The Government record on child poverty is shockingly bad. Child poverty is as bad as it was five years ago. The number of children in "official" poverty is 4 million while the number of children in deeper poverty is 2.7 million. Worse still, child poverty is rising. 400,000 more children have fallen into poverty since 2004. Child poverty is now as high as it was six years ago.
The figures highlight a stark message. After great progress 5-10 years ago, the war against child poverty is increasingly being lost under Gordon Brown.
Worryingly, "official" child poverty is set quite high. So the Government concentrates on getting the richest of the poor "over the line". As a result, children living in deeper poverty, where help is most needed, can get left behind. A Government that cared would have focused on the poorest of poor children. But not this one. This one focusses on the richest of the poor to meet their target of tackling "official" child poverty. It’s all a bit like the Tin Man: no heart.
Charlie Elphicke believes that child poverty is not just offensive - it damages our country's future prospects as well. Children in poverty are less likely to do well at school, are more likely to get into crime and underachieve. Every child has a right to achieve its fullest potential and we need to do more to help our kids be all they can be. Charlie believes we should help children in deepest deprivation first of all.
Facebook
YouTube
Flickr
Centre Right
Centre for Policy Studies
Conservative Home
Conservative Party
Sorry, don't get this 'child poverty' thing. I was very poor as a child. I only got 1/6 (old money) pockey money a week. Fortunately for me, however, my parents (also poor; my dad was a bus driver!) kep a roof over our heads and food on the table!
- Sue M Thomas
I just feel it's really important to make sure our kids are properly fed, have decent shoes and don't go to school feeling less "good" than any other child. The best inheritance is an education and the best life chances are when there is enough to eat and be clothed properly. The problem is that Government policy is not aimed at helping the poorest of the poor and this is a real problem, to my mind.
- Charlie Elphicke
i have had my own idea on this for a number of years. child credit/benefit paid into a pot for the child, parents not allowed near!! the money can then be spent by a form teacher on things like a uniform, grub, extra lessons, trips etc depending on the circumstances of the child. chas is right about all children feeling equal when they go through the school gates, this is where the underclass can take root.
- howardmcsweeney
I work with these so called poor families and at £1000 a month received in benefits, not including housing benefit or council tax benefit. I think they should manage getting shoes on their children's feet. The problem is those of us who work are paying for these "poor familes" to waste their money whilst we have to budget and spend wisely. You can keep throwing money at them but that won't help solve the problem. Meanwhile us honest tax payers are getting poorer by the day.
- T. Stewart
i have to disagree with t. stewart partly i am a parent of 4 children and on benefits living in a home that is in need of repairs and in extreme debt so we are in poverty. with trying to pay the bills and keep a roof over my childrens heads is difficult enough without the food shopping and paying off debts. yes i do agree that there are alot of doll bums who dont deserve any help as they dont help themselves but i find it extremly offensive for you to tarnish everyone with thew same brush. there are some of us who try to make a better life for our children. its not our fault that we are in poverty. this is the time that we all need to help eachother not fight eachother.
- lucy
I, too, came from a family that did not have much money. My father worked for the Co-op when they married in 1937 and earned about £3 a week. Half of that went on mortgage and rates (yes, they struggled to buy a house!) and the rest my mother had to stretch to cover everything else! In the 1960s, when I was in my early teens, my father was working in the building trade and earning around £10 a week. My sister's clothes were almost all home made; mine were mostly from the Co-op a it was the only place to buy school uniforms at a reasonable price. We didn't own a car, or a television; we didn't have holidays; we didn't even have a carpet in every room, but we were happy. I never felt "different" to any of the other boys at school because the uniform made us all look alike. I actually felt sorry for the boy in the class who got free school meals, because that must have been embarassing to admit every week! Back then there was no child benefit for the first child, so my sister fared worse than I did, especially being born during the war when my father was in the Air Force. My mother never worked - in those days it was the woman's place to look after home and family. When I got married and had a family of my own we were always hard up, but the children never felt they were lacking in anything. They didn't have designer clothes, expensive shoes, mobile phones, computers, games consoles - all the things that children today seem to consider "essential" - but they were happy. If you are planning to have children, you should make sure that you can afford to keep them!
- Bill Beer
Education, Education, Education..... and still we have not the message - if you can't support yourself, how can you support a child? It never fails to fascinate me the sheer amount of the x-box generation who expect to be handed life to them on a silver platter. I grew up in hand-me-downs and played with sticks in a field, in the fresh air. Some people struggle to be realistic about what poverty is, not having a meal and a roof, that is poverty. Not knowing where the food is coming from, that is reality. Unless you work and support yourself why should those who do something be constantly penalized for the work shy, lazy turnips who even want us to raise their dissident children for them. Being hard up is a reality for everyone, not having the latest gizmo or gadget is not poverty. Not having the chances in life most take for granted is poverty. If there is a child at risk then where is social services? I thought we had this child protection service? This shouldn't even be a factor in 2012..... Welcome to Victorian Britain, where is Wat Tyler?
- Ian Palmer