British Democracy Forum
Web | Images | Groups | News | Advanced
Google
Worldwide Results UK Focused Results

Go Back   British Democracy Forum > Political Parties > Labour Party General Issues


You can remove this advert by logging in or registering
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 13-03-2008, 08:11 AM   #1 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 29
bornfree is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Child poverty

Where is this `child poverty' that the government is talking about?
It's a great phrase, very evocative and colourful, but I don't see any poor kids, which by any reasonable definition is kids who are poorly dressed and poorly fed.
bornfree is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!FuzzFizz It!
Reply With Quote

You can remove this advert by logging in or registering
Old 13-03-2008, 09:36 AM   #2 (permalink)
Moderator
 
B.A.Ware's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 3,948
Party: UKIP
B.A.Ware is just starting out
Default

The trouble is what constitutes poverty, and what type of poverty, relative poverty or absolute poverty. Ive heard all of these words banded about by politicians its all ******** i have never seen poverty in this country even when i was a child on a council estate.
__________________
We’re not just about Europe.
B.A.Ware is online now  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!FuzzFizz It!
Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2008, 09:45 AM   #3 (permalink)
Uber Member
 
eublues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,845
eublues is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

If you want to cut 'child poverty', the first thing is to stop encouraging people to have children when they are not in the position to support them themselves - i.e. cut the benefits linked to having children.
eublues is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!FuzzFizz It!
Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2008, 09:55 AM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
gimlet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 762
gimlet is just starting out
Default

The "new labour poverty" used to be "an income below 60% of the min wage". Other indicators now I believe, no TV, hols etc. Either way the word "poverty" does not mean what most people would think. Another word to watch closely is "sustainable development” – it is sinister underneath.
gimlet is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!FuzzFizz It!
Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2008, 10:00 AM   #5 (permalink)
Moderator
 
B.A.Ware's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 3,948
Party: UKIP
B.A.Ware is just starting out
Default

Hasn't Mr Darling just made it easier to have children you cant afford by increasing the child allowance.
__________________
We’re not just about Europe.
B.A.Ware is online now  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!FuzzFizz It!
Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2008, 10:02 AM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
tara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 624
tara has some supporters
Default

When the government talk of child poverty, what they really mean is mothers who are not in the workplace. They don't want mothers to be mothers, they want them to be unfit mothers damaging their children by putting them into child care and claiming tax credits giving them a 'better standard of living'.
tara is online now  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!FuzzFizz It!
Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2008, 10:24 AM   #7 (permalink)
Uber Member
 
eublues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,845
eublues is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Sensible people tend to PLAN when to have children - waiting for such things as some qualifications, a reasonably secure job, a stable partnership and suitable housing.

People used to chaotic lives and dependency on the state tend not to.

Last edited by eublues; 13-03-2008 at 10:39 AM.
eublues is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!FuzzFizz It!
Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2008, 10:39 AM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
The Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,049
The Bear is just starting out
Default

It's simply one aspect of the New Labour gerrymandering by increasing the “Turkey Army” sector of the electorate.

Child poverty in the UK? No doubt there is some amongst the low life but that’s not going to be solved by throwing yet more cash for them to squander on the various substances that they abuse.

Far better to promote birth control, ease access to abortion, and break the career choice that so many girls take of getting pregnant in order to get a house and a free meal ticket for life. The last by re-introducing Children’s homes or at least long term communal accommodation rather than single family domiciles amongst other steps that could and should be taken in this field
The Bear is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!FuzzFizz It!
Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2008, 10:43 AM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: nottinghanshire
Posts: 514
brian pearson is just starting out
Default

The last I heard it was defined as below 60% of average earnings. To call that poverty is a disgrace.

Of course soon when the economy colloapses those who sit around and live off the rest of us will be better off. Children are seen now by many as an income.

What do we do when the difference between working for 30 K a year and living off the state (getting free house, council tax paid etc) amounts to not a lot. I don't think we are far off that now.
brian pearson is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!FuzzFizz It!
Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2008, 11:03 AM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
gimlet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 762
gimlet is just starting out
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brian pearson View Post
The last I heard it was defined as below 60% of average earnings. To call that poverty is a disgrace.

Of course soon when the economy colloapses those who sit around and live off the rest of us will be better off. Children are seen now by many as an income.

What do we do when the difference between working for 30 K a year and living off the state (getting free house, council tax paid etc) amounts to not a lot. I don't think we are far off that now.
Brian

I think you are right about it being"average earnings" - mistake min wage. Therefore we will always have poverty within our current system, and it allows the state (communist Labour) to continue with its redistribution adgenda.
gimlet is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!FuzzFizz It!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 12:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This site is owned and operated by MyCartel Limited © 2007. Hosting: BookFizz.
This site supports Label My Food and FuzzFizz
My latest commercial site: Cell Phone News 2.0 - [Mobile version]

Mobile version

Politishop

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0