The real cost-of-living-crisis: Five million British children 'sentenced to life of poverty thanks to welfare reforms'

[ttosca]

Five million children in Britain could be “sentenced to a lifetime of poverty” by 2020 because of welfare reforms, according to research from Save the Children.

Cuts to benefits, the rising cost of living and years of flat wages have created a “triple whammy” for children, the charity said. It argues that children have borne the brunt of the recession in Britain, and now represent the “face of poverty” in the UK.

Policies such as the “bedroom tax” combined with the slashing of tax credits and council tax relief mean “the social safety net no longer acts as a sufficient backstop for poor families”, claims the Save the Children report.

Soaring food prices and childcare costs have also hit families, with the cost of food rising by 19 per cent when compared with other goods between 2007 and 2011. A nursery place for a child under two cost 77 per cent more last year than it did a decade ago.

A significant proportion of families across England – as high as 28 per cent in London – are skipping meals in a bid to make ends meet. And in many areas, more than one in 10 families cannot afford to buy children new shoes when they need them.

cont'd

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-real-costoflivingcrisis-five-million-british-children-face-life-of-poverty-thanks-to-welfare-reforms-9442061.html

Sorry, 60% of median income

ThinkAboutItTomorrow ….. in answer to your last post cherry picking a few of my points, WHY can you NOT see that there is no comparison between relatively recent previous recessions and this last one, the longest and deepest ever in most countries? Where the near total collapse of the Western banking system put huge pressure on governments and any businesses, all needing to borrow, and those with capital were searching for investment to preserve capital, without ‘risk’.

A recession is never good employment/pay rate news, it’s a stinker, hence called a bleedin’ recession; a 2007/8 financial recession that then became the Great Recession that appears to come along once in a century, is no ‘V’ or normal ‘U’ shaped recovery, IMO we don’t have a letter to describe a recovery that first needed the banks to be recapitalized.

The UK’s economy by 2007/8 was unbalanced (see the 1 million manufacturing jobs lost by 2005 link in an earlier post), by 2010 it was worse still as the Private Sector and it’s tax paying jobs were decreasing, as the 100% tax payer funded Public Sector and it’s jobs were still increasing.

So more and more government spending/debt (a major component of GDP with consumer spending/debt) was need to maintain the fat State and employee numbers RATHER than give tax cuts to the poor e.g. re-instate Brown’s 10p start tax rate he took away as the recession took hold.

As to the UK recovery slowly rebalancing itself, if we are growing around (GDP) 3% and the figures I showed you are a fraction of 1%, we have an unemployment rate of 6.8%, and the Eurozone’s is 11% - how can you say that we have WEAK growth, relative to Europe (and other G7 countries) or otherwise?
www.whatinvestment.co.uk/financial-news/markets/2455072/latest-uk-gdp-data-shows-economic-recovery-is-broad-based-and-balanced-henderson.thtml

Where I think you are going wrong is that you somehow expect GDP growth to somehow put money in everyone’s pockets, which it can via new jobs and wriggle room for governments to
cut taxes, when often, it means governments can cut LESS out of services budgets etc as markets keep funding our national debt.

As to the “growth being created is only benefiting the tiny number of people at the top of society”, you really have to stop listening to Labour’s shite, how can 1.5 million plus new jobs just be benefiting the few, look at these recent figures INCLUDING the unemployed 16-24 year olds, who (as the chart shows) really suffered after 2005 when ‘better’ candidates for jobs were imported.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27406457”
“The number of people in work rose to 30.43 million, the highest since records began in 1971, helped by a rise in self-employment."

But as the Coalition KEEP saying, it is very fragile and there is so much more to do, but the pro sustainable business/employment building blocks are in place, and it could have been far worse under Labour, who would have followed the French economic model that saw unemployment up over 11%, before they followed the Coalitions more balanced example, reducing debt/spending.
www.trendingcentral.com/francois-hollande-changed-ed-miliband-stayed/

How many times are you going to repeat the bullshit about job creation?

These employed figures are, like everything else that comes out of the Coalition government, bullshit:

Here is How the UK Govt Hid 1 million Jobless From Official Unemployment Figures

One of the purported achievements of the Coalition government’s disastrous economic policy of austerity, has been the unemployment figures. Pundits say that at 7.8% (2.51m) they are nothing to shout about but not the disastrous rates seen in states such as Greece (26.9%) or Spain (26.3%). In reality, the unemployment rate is more than double this in many areas, while those in employment are facing ever worsening conditions to retain their non-jobs.

