and the Tories DARED to criticise Labour's record on child poverty....

[nearlytoolate]

Yes, Labour hadn't met their target on child poverty. Yes, the UK ranked poorly as a place to bring up children. But at least they HAD a child poverty target...

I'm so angry that ALL the cuts they have announced so far are aimed at children. I weep to think what we are doing to the next generation. They clearly couldn't give a f*.

I think we need to make a much stronger case for fairness for children - yes some families are comfortably off, but ALL families take an enormous financial hit in order to bring up their children. Whether this is reduced income, large childcare bills, as well as feeding, housing and doing our best to provide our children with good education and happy childhood experiences - if you have dependent children, probably pretty much all your disposable income goes on them, however much or little that is. and its right that this is recognised in the tax system - its about fairness across the lifecourse.

To pit rich and poor families against each other in some twisted definition of 'fairness' is to miss the point. What about the contribution from those without dependents? After all, everyone needs a future workforce, (especially if they are going to limit migrant labour...)

That's all I wanted to say. Rant over

Where would you make the cuts nearlytoolate? Or wouldn't you? Unfortunately the state of public finances is so dire that cuts are necessary.

Are ALL the cuts they have announced so far are aimed at children?

The rise in VAT will hit everyone (not aimed at children, food and children's clothing is exempted)
The cut in child benefit will hit higher earners (in an unfair way, but at least it is targetting the well off not the poor)
The cut of funding to quangos is not aimed at children.
Freeze in civil service pay and recruitment, not aimed at children.

Just a few examples. Which cuts are you referring to that actually impact child poverty? Do you mean cuts in benefit? So do you not support reform of the expensive and totally dysfunctional benefits system?

Labour's answer to child poverty included giving money to people that didn't particularly need it for their children. Things like the Child Trust Fund went to everyone, not just poor children. The CTC was applicable for households with very big incomes, not just low incomes. These aspects were far from 'fair', did not tackle child poverty effectively and created a growing feeling of resentment.

No system can ever be entirely fair unless it is incredibly complex and accounts for every possible variation. There will always be some losers. The handling of the CB news this week has been very poor and there should have been debates on the obvious discrepancies before making the announcement. However, I think the principle is right that the wealthy pay for themselves and the poor should get support. Not the other way around.

The freeze in public sector pay will impact on children as those in the public sector have children. I could live without the pay freeze as dh is top of his pay band, so no increments, and we need to be saving as much as we can for uni in 4 years time.

"I weep to think what we are doing to the next generation"

Especially if we fail to deal with the national debt and leave it to them to cope with the £9bn (and growing) Labour ran up.

Interesting that there is a shift from targeting 'rich people' as a source of tax revenue to targeting people without children....

Really glad to see you make this point, nearlytoolate, I think what they are doing is absolutely criminal. The cap on benefits is also bad news for children as it is families who will be affected - 81,000 families in London are expected to lose their homes.
Jackstarbright, I have yet to have it explained to me why dealing with the national debt means making poor families homeless and hungry. There are plenty of rich people in this country, with and without children, and I know it's a massive oversimplification but really it doesn't seem unreasonable that those who have the most should be the ones who pay - not those who have very little.

Oops £900bn - nearly a trillion (apparently).

Well when we see Labours deficit reduction strategy - we'll be able to compare the two - and perhaps see how it should be done.

Well if the country eventually runs out of money completely there will be no benefit for anyone will there...unfortunately we have had years of labour throwing money they didnt have at anything that moved (and quite a few lardy things that dont except to buy their fags and lager).

Im sure the whole child benefit thing is going to have to be re-thought again before its implemented.

Problem is if we target the "rich" too much they have the money to move elsewhere dont they.

" it doesn't seem unreasonable that those who have the most should be the ones who pay - not those who have very little."

