This snapshot, taken on 10/02/2009, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.

Comments (14)

1. Jenny Luxton wrote:

   I agree that more should be done to reduce children’s experience of poverty, but I also believe that it will be extremely difficult to achieve this unless society istelf is to dramatically change. Britain today has a culture of people expecting something for nothing. I do not just mean people living off benefits and avoiding working for a living, I mean the whole of society. So many people these days are heavily in debt because they are influenced by the rest of society and very strongly by the media to believe that they should have everything. Not only would a family living on an income of around £32,000 pa expect to have a foreign holiday every year, but they would also expect to have their house decorated to a high standard (in line with what they see on television)including a new sofa when they feel like it, their garden made up like the ones they see on television programmes, their children wearing the latest design in trainers, and playing the latest computer games, using the latest games consoles and so on. People lack respect for rules and authority, but are also unable to think outside the mainstream. They respect here today - gone tomorrow celebrities who are popular one week and being pilloried the next for taking drugs or conducting their sex lives publicly. People do not have respect for each other within communities and behave selfishly towards each other. Until people learn to understand what they should respect and be spending their money on, there will always be this problem with child poverty and chains of poverty running through families. A family living on an income of about £30,000 pa is on a fairly low income, but should be able to live reasonably comfortably if the pressures of society changed. Part of the problem is a lack of individuality in children’s schooling. Peer pressure holds much greater sway with children and adults alike than the kind of guidance that the Government can legislate on. The problem is cross-generational. Some older people have similarly unrealistic expectations of what they should spend their money on and how much of it they should have. Retired people who receive disability benefits and Pension Credit want to emigrate to live in Spain and are angry when they find they will not be funded to live abroad. For many decades, people have only been able to afford to retire abroad when they have earned and saved enough money to do so. Unfortunately in today’s society, people’s attitude is not “this is something I have saved up to do” it is “it is my right to do what I want, and if I haven’t got enough money to do it, then the Government should fund me.” This is a breathtakingly selfish attitude to have. From a generation of pensioners who have grown up making do with what they have to have become people who simply expect to be able to do what they like regardless of the cost to society is a very sad state of affairs. For a society already heavily in debt to encourage people in their belief that they can simply do as they like whether they can afford it or not is simply irresponsible. I have no answers to the questions I have raised, but I would like the Government to begin thinking about how to change people’s attitudes towards each other and towards the money they earn or claim. Isn’t it about time that we all started to realise the limitations of our incomes and stop living on the never-never?

   #1 – Posted on 17-Oct-06 at 2:34 pm.

2. George Johnson wrote:

   ‘The chain of disadvantage’ that runs through households and generations, probably has less to do with poverty and more to do with incorrect ways of bringing up children. To tackle the problem, means to tackle & challenge the attitudes that people carry with them throughout their lives, which they in turn pass on to the next generation - through education; to give parents lessons in how’not’ to bring up children and to teach, in schools, playgroups, etc, children, the ways their parents should be bringing them up, and how, in turn, they should bring up their own children; to eliminate abuse, neglect, humiliation, manipulation, coercion and beatings; and to develop the emotional structure. Eliminating child poverty will not eliminate the social problems that come about as the result of this entrenched culture..but should go hand in hand with the ideas I have put forward

   #2 – Posted on 17-Oct-06 at 4:57 pm.

3. Elizabeth Gallacher wrote:

   I am interested in the proposal regarding paying grandparents to look after their grandchildren to allow the young parents to get back into work. As I understand it this is only a proposal at present but I do think this should be escalated and put into action. Could you explain what the current legislation/situation is on this.

   Jim Murphy responded: Elizabeth, sorry to disappoint you. There has not been a Government proposal to pay grandparents to look after their grandchildren - either to allow parents to go or get back to work or for other reasons.  Of course, no-one’s going to deny the valuable service grandparents perform in looking after their grandkids and giving their own kids a welcome break. But I believe paying for, or regulating, childcare arrangements made between family members would be a step too far.  I think it  would be impractical to measure these childcare arrangements.