We have the Thatcher government to thank for the majority of the statistical trickery which currently renders the government released unemployment figures redundant. Prior to 1979, the unemployment rate was anyone registered as unemployed, this was converted to a percentage of the total workforce and that was the published unemployment rate. Then some changes came in:

Redefining Unemployment:  originally defined as those ‘registered’ unemployed, changed to only count ‘claimants’ – this obviously reduced the number greatly as many unemployed people do not, for various reasons, claim benefits.

Cutting Benefit Entitlements: By making changes to the benefit system (who is eligible and not) the government can magic away unemployment numbers by simply removing eligibility for benefits.  If the person cannot claim, they are not classed as unemployed.

Training Schemes & Work Programmes: the conservative government of the 80’s began to double count those in training & work programmes.  First, they excluded them from the unemployed figures, then they added them to the total workforce figures – this means that simply by recruiting people into a work programme, the government has reduced the unemployment figures.  Prior to Thatcher, these schemes were not counted as employment.

www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/08/06/1-million-jobless-left-out-of-uk-govt-unemployment-figures/

---

The Tories are still lying about "a million" new private sector jobs

The party still won't admit that Cameron is including 196,000 posts reclassified from the public sector.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2012/10/tories-are-still-lying-about-million-new-private-sector-jobs

----

''... the large increase in private sector employment seen in April 2012 was actually nothing of the sort, but rather was due to the reclasification of 196,000 public sector jobs to private sector ones. In reality, just under a fifth of the coalition’s ‘million new jobs’ are actually the result of the reclasification of further education and sixth form college teachers as private sector employees."

www.leftfootforward.org/2013/12/the-tory-sleight-of-hand-over-1-1-million-more-private-sector-jobs/

-----

YOU. ARE. A. LIAR.

Why did Labour not build more homes during those boom years. They are full of the usual hot air as to how they will sort it all out if only they get voted in again. I for one won't be falling for that old line again.

All the mainstream parties are full of hot air. Vivienne. You're falling for the good cop, bad cop, routine if you think otherwise.

80% of the 'job creation' is in London. And 80% are low wage sectors such as retail and catering.
Not driven by investment from a resurgent and free from red tape business sector but by DEBT. Retail sales are up nearly 6% since 2010 and this correlates neatly with a surge in private borrowing.

All that freeing business from nasty taxes and red tape has led to £750 bn in assets for them to sit on. Not invest, just sit on.

So great, more people are working harder but staying in poverty. Over half of all those in poverty are working. Excuse me if I'm not jumping up and down with glee about this recovery.

ThinkAboutItTommorrow …….. Now you appear to understand the severity of the last recession and Labour’s part in making our annual budget deficit so large, making tax cuts for the poor more difficult (under Labour at least, due to their economic delusion that an unsustainable fat, expensive State, was the solution to ‘growf’ and a ballooning national debt), lets look at your other points.

Re your “80% of all jobs are in London” and “80% are in low paid jobs like retail and catering”; guessing that these are all the “rich” you said were the only ones benefiting from the recovery, can you please QUALIFY that statement with stastics more recent than ttosca’s of October last year please?

In the Coalition’s defence, if your stats are true (and sorry, but I doubt it), as under 13-years of a Labour education around half our school leavers cannot deduct a £60 odd item from £100 and get the correct answer, may I suggest that it is too early to encourage company’s to create a million new jobs in Rocket Science etc?

Do not forget the damage done to the likes of Industry/Manufacturing by Labour pre and post end 2007 financial crash, jobs were lost, UK banks more damaged than others were not lending and based on the extent of the recession, business confidence WAS very low and only started coming back recently, even after Osborn help from 2010.

“Uk Industrial Output rises at the fastest annual pace since 2011.”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27779000
”However, the levels of industrial output and manufacturing output were respectively 11.3% and 7.0% below the pre-downturn GDP peak of the first quarter of 2008, the ONS said.”

"UK Economy Regains Pre Recession Peak."
www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-10/u-k-industrial-output-posts-biggest-annual-increase-since-2011.html
Britain is the last of the Group of Seven nations bar Italy to regain its pre-recession level.

Regarding your point that freeing up the red tape has led them to “sit on, not invest £750 billion in assets,” as I explain further above, confidence has been returning for a year or so and so has business investment, but again I would ask you to QUALIFY your figure and confirm that figure is for British companies and give the break down if possible.

You see if you are suggesting that all the thousands of small and medium sized businesses (like small High Street shops) that form the backbone of our economy are sitting on that money, rather than our major companies in say the FTSE 100 or 250, I’d suggest you could not be more wrong - and forming an opinion on the ‘health’ of companies to pay more taxes on those assumptions are seriously flawed. Balls/Miliband please take note on revisiting National Insurance rises AGAIN.

