them.

We've got food banks and charities who in the past focused on third world countries are now finding those needs in the UK.

I would say not being able to eat is Real Poverty.

But even if the poverty is relative or absolute, the bottom line is that children are suffering, going without hot meals, warm clothing etc.

The government should do something about it. When people can't afford to eat it should be a priority.

And for every anecdote people throw up about 'somebody they know' who smokes and drinks and has a massive telly, there are 5 who are just poorly paid with rising housing/utility/food costs and are really struggling.

It is awful that not every child has what others have in the UK. But really, extreme poverty? The things being described in the article are just not comparable to the level of poverty experienced by children in other countries all over the world.

"The charity defines living in poverty as having a family income of less than £17,000 a year."

Families in the Brazilian favela where I sometimes work earn less than 10p a day. I know standard of living is lower but really? So not the same.

"More than half the parents in poverty surveyed (61%) said they had cut back on what they ate and more than a quarter (26%) had skipped meals in the past year"

The charity school in the favela provides a big hot lunch free because that is the only meal some of the children will have in a day.

"Just under a fifth (19%) said their children sometimes had to go without new shoes when they needed them."

Plenty of the children have never owned a pair of shoes.

"Some 19% of children in poverty said they had missed out on school trips "

Lots of children can't attend school at all because they have to be begging or trying to earn some money. The slum school don't have trips and can only educate the children for half a day because there a so many children they have to split into two sessions.

That's just a few examples. It' crazy to say we are a poor country or that our children are growing up in poverty. They aren't. We are a country that is less economically successful than it was and more people are poorly off. That sucks but it isn't something I can get upset about while children in other countries don't even have basic food and shelter.

The government should do something about it. When people can't afford to eat it should be a priority.

But we can only put a sensible policy in place when we understand the reasons.

So far the article is good at articulating what the effects are but incredibly light on the reasons why.

I'm not arguing that there are genuinely many people who do need help. But the tricky part is determining who is genuinely deserving and who is not.

"And for every anecdote people throw up about 'somebody they know' who smokes and drinks and has a massive telly, there are 5 who are just poorly paid with rising housing/utility/food costs and are really struggling."

Hear hear vagaceratops

We've got food banks and people can't afford to eat. Ridiculous for a country like the UK.

The government should sort this out as a priority.

This Government is very committed as my quote above shows to dealing with this issue.

We reward the idle and feckless and we need to change that. Also what is poor?
I only drink tap water. Can that be said of these benefits claimants? I feel very lucky to have access to clean tap water which most of hte poor on the planet do not. It is absolute not relative poverty which matters. Morally we ought to ensure the poor are helped to ehlp themselves and for temporary periods until they sort themselves out can be housed and fed but not in a way that is particularly comfortable. They have no entitlement or moral right to hair conditioner, tea and coffee and a heap of things I have often not had which a lot of the poor take for granted.

I only drink tap water. Can that be said of these benefits claimants?

I am speechless.

I am just saying those of us who have at trimes been short of money know that there are some things people say which are essential.
Also from a health point of view if you eat much less and simple foods and just drink water you won't be having so many health problems although of course the poor don't pay prescription charges I suppose so they don't have that burden most other people do if they are ill.

There was an interesting feature on Newsnight last night regarding this issue. The Trusell Trust, who run food banks, identified two key groups who use the service. It was approximately an equal split.

The first group are in receipt of benefits but, for numerous reasons, are not receiving them. These reasons are often out with the control of claimants and are down to bureaucratic errors or are related to claimants not complying with the rules and, therefore, losing money as a result.

The second group are in work but struggling - usually due to debt repayments. The Trust found that people prioritised their debt repayment over buying food. The debts were typically pay day loans and/or doorstep lenders.

I would agree that central govt has a responsibility to ensure claimants receive the benefits they are entitled to speedily and without error. This should be a priority.

Another good option would be local govt encouraging the proliferation of credit unions across the country to reduce reliance on unsustainable lending a la pay day loan companies.

The people not complying with the requirements of JSA need to understand that they are entering a contract with the tax payer. We will support you to find a new job but you have to follow the rules. If you disagree then contact your MP, campaign for change, etc. but follow the rules as they stand now.

Another good option would be local govt encouraging the proliferation of credit unions across the country to reduce reliance on unsustainable lending a la pay day loan companies.

Agree with this.