There are going to be 4.5 million children living in poverty in the UK soon, with Labour's policies increasing that number by at least 250,000.
I continue to be shocked by these statistics. In a country that is rich and which has supposedly got around £15 trillion worth of financial assets, according to the Office for National Statistics, it is shocking that any child should have to live in poverty.
It is worse that the number of children living in poverty is growing.
It is worse still that this number is increasing as a result of the deliberate decisions made by a Labour government. A Labour government in name only, I should add, because there is nothing that this Labour government is doing that is in any way associated with the concerns of the vast majority of people who have ever been members of, worked for or shared sympathy with that party.
It is even more shocking that so conceited are those who are well off that many of them are more than happy to live with this fact despite the harm that we know that being brought up in poverty creates for those children who have to suffer in this way, and the fact that the impact can be enduring for a lifetime.
I was challenged by a commentator on this blog last night to create a 'Blueprint for a New Britain', bringing together policy ideas that could tackle the problems that we, as a country, face. Tired as I was last night, I spent an hour sketching out some ideas. When you know that 4.5 million children might go to bed in households that can only keep them in poverty, there seems to be no excuse for not trying to do so.
We need to be radical.
We need to change.
We need to create the difference that might make things like the eradication of child poverty possible.
We need to create something that is entirely new, which is an economy and a political system based upon the concept of care, which might forever consign childhood poverty to history.
I'm thinking about this.
Four and a half million children are demanding that, whether they know it or not.
But let me be clear, the answer is not another Red Nose Day. Sticking plasters are not required. Radical rethinking of required action is what is needed now.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Good.
Sticking plasters from charities have become the official cynically relied on default by a contracting state (says a retired 3rd sector worker, church leader, community charity founder & former foodbank manager who tried NEVER to ignore the politics of poverty).
Enjoy the TOIL.
KUTGW!
Thanks
Agreed – I hate Red Nose Day – it is a sign of failure and or disinvestment or even an odd form of taxation.
What I really don’t like about this is how children are being used as leverage to get people into work. i think that that is appalling.
My partner yesterday had one of the busiest days she’s ever had with Safeguarding referrals for children. She then they inundated.
Much to agree with
And much for concern
Sorry about the poor typing – trying to get in and out asap.
Thank you for such a disgracefully necessary article!
Avoidable, chronic/permanent child hunger, besides being profoundly wrong/evil in itself, contributes so very powerfully and so immediately to “Cumulative Disadvantage”.
Cumulative Disadvantage – Children disadvantaged early, as by having insufficient food, face a cascade of additional risks to health, personal and social well-being, sufficient wealth, education and their opportunities to contribute well to society. [From National Library of Medicine]
Thanks
The CEO and founder of Octopus Energy Group, Greg Jackson has finally blown a hole in the fake UK energy market. Scotland should have the cheapest electricity, if there was a proper ‘regional’ energy system. BBC Scotland has just discovered what has been obvious for years, just because the CEO of the most successful company in a fake market, Greg Jackson said it (but it is all to much for the BBC to lay bare the facts); Scotland is being ripped off, as it was over Oil simply in order, cheaply and discreetly to subsidise London and the South East, above all.
It is only when such an improbable conjunction of circumstances align, that the Scottish people discover what is being done to them; eleven years after the Referendum.
Finally…
Thank you John. Well said. We should also mention here the Scottish Child Payment which, for the benefit of those who may not know of it, is a weekly payment of £ 26.70 made to the main carer of every child up to the age of 16 if that carer is in receipt of a range of other benefits (from either government). It is having a major effect on lifting children out of poverty and is something the first minister and his government is rightly proud.
Agreed, and thanks
It would be good to know the definition of poverty. 4.5 million children is roughly 40% of all under 15 years old.
It is not a percentage.
It is real live human beings.
nigel campbell. The generally accepted definition of poverty is an income below 60% of the median income.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/definition-of-absolute-and-relative-poverty/
(My neighbours)
I should add that Scottish Power and SSE (the big, real energy providers) don’t like it and are lobbying against Jackson and Octopus. They are threatening the loss of £75Bn of investment. The reason for that is that Scottish Power, SSE and the oil ginats are running monopolies, and are happy to see Scottish domestic energy users grossly overpaying (some in consequence living in fuel poverty), because these companies have profited so much from the current rip-off. The answer is to transfer Scottish energy policy to Holyrood; or much more decisive in order to stop energy giants writing their own terms at the expense of all Scottish people; independence.
I would be interested to read Mr Parr’s views.
Mr Warren, thank you for your curiosity on my erm “views”.
Both Octopus and the usual suspects have their own interests and pose arguments reflecting these.
Zonal pricing – is being kicked around in Germany and other places (with similarish problems). There is a dual problem:
1.Wholesale Elec is not priced at the cost of production – it cannot be due to the use of marginal pricing.
2. Any & all communities near large windfarms should have the right to connect to said wind farm and buy at what they offer to the wholesale market (or if built under contract for difference the strike price). This would delive very cheap elec indeed – think 4 – 6 pence/kWh. Begs the question: why did Octopus not mention this?
