children in poverty

[Hastings gull]

I have just given you a thumbs-up to bring you back to zero.

Having read through the thread to date, I doubt whether you are ever going to get a sensible answer out of any right leaning person on here through their prejudice and ignorance.

If it is any consolation, I was involved in a sensible conversation the other day with a Conservative, whose husband has actually stood as a parliamentary candidate in the past, and who was doing all she could to support the local food bank. I had a conversation with her husband shortly after the election who said he had vowed to get back involved in politics to counter the UKIP thing.

That is not about child poverty, but I just hope it comes back to bite the Chancellor at the next election when so many people who voted for them turn out to be worse off.

What unbelievable arrogance -so if others disagree they are ignorant.

 

[BadFish]

What unbelievable arrogance -so if others disagree they are ignorant.

Given the fact that he then went on to present an example of his conversation with a right leaning person and their views it is somewhat odd that this is what you take from his post.

Could it be that only those to which he is referring are ignorant rather than all those he disagrees with?

Strikes me as lazy paraphrasing and a wanton misunderstanding of the pint being made.

 

[Hastings gull]

and there is nothing wrong with that, but two thirds of their children are still in poverty this even when they do work, do you think this is OK ?

In response to you, I would refer you back to my initial post,namely that your definition of poverty needs to be fully explained. If you take any average, then some folk will be below that. If the averages rises, then folk are still below. Of course you are right in that poverty is an issue and it is not about stats, but exactly what is poverty? And to what extent are folk responsible for their own "poverty" -you are obviously convinced that it must be the Tories. But how many millions of children now live in single parent families, where the breadwinner has simply upped sticks? How many might be immigrants finding their financial feet, so to speak. I am not denying that some folk do not have access to life-enriching experiences, and where children are involved it is particularly disappointing, but the issue is no way as simple as you make out. The matter of personal responsibility needs to be factored in before we hit out and blame others.

 

[Hastings gull]

Given the fact that he then went on to present an example of his conversation with a right leaning person and their views it is somewhat odd that this is what you take from his post.

Could it be that only those to which he is referring are ignorant rather than all those he disagrees with?

Strikes me as lazy paraphrasing and a wanton misunderstanding of the pint being made.

Why do you always take things so literally? just like with the post earlier about immigrants choosing Britain. Of course he went on to make a good point and I am not denying that. Just that this statement smacks of real arrogance, which is what I commented on.

 

[BadFish]

Why do you always take things so literally? just like with the post earlier about immigrants choosing Britain. Of course he went on to make a good point and I am not denying that. Just that this statement smacks of real arrogance, which is what I commented on.

It could possibly be Aspergers. Or just that I think that exaggeration, generalisations and assumptions should be challenged when debating as facts and research give firmer ground to develop understanding and vague misinformation and misunderstandings.

I thought you took that comment hugely out of context and that the second part of his post kind of disproved your theory. So I thought I would point it out.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

have you ever tried to get a mortgage while in a low paid job and rented property, or tried to get any sort of credit

Yes.

 

[Hastings gull]

It could possibly be Aspergers. Or just that I think that exaggeration, generalisations and assumptions should be challenged when debating as facts and research give firmer ground to develop understanding and vague misinformation and misunderstandings.

I thought you took that comment hugely out of context and that the second part of his post kind of disproved your theory. So I thought I would point it out.

Having read through the thread to date, I doubt whether you are ever going to get a sensible answer out of any right leaning person on here through their prejudice and ignorance.[/B

I wonder if you see the irony here - you take me to task in that you need to challenge a generalisation and exaggeration. Now read the highlighted section again! When it suits you . . .

 

[BadFish]

Having read through the thread to date, I doubt whether you are ever going to get a sensible answer out of any right leaning person on here through their prejudice and ignorance.[/B

I wonder if you see the irony here - you take me to task in that you need to challenge a generalisation and exaggeration. Now read the highlighted section again! When it suits you . . .

I made a comment that you had taken that comment out of context, which you have now done once again. you are quite right that the comment in bold does sound a bit like a generalisation and exaggeration so it would be ironic. However if you take into account both the fact that he has included the caveat about reading though the thread (which narrows the scope of his comment) and the rest of the post it is hard for me to see how you came away with the conclusion that what he was saying was "so if others disagree they are ignorant."

IN fairness you could take his comment about the right wingers on this thread being prejudiced and ignorant as a small generalisation (small enough that even i would be hesitant of pointing out, although I do disagree ) but to extrapolate that to suggest that he is saying that anyone who disagrees with him is prejudiced and ignorant is just ridiculous (as i pointed out)

So no i don't really see the irony here.