   #3 – Posted on 17-Oct-06 at 8:39 pm.

4. Andrew wrote:

   I have a lot of support for what this government have done to help families financially, and ,although it has been hideously mismanaged, the tax credit system is responsible or most of the good this government have done. I myself recieve both Working and Families Tax Credit. My big worry is the focus on childcare and working - despite growing problems with our youth and their sometimes anti-social behaviour- acts to completely discourage people from lokking after their own children.
   It is now a perk of the rich that they can ‘afford’ not to have their children essentially raised by other people for 30-50 hours a week.
   Given that chikldcare is something schools are promoting as a good option for students who are not expected to achieve ‘academically’ (i.e get 5 GCSEs)is it a good idea to allieviate financial poverty by encouraging emotional and intellectual poverty?

   #4 – Posted on 18-Oct-06 at 10:13 am.

5. Darren Tomlinson wrote:

   By introducing an element of financial insecurity, Tax Credits have failed the very people who needed it the most. I do not believe using tax payers money to subsidise low paying employers is a good idea.

   With the success of minimum wage and the grossly high payouts to executives in mind, perhaps it’s time to consider a maximum wage. This could be set with regard to general wages within a company. E.G. 25 times the lowest wage paid.

   #5 – Posted on 18-Oct-06 at 11:39 am.

6. Trista Asherwood wrote:

   I think that the idea to try & eradicate child poverty is great, but…
   Many of the families that suffer from being poor, are poor because of what they spend there little money on.
   Increases in benefits and the introduction of child tax credits is all well and good providing that the parent/s isn’t/aren’t using that money to buy drugs, mobile phones and alcohol.
   Therefore the children don’t really get to see much of the help we’re trying to give them.
   The government needs to provide a much more physical, hands on approach by maybe giving vouchers to be spent in particular stores for food and clothing instead of money. By doing this there is more of a chance that the child/ren will be in recipt of the care they desperately need.
   Regarding childcare, why is it that in some European countries, childcare is free ? But not in the UK ?
   The whole benefits system will need to be revised before it will be possible to improve the lives of poor children.

   #6 – Posted on 18-Oct-06 at 5:11 pm.

7. Martin Cockram wrote:

   Dear Sir, i have read with intrest your statement on poverty, as a civil servant, whom is a single parent working full time, why is it that i still have to claim tax credits to boost my wage, just so thati can pay my bills with very little left over. We read all the time on the government web site that working is good for you, it is if you have enough money to live off.
   It was interesting to know that the wage rise we recieved during the year, was to bring us in line with the minimium wage. This is poverty itself, i do understand that there are many people whom are in a worst finacial situation than myself, i have been unemployed in the past, but the problem will always be that there is not enough of a financial benefit between working for a living and being umemployed.

   Thank you for your time

   Jim Murphy responded: Martin you make a valid point. We do have to make sure it is more beneficial to work than remain unemployed. That is why we introduced the minimum wage and tax credits, which combined with our strong economic polices have helped employment to increase to record levels in this country.

   In terms of the civil service, if I take my Department as an example, we have consistently targeted more of the available money towards our lowest paid staff through significant increases to pay band minima, higher percentage rises for those nearer the bottom of the pay band and guaranteed minimum pay rises that benefit our lowest paid staff.

   #7 – Posted on 19-Oct-06 at 8:36 am.

