Jump to content


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Child poverty


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,766 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:52 PM

Guardian article

Guardian commentary on that

 

The commentary piece does reflect quite a bit of what I remember from my youth.  I remember growing up and thinking absolutely nothing of some of my friends following the weekly coal truck with small shovels scraping the dross and occasional lumps into bags that their older siblings were carrying, sometimes the coal truck people "accidentally" spilled some proper coal onto the road to give the bags some substance.  It was just one of those things that people did.  We were lucky in that my family got the severely discounted Coal Board coal delivered and never had to worry about that but many others weren't so lucky.  I remember the subtle bullying of those poorer than the rest of us when now I look at it as just frankly ridiculous considering how poor the entire area was.

 

Just after I met my wife, we went on holiday to Scotland and I took her a tour around some of the places I grew up.  She's a privately educated daughter of a dentist and she thought she knew poverty as people simply not being able to afford the luxuries of life.  It certainly changed her attitude when I drove her around the villages of hastily constructed 1950s Coal Board houses.  She didn't believe me that we still had it better than some who live in the inner parts of many large cities in Britain.

 

As I've said before on other threads, it's quite shameful that first world politicians are more interested in ensuring very rich people take home more of their luxury level pay than eradicating child poverty.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#2 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,960 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:08 PM

more interested in ensuring very rich people take home more of their luxury level pay than eradicating child poverty.

 

Probably the most offensive and inaccurate postings you have ever made...and that really is saying something.



#3 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,766 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:26 PM

more interested in ensuring very rich people take home more of their luxury level pay than eradicating child poverty.

 

Probably the most offensive and inaccurate postings you have ever made...and that really is saying something.

Can you give me a genuine reason why a government would decrease the top level of tax from 50p to 45p when in an austerity cycle and child poverty is provably increasing?

 

I fully agree that reducing taxes is a generally worthwhile thing.  In times of boom then I'd see no reason why the top level of tax shouldn't be scrapped but to scrap it when services at the bottom are being stripped to the bone is simply shameful.  Why not simply tell the people earning the most that they have to "suffer" for a bit longer in paying 5p extra tax while earning over £150,000.  You'll see that I'm not recommending 1970s style idiot taxation, I'm just saying why not delay tax cuts until the country is back in either better shape or preferably earning a budget surplus, it's not as if our taxation system is excessively punitive, especially compared to our European competitors.

 

Show me what this government has done since 2010 to reduce child poverty and I'll counter that with report after report about poverty at the very lowest level increasing.  I'll counter it with evidence about people having to rely on food banks to survive.  I'll show you evidence of where benefits staff have "sanctioned" people for non-infringements meaning they don't have any money at all for the sanction time.  I'll show you where the government are planning to remove even the basic appeals for those "sanctioned" people, meaning administrators will have almost unchallenged powers to reduce people to starvation levels on a petty whim.  I'll show you where councils are in such difficulty from excessive cuts and council tax freezes that they're having to choose between critical support structures for their next cuts as all the optional stuff is long gone; specifically, I'll show you where some councils are having to choose between child protection staff budgets and non-optional elderly care budgets.  I'll show you regulators de-powered so much that critical infrastructure services such as water and domestic fuel companies can do as they see fit without fear of effective regulation or sanction.

 

I could go on but, by 'eck, you've missed the entire point of my post by taking issue with the least "offensive" thing about a post on child poverty becoming more widespread.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#4 Saint Billinge

Saint Billinge
  • Coach
  • 2,653 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:33 PM

I doubt child poverty will ever be eradicated, such is the way of the world. My own upbringing saw nine of us live in a small terraced house, with Pilkington's factory situated behind. As a matter of fact, it was called bug row but so much happiness was experienced there. We actual thought that anyone who had BBC 2 was fairly well off, whilst foreign holidays were for royalty or prime ministers. 

 

We had no bath, just an outside toilet, and with the house chimneys and factory ones belching out fumes daily. Holidays, if any, where in Rhyl, North Wales. Most clothes were hand-me-downs, or bought from a jumble sale. Yet for all of that, I never felt second class. I'm truly proud of my roots. 



#5 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,835 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:45 PM

There is no *reason* for child poverty today in the UK. That is not to deny it exists for some, but that is down to dreadful parents and not because the means to clothes and fairly decent food are not there.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#6 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 1,901 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:47 PM

more interested in ensuring very rich people take home more of their luxury level pay than eradicating child poverty.

 

Probably the most offensive and inaccurate postings you have ever made...and that really is saying something.

 

 

In what way John? The tories have always had a good deal of success in blaming the poor for poverty.


"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#7 archibald

archibald
  • Coach
  • 646 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:32 PM

Of those children surveyed who said their family was "not well off at all", 76% said they "often worried" about how much money the family had.

That few? One of the quickest ways to stop kids asking for things is to tell them "I/we can't afford it".



#8 Griff9of13

Griff9of13
  • Coach
  • 5,541 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 07:40 PM

That few? One of the quickest ways to stop kids asking for things is to tell them "I/we can't afford it".


So you don't believe child poverty exists?
"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

#9 archibald

archibald
  • Coach
  • 646 posts

Posted 29 October 2013 - 08:09 PM

So you don't believe child poverty exists?

How did you deduce that from what I wrote?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users