New fear over child poverty
8:50am Saturday 8th September 2012 in Latest News By Scott D'Arcy
AS MANY as three children in every classroom in the town could be living in severe poverty, according to charity Save The Children.
The charity has estimated up to 4,000 youngsters, equivalent to one in 10, in Swindon are from families living on incomes of half or less of the average, which they define as severe poverty.
The international organisation has launched its first UK fundraising campaign after publishing a new report entitled It Shouldn't Happen Here this week after surveying more than 1,500 youngsters aged between eight and 16 and 5,000 parents nationwide.
The Swindon Labour group have called the figures a tragedy and urged Swindon Council and the Government to make the issue a top priority, while the Conservative administration has vowed to tackle the problem.
Coun David Renard , Swindon Council’s deputy leader and the Cabinet member for Children Services said: “We are working hard as a council to reduce child poverty, which in Swindon is lower than most other areas of the UK, and the second-lowest in the south west, according to the charity’s figures.
“The key to tackling child poverty is getting parents into work. Our Children’s Centres around the borough all have links to Job Centres, and we are working with employers and education providers to improve employment opportunities.
“We are aiming to reach all those most in need and are targeting our resources accordingly. “ Labour Group leader Jim Grant said: “It is a tragedy that any child has to grow up in severe poverty. And the worrying thing is the Government is set to make things worse, with cuts to tax credits, housing benefit and Council Tax benefit which support low-income families.
“Supporting these children and families has to be a top priority of Swindon Council and the Government.” South Swindon MP Robert Buckland said: “The Government has pledged to end child poverty by 2020, and is doing all it can to reach that target. But child poverty has been rising for years, including under the Labour government.
“We’ve put in place measures to help. These include tax changes which mean millions of less well-off families now pay no income tax at all.”
To donate to Save The Children’s bid to eradicate child poverty in the UK text POVERTY to 70008 to donate £5 or visit www.savethechildren.org.uk.
Comments(24)
RichardR1
says...
11:16am Sat 8 Sep 12
Poverty is relative to a families priorities. Pub or food. Difficult choice!!!
Ringer
says...
11:43am Sat 8 Sep 12
When you realise that Save The Children considers a household income of £17,000 per year to be 'poverty', you start to realise what their agenda really is.
Neither Save The Children nor the Labour party have embarked on a programme of educating those on lower incomes not to waste their money on cigarettes, booze, Sky TV, takeaways and other assorted drains on resources that mean there's less money available to spend on their 'poor' children - I wonder why not?
Davey Gravey
says...
12:06pm Sat 8 Sep 12
RichardR1 wrote:For once I agree with you Robfm
And how many of those 1 in 10 have parents that manage to go to the pub 2 or 3 times a week and smoke 20 cigarettes a day.
Poverty is relative to a families priorities. Pub or food. Difficult choice!!!
Russell Holland
says...
2:26pm Sat 8 Sep 12
jerry59
says...
4:24pm Sat 8 Sep 12
Davey Gravey
says...
5:20pm Sat 8 Sep 12
Russell Holland wrote:It's the distinguishing from those that deserve it from those that do not that is my main gripe. Nobody should be able to have as many children as they like and be homed,fed and clothed at tax payers expence. There needs to be a firm line taken and mass sterilisation programmes introduced. The current way it is (where slapper mums drop kids left right and centre)cannot be sustained
A lot of people on benefits work but are on low incomes and a lot would like to work but cannot because of health issues or struggle to find work. I agree the benefit system needs to be reformed and undoubtedly some people do make bad choices but there are people in genuine need. Ultimately promoting economic growth and personal responsibility is the way forward but deep rooted problems don't change overnight.
Always Grumpy
says...
7:00am Sun 9 Sep 12
jerry59 wrote:With that sort of attitude you've just given an excellent reason to cut benefits to people who aren't prepared to work, but prefer instead to claim benefits.
Unemployment in swindon is high because there are'nt enough jobs to support the local population. People on benefits are worse off working, so there's no point in going out to work, and I can't blame them. £6 an hour? You can stick it where the sun don't shine.
MrBstard
says...
10:22am Sun 9 Sep 12
Davey Gravey wrote:I quite agree.... My sister and brother in law would fall into the category. Both now into their fifties and after spending their whole married life (since their early 20's) on the dole, living in a council house and pushing out 4 kid (all grown up and moved out now) with one of them following in the family tradition of living on the dole, in a council house and pushing out kids.
Russell Holland wrote:It's the distinguishing from those that deserve it from those that do not that is my main gripe. Nobody should be able to have as many children as they like and be homed,fed and clothed at tax payers expence. There needs to be a firm line taken and mass sterilisation programmes introduced. The current way it is (where slapper mums drop kids left right and centre)cannot be sustained
A lot of people on benefits work but are on low incomes and a lot would like to work but cannot because of health issues or struggle to find work. I agree the benefit system needs to be reformed and undoubtedly some people do make bad choices but there are people in genuine need. Ultimately promoting economic growth and personal responsibility is the way forward but deep rooted problems don't change overnight.
