UK child poverty - still of huge concern - how can it be sorted?

[PersephoneSnape]

Whilst I appreciate that poverty in the UK is relative and that there are billions of children worldwide who are far worse off, I found this news story very unsettling yesterday ?

The government has various targets designed to half child poverty by 2020 ? and it doesn?t seem to be working quickly or going far enough.

What are your thoughts? Any solutions?

'How is giving people free food going to end child poverty?'

at least their parents will have more money to spend on chocolate. (sorry, my sarcasm there...)

i think it's a part of a solution. it has to go hand in hand with all of the things expat said as well - I don't think that it is the be-all and end all. My 2 Ds's go to primary school in Maryhill. it's as rough as get out and you can tell the well-fed kids from the others at a glance. The well/properly fed kids tend to be the academically achieving kids as well - but then that is probably more down to the parenting skills/sitting and reading together/family life that they experience, which is hand in hand with the parents attitude to nutrition.

'brain food' though - especially breakfast - can't concentrate on an empty stomach - if educational achievement is a way out of poverty (although there is a whole different argument about equality of choice regarding educational establishment etc) then children need to do well at school and certain types of food will help them concentrate, participate etc.

I've gone back to the bloody free meals. rats!

"at least their parents will have more money to spend on chocolate."

and worse

we finally agree on something - I also think educational achievement is the surest way out of poverty. And yes, you will achieve more academically if your not hungry or worrying about where your next meals gonna come from. Just knowing that when they arrive at their school they are gonna get a nice breakfast and lunch must really lift the spirits of some poor kids.

'"at least their parents will have more money to spend on chocolate."

and worse '

or heating? clothes? ever-rising food bills?

But heating clothes and food high costs affect everybody. If these areas need to be tackled then tackle them. That way, people like pensioners also get helped, not just people with primary school aged children.

i did actually put in the 'and worse' except I named what it was but i self edited myself.

yes, some of it will be booze and fags (and worse) because booze helps you forget for a little while that your poor and fags stop you feeling hungry. it's breaking the habit that you've got into to rely on booze and fags and to spend the money on other things - thats another mark of poverty to some extent though - that the ways of feeling better or forgetting temporarily that your circumstances are a bit shit - are actually quite cheap - and then if you rely on cheap booze/fags to allieviate your misery, you get into a cycle of deprivation and a vicious circle of addiction. To an extent, that keeps you where you are.

I used to smoke. It supressed my appetite and helped me feel less stressed. I'd given up smoking when trying to conceive my DD and started again when my Ds2 was 9 months old, when their dad left us. I stopped again almost three years ago because my children got a lot of anti-smoking education at school and (like the oven chips!) I was emotionally blackmailed into stopping. And I feel absolutely bloody fabulous that I did. The money has gone on increased food and fuel bills - but I'm not slowly killing myself -my children have a better chance of growing up with me still being around. It was very very difficult though - although there was a lot of help from the NHS and a lot of support online etc - sorry, I'm digressing.

there was an article in the guardian on wednesday about how much 100 calories costs. 100 calories from broccoli cost around 57p. 100 calories from oven chips cost 2p. I think it is possible to eat healthily on benefits if you're canny - but it involves a lot of shopping around, walking with heavy bags etc - it's a lot easier to go to the spar/iceland and buy overpriced rubbishy food.

argh at the food again - i can't seem to stop - glad we agree on something nametaken (education)

Persephone - "I think it is possible to eat healthily on benefits if you're canny - but it involves a lot of shopping around, walking with heavy bags etc - it's a lot easier to go to the spar/iceland and buy overpriced rubbishy food. "

This has been done on the Jamie Oliver thread, but it is easy and much cheaper to eat healthily than eat junk food. If it comes down to calories broccoli vs oven chips is a false comparison, you should really be comparing potatoes vs oven chips. You could even factor in the oil for frying them if you wanted!

link to the jamie oliver thread please upwind? then i can stop pontificating on it here!

no need - found him (being a twat) in telly, rather than in food

here if anyone else wishes!

look, throwing more money at it is not working.

i don't think the answer is to increase benefits, tbh.

SIL's partner has the kids. he's on benefits FT. he's never worked in his adult life.

he gets plenty of money. he doesn't spend in the kids.

it's not PC to say it, but families like him are not an anomaly.

the other issue is that it often does not pay to work for a large number of people.

why?

well, let's see. the personal threshhold is way too low.

then you have WTC topping out at around £15,000/pa - per family.

then you lose that, but you don't lose just that.

you lose most or all of your housing benefit, council tax benefit, free school dinners, free dental care, free prescriptions.

and given that a working family likely isn't as likely to be a priority for social housing and may be more likely to be in privately rented accommodation, that can add up to thousands of pounds.

and then there's the issue of focusing only on families and children in poverty.

well, single people in work might like to save up some money and pay off debts, too, and be in a better stead to have children later.

people who have already brought up children may like to scale back their hours in order to provide childcare to a grandchild whose parent works.

