Child poverty not to do with anything as DECEPTIVLY SIMPLISTIC as "money" anymore
www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/14/iain-duncan-smith-child-poverty
(PsychoChomp, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 11:34, 3 replies, latest was 12 years ago)

This is an entirely worthwhile exercise and not at all a distraction from the likelihood that government policy will increase child poverty in the coming years.

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 11:37, Reply)

They're changing the way inflation is measured too...
same reasons probably
(localboy purveyor of pisspoor puns, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 12:10, Reply)

I had a stand-up argument with one of my old dears the other day
because she wouldn'have it that some people are in a poverty trap through no fault of their own.

Apparently if you're in a position where you can't afford to feed your children, you should sell your pet, your TV, your car, any nice clothes you have, and eat mud, or something. You know, like back when we had *real* poverty, during the war.
( b3th Not shit. Not mod., Thu 15 Nov 2012, 11:38, Reply)

I agree you can't measure it by parental income alone
Giving money to parents does not guarantee it gets spent on the children.
(localboy purveyor of pisspoor puns, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 11:38, Reply)

You can't measure child poverty by parental income???
Are you suggesting that children should try to support themselves more?
Perhaps get jobs cleaning chimneys or something?

Edit: Did you add the word 'alone' to that, or did I just miss it?
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 11:40, Reply)

No
the problem is how to ensure that financial help for children actually goes to them and isn't just wasted by the parents.

Edit: yes, added alone after i read it again and realised it didn't read how i thought it did.
(localboy purveyor of pisspoor puns, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 11:54, Reply)

Yes, well you can't measure local temperature with a thermometer.
what if there's a fire behind that wall?
The measurment isn't the problem, it's the assumption that the figures are, or should be infallible. Child poverty figures are broad strokes the statistics won't save people. Changing the methodology just stops you easily doing long term trend analysis, which is stupid and a waste of time.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 11:44, Reply)

Reminds me when they tried to convince people that there were hardly any people sleeping rough in London
Because to be counted they had to actually be lying down and they did the survey during working hours.
( Peej, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 12:00, Reply)

Not correct.
The legislation states that the count must be done between midnight & 4am. If someone is awake they are not included in the count.

Westminster council have a nasty trick; the winter night they do the count happens to be the same night they decide to pressure wash chewing gum off the pavements. Funnily enough, rough sleepers don't like getting wet in the cold, so fuck off somewhere else and don't get counted. Allowing Westminster to claim they don't have a problem with homelessness in their borough.

(volunteer and trustee of a homeless charity for nine years).
( Fucking hell Jeff I am not a robot, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 12:15, Reply)

The cynical fucking cunts.

( Kroney, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 12:17, Reply)

Nasty eh?

( Fucking hell Jeff I am not a robot, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 12:21, Reply)

What I typed is something I was told about 18 years ago so may not be accurate sorry

( Peej, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 12:17, Reply)

No wonder your wife won't sleep with you. Accuracy is the best afrodisiac.

(PsychoChomp, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 12:23, Reply)

Unfortunately my face puts her off

( Peej, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 12:25, Reply)

Can't blame her on that one
If it's any comfort, her face often puts me off.
( Kroney, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 12:28, Reply)

Textbook response.

( Fucking hell Jeff I am not a robot, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 12:34, Reply)

what, Spanish Fly for negroes?

(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 12:29, Reply)

I had rather thought they paid social services
to make sure money earmarked for potentially problem families was going where it was supposed to go.
( Kroney, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 12:04, Reply)

I don't think you can legally force people to spend money on specific things?
They might suggest it, but people can still ignore them.
(localboy purveyor of pisspoor puns, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 12:07, Reply)

They can take the children into care if they're being neglected.

( Kroney, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 12:14, Reply)

I say this because the example IDS used on BBC Breakfast this morning
were parents using the money to feed an addiction. A somewhat extreme example, I agree, but if that's what they're intending this to combat, then care would certainly be an option.
( Kroney, Thu 15 Nov 2012, 12:15, Reply)