 

[Return of the Rev]

Interested to know where you got that figure Rev. If it's correct, and I'm not suggesting for one minute it isn't, then I wonder what percentage of the UK population is made up of immigrants - that would put the 25% of births into real perspective.

Headlines in national paper today! .

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Everything comes down to the number of people in this country.
The population of this country is heading towards 70 million.

 

[Buzzer]

I doubt whether you are ever going to get a sensible answer out of any right leaning person on here through their prejudice and ignorance.

Oh, do get off your high horse, you pompous fool. You want prejudice and ignorance? How about this week's cover of the left-wing rag of choice, the New Statesman. And people claim that conservatives are living in the past. I'd be ashamed if the Spectator ran that patronising headline that belongs in the 70s.

 

[Nibble]

Yep dirty Tories have redefined child poverty so their March on the poor can continue unabated. Those of you who voted this fascist government in should hang your heads in shame. Hang your bloody heads.

 

[Nibble]

And Labour as well, they are all responsible for what's going on in this country today.
There are too many people in this country and we are heading for over population.

Simply not true. Might be too many brown people for your liking but we are not overpopulated.

 

[beorhthelm]

Yep dirty Tories have redefined child poverty

have? can you refer where and when this occured? as far as i'm aware its being discussed, nothing has happened as yet. it was raised a few weeks ago as the increases to pensions meant median earnings went up, so from no other change of policy, the number counted below poverty increased. except in the end the adjustment didnt occur as the median didnt rise. all a bit vague as the rabid headlines got in the way of the facts of the situation.

 

[glasfryn]

In response to you, I would refer you back to my initial post,namely that your definition of poverty needs to be fully explained. If you take any average, then some folk will be below that. If the averages rises, then folk are still below. Of course you are right in that poverty is an issue and it is not about stats, but exactly what is poverty? And to what extent are folk responsible for their own "poverty" -you are obviously convinced that it must be the Tories. But how many millions of children now live in single parent families, where the breadwinner has simply upped sticks? How many might be immigrants finding their financial feet, so to speak. I am not denying that some folk do not have access to life-enriching experiences, and where children are involved it is particularly disappointing, but the issue is no way as simple as you make out. The matter of personal responsibility needs to be factored in before we hit out and blame others.

any poverty is wrong in a country as rich as we are, or are we living in the third world

 

[glasfryn]

Yes.

and you got a mortgage and credit did you, and how recent

 

[Billy the Fish]

There will never be a sensible debate on this issue because it's too emotive and the word "POVERTY" is ambiguous and subjective. People tend to confuse relative and absolute poverty.

Relative poverty is a bit of a nonsense because the result is so transient, someone can be out of poverty one day and in it the next with no change in their own circumstance.

All that happens is the word is used as a stick to beat people with.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Everything comes down to the number of people in this country.
The population of this country is heading towards 70 million.

Ah yes, the "lets blame the immigrants" argument (I assume that's where you're heading based on past encounters). Let's blame those who have nothing whilst ignoring those in power who are seemingly doing everything in their power to increase the class divide.

As for the OP's question the answer is simple. Soon there won't be as many children in poverty because the government want to redefine what poverty means. Poverty will no longer be about external, structural factors (like low wages and extortionate rent), instead IDS tosser wants to blame it on "individual choices" and therefore the lines become blurred and poverty becomes harder to define.

The way IDS tosser tells it, poor people actually MAKE the decision to not feed their kids. After all, it's a lifestyle choice living on £7 a day.

 

[Buzzer]

Ah yes, the "lets blame the immigrants" argument (I assume that's where you're heading based on past encounters). Let's blame those who have nothing whilst ignoring those in power who are seemingly doing everything in their power to increase the class divide.

When someone as universally well-respected as Frank Field acknowledges that immigration into the UK will increase poverty then I suggest that even you would need to sit up and listen:

"In a BBC Radio 4 interview, Mr Field said: “If this Government had, as the last Government had, an emphasis that work is the way out of poverty, you cannot go on having an immigration policy that was, to all intents and purposes, an open-door policy. Now we know the Government says it’s going to tighten up on this front, but we still have five times the net figures coming in than going out.”
Mr Field called for immigration to be brought into balance with the number of people emigrating abroad to create a stable population. He warned that immigration had “huge effects” on the employment market because if most new jobs “go to people new to this country it doesn’t help the poor very much”.

Are you calling Frank Field a bigot too?

 

[HH Brighton]

I'm afraid enough people in this country have stopped caring about other people less fortunate than themselves, the last election results showed that. People can try and justify a Tory vote all they like but they all know they only voted for their own interests. The Conservative plan of making it a one issue election (master minded by Lynton Crosby) worked a treat on the intellectually disadvantaged.