Child poverty definition changed

Watch
TomatoLounge
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
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
SotonianOne
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#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.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#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
Not really.

Relative poverty is meaningless measure.
0
reply
AndyChow
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#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.
0
reply
thesabbath
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#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.
1
reply
SotonianOne
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#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.
I admire thou
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#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
It was a stupid definition (and I thought about this in 2009).

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
WelcomeToJ'sFreakShow
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#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.
0
reply
Potally_Tissed
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
Nice unbiased opening post there, good job TSR :yy:
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by Potally_Tissed)
Nice unbiased opening post there, good job TSR :yy:
Can you explain what you mean?
0
reply
Potally_Tissed
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Can you explain what you mean?
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
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#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.
Ok. Tha thanks for clarifying that.
0
reply
Tiger Rag
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#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.
Your parents would have received a fair amount of benefits of top as well; so much more than £700 a month.
0
reply
1338
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#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.
1
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#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..
Not really. Relative poverty is a relatively poor measurement and is given undue precedence. The PM was right when he said, for example, that even raising the state pension will have a poverty increasing effect.

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
agentawesome
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#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
I 100% agree with you. Though many people pretend it doesn't happen, first world poverty exists and we see it every day. A government that does not support the underprivileged, is NOT one I support.

Image
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (64)
65.98%
I don't have everything I need (33)
34.02%

Watched Threads

View All