And regarding all ‘levels’ of poverty, what was your solution for a 2010 new parliament in the biggest recession in over 80-years, with an unbalanced economy and spending £157 billion more than what we earn, leave every claimant how they were, throw another £100 billion at them all and assume they will wean themselves off of Welfare/Benefits dependency Labour encourages for votes – and pay another £10 billion in annual interest (£62 billion) on our debts for our grandchildren to sort out?

Labour screwed up royal BEFORE the Great Recession, to such an extent, there are no easy solutions for a country THAT SHOULD NOT have had the largest budget deficit in Europe DUE to Labour’s pre crash spending/waste – which is why there were NO SOLUTIONS for rebuilding the economy or helping the poor they helped create in Labour’s 2010 General Election manifesto, other than ‘more of the same’.

ttosca … … Further to your highly reader misleading posts saying ‘all party’s are the same and based on a link you provided said to me, posting that “YOU ARE A LIAR”.

May I just point out that we are currently in June 2014, WHEN YOUR LINK IS DATED OCTOBER 2013 reflecting on data before that, so you sir, if not a liar, are as incompetent as every other socialist posting with an opinion trying to defend the record of 13-years of Labour's socialism and all the bad choices they made.

On our (then) indigenous multi cultural unemployed, encouraged new immigration, incompetent economic and spending policies and resulting welfare/benefit dependency, a social crisis with the biggest deficit in Europe.

Below are today’s figures, dropping from 6.8%, to 6.6%, although wages are still not keeping up with inflation – but you have to have jobs to even worry about pay rates first.

As all party’s are the same, please inform the board what Labour’s 2010 economic, business/job creation, and COST OF LIVING plan was in 2010, other than cut VAT for 13-months and to help people’s finances, put up National Insurance, Fuel Duty and no doubt annual keep raising Council Taxes????

(June 11 2014) "UK Unemployment Falls; Payrolls Surge to Record High’
www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-11/u-k-unemployment-falls-more-than-forecast-as-recovery-gains-1-.html

"The jobless rate dropped to 6.6 in the three months through April from 6.8 percent in the first quarter, the Office for National Statistics said in London today. While employment rose 345,000, the biggest increase since records began in 1971, the data also showed wage growth slowed."

Labour screwed up royal BEFORE the Great Recession, to such an extent, there are no easy solutions for a country THAT SHOULD NOT have had the largest budget deficit in Europe DUE to Labour’s pre crash spending/waste – which is why there were NO SOLUTIONS for rebuilding the economy or helping the poor they helped create in Labour’s 2010 General Election manifesto, other than ‘more of the same’.

So why did the Tories commit to matching labour spending plans?

No one saw the crash coming. It was a global crash.

The rich are benefiting from the recovery because QE is pouring value into asset prices - making the rich richer whilst the poor slog away at jobs that don't pay a living wage. Sorry but there is nothing to celebrate in that and the self congratulatory tone of your posts is pretty sick on a thread about child poverty.

ThinkAboutItTomorrow ….. so no QUALIFYING previous one-line mantras with some facts I requested, so now you are getting desperate trying to blame the Tories, the world and now me, answering your mistruths.

Firstly, when Labour matched the post early 1990’s recession Conservative spending plans in 1997, the annual budget deficit became a small surplus in the early 2000’s. Re the Conservatives ‘matching’ Labour’s spending plans, are you referring to Osborn’s comment around 2007 around the time of the financial crash started, that was yet to transform to a financial recession?

As if so, rather than deflect to Osborn, please actually READ some of the links I provide, as the financial damage was done via Labour’s spending/waste between 2001 and 2008, which as this rather Labour kind article points out - Brown’s massive increase in spending was backed up by taxes from speculation, that fell away from 2007, leaving government spending without the City etc tax receipts that mainly covered it (but Brown was still running a £30 bil annual overspend).
www.economicshelp.org/blog/5509/economics/government-spending-under-labour/

The resulting annual budget deficit RESTRICTED BROWN’s OPTIONS to help businesses/people via meaningful tax cuts, like other countries with far less of a budget deficit and/or more balanced economies were able to offer, in order to offset some of the effects of the recession.

So yes I totally agree with you, that few people saw the crash coming, but the spending and unbalancing of the economy was done before hand and would have become a major problem at the first recession – especially as Labour/Brown would never have cut the size/waste of the Public Sector before an election (in 2010), as their Trade Union’s were funding around 90% of their campaign.

