I know it seems like all I post nowadays is depressing stories about how sh*t the government is, but to be fair they don't half give me plenty of material.

[Link]

Proposals under consideration include a £5billion cut to child tax credit. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this would increase the official number of children in poverty by 300,000.

The Centre for Social Justice has privately warned ministers they face an increasing risk of judicial review if they take action that directly contradicts the target laid down in law.

But then I guess after all of their reckless spending and financial mismanagement leading up to the recession, it's only right that children bear the brunt of austerity measures.

I really would love to hear what justification there is for spending billions of pounds on a massive nuclear submarine which will most probably just lie around in a warehouse all day, or £3.5 billion to revamp Parliament, instead of, you know, making sure kids wear clothes and have food. The fact is, austerity has failed. It had no historical precedent, it has overseen one of the biggest transfers of wealth from the poor to the rich in recent history, hasn't come close to addressing our national debt problems and is now causing children and the disabled to live in circumstances we couldn't have dreamt of even 10 years ago.

Or am I just quoting from too liberal/lefty a source?

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

So 1 case stands for everyone. Pathetic excuse and denial.

Said it before, benefits should not be paid in cash but a voucher or prepaid card system that can't be used on frivolous expenditure.

"Poverty" is such a loose term now it's lost all impact in my opinion. It's relative. Poverty here is living like a king in some parts of the world.

Pride of South London
Upper Holmesdale Block P

How can that be the states fault? Surely anyone who smokes or drinks does that?

Pride of South London
Upper Holmesdale Block P

Its neither the states, her children's, or other benefit claimants fault, its her fault. The insinuation of the post is that because she did it, no one is in poverty (when in fact she increased the poverty of her children to do it).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I think the perception of some people on the right is that welfare and poverty are the same thing. They can be, but that's not necessarily true. Plenty of people on welfare are not impoverished, or in poverty, because they have the capacity to cope.

Unfortunately, it misses the reality of life on welfare and the realities of poverty. If your parents (or a parent) is an alcoholic, then poverty is a likely outcome, if you're on welfare, because one or both of your parents has an uncontrollable drive to drink. No amount of moral posturing or cuts will actually change that, an alcoholic will still drink, and if necessary fund their drinking by additional means. Addicts have been known to even turn to prostituting their kids in order to get their substance of abuse.

The problems of poverty tend to lie in problems in individuals capacity and agency to cope in society, which are then amplified by the fact their income is minimal. Often these problems are educational and emotional problems, learning disorders, a disability or three, mental health problems, addiction and so on; which can't be resolved by simply cutting funding to public services, cutting welfare payments and moral platitudes.

What is equally disturbing, is the number of people in full time work, that are in poverty

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]