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 (5)

1. Marsha Atkins wrote:

   I find it amazing that we are still talking about child poverty in the 21st century. I wonder what government and policy makers do all day! The trouble is, those who make policies don’t experience poverty and rarely visit areas of poverty. It’s all very well talking to kids on Newsround about poverty, but you need to live it day after day month after month year after year.

   I am a lone parent on disability benefits and cannot work at present. If i do return to work I will need an empoyer who understands that I may not be able to work when needed because of fluctuating health conditions, I will need to be at home during school holidays and periods of child sickness, because of effects of medication I will need to sleep after a couple of hours work. That’s the sort of thing that needs to be considered for people like me.

   Jim Murphy responded:

   Hello Marsha, I don’t agree that those making policy have no personal experience of living in poverty. While my own experience of childhood in a housing scheme in Glasgow is a constant reminder to me about the impact poverty can have on families, many others also have personal experience. In saying that, many of those who have done most to alleviate poverty had no personal experience of it. I think of Beveridge, the architect of the modern welfare system, who I believe had more than a dozen domestic staff in his house! So people of all different personal experience have a part to play.

   I can understand your concerns about returning to employment in the future, and you may want to look at what I said to Sushi about the work we’re doing with employers to make it more possible for people with health conditions and disabilities to work.

   As for child poverty – and I look forward to the day when we can refer to it in the past tense – our reforms to the personal tax and benefit system and the National Minimum Wage will mean, by April, families with children will be on average £1,550 a year better off in real terms, while those in the poorest fifth of the population will be on average, £3,450 a year better off.  

   #1 – Posted on 06-Dec-06 at 10:05 pm.

2. MR M JACKSON wrote:

   THE PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY POOR, SUCH AS INCOME SUPPORT OR JOBSEEKER’S ALLOWANCE CLAIMANTS, SEEM TO GET THE WORST DEAL WHEN BENEFITS ARE UPRATED. THESE ONLY INCREASE WITH THE ROSSI INDEX, NOT THE RPI, BUT GOODS IN THE SHOPS AND UTILITY BILLS RISE WITH RPI, SO IN EFFECT, THE VALUE OF THESE BENEFITS DECREASES.

   Jim Murphy responded:

   Thank you for your comment. You’ll know that we’re required to review the level of benefits each year to determine whether they’ve retained their value in relation to the general level of prices. We regard the Rossi index, which is the Retail Price Index (RPI) less housing costs, as the most appropriate measure for uprating benefits. This is because people in receipt of income related benefits typically have their housing costs met through Housing Benefit or Income Support mortgage interest.

   #2 – Posted on 07-Dec-06 at 2:10 pm.

3. Gary Monro wrote:

   Dear Mr Murphy,

   What does it mean ‘to fully participate in society’? I have looked through your Report and I find no detailed definition of this phrase - and yet it’s a key phrase because it forms the backbone of your definition of poverty.

   People don’t, in my view, ‘participate in society’. They socialise with friends and family and pursue work, education and leisure activities. Many of these can come at little or no cost at all - parks, libraries, free local events, evening classes (heavily subsidised for low income people) and so on.

   You also state, “Until you consider what actually happens to those children growing-up in such low-income households. They are more likely to bunk school, enter crime and die younger.”

   Low income doesn’t make a person bunk school. Many thousands of children come from low-income families - as did I - and didn’t bunk school. Poor standards, indiscipline and a failure of imagination makes a child bunk school. Bad family culture leads to such behaviour.

   Of course, if we admit this then we find ourselves asking if poor standards, indiscipline and failure of imagination - along with an unhelpful family culture - are prime causes of the poverty we lament in the first place. Such thinking is dangerous and, I imagine, frowned upon. Do you have a view on this?

   Thank you,

   Gary Monro

   Jim Murphy responded:

   Dear Gary,

   Back in the ‘80s certain people used to say there was “no such thing as society”. Those who believed “greed was good”, thought of society simply in terms of what they could get out of it. But times have changed. People think more about the world around them. You only have to see the increasing number of people concerned with green issues as proof of that.

   I don’t have a definition of “full participation in society”, but it includes social interaction, academic performance, employment and participation in democracy, either within a community organisation or at election time. It goes without saying that, like both of us, many people from poorer families don’t drop out. But, research has found children from poorer families are more likely to do so. So  helping those people to help themselves and their families out of poverty is vital. It is also why we have set ourselves such a challenging goal of eliminating child poverty.

   #3 – Posted on 18-Dec-06 at 3:00 pm.

4. Carol Nowbaveh wrote:

   I’ve been a lone parent adviser for many years and have seen a good cross-section of lone parents. However, a hard core are trapped in the cycle of deprivation, where aspirations, educational and work attainments are low and are transmitted from one generation to the next. One thing that works is greatly increasing financial incentives to work. Although this is a step in the right direction, it is not enough to combat the long term structural unemployment that this country has suffered due to economic and reformist social policies. Real poverty is hidden in this country; people can dress in designer gear, they don’t starve, but where is the motivation to do well and have a good life? If material circumstances are such, that even children realise there is no hope, what does it say about us as a society? Education and creating jobs that people really want is part of the answer. Education, so that people learn to value themselves and value education for themselves and their children.

   #4 – Posted on 27-Dec-06 at 10:17 am.

5. TIM GASKILL wrote:

   ‘LONE PARENTS IS NOT A LIFESTYLE CHOICE’ I TAKE ISSUE WITH THIS STATEMENT. A VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE GIRLS I WENT TO SCHOOL WITH ARE NOW LONE PARENTS. THEY WERE FACED WITH THE PROSPECT OF STACKING SHELVES AT TESCO WHEN THEY LEFT SCHOOL, AND NEVER HAVING ENOUGH MONEY TO HAVE THEIR OWN PLACE. THE ALTURNATIVE WAS TO HAVE A BABY, LIVE OFF BENEFITS AND BE GIVEN A FREE HOUSE/FLAT. ITS NOT A DIFFICULT DECISION. THEY SEE HAVING A CHILD AS A ‘CAREER CHOICE’ EACH CHILD PROVIDING MORE BENEFITS AND A LARGER HOUSE. THE CHILD ITSELF IS NOT WANTED-ITS THE PERKS THAT ARE. THESE CHILDREN ARE THEN NEGLECTED, POORLY EDUCATED AND BROUGHT UP WITH NO DISCIPLINE OR RESPECT, AND THE CYCLE CONTINUES. THIS IS THE REALITY, AND THROWING MONEY AT THEM ONLY MAKES IT EVEN MORE APPEALING. THE ANSWER IS BETTER EDUCATION AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THIS COUNTRY ALSO HAS A HUGE PROBLEM WITH ‘LONE PARENTS’ WHO CLAIM BENEFIT BUT IN FACT HAVE PARTNERS WHO DONT ‘OFFICIALLY’ LIVE WITH THEM. THEY HAVE FOUND THAT ONE WAGE EVEN WITH TAX CREDITS IS NOT ENOUGH, THEY CANT BOTH WORK BECAUSE THEY CANT AFFORD THE CHILD CARE COSTS SO THEY ‘SEPERATE’ AND ONE CLAIMS AS A LONE PARENT. MYSELF AND MY WIFE WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF WE ‘SEPERATED’. THE ANSWER TO THIS IS CHANGING THE TAX SYSTEM. TRANSFERRABLE TAX ALLOWANCES WOULD BE THE ANSWER.

   #5 – Posted on 11-Mar-07 at 2:21 pm.

RSS 2.0 feed for these comments .

Post a Comment

We aim to publish a representative cross-section of comments. We will make sure that all comments are taken into account as part of the formal consultation process.