Even if personal taxation was radically increased and even if every offshore account loophole was closed, it wouldn't cover the ongoing shortfall. I think we're all failing to totally comprehend the scale of the economic problems the country has and the CB cut represents the end of the phoney war. Come October 20th there will be serious changes in all kinds of areas of public expenditure & if anyone emerges at the other side totally unaffected then they will be incredibly lucky. Some will lose out particularly badly and we will still have the safety-nets for people who can't work and/or have fallen on truly hard times. But anyone (regardless of their circumstances)who thinks they will be able to carry on as normal and make no adjustments whatsoever is going to be in for a nasty surprise.

OP- what do you think failing to address the national debt would do to child poverty. If we default on our debts and we require a bail out and then we have austerity measures imposed on us by the IMF without thought of the impact on child poverty.
I know what I'd rather see happen

The Child Trust Fund was a small amount of money that was designed to be invested and added to so that when it comes to it, if a kid wants to go on and study, they can. It was a push to get parents to see the value of making this investment.

It was a piece of social engineering, not a pointless handout. An attempt to spread the successful habits of the traditional middle classes to everyone.

It may have started out with good intentions but it quickly proved to be a pointless handout.

Talking of pointless handouts Chil1234 here are a few we could do without:

Winter Fuel Allowance from £125 - £400 a year given to anyone born before 5th July 1959 regardless of wealth

Free TV Licences given to anyone aged over 75 regardless of wealth

Free Off Peak Bus Travel to anyone over 60 regardless of wealth

should all be means tested imo

I'm sure they will eventually go the way of other universal benefits and poorer pensioners compensated in other ways.

How did it prove to be pointless?

Chil1234, you may even be right about taxing the rich more not being enough to solve the financial crisis but my point is that it is morally wrong for the poorest to be the first in the firing line. You can't just switch off people's life support. Why is it that kicking people out of their homes and reducing support to vulnerable people is seen as being 'in the national interest' but taxing bankers and the like and capping their bonuses isn't?

bankers are taxed

"How did it prove to be pointless?"

It didn't change behaviour or encourage regular saving. A large percentage of the people it was aimed at never opened an account or cashed the cheque. The proportion of wealthy people taking the money was much higher than poor people. If something fails to meet its objective then it was a pointless exercise.

@cinnamontoast. 'Kicking people out of their homes' is an emotive way to put it. Many people have to downsize or relocate when their circumstances change. That's how life goes and whilst we're entitled to a roof over our heads, we can't expect the roof never to change. All I know about banking is that the banks have been made to pay a levy which is a good start. The bonus situation should have been made conditional on us lending them the money in the first place.

You're assuming that the objective was instant take-up - what if it wasn't? What if it was accepted that this would be a social change that wouldn't happen instantly?
You sound so sure, but you also seem to be attacking it from the simplest point of view. Social policy just isn't simple.

I mean, 'it was pointless', 'it failed to meet its objective' -
we won't know, will we? We don't know precisely what its objective was.

The objectives were very simple and you even set them out yourself earlier. Take-up is the only measure of success because if a voucher is lying in a drawer or thrown in the bin it cannot change saving habits short-term or long-term. It was an experiment that work.

There's a similar problem incidentally with personal pension provision. We need a lot more people to take out private pensions and the current incentives and arrangements are not getting enough to do so. So that also needs a rethink or we'll also find that we're subsidising moderate/high income earners and the low-income people will keep on reaching old age with nothing to fall back on.

We don't know the mechanics of it, what was projected to happen.
Early adoption is not necessarily a measure of success in social policy. It takes generations to change ideas.
The pensions problem is interesting.

"It takes generations to change ideas."

Precisely... and, in the meantime, we have more pressing uses for the money than to give £250 vouchers to mostly comfortably-off new parents who would have set up investments for their children anyway!

Chil1234, being made homeless is not comparable to downsizing or relocating- the benefits cap will result in many people being turned out of their homes. How are they supposed to relocate? Just turn up in the cheapest borough they can find and ask the LA to add them to their waiting list? What happens to their kids in the meantime? It is simply not comparable to the middle class 'downsizing' by selling their house and buying something cheaper.