Back
to top
Child poverty definition changed
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
The government have changed the definition of child poverty and removed the legal requirement to reduce it. Doesn't this just confirm the worst stereotypes about the conservative party? They have no regard for the lives of people living in the country..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33346989
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33346989
0
reply
Report
#2
Probably because "child poverty" doesn't exist in the UK relative to other countries. It's simply implying a child is degenerate when in fact they are far from it.
By the child poverty definition, anyone who earns 50 000 pounds when the average wage is 100 000 in a country is in "poverty" ... surely that's not an acceptable definition. Since the new one is not revealed yet I cannot comment, but addressing the root causes of child under-performance such as family life and education is a good step forward. Material poverty isn't the only type of poverty.
By the child poverty definition, anyone who earns 50 000 pounds when the average wage is 100 000 in a country is in "poverty" ... surely that's not an acceptable definition. Since the new one is not revealed yet I cannot comment, but addressing the root causes of child under-performance such as family life and education is a good step forward. Material poverty isn't the only type of poverty.
0
reply
Report
#3
(Original post by TomatoLounge)
The government have changed the definition of child poverty and removed the legal requirement to reduce it. Doesn't this just confirm the worst stereotypes about the conservative party? They have no regard for the lives of people living in the country..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33346989
The government have changed the definition of child poverty and removed the legal requirement to reduce it. Doesn't this just confirm the worst stereotypes about the conservative party? They have no regard for the lives of people living in the country..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33346989
Relative poverty is meaningless measure.
0
reply
Report
#4
Living below £15600/annum=poverty, this is some first world poverty. I used to live with £700/month for a family of 3 in the UK I never once considered myself poor, and my grades are definitely above most. If you say real poverty then look at the children in Africa who scavenge their food from landfills who live with less than 1 dollar a day, that's some real poverty.
Also I see "poverty" as just excuses for kids can't be arsed at school, surely kids in poor conditions would study harder so they have a chance to be richer. Look at China and India. What happens here is the kids have lazy ass 4th gen benefit claimer parents, the parents pay no attention to their kid's progress, their kids look up to their parents and aspire to be a 5th gen benefit claimer.
Also I see "poverty" as just excuses for kids can't be arsed at school, surely kids in poor conditions would study harder so they have a chance to be richer. Look at China and India. What happens here is the kids have lazy ass 4th gen benefit claimer parents, the parents pay no attention to their kid's progress, their kids look up to their parents and aspire to be a 5th gen benefit claimer.
0
reply
Report
#5
The emotional power of the word "poverty" has been abused for too long by socialists, who redefined it simply to be an expression of inequality.
Left unfettered I have no doubt that they would set a target that no child should grow up in a household earning less than the average national income
Only if everyone is made equal by the State can "poverty" be fixed, comrades.
Left unfettered I have no doubt that they would set a target that no child should grow up in a household earning less than the average national income
Only if everyone is made equal by the State can "poverty" be fixed, comrades.
1
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by AndyChow)
Living below £15600/annum=poverty, this is some first world poverty. I used to live with £700/month for a family of 3 in the UK I never once considered myself poor, and my grades are definitely above most. If you say real poverty then look at the children in Africa who scavenge their food from landfills who live with less than 1 dollar a day, that's some real poverty.
Also I see "poverty" as just excuses for kids can't be arsed at school, surely kids in poor conditions would study harder so they have a chance to be richer. Look at China and India. What happens here is the kids have lazy ass 4th gen benefit claimer parents, the parents pay no attention to their kid's progress, their kids look up to their parents and aspire to be a 5th gen benefit claimer.
Living below £15600/annum=poverty, this is some first world poverty. I used to live with £700/month for a family of 3 in the UK I never once considered myself poor, and my grades are definitely above most. If you say real poverty then look at the children in Africa who scavenge their food from landfills who live with less than 1 dollar a day, that's some real poverty.
Also I see "poverty" as just excuses for kids can't be arsed at school, surely kids in poor conditions would study harder so they have a chance to be richer. Look at China and India. What happens here is the kids have lazy ass 4th gen benefit claimer parents, the parents pay no attention to their kid's progress, their kids look up to their parents and aspire to be a 5th gen benefit claimer.
0
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by TomatoLounge)
The government have changed the definition of child poverty and removed the legal requirement to reduce it. Doesn't this just confirm the worst stereotypes about the conservative party? They have no regard for the lives of people living in the country..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33346989
The government have changed the definition of child poverty and removed the legal requirement to reduce it. Doesn't this just confirm the worst stereotypes about the conservative party? They have no regard for the lives of people living in the country..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33346989
Its pretty much impossible to meet.
The only question is if it was as daft as the law on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050....
0
reply
Report
#8
Good. It needed a change. Child poverty tends to decrease when cuts occur, jobs are lost, etc., because the median wage decreases.
The new definition they are proposing, if i can remember, is something to the effect of: not having enough money to fully integrate and function in society.
This one makes much more sense.
The new definition they are proposing, if i can remember, is something to the effect of: not having enough money to fully integrate and function in society.
This one makes much more sense.
0
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Can you explain what you mean?
Can you explain what you mean?
0
reply
Report
#12
(Original post by Potally_Tissed)
I mean it would be nice if the opening post at least gave a passing nod to the concept of impartiality, especially given that it was posted by a member of the community team.
I mean it would be nice if the opening post at least gave a passing nod to the concept of impartiality, especially given that it was posted by a member of the community team.
0
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by AndyChow)
I used to live with £700/month for a family of 3 in the UK I never once considered myself poor, and my grades are definitely above most.
I used to live with £700/month for a family of 3 in the UK I never once considered myself poor, and my grades are definitely above most.
0
reply
Report
#14
The old definition just seems to promote a mild form of communism where a decrease in child poverty can be achieved by making the entire country poorer.
Even though this change seems good to make the figure more of a true representation, people don't look into it and just presume as its the conservative party they must be doing it to, as Adam Hills on the Last Leg put it, **** children.
Even though this change seems good to make the figure more of a true representation, people don't look into it and just presume as its the conservative party they must be doing it to, as Adam Hills on the Last Leg put it, **** children.
1
reply
Report
#15
(Original post by TomatoLounge)
The government have changed the definition of child poverty and removed the legal requirement to reduce it. Doesn't this just confirm the worst stereotypes about the conservative party? They have no regard for the lives of people living in the country..
The government have changed the definition of child poverty and removed the legal requirement to reduce it. Doesn't this just confirm the worst stereotypes about the conservative party? They have no regard for the lives of people living in the country..
It's worth noting too that child poverty has, in every year since the Conservatives came into government, been lower than at any point under Labour's tenure and is at its lowest level since it was first recorded in 1994.
The Government could happily rest of those laurels, say it's doing swimmingly and carry on. It isn't.
0
reply
Report
#16
(Original post by TomatoLounge)
The government have changed the definition of child poverty and removed the legal requirement to reduce it. Doesn't this just confirm the worst stereotypes about the conservative party? They have no regard for the lives of people living in the country..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33346989
The government have changed the definition of child poverty and removed the legal requirement to reduce it. Doesn't this just confirm the worst stereotypes about the conservative party? They have no regard for the lives of people living in the country..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33346989
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
Today on TSR
-
Have your say on 2021 assessmentOfqual and DfE want students' thoughts
- Who has received uni offers?
- Starting my new job - AMA!
- Win a year of Headspace
- Private candidates support thread