8. Graham Divers wrote:

   Although currently working in Jobcentre Plus for BFD, I have worked in the Business Development and External Partnership field for many years. This has given me a clear understanding of the work of local authorities, LSC, Business Link, Strategic Partnerships, Voluntary Sector etc. I have been involved in local and regional projects and supported organisations in bidding for funds.
   I have witnessed first hand some of excellent work that is done in community to help in reducing poverty and in particular child poverty.
   Throughout my time working in partnership with other organisations it has always been clear that the best efforts of these organisations, including Jobcentre Plus, are hampered and valuable provision and projects prevented from reaching their full potential because of segmented national funding streams and the imposition of eligibility criteria to budgets / funds. Although Strategic Partnerships, Joint Investment Partnerships, LPSA and LAA have started the process of formalising partnership and some targets / funding, these have really only scratched the surface.
   A county or city will receive many millions of pounds inward investment through LSC, Jobcentre Plus, LA’s, Government Office, RDA, etc. and still more from National and European funds through projects and bidding opportunities. This money is passed down to each organisation with a set of eligibility criteria and with specific restrictions on spend. Therefore what happens at the community level is a patchwork of ill-fitting investment and short-term projects that are well meaning but not strategically planned.
   As a result some disadvantaged people, families and children get supported some of the time, in some places but there is not cohesion. No joined up government.
   Funds could be spent far more productively if we had true joined up government and the flexibility to work on true disadvantage or poverty in all its forms, instead of eligibility.
   In my view the answer is a dramatic change in the way things are funded. We need to strip out all project and discretionary funding from running costs and specific government funding (like education, & NHS). The discretionary / project funding (European and Domestic) then needs to put in one central pot - all of it. This pot could be administered separately or given to Government Offices (provided that they have simplified their bureaucracy).
   Strategic Partnership, including all Government Departments, should then be allocated their share based on an appropriate index of disadvantage. Local organisations, including LA’s would then be required to bid for funds to meet the needs of the community against criteria (not eligibility like 18 to 24 year, over 50, women, young offenders etc.) set by government - things like contributing to reducing poverty and child poverty. Programmes would need to based on partnership and is successful could be long term funded, because they are working.
   This way a holistic approach can be fostered with Local Authority, LSC and Jobcentre Plus provision rolling into one and appropriate to the community in which it is available.
   If we want to tackle issues of poverty we need to join up the different government funded bodies and force / encourage them to work jointly on reducing disadvantage. If done this would save millions in double / overlapping funding and administration and increase the support made available to the population.
   Looking at it from the disadvantaged persons point of view - they don’t care or even need to know, where the funding comes from, they just need the help & support available, in the place and at the time that serves them best. We can still monitor value for money, performance against targets and overall impact but in a different way.
   The Single Regeneration Budget started with some of this aim – but never succeeded and was not all-inclusive.

   Jim Murphy responded: Graham I agree with you about the need to join forces to beat disadvantage in communities. You might be interested to hear about our Cities Strategy – launched in January this year. This is part of our welfare reform proposals and looks at the best way to combine the work of government agencies, local government and the private and voluntary sectors to get more people back to work. We believe local partners work better together and our intention is to give such “co-operatives” the freedom to respond to local needs. We plan to roll out first pathfinder areas in April.

   You can find more details here.

   #8 – Posted on 19-Oct-06 at 12:45 pm.

9. Julian Dobson wrote:

   It’s always good to see progress towards ending poverty. But I wonder whether in focusing child poverty we’re concentrating on the easy target when the group that is at most substantial risk of poverty is older people. We’re already seeing a huge increase in fuel poverty because of the actions of the utility companies, while the only asset most new pensioners have - their homes - is only as secure as their local housing market. In many parts of the UK, that’s not secure at all.

   More generally, while we’re making positive progress towards blurring the artificial distinction between workers and claimants, the DWP is still years behind economic reality: for a growing number of people, earnings cannot be guaranteed and what’s needed is a benefit system that maximises their ability to earn when they can without clawing those earnings back when they are unable to.

   The British Urban Regeneration Association has done a lot of constructive thinking in its proposals to reform the earnings disregard system through a new ‘community allowance’. Such ideas deserve more of a hearing.

   And congratulations on the blog - particularly if you read the comments yourself.

   Jim Murphy responded: Julian, I welcome your feedback on the progress we’re making in addressing poverty, however, I can’t agree that we’re concentrating on an easy target with child poverty, which can seriously undermine a child’s access to education, decent housing, health and a safe environment and ultimately helps to influence their entire life.

