Latest figures show child poverty is at its lowest since the 1980s. Discuss.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

BBC:

"The number of UK children classed as living in relative poverty remains 2.3 million, government figures suggest.
The Department for Work and Pensions annual estimate shows the proportion affected - almost one in six - was unchanged from 2011-12 to 2013-14."

Child Poverty Action Group:

Has highlighted how the 4.1 million children in absolute poverty after housing costs is half-a-million higher than in 2010.

Discuss

Edited by legaleagle (25 Jun 2015 8.29pm)

Its a point of view (and Mr Murdoch's newspapers of course have no reputation for spinning things in favour of whichever party the proprietor happens to be supporting)..the government spinners have also been spinning.

I wonder if they have dealt with the CPAG's analysis of the latest figures showing the numbers in absolute poverty have risen by half a million since 2010...or would that spoil the spin?

As I understand it,the numbers in relative poverty have fallen by a statistically not very significant 100,000.But,somewhat more importantly the percentage of kids in relative poverty remains the same.

I wonder which aspect Mr Murdoch's paper chose to put at the top of the story?

So,the government figures appear to show a big jump in numbers of kids in absolute poverty since "austerity" came in,and numbers in relative poverty about the same.

It appears the government are planning to change the way the figures are calculated before the next set are released.No doubt the "new" figures will likely show a fall,just like cost of living indexes did when governments took out inconvenient things to make inflation seem lower years ago,and the same with unemployment figures.

I'm not saying the figures show a crisis in child poverty from austerity (so far).My point was rather that the only sensible response to an argument that austerity is curing child poverty is...pleeaaase

and in the meantime,lets all follow the spin and ignore that it may be that half a million more kids are living in absolute poverty since "cure all ills" austerity came in...

Edited by legaleagle (25 Jun 2015 9.24pm)

Wow!

laddo

"People say, live fast, die young. I say live fast, die old. That's me, the non-conformist".
David Brent.

Barnardo's estimate that the majority of kids living in poverty have someone in the family in work...

Lets be consistent...

"Why should the taxpayer feed your kids?"

"Why should the taxpayer educate your kids?"

"Why should the taxpayer treat your kids if they fall ill?"

If you can't afford to pay for your kids' food,education and healthcare in full at market rates,don't have any....

Blimey.

That's a not untenable point of view,but avoids IMO the actual point about "austerity" now,

The question is,if you buy the overwhelming need to cut the defecit argument that is (and there is more than one valid point of view on that), how you do it.

A few (far from exhaustive) general choices/options:

Emphasis on cutting the public sector,and state provided "services/benefits?

Cut things like massively expensive nuclear weapons and what goes to the royal family?

Higher and progressive taxation,including inheritance tax?

Really act to close tax avoidance loopholes?

Attack benefits recipients?

Act to tax multinationals appropriately?

Or protect and nurture the "wealth creators" to encourage "trickle down"?

Seek to reduce or increase inequality in the process?

A mixture?

Edited by legaleagle (26 Jun 2015 9.40pm)