How can the council/government allow this to happen... for over 30 years on the dole!!
I work for a living (thankfully always have) but at one point he was driving around in a newer car than what I could afford. How the hell can that be right? They make my blood boil just thinking of them, the work shy scum.
MrBstard
says...
10:45am Sun 9 Sep 12
Always Grumpy wrote:Exactly, if they are not prepared to go out to work then they should have their benefits cut. If the government says you are entitled to X amount of pounds in benefits to live and a job on minimum wages doesn't match X then you should be made to take the job and have adjusted benefits to match the original X amount.
jerry59 wrote:With that sort of attitude you've just given an excellent reason to cut benefits to people who aren't prepared to work, but prefer instead to claim benefits.
Unemployment in swindon is high because there are'nt enough jobs to support the local population. People on benefits are worse off working, so there's no point in going out to work, and I can't blame them. £6 an hour? You can stick it where the sun don't shine.
That way the work shy are off the dole, they are contributing to the economy instead of being a drain on it and benefits saved from Mr or Mrs work shy could be diverted to those who really need it.
I also think people in council houses should be means tested to see if they really need housing or moved out if they can afford to rent or buy privately. Again freeing up the houses for those who need them.
My sister and brother in law for example still living in a 4 bed semi on their own, (kids moved out years ago) they should be made to move out into a smaller flat so as to free the house up for some one who needs a 4 bed house.
Put me in charge for one day, that's all I'd need. :) ..... rant over, time for my tablets.
moaning
says...
5:32pm Sun 9 Sep 12
house on the hill
says...
8:41am Mon 10 Sep 12
As for Russell Hollands comments about "deep rooted problems dont change overnight" that is typical politian speak, they all know what they have to do but because you allow them this soft system they abouse it. Take away the ability to abuse it and it stops.
I have no problem with those who need our help and they should always have it, but too many dont and if they wont be responsible off their own backs then we should give them no option, the country cant afford to be soft anymore and nor should it, everyone must play their part if we are to improve things and that includes growing a backbone and taking personal responsibility for themselves and stop expecting everyone else to pick up the tab.
RichardR1
says...
10:55am Mon 10 Sep 12
Russell Holland
says...
9:54pm Mon 10 Sep 12
c.co.uk/news/uk-poli
tics-18881046
I support reform to the benefits system and I think the Government is right to emphasise personal responsibility and take action to incentivise work. The point I am making is that in the debate over benefits the actions of people who abuse the system should not lead to generalisations about everyone on benefits.
Ringer
says...
8:48am Tue 11 Sep 12
Russell Holland wrote:
The point I am making is that in the debate over benefits the actions of people who abuse the system should not lead to generalisations about everyone on benefits.”
This is the classic politicians' strawman argument.
Nobody, but nobody, is suggesting that EVERYONE on benefits is committing fraud, or are scroungers, lazy, feckless etc.
Of course there are some people who, for a range of reasons, genuinely require the assistance of the taxpayer in order to exist.
The problem is that, for far, far too long, various governments have found it easier and more expedient to simply shovel money at anyone who asked for it. We all know people who play the system, whether that's by claiming to be looking for work when really they are not, or whether that's claiming to have a 'bad back' or 'depression' when really they do not. Abuse of the system is not carried out by EVERYONE but it is now widespread and the benefit-dependency culture is endemic.
Sadly, the Labour party - under the sneering guise of 'caring' - were only too happy to consign people to a life of state benefit dependency because the equate it to vote winning and, ultimately, wish to see everyone as owing their state their lives. Worse still, the coalition have done nothing to correct the situation - despite the bleating of the unions and charities, public borrowing is UP and government spending has INCREASED.
The reality is that no government can, or will, tackle this problem because it's now far too deeply entwined in our society. It wouldn't have been quite as disastrous had it now also been for the 5 million new arrivals from foreign shores over the past decade, all of whom require some level of state provided funding and none of which have previous contributed a penny to the cause.
The only upside is that, much like Greece has experienced, this kind of spending and lack of control cannot - and does not - go on forever. People don't seem to realise just how precarious the UK economy truly is. They've still got their heads in the sand, some still think spending more will cure the problem... despite the government already spending money they don't have at new record levels.
The Tories, if they have any sense, will wish to lose the next general election and then the incoming Labour government will have to oversee the *forced* wholesale reform of their failed welfare state. And that's at best. At worst, we could quite easily end up with TRUE poverty and misery in this country if our credit rating is downgraded and the government is physically rendered unable to keep spending. It's also not difficult to envisage this country entering a form of civil war, last year's riots demonstrating a very small, sneak peak at what that would entail.
The politicians have failed. Ironically, due to our beloved system of faux-democract. None of the parties will do what needs to be done, because what needs to be done will not win votes. Still, the endgame really isn't far off now.
RichardR1
says...
9:38am Tue 11 Sep 12
The article on them leaving the pub states very clearly the reasons they are going, and it's not the lies you and others are posting.
As I said on another thread the Advertiser have to reveal the identity of those who use this forum to libel someone, which clearly you are doing.
Russell Holland
says...