   We do, of course, want all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement, but, once housing costs are accounted for, a pensioner today is no more likely to be in poverty than anyone else in society, and I think that’s a real achievement. Rising fuel costs are a real worry for many and our Winter Fuel Payments mean that older people are able to turn up their heating in the winter without worrying about the cost. The payments have risen from £20 in 1997/98 to the current value of £200 for households with someone aged 60 to 79 and £300 for households with someone aged 80 or over.

   Regarding earnings disregard – I’m aware of the work being done by BURA and we’re keeping this system under review. Of course, we have to ensure our resources are being used most effectively before considering any changes.

   #9 – Posted on 20-Oct-06 at 12:30 am.

10. jenny wrote:

    there seems to be some confusion here from reading the comments posted, just because someone isnt on a high income it doesnt make them a drug using alcoholic scumbag, just wanted to clear that up because i find it very ignorant for someonee to suggest that poverty equals scum.

    i dont consider my family to be living in poverty but only my partner is working full time at the moment , ive been off bringing up my son for a couple of years and now want to return to work, i havent been claiming benefits other than the child benefit and tax credits which help a lot with living costs going up all the time. but more does need to be done.

    i dont think more cash hand outs are required, but for me personally it would be great if there was a scheme to help mothers get back into employment after spending time off with their children, im finding it extremely difficult to find a job with no recent experience and i really want to start working again.

    also i really feel my son would benefit from attending a nursey but the free part time places only apply to 3 and 4 year olds so this could maybe be extended to 2 year olds. there are no free public nurserys in my town which is a fairly poor town.

    just a couple of ideas, everything in place at the moment seems to be aimed at single parents but the fact of it is theres a lot of low income familys who are not single parent families, with the cost of nursery and my earning potential at the moment id be left with very little after paying the costs and recieve no help from tax credits towards the childcare which means i have to find employment that fits around when family members can take care of my son whilst i work because we just cant afford childcare.

    Jim Murphy responded: Jenny, I appreciate your concerns. Of course, we should never assume that people on low incomes must have alcohol and drug problems. Most people want the best for their families which is why our Bill is about giving people the means to lift themselves out of poverty. In terms of finding work, there is help out there. Visit Directgov and you can find a wealth of training opportunities for a whole range of subjects. Learndirect also offers free, personalised careers advice and guidance that could help you restart your career. You can call an adivsor free on 0800 100 900 alternatively visit http://www.learndirect-advice.co.uk/featured/cag/. Tax credits aren’t the responsibility of DWP they are dealt with by HM Revenue and Customs. But it might be useful to know that Working Tax Credits contain a child care element. You’ll find more information by following this link. Hope this is helpful.

    #10 – Posted on 22-Oct-06 at 8:47 pm.

11. Michelle Alton wrote:

    I would just like to make a comment that we should support those unable to work and their families.

    However I strongly believe that at the point of claim customers should only get benefit entitlement for their family at that time. If they continue to make a choice to have further children, whilst on benefits, additional benefits should not be paid in respect of that child. I understand that this would be a drastic culture change for some, but as most people who work make decisions on when to have children based on affordability to support those children, I do not see why people on benefit should not also have to consider this. Why should people on benefit think differently to those in work? i.e. you should consider financial implications and be responsible to each child before deciding to have more children. Going back throughout the years, before the welfare state, people had to manage a couple of jobs to support their families. No doubt many people will argue against my comment, citing child poverty and “only the child will suffer” but I do feel that society needs to emphasise the work culture and parents responsibility to support their own families and understand the impact decisions make on their financial circumstances. To those who would argue against me, I would suggest bringing children up in a culture of not working is also not in that child’s best interest. Hopefully by changing the policy on this it will bridge the gap for those who make it a living to stay on benefit, having more children whilst on benefit making them better off on benefit than in work. My final point is employed people having children do not get an increase in salary.

    #11 – Posted on 23-Oct-06 at 4:03 pm.

12. Chris wrote:

    Vouchers would be a mistake, in my opinion. It would clearly stigmatise families on low income. There is also the issue of how do shops give change? If they give it in cash, then parents can still get cash. If it’s in vouchers, they have a very bureaucratic system. If shops don’t give change at all, the poor lose out.