“The rich” who had more assets, saw massive falls in their wealth during the crash but has seen them rebound on the recovery HAS WHAT TO DO with Labour’s implementation of £375 billion of QE and bad choices on the structure of the economy, immigration, home building and welfare dependency – unless you can keep them in this country, put them against the wall, and dictate the seizing of all their assets - that will barely dent £1.3 tril of UK national debt?

Finally there is nothing to celebrate about the CURRENT mess the UK is still in, as how it is handled/balanced over the next 5- years dictates our future i.e. spending and taxes, for generations to come.

FYI I am just adding some balance to the propaganda rollocks on this board, that believes Labour is fit for government based on their 13-years of policies during a boom time when they had CHOICES, and now blames the Coalition for everything e.g. child poverty, when they inherited a UK in such a dire economic/social situation that Labour had given up on it by the last election.

Well either that or they didn’t care and cynically kept ‘a blank piece of paper’ as worried how many votes they’d lose in 2010, and neither makes them fit to clean the Coalitions boots. IMO.

The OP was about 5 million children left in poverty because we as a nation lack the will to change this.

The article pointed out that many of the families referenced are working but low wages mean poverty is still the reality.

All you seem to say in reaction to this Isitmebut is that the economy is doing better than europe, it was a really bad recession and we had to make cuts. I must have missed the part where you showed any government policy - in action or proposed - which was likely to change the fundamental tragedy of child poverty?

ThinkAboutItTomorrow …. Regarding your points, starting with the opening post, and then your first post on this link accepting them at face value.

Firstly there is 3.5 million in poverty in households that can bee earning up to £17k; the 5 million figure is a projection by 2020, that somehow neither accurately reflect in the here and now or the next 5-years e.g. the poverty status of the parents of millions of new births by 2020.

Re the strength of the UK economy (you posted you doubted) that may at least mean this nation both pays its current bills and increases government options (balancing a fragile recovery, expenditure,cuts and national debt) to ‘help’ businesses and the lower paid via lower taxation.

Moreover, our recovery gives many thousands of companies that are only just covering their current business costs, never mind new investment/jobs, the near future ability to PAY better rates into a tightening vacancy job market.

Next the source of this report (and subsequent posters) appears to blame long overdue WELFARE REFORMS, rather than the 13-year policy betrayal of the poor by the last Labour government that had options, but made the wrong ideological choices, possibly to provide ‘quick fix’ GDP growth to pay for their expenditure e.g. mass non EU immigration, twice that of EU immigration.

Clearly charities, like many other’s are fooled by Labour’s continual opposition to everything the Coalition did and mantras like ‘bedroom tax’, yet fail to see Shelter figures I gave in my post that show how many families/children need those freed up bedrooms, which for many, could enable some of the poor (a base) to better help themselves.

Regarding the Coalition’s policies you and other‘s ideologically CHOSE not to see, that as there is no magic poverty on/off switch, as Mr Brown’s ££££tens of billions found out (see link below) it is first extremely helpful that the UK that in 2010 had an economic country model structure similar to Greece and France, urgently changed direction – as an unbalanced economy and massive accumulating debt that ends up in extreme cases with an IMF visit and massive enforced cuts, fails not only those in poverty today, but for more generations currently on the Save The Children radar.

“Embarrassment for Brown as major report reveals that inequality has increased under Labour.”
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245080/Embarrassment-Brown-major-report-reveals-inequality-increased-Labour.html

Specifically, the Coalition that inherited a £157 bil annual budget OVERSPEND, versus the budget SURPLUS Brown enjoyed from late 1998 (before his spending splurge from 2001), with no instant economic/poverty short cuts, hit the ground running with the following joined-up-policies with a long term plan;

• Addressing the lack of social housing with a socially blunt policy to free up spare bedrooms for the millions waiting on housing lists and more built in 4-years than Labour did in 13-years, as a start.

• Correcting the education subject/grade deflation that did our children/employers no employment favours.

• A now 2 million increase in Private Sector employment from 2010 mainly in full time, but other part time employment on the path to full time that at least initially gives work/CV experience,

• An extensive apprenticeship scheme with REAL jobs to go to,

• Income Tax cuts that took several hundred out of tax altogether, froze Council Tax after a 110% rise under Labour, National Insurance holidays for employing unemployed young that rose from 580,000 in 2004 to just under a Million by 2010.

• Cutting back on the excessive non EU immigration growth under Labour, we have control over, to ease pressures on jobs and homes.

• Welfare reforms to get those that CAN work in work and an objective of better support for those that really need it.

I'd be interested to hear any other policies that will fix long term poverty issues, bearing in mind the policies in the 2000's that both ignored the problem by ensuring welfare dependency and/or greatly added to the causes.