9:44am Tue 11 Sep 12
I support benefits reform. The Government has placed an income cap of £26,500 on benefits. It is making changes to housing benefit. It is looking at making work pay. It is introducing the universal credit to encourage work. When a system which was designed to protect has become a lifestyle for some people then change is difficult. I agree that change is necessary and change is happening. The key changes are coming into place next year.
itsamess3
says...
9:07pm Tue 11 Sep 12
It was not you that stated the adver--as new laws allowed forums allowed ISP details to be collected.
The purpose being whereby claims known to be false-or constitute libel or a criminal offence--or indeed the revised terms and conditions and privacy terms allow details of offenders to be released to the appropriate bodies.
Very clearly--you are trying to disrupt the site as you always have by trying to create an argument with numerous posters.
The site records and archives as well as cached articles do show similarities that are quite conclusive.
You have toned down your comments to a minor degree--but not enough to identify you as numerous folk on here have.
You claim to be a new poster--but seem to know all the posters and previous id's and previous claims.
You were proved a liar as Robfm and numerous other identities and now you are on your libel crusade which has absolutely nothing to do with you if as you claim you are not he.
Robfm has categorically claimed on this site he is just an employee at the carps rather than the landlord-yet he claims on numerous sites he is the landlord and recently told the Adver he is the landlord and claims that on Twitter-Facebook and numerous sites.
I ask the question as to why he should claim on here he is employed by his wife when Arkells have clearly identified him as landlord==lies lies and more lies.
Regular posters want a site whare local and important issues can be debated andwe are being denied that because you bobby are only interested in creating arguments where you claim expertise in every subject.
Welcome to Portsmouth as you know that area well ftom your police days and there are many there ready to raise a few issues--you do have a short memory.
Deny all you like--we will all listen to your negative comments.
Do tell us how you know how all these in poverty kids have parents who drink and smoke while starving their kids--can you tell us how kids of 13/14/15/16 can smoke on their way to school--ir why the streets leading to the schools are littered with lager and ciders cans?
Pompey-Bound
says...
10:37pm Tue 11 Sep 12
RichardR1 wrote:No Martinez I can follow the written word very well thank you. You however are the one that is clearly sticking his nose in where it is not wanted. good riddance I say.
I take it Pompey-Bound you have difficulty in following the written word.
The article on them leaving the pub states very clearly the reasons they are going, and it's not the lies you and others are posting.
As I said on another thread the Advertiser have to reveal the identity of those who use this forum to libel someone, which clearly you are doing.
1 2 Could B
says...
11:27pm Tue 11 Sep 12
RichardR1
says...
9:19am Wed 12 Sep 12
I note Mr Itsamess3 only starts a rant when he is surrounded by similar trolls who are likely to feed his ego.
A question for you Mr Itsamess, do you know what the definition is of a pub landlord, no, I thought not, well here it is for you;
The owner, tenant or manager (licensee) of a pub is properly known as the "pub landlord".
Robfm has previously explained to you that his wife is the tenant and he is the licensee, or as they are now called Designated Premises Supervisors. Landlord. Nothing mysterious no lies or deception. That is all in your over furtive mind.
All the ranting in the world doesn't alter the facts. As for the last part of your mainly incoherent rant, I never said they were, I posed the question, and others agreed from their experience.
Lastly for someone who criticises Robfm's posts, you seem to be way off thread.
Ringer
says...
5:04pm Wed 12 Sep 12
The coalition's so-called 'cuts' are a nonsense. Government borrowing is up and public spending is still rising.
The coalition are playing at things around the edges. Sadly, it will have little to no effect. They simply will not undertake what needs to be done. Given that Labour are just as bad, this leaves the electorate with no choice but to continue to have money borrowed in our name and our tax pounds squandered. So much for democracy.
Pompey-Bound
says...
1:35am Thu 13 Sep 12
RichardR1 wrote:Who cares what you say now Martinez, we have won you have to leave! As some one else said time to get the flags out!!!
I do find it mildly amusing that the trolls on this site are so obsessed with Robfm. Why would that be, perhaps because he has the courage to say who he is.
I note Mr Itsamess3 only starts a rant when he is surrounded by similar trolls who are likely to feed his ego.
A question for you Mr Itsamess, do you know what the definition is of a pub landlord, no, I thought not, well here it is for you;
The owner, tenant or manager (licensee) of a pub is properly known as the "pub landlord".
Robfm has previously explained to you that his wife is the tenant and he is the licensee, or as they are now called Designated Premises Supervisors. Landlord. Nothing mysterious no lies or deception. That is all in your over furtive mind.
All the ranting in the world doesn't alter the facts. As for the last part of your mainly incoherent rant, I never said they were, I posed the question, and others agreed from their experience.
Lastly for someone who criticises Robfm's posts, you seem to be way off thread.
not one to make assumptions
says...
7:15pm Tue 18 Sep 12
sorry but i have just had enough of the narrow views i constantly have to battle against
Hmmmf says...
9:09am Sat 8 Sep 12
I'm sure all those kids in places like Bangladesh and Somalia would agree.