    It would also be naive to think that parents addicted to drugs will not get them somehow, possibly exposing their children to further risk through increased crime levels.

    The key things are to provide far greater resources at the nursery and primary school levels in areas with large concentrations of people on low incomes; to maintain or increase benefits and the minimum wage/tax credits; to subsidise childcare much more to allow parents to work, including afterschool clubs; and to treat drug and alcohol problems as health issues not (initially at least) criminal ones.

    To do this, there needs to be a cultural attitude that poverty is not inevitable, and that redistribution of wealth is an essential part of any civilised society. There is no equality of opportunity (let alone outcome) with the disparities of wealth in our society.

    #12 – Posted on 24-Oct-06 at 11:56 am.

13. Helen wrote:

    I would like to comment on the child poverty issue. I am a single mother to a three year old daughter and find myself in a trap. I want to work and have support around me where friends and family could look after my daughter for me while I go to work. I have huge debts from when I was with my daughters father as they were all put in my name. My outgoings are far more than my incomings. If I work under 16 hours a week I can expect to earn only £20 more than the benefit I am on - and for this I have to give up precious time with my daughter. If I work more than 16 hours then all benefits change and I will still be no better off financially. I think there needs to be some better help for people in my situation as I would love to be back at work and working my way out of debt but it has to be worth doing. I do know some other single mums who are not so keen to get back to work and I also know of at least three drug addicts that actually get more benefits that me because they are classed as sick, this makes me very angry. This Christmas is going to be the most difficult financially ever and I wish I could do more about it. I hope that you manage to come up with a system to help people like me and other poor families.

    Jim Murphy responded: Helen, in terms, of what we’re doing for lone parents it’s worth checking out my comment to Shaf. Sadly, debts are a considerable problem for many and we want to do more to enable people to work and take control of their finances. When people first come off benefit it can certainly feel as if they’re not much better off, but getting back into work, with the prospect of longer term wage increases, is the first step to improving living standards and reducing debt. Non working lone parents are particularly likely to experience persistent poverty and deprivation and by offering help and advice on jobs, childcare, in-work benefits, and debt, we are trying to tackle this cycle of deprivation.

    Last week a report reviewing our strategies for tacking child poverty was published by Lisa Harker, an independent adviser to this Department. The report acknowledges the significant progress we’ve made with 700,000 children lifted out of poverty since 1998/9 and poverty at a 15 year low. We know more work needs to be done and we want to ensure that more parents get the support they need to help them move into work. Lisa’s report will help us in this process.  You can read more about what Lisa has to say by clicking here.

    #13 – Posted on 26-Oct-06 at 4:30 pm.

14. Jack Gavin wrote:

    I have been recieving Incapacity benefit for 8 years now and despite bein told that I have been expected to die within four - six months four times in the last three years I have fought like a jungle lion to stay alive and I am (obviously) still here.

    MY gripe is that I got a letter from ‘Jobcentre plus’ some 8 weeks ago telling me I should come off benefits and find a job ! I’d be absent more than I was in ! I would love to have the health & strength to return to my many years as a civil servant where I was very happy but this suggestion to me as a terminally ill man is a joke. ~ Reply Please ?

    Jim Murphy responded: Jack, although I don’t know the background to the letter you received from Jobcentre Plus, I want to reassure you that our welfare reform proposals do not mean that people on Incapacity Benefit, or, when it’s introduced, the new Employment and Support Allowance, will be expected to actively seek work. You may want to read what I said about this in my response to Carol.

    We do, of course, want to ensure that people are aware of the help that’s available to them because, for many people, work is a route out of poverty and can also improve their health and well-being. However, we recognise that some people may never be able to return to work because of the severity of their disability or illness, and, under our proposals, such people will receive additional financial support as they are at most risk of prolonged poverty.

    #14 – Posted on 14-Nov-06 at 11:07 pm.

RSS 2.0 feed for these comments .