Where is this `child poverty' that the government is talking about?
It's a great phrase, very evocative and colourful, but I don't see any poor kids, which by any reasonable definition is kids who are poorly dressed and poorly fed.
[Rep]

The trouble is what constitutes poverty, and what type of poverty, relative poverty or absolute poverty. Ive heard all of these words banded about by politicians its all ******** i have never seen poverty in this country even when i was a child on a council estate.
[Rep]

If you want to cut 'child poverty', the first thing is to stop encouraging people to have children when they are not in the position to support them themselves - i.e. cut the benefits linked to having children.
[Rep]

The "new labour poverty" used to be "an income below 60% of the min wage". Other indicators now I believe, no TV, hols etc. Either way the word "poverty" does not mean what most people would think. Another word to watch closely is "sustainable development” – it is sinister underneath.
[Rep]

Hasn't Mr Darling just made it easier to have children you cant afford by increasing the child allowance.
[Rep]

When the government talk of child poverty, what they really mean is mothers who are not in the workplace. They don't want mothers to be mothers, they want them to be unfit mothers damaging their children by putting them into child care and claiming tax credits giving them a 'better standard of living'.
[Rep]

Sensible people tend to PLAN when to have children - waiting for such things as some qualifications, a reasonably secure job, a stable partnership and suitable housing.

People used to chaotic lives and dependency on the state tend not to.
[Rep]

It's simply one aspect of the New Labour gerrymandering by increasing the “Turkey Army” sector of the electorate.

Child poverty in the UK? No doubt there is some amongst the low life but that’s not going to be solved by throwing yet more cash for them to squander on the various substances that they abuse.

Far better to promote birth control, ease access to abortion, and break the career choice that so many girls take of getting pregnant in order to get a house and a free meal ticket for life. The last by re-introducing Children’s homes or at least long term communal accommodation rather than single family domiciles amongst other steps that could and should be taken in this field
[Rep]

The last I heard it was defined as below 60% of average earnings. To call that poverty is a disgrace.

Of course soon when the economy colloapses those who sit around and live off the rest of us will be better off. Children are seen now by many as an income.

What do we do when the difference between working for 30 K a year and living off the state (getting free house, council tax paid etc) amounts to not a lot. I don't think we are far off that now.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by brian pearson:
The last I heard it was defined as below 60% of average earnings. To call that poverty is a disgrace.

Of course soon when the economy colloapses those who sit around and live off the rest of us will be better off. Children are seen now by many as an income.

What do we do when the difference between working for 30 K a year and living off the state (getting free house, council tax paid etc) amounts to not a lot. I don't think we are far off that now.

Brian

I think you are right about it being"average earnings" - mistake min wage. Therefore we will always have poverty within our current system, and it allows the state (communist Labour) to continue with its redistribution adgenda.
[Rep]