We talked about the iron triangle ie how child poverty, women's poverty and in work poverty are linked and the role of the trade union movement in putting pressure on government to put in the money that needs to go in to reach their target of halving child poverty by 2010. Nobody disagrees about the social costs of poverty, about limited life chances or about health and educational attainment gaps, how poverty traps generation after generation... yet after 9 years of discussion in the Welsh Assembly there has still not been a coherent child poverty strategy.
UK government need to put in an extra £2.8billion to meet their target, but the money itself isn't enough, just going into child benefit and tax credits. The Surestart scheme is one of the best ways of lifting children out of poverty by encouraging mothers to be engaged with their child's education, as well as providing childcare. But the take up still isn't where it is needed most.
The cycle continues. Ad astra per aspera
The problem, surely, is poverty. You can't tackle "child poverty" without tackling family poverty and poverty in general.
No poverty is ok but in terms of understanding some of the root causes for poverty these are three key areas. The target was around child poverty (admit it, it sounds nicer for the media, we are rescuing the ones who are innocent in all of this, it's palatable), which cannot be tackled unless poverty for the whole family is dealt with - as you say.
In work poverty covers both men and women, but again the effects of poorly paid, crappy part time work and lack of affordable childcare is proportionately more likely to effect women. Ad astra per aspera
admit it, it sounds nicer for the media, we are rescuing the ones who are innocent in all of this, it's palatable
Admittedly, there is also the idea that in no way can they be held partly responsible for their plight (which, in all honesty, can be said for some of the adult poor, which end up being used as strawmen for all the other ones). Although Icarus of Economist's View apparently takes the view that you are never helping the children but the parents, and (I'm using his own words there) helping them would give incentive to poor people to 'impregnate each other', which is irresponsible and exactly what we must fight and therefore we should precisely never do anything to fight child poverty.
But, of course, he's insane. Interestingly, his job is offshoring consultant. Yikes. "Few can believe that suffering, especially by others, is in vain. - Galbraith"
