What counts as child poverty in the UK? Poll discussion

Jacks_xxx

Hastobe_Katt wrote: »

I would give you a more complete definition from my post grad economics notes - but it would bore you silly.

Actually I'd be fascinated.

KimYeovil

LadyGooGoo wrote: »

Barnardos does a bit of that kind of outreach work I believe Lisa. (Supporting families and teaching life skills.)

Unfortunately because of their misuse of the term 'poverty' they have lost subscribers (like me). These charities are doing lots of damage with their obnoxious hyperbole.

keycamp-reveller

It appears that many people taking part in the poll have no idea what the difference between poverty and disadvantage is.

You do not live in poverty if you only have 1 pair of shoes, don't have internet access or a laptop at home (the needing net at home for school work is tosh as there is always the option of staying behind at school on one day to access the net), are unable to save £10+ per month or have no TV amongst other things. Being in poverty is about being without your basic need of food shelter and clothing. Poverty is not relative it is what it is, basic needs. We do not have a basic need for net access, a TV, or, believe it or not, heating in our homes, an annual holiday or to a room of our own. If you have a free school meal I would actually suggest you are not in poverty at all because your child will have had a basic need given to them, for free, ergo they will not go hungry, will they?

Poverty is not always the fault of the parent either - to live with no father is not poverty, that is a social and possibly economic disadvantage but it doesn't mean the child lives in poverty

BigMummaF

Several things I'm a bit :undecided ...
Poverty can be self-imposed or a situation of circumstance; agreed.
Either way, if children are involved THEY are the concern & not necessarily how they got there. This poll is trying to establish what we consider to be the level of acceptable hardship that we are prepared to let the kiddies live in.

The computer bit; hmmm..I recall arguing that the schools should provide the text books to enable my lot to do their studies when they were in education! The question of kids using the internet at a public library is losing even more ground with proposed cuts & closures in local authority spending, assuming it is a) safe for them to get to & from the place & b) they can stay on the computer for longer than the half-hour we get here!

Every person--young, old, parent or single--has to decide where their priorities lie & live their lives accordingly. All the rest of us can do is cross our fingers & hope they make good choices, particularly where children are involved.

rickbonar

Neddles wrote: »

I find the 'less than two pairs of shoes' bit odd.

Until my children started school (2 out of 3 of them so far), they only had/needed one pair of shoes. Even now, the older ones have a pair of school shoes and a pair of trainers. When well fitting shoes are so expensive and they grow out of them quickly, coupled with the fact that they ought not to be handed down to siblings, I'm not buying them more shoes than they can wear.

Yes as my mum recalled her schooldays where some children never had any shoes in England in the 20 th century.

rickbonar

However the politicians last year were claiming that £65,000 wage wasn't enough to live on and how "we wouldn't have went into politics to make money" (Menzies Campbell).

Jacks_xxx

keycamp-reveller wrote: »

It appears that many people taking part in the poll have no idea what the difference between poverty and disadvantage is.

You do not live in poverty if you only have 1 pair of shoes, don't have internet access or a laptop at home (the needing net at home for school work is tosh as there is always the option of staying behind at school on one day to access the net), are unable to save £10+ per month or have no TV amongst other things. Being in poverty is about being without your basic need of food shelter and clothing. Poverty is not relative it is what it is, basic needs. We do not have a basic need for net access, a TV, or, believe it or not, heating in our homes, an annual holiday or to a room of our own. If you have a free school meal I would actually suggest you are not in poverty at all because your child will have had a basic need given to them, for free, ergo they will not go hungry, will they?

Poverty is not always the fault of the parent either - to live with no father is not poverty, that is a social and possibly economic disadvantage but it doesn't mean the child lives in poverty

The poll is asking for people's opinions. All people. Not just people who think like you.

The above quoted post is your opinion it is not the One Real Truth.

The mere act of asking people what they believe poverty is - and giving them several options - is a big hint that the poll writers at least, believe that poverty is not just one thing.

Absolute poverty is easily defined - but that's an irrelevant standard in our society where poverty is always relative.

How much disadvantage is just disadvantage and how much is poverty?

Why even get hung up on the semantics?

What's acceptable for a child's life in our country and what isn't?

psdie

BigMummaF wrote: »

This poll is trying to establish what we consider to be the level of acceptable hardship that we are prepared to let the kiddies live in.

That's *not* what the poll actually asks though, is it? It asks "what is poverty", not "what does it mean to be poor" or similar.

Same to Jacks xxx:

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

Why even get hung up on the semantics? What's acceptable for a child's life in our country and what isn't?

Because that's not the question that this poll posed. If that *is* what the authors meant to ask, then it should have been reworded. As it is, I read it as clarifying use of the word "poverty", because it has become diluted by loose usage.

Any definition that results in "1 in 3 children in the UK live in poverty" is utter BS and needs fixing in order to be taken seriously. Hence this poll to find a more absolute and universally accepted definition of "poverty".

Of course, I'm not saying support shouldn't be given to kids that only have 1 pair of shoes, or no net access, or low income parents, etc (although this *is* already substantially covered by benefits, provided the parents are capable of budgeting). It's *certainly* a worthy cause to help those worse off than ourselves.

But don't do it through deceitful spin and woolly definitions - so called "charities' licence" with facts and figures just erodes trust.

Jacks_xxx

Insisting that we only use the word "poverty" in its most basic literal sense is too rigid to apply to children in this country.

Using the absolute poverty definition of "no clothes, no food, no home" is useless because it doesn't apply to any child in this country.

Even the naked hungry abused ones have a home.

Even the homeless ones have clothes on.

If the absolute definition is useless, then we need a relative one.

To establish a consensus about what that should be, we need to ask people's opinions.

What is normal for child in this country?

What is an unacceptable level of deprivation for a child in this country which means that they are impoverished by comparison?

If we only accept the absolute definition of poverty then WooHooooooo! :j, no child in the UK is living in absolute poverty!!!! :j

Save The Children, Barnardos and all the rest can shut up shop, everything's fine, no child needs them. Woooo! :j

I understand why people want to think like that, but it's not reality is it?

Jacks_xxx

psdie wrote: »

That's *not* what the poll actually asks though, is it? It asks "what is poverty", not "what does it mean to be poor" or similar.

Same to Jacks xxx:


Because that's not the question that this poll posed. If that *is* what the authors meant to ask, then it should have been reworded. As it is, I read it as clarifying use of the word "poverty", because it has become diluted by loose usage.

Any definition that results in "1 in 3 children in the UK live in poverty" is utter BS and needs fixing in order to be taken seriously. Hence this poll to find a more absolute and universally accepted definition of "poverty".

Of course, I'm not saying support shouldn't be given to kids that only have 1 pair of shoes, or no net access, or low income parents, etc (although this *is* already substantially covered by benefits, provided the parents are capable of budgeting). It's *certainly* a worthy cause to help those worse off than ourselves.

But don't do it through deceitful spin and woolly definitions - so called "charities' licence" with facts and figures just erodes trust.

Why not stop arguing about words?

Why not just agree that children suffering, being deprived, badly parented, disadvantaged, (or whatever phrase doesn't press your buttons and upset you) is "bad"?

Why not direct your energies way from arguing about semantics and do something to help instead?

I believe that if children in poverty can be helped, but we keep denying that poverty exists - we are denying children the help they need.

And I think that's "bad".