Apparently the statistical definition of poverty is still inadequate. Simple things like living in a single parent home, or having to bunk with your siblings is insufficient.
Divorce, drug or alcohol addiction and serious debts should be included in five new measures of whether a child is living in poverty, a leading think tank says.
Youngsters are also at risk if families have no skills or just one parent is able to work, according to the Centre for Social Justice.
The proposals, revealed today, have been drawn up to replace Labour’s discredited child poverty target, which ministers are planning on scrapping.
They want new measures for children’s life chances – and are set to assess factors such as household worklessness and a child’s educational achievement.
The main measure used is whether youngsters are in households with incomes below 60 per cent of the national average.
But this leads to perverse outcomes such as more families being classed as ‘poor’ when the economy grows.
Yes indeed. And that’s the whole objective of the political left, the health and education sectors and, of course, large swathes of the Media Party.
We don’t want people to be responsible for their own lot in life. Hell no. They need to be looked after as adult children of a government that acts as parents.
All funded with taxes from people who are, if you think about it, abnormal: the self sufficient, the healthy and those who take responsibility for their lot.
The CSJ report points out half of children in low income families are not living with both parents by the age of five. It also calls for ‘relationship support’ for the poorest communities. …
A child would be classified as in poverty if they were found to have one or two ‘life chance’ risks combined with one of the income measures.
Children in a family with three or more ‘life chance’ risks would be considered to be in entrenched poverty.
Tory MP David Burrowes said: ‘The Government’s “all-out assault on poverty” would be strengthened and deepened if each of the five pathways – worklessness, family breakdown, educational failure, addiction and serious personal debt – were recognised in law and that a range of measures was used by the life chances strategy to track progress in each area.’
This is a Tory MP who has jumped on the bandwagon of defining poverty in law.
It is time we created a new class of people in society: poverty refugees. Those of us who somehow managed, against all odds, to create and live a life where we are no burden on others. In spite of the ridiculously wide-ranging definitions of what poverty is.
This comes to a situation where two parents who have split up, share the kids every other week, both have full time jobs with above-median income, with kids who are doing well at school, but they drink too much, have a large debt (say a mortgage or student debt), smoke a bit of herb and are in every way completely functional, paying their bills and being net contributors to the consolidated fund, are now also defined as living in poverty.
The real problem isn’t that we have people dreaming up these statistical arbitrary measurements. The real problem is that we have a Media that is selling them as sensible, and even the right of politics, in an attempt to hold on to votes from an ever government-dependent electorate, actually legitimising this direction.
– Alex Mathews, Mail Online