What counts as child poverty in the UK? Poll discussion

eddie1950

Did Save the Children save any kids in the 50's/60's or was the family connections to good to require their need. I for one could tick all these boxes as could my 5 siblings. But we all pulled together. Family, Aunts, Uncles, Grandparents even older Cousins. Life today is to soft for so called parents who have never worked and take the easy option of putting their hand out and playing the soft touch card. I do feel bad for the kids but it is the elders who use the excuse of their kids to get that handout so freely available that need to be sorted and if they can't or won't then the kids are better off without them. No love would be lost.

charlie792

Firstly I think poverty can be very subjective, what is poverty for one family probably isn't for another. As for things like no tv/internet acess I wouldnt neccersairly say that is poverty as some people choose not to have these things, but there again it depends if you do not have them because you simply cannot afford them, possibly a problem for children though because I know when I was younger my teachers were always expecting me to use a computer + Internet for homework - for a period of about six months I had no internet due to parents income problems and teachers were not very understanding about it - I can only imagine this has got worse now.
I have to admit I personally think if you lack something like heating through no fault of your own then maybe it is real poverty, but some people only have their selves to blame ie those who would rather spend thier money of booze or fags than keep thier children warm - there again it could be argued that that is poverty for the children...

Here is how I see it;

A lack of food, shelter or clothing - A true definition of poverty, lacking basic living essentials
A child without their own bed I would say this is a basic need
A child sharing a room with someone of different gender - Tricky one, possibly

Family income below £12,700 a year andA family income below £10,500 a year (50% of the average) - Not necessarily poverty, but I can well imagine a financial strain - me and my partner live off not much more than this

No laptop or internet access - No, maybe a disadvantage however (could be seen as becoming more of a basic need with more things needing to be done online)

A home with no heating +Parents regularly behind with paying household bills - May be personal choice (my mom grew up in a house with no heating as her parents just didnt want it), discussed in intro...

Kids with fewer than two pairs of shoes - NO, I went for years with only having two pairs of shoes, one for home and one for school

Parents can’t afford to save £10+ a month for rainy days/retirement - No

No access to school trips (though often schools will subsidise) - No

No TV - No

No annual holiday - No - I honestly don't remember having an 'annual' holiday, and if on the off chance we did go away it was somewhere for a few days in the UK, Ive heard people moaning how hard done by they are because they couldnt go abroad for the 4th or 5th time that year grrr

Kids that get free school meals - No

tess1962

Poverty to me is the 3rd world countries. I was rough up along side 5 siblings, and only one parent from early on (due to father dying). We all got by, but wouldnt say comfortably, but got on with life. This was because the income my mother had was sent sensibly. People think today that they are hard done by, this i feel is rought on by them selfs i.e branded designer clothes for kids, kids having to keep up their mates, parents buying them all the new electrical good such as PS1/2/3, wii, and this is for each of them and not per household!! We survived on what was then called family allowance, and had no help with Rent etc. We lived by what we could afford. The kids of today have never had it so good, and i feel that it is the kids wanting all the time puts these people into what they think is "poverty".

wildthing01

MSE_Martin wrote: »

That certainly counts as 'disadvantaged' in my book - whether it is poverty is a tougher question.

Yet its far more important educationally than a TV (and can be used as the same) but in this modern world peopel without web access are disenfranchised.

the whole question depends on where you would draw the line between being poor and living in poverty. we were certainly poor when i was growing up, and i did not have access to many of the things that my friends had (inc school trips etc - no laptops or internet back in the olden days, but if there had been, i def would not have had them). yet i would not say i was in poverty. i had a roof over my head, heating of a sort, a method of cooking, clothes (albeit cheap ones).

poverty to me is some of the children i see have seen through work, who live in small flats with large families, without their own bed, or sometimes even carpet or proper furniture, sometimes with the family having no income at all.

although we were poor, we managed on what we had, i became very resourceful (and am now a master budgeter!) and i did alright in the end. the children i've described above probably have very little chance in life.

for those people saying schools disadvantage children without internt access, the schools and LAs would be failing in their statutory duty if they did not make arrangements to enable such children to access the learning opportunities they need, so if you are in this position, you need to tackle the school, and if no joy, the Local Authority - most have parent liaison teams who can act as intermediaries.