'yes, some of it will be booze and fags (and worse) because booze helps you forget for a little while that your poor and fags stop you feeling hungry. it's breaking the habit that you've got into to rely on booze and fags and to spend the money on other things - thats another mark of poverty to some extent though - that the ways of feeling better or forgetting temporarily that your circumstances are a bit shit - are actually quite cheap - and then if you rely on cheap booze/fags to allieviate your misery, you get into a cycle of deprivation and a vicious circle of addiction. To an extent, that keeps you where you are. '

i couldn't agree more!

it's a paradigm shift that's needed.

but giving excuses for self-destructive behaviour just doesn't help.

i've seen it happen over and over again, MIL has done this with both DH and SIL and it does, pardon my French, but fuck all good.

and to really stick my neck out i think it's a big part of the problem with child poverty as well.

Are there any examples, say from around Europe, where child poverty (particularly in areas where long-term unemployment is an issue) has been dealt with successfully?

I think that environment is a very important factor in this whole debate because children who grow up with entrenched ideas about their "place" in the world, who do not see (and are not encouraged to see) wider horizons for themselves, are in a way doomed to continuing a life of poverty which they pass on to their children with each generation. Schools can address this to an extent, but they are never going to have the resources to make a difference for everyone. I actually wonder if rampant individualism is more of a problem than a solution, because it places an awful lot of onus on a person to be able to envisage a better life for themselves and break away from environments that are the only world that they know.

I think that one of the big issues is that the government needs to find strategies for bringing good employment opportunities into those communities (not temporary contracts, but permanent jobs that make people feel that their contribution, however "menial" is valued) and where they can find some measure of financial stability.

Having lived in some of the UK's more prosperous areas and in some of its most poverty stricken regions, I have come to the conclusion that the lack of stable, permanent jobs (initiatives in the latter areas tend to encourage companies to set up factories or warehouses where they employ a very large percentage of "temporary" staff and the turnover is unsurprisingly high, with people choosing benefits and doing nothing over a temporary 6 week job at Christmas followed by unemployment all over again) is one of the over riding factors in long-term unemployment and poverty.

I don't think you can blame the supermarkets for people choosing to eat badly. I can eat well on a very low budget, it's just ignorance. One woman was spending 70 quid a week on take-aways ..

How about this:

Very attractive tax incentives to encourage companies to locate in "disadvantaged" areas with the understanding that all of their workforce must be giving full and permanent employment contracts, with annual holiday entitlement, pensions etc?

Expat, Bluebutterfly great posts.

"...children who grow up with entrenched ideas about their "place" in the world..."

I think that was what Jamie Oliver's programme highlighted - he taught the people to cook but when he came back they insisted it was too hard. Despite it being patently not hard, or at least no harder than heading out for take out! I think they just did not see themselves as the sort to sit around a table with freshly cooked food.

Temp work is an issue, it came into being more so though when they changed employment law, am I right? or wrong? I have vague memories of a change ..

it's an especially big deal in rural areas, too, rebel.

and again, another reason why people chose to stay on benefits.

..if they thought it was hard it's a bit lazy don't you think? There used to be tons of poverty stricken people who could cook, what happened?

I think that the problem with diet is just another facet of our consumerist culture giving EVERYONE (not just the poor)the idea that it is good and desirable to do what you want (not what you need) all of the time. Middle class people have record levels of debt, but many of them still drive expensive 4x4s and go on expensive foreign holidays. Our taxes may not support this directly through benefits, but if the government steps in to bail out banks for bad credit the whole of society is actually financing a middle class problem. Our whole culture is not designed around what is best for people, but around what is most desirable for your "lifestyle". Focusing on the issue of eating takeaways rather than vegetables is a drop in the ocean, really.

Poor diet is (often) a symptom of child poverty, not the cause. That is not to say we shouldn't deal with the symptoms, but I think that our main focus should be the cause!

Sorry folks I no longer live in the UK (so I didn't see the J.O. programme) but I am still interested in the issues surrounding child poverty in wealthy nations.

I think you raise some very salient points, Bluebutterfly.

I think child poverty in the UK is minor compared to some countries. We have a welfare system, NHS and an education system so children are not truly in poverty.

Throwing more money at benefit claimants wont help at all, it will just encourage them to stay on them longer or for others to join them.

Like other posters have said, its also about personal responsibility. Having a child / children does not render anyboy uncapable of working (unless the child is disabled and needs special care) - takes a bit of juggling but that goes for all mums that work.

Perhaps if we had a system like other contries where benefits can only be claimed for 12 months, then our work ethic may return.

Bluebutterfly - that is an excellent idea and I think it could have made a massive difference if put in place during the boom years. Now that boom has turned to bust, the state and workers are in a poor position to negotiate terms of employment.

Sorting out the housing situation and removing the disincentives to work that expat has pointed out could make a huge difference to security and stability. I am a private tenant, currently heavily pregnant and waiting to find out if my tenancy will be renewed and whether we can afford any rental increase. This is a miserable way to live but we would never reach the top of the list for social housing.

There's also something about part-time workers and their rights from an employers perspective. A friend of mine has more part-time workers for this reason.

I agree happymummyofone if you have a child you should support it or at least have to think how you can do that. Men fathering children and leaving the state/tax payers to pick up the tab is diabolical