Oh, it's ok then. Only 3.5 million living in poverty, that's alright.

Sorry, not buying it. I'll judge any government on outcome for people and the record of the labour government, whilst not perfect, was a damn sight better than the current lot.

The issue is the rich and privileged won't give up one bit of that wealth or privilege and won't question the system that gave them that in the first place.

DD went to a birthday part the other week in Surrey. 7 bedroom house with 8 bathrooms and a garden that could house a horse, several pigs and chickens. The drive could house 6-7 cars.
In it lived 2 adults and single child.
There are acres of such dwellings in Surrey - so the real housing crisis is why there are so many enormous houses with 3-4 people in them. This is not an efficient way of housing people!!!!

But Miggsie not everyone who is rich inherited their wealth - lots have worked really hard for it, risked their own finances etc.(example - Sir Alan Sugar, started off as a barrow boy)

So why on earth should they BE MADE to give some of it to someone who has been an idle fecker all their adult life (because just as not all the rich are "underserving", so not all the poor are "deserving" IYSWIM - some just want to take from others withoutb contributing themselves).

Who will sit in judgement of who deserves what? Whatever scenario you can come up with, I can demonstrate how it will not be fair to someone else.

And as for the huge houses that 3-4 people live in - if they can afford to why shouldn't they?

What do you suggest - only a certain type/size of house can be built irrespective of personal wealth? Demolish all the bigger houses?

You wanna make everyone wear the same outfit too as in China before they ditched Communism?

Only be allowed to buy the same food and drink?

People wanted solutions. We could only pay benefits for up to 2 children. We could ensure no benefits for anyone under 25. That would stop people having children who cannot afford them.

Yes the meanest TORY measure ever agains children. And Nick clegg is a patsty Walking the plank

Cameron should have I PUT COMPASSION ON THE RATION on his gravestone (Buried with Clegg)

Do you think Blair and Brown will get state funerals for their 'services' to the poor, including pensioners?

Labour inherited in 1997 the fastest growing economy in Europe, had £trillions and the best global economic/interest rate/inflation back drop in probably a century to HELP the poor - by building social homes, lowering taxes for the low paid, raising State pensions, encouraging them into some of the 2.5 million spare jobs we apparently had - so you must be proud of their record.

Blair/Brown lucked into the economic conditions to make a real difference, the Coalition were handed a £157 billion annual overspend in the worst honking global recession in over 80-years, yet it's the Coalitions fault and they are being mean to children. Pathetic.

It's shameful how some people have been brainwashed into being ashamed of the welfare state.

IME its not the 'bad' families that are poor.
It's those families with one or two working parents on shitty incomes who don't qualify for help with things like tax credits and help with childcare.

Poor does not = bad and vice versa

I work with vulnerable families in a 'deprived' area but some of my poorest families still clothe and feed their children fantastically because that's where their priorities are, others buy alcohol, drugs and their children go hungry and are poorly dressed.

Oh and just to add I claim tax credits as a single parent too

The ScottishPlay & Mozzchops ... please do not put words in my mouth, I came from a Council estate and have seen bad times myself, needing to rely on benefits.

Poverty is a complex problem, and until the core causes are addressed by government i.e. enough housing, jobs, taxes as low for the poor as they can be, an education fit for employment etc those in poverty now and in the future can only go higher - whether those in that situation chose to try help themselves or not.

For a Labour government who again chose to legislate, if memory serves, against poverty in their last year, THEIR record on all of the above was worse that abysmal.

Because it appears their sticky plaster solution was just to increase benefits and benefits dependency, which is fine as a short term solution (no matter in a boom or bust) - but if you make choices to spend government money elsewhere and sub out the jobs we had, it is both a massive lost opportunity and a criminal neglect of poverty.

Now whether some people want to put on their red rose tinted specs and blot out the last administrations record on this subject is one thing, but frankly I object to the blaming of a coalition that like all governments will make some mistakes, but they are needing to REACT to numerous problems they inherited during a recessionary crisis, to all the policies of neglect from Labour, when there wasn't one.

Not so much 'credit where credit due', no Conservative government would ever expect that from at least 35% of the population, more 'blame where due' over 13-years, so can't be fixed in 4-5 years.

P.S. Look back at Labour's first parliament from 1997, far from needing to make loads of reforms to stop the country going down the economic, debt and social toilet, they just concentrated on selling around half the nations gold, putting up taxes and ruining company/individuals private pensions. Simples.

And they had what, an 140 parliamentary seat majority to pool those all those MP little grey cells and come up with that. Even said they 'cured boom and bust' before presiding over the 'mother' of both.