MSE_Martin

harryhound wrote: »

A child without a father?!?

I always find this one rather strange. Single parent familys are not necessarily poor or a bad option.

From the age of 12 when my mother was killed my sister and I were brought up by my father. While the grief was horrendous, we certainly weren't poor due to it.

There are many reasons for single parent families, not all of them grief, where they are better than the alternative.

MSE_Martin

Paul_Herring wrote: »

The problem with how poverty is defined by (e.g.) the government is that it's defined as being below a certain average (60%, 50% etc. Even this poll is guilty of it - see options B and G.)

The problem, of course, being that because of how it's defined means that poverty will always be with us.

For example, lets say everyone earning below the median wage is in poverty, and that the [STRIKE]government[/STRIKE] other tax payers will give them sufficient income to be above that median.

Now, all of a sudden the median has been raised (while lowering the disposable income of those earning above the previous median,) and - guess what - there are still some people earning below the median. We still 'have poverty.' (And we'll have inflation to match of course.)

It's these moving definitions of poverty that does absolutely nothing to 'eradicating' it, and which is why such comparisons are so unhelpful.

I have much sympathy with the view about the dangers of the median income model. In fact it was because i said just that on Radio 5 while debating this with someone from Save the Chidlren that this poll and the work we're doing came about.

There are children in poverty in the UK and that needs changing, yet if you define it by median income then sometimes the net stretches to far. This poll is to help look at what resonates with people as poverty - both for policy but perhaps more importantly communication reasons.

harryhound

I used to have a job that involved ferrying disadvantaged teenage boys to a school for delinquents.
More or less none of them were hopeless cases, but in nearly every case they came from a broken home and no discipline and male role model at home.
Most of them desperately needed an older male who was on their side, that they respected and that would put them right, as they teetered on the edge of foolish criminality. Most crimes are committed by males under 25; they just need someone firm to get them through those years, without going to jail.
What they don't need is a mother who ignores them, a mother who thinks they are wonderful and panders to their every whim or one with whom they develop "the little man" role - and then get replaced by a new "uncle".

These young male's are in danger of becoming NEET's and gang members. They don't really have a pioneering role in modern society; there are no wolves and bears to fight, lands to cut from virgin forest, whales to harpoon etc. so they need society to create activities to turn them from boys to men.

Having the influence of a father helps.

You will notice that there is no mention of wealth in the above analysis; in fact pumping money into a dysfunctional household could well make things worse - "mankind is seldom more innocently employed than when trying to make a living".

harryhound

There was a report out this week that compared a family living in a country "hamlet" with a similar family in town.
To enjoy the same standard of living (?!) the town family required an income of 30K and the country family needed 44K.

The big differences were primarily the costs of transport, but also the expenses of heating a detached house with solid walls and no gas supply and the limited choice and higher prices of consumables.

However I personally am not convinced that some of the town facilities, such as the choice of 10 different films a week, really represent a higher standard of living.

The countryside also absorbs errant child behaviour better than the town; nicking apples in the countryside is "scrumping", doing something similar in a town supermarket is a criminal offence.

Jacks_xxx

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.

Kimitatsu wrote: »

Thats if they can get to the library......buses in rural areas tend to run infrequently and are expensive. Now I know I am playing devils advocate here, but our education system is so heavily reliant on the internet now and children having access that whilst it may be a disadvantage to begin with, by the time they leave school it can affect the rest of their lives to such an extent that child poverty affects another generation.



Have to agree Needles - my boys are at secondary school and STILL only have two pairs of shoes and some wellies, because my 13 year old has size 10 feet and they are still growing :eek:

My children have / had a long walk to school in all weathers so they had a pair of wellies, a main pair of school shoes, a more casual pair for weekends - and for when the primary pair are soaked through - plus the pair of trainers that they have to keep at school for PE lessons.

I count that as four pairs of shoes.

If they didn't have them and had to wear the same wet shoes all week I would consider that poverty - wouldn't everybody?

sheeps68

Thought I'd share the official definition of what child poverty is.

"Children are said to be living in relative income poverty if their household’s income is less than 60 per cent of the median national income. Essentially, this looks at whether the incomes of the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole."

Taken from the Every Child Matters website.

Not saying I agree with this just where the official line is drawn and statistics based on.