3. Jackson talks garbage wrt “more renewable energy capacity could still be built in Scotland……….to power data centres”. Oh dear. I’m doing something for the Irish right now on this subject (they are in a very big hole and are still digging @ speed). Data Centres: 24/7/365 – power demand fairly constant. Wind (the dominant Scottish resource) more in winter/less in summer. So what happens when not much wind and the DCs still need power? Step forward gas gen – & not only does it get to set the marginal price (@ the node) but gets a capacity payment as well (happening in Ireland as I write). Funny how this was not mentioned – can’t think why.
4. Jackson is right – more DCs in Scotland might reduce the need for north-south interconnectors – but reduce elec costs for Scottish serfs? don’t think so (see above).
5. Jackson is right – might make the system more efficient – more efficienct at screwing the peasants.
6. As for “Scottish Power”, which says “data centres have to be built close to the largest populations to maximise their response times for connectivity” – so why base so much stuff in Ireland – monster data centres in the middle of nowehere – supporting European operations – ????
Hats off to the OctopusPR team – nice idea to get the boss exposure – & you can rely on the BBC to not question any of it.
Thanks
Mr Parr, thanks. I have no illusions about Octopus representing …. Octopus; after all, the only thing the company actually produces for its customers – is an invoice. I too thank the Octopus PR team, for drawing the attention of the public to the problem.
I accept nothing is ever going to happen under the current scandalous UK set-up; but that was not the “views” I was seeking. What I was looking for was an insight into how it could be done, if Scotland was able to determine its own energy policy in Holyrood. Set aside, for the sake of argument, the political problem of Westminster and the Union (consider it a thought experiment) – my question was intended to illuminate ways out of this current exploitative sham that the Scottish public could, and should be contemplating. This is what is lacking, and Jackson has conveniently opened the door to asking the salient questions.
In response to Mr Warren (& thanks for the clarification), there are a range of actions that could be taken. As mentioned, I’m doing something for the fast-mo disaster that is Ireland. I have been asked to do something wrt community energy for Scotland & will expand this. I’ll pass it to Richard and it might be something worthy of a blog in its own right. In summary:
1. Community energy (communities owning their own generation) – meaningful gov support to form the communities.
2. Nationalise the control & operation functions of SSE & SP
3. Gov owned National champion a la Orsted
4. Legislation requiring equity ownership by local communities of close-by renewables (20% in Denmark)
5. ..plus other actions.
My thanks for the response. I look forward to reading your “expansion” of the ideas (especially 2 and 5), from you or Richard.
I’ve thought for a long time now that the UK needs a new political party that truly represents the people instead of business, with a published agenda that is focussed on the wellbeing of the citizens rather than the profits of the financial sector. Is it possible that you are starting to think about the basis for that partie’s manifesto?
Maybe, but not directly
Neoliberalism has created a crisis of care. Unsurprisingly the concept care is being reimagined across many disciplines, in particular the arts and social and health care with the emergence the aesthetics of care.
Care economics seems to be a growth niche. Our financialsed capitalism economy has become increasingly less able to provide the resources required to care for children, the sick and the elderly.
A recent addition to my ‘to read’ list is The Care Economy by Tim Jackson, which is released early next month.
https://cusp.ac.uk/themes/health/the-care-economy/
In regard to child poverty, just to point out that the figure in Scotland, curtesy of Professor John Robertson, is 23%, compared to 31% in England and Wales. Still too high at some 200,000 children, but I’m certain the extra £26.70pw provided by the Scottish Government via the Scottish Child Payment is helping in that regard. And there is no limit to the number of children parents are allowed to claim for.
Thanks
A basic income is needed, there are fewer and fewer jobs, employers don’t hire disabled people and businesses are struggling. Technology is once again taking jobs. The world economy needs a whole rethink. The government should wake up. As a planet we need to evolve into something better not only for us humans but for the planet,
We are soon to have disclosure that we are not alone in this universe and we need to be ready enough not to be the species that is seen to be the most stupid and un-evolved. Wake up, be kind we are one humanity we are one planet.
We have never been alone in this planet
There is a whole living world around us
Thank you, Richard.
Let’s also consider the return of malnutrition, stunted growth and diseases associated with poverty and living in slums. Doctor dad and civil servant mum have observed since coalition of blue and yellow Tories began to have an impact.
When Will Hutton wrote the State We’re In in 1992, a book I still have, he talked about the third of Britons living in relative or absolute poverty. At that time, the UK had a quarter of the (then) European Community’s poor.
What makes it worse is that there are many Labour politicians and wannabes who are quite happy with that. Grown up, not student, politics is what they call it. Being unpopular is a badge of honour. In addition to satisfying their view of themselves as a sort of Calvinist elect*, they see poverty as keeping people distracted with daily survival and others from asking for pay rises. *Which makes me think thank God, I’m a degenerate Catholic.
Neoliberalism has actually changed nothing
But I am being massively trolled today by thosee who say it is the answer to all prayers
On child poverty, the BBC has been suggesting that UK child poverty is rising, based on DWP statistics. The facts from the statistics, according to the Scottish Government is this:
“New statistics show that child poverty in Scotland has fallen, in contrast to the rest of the UK.
Annual statistics published today show that compared with the previous year’s statistics, relative child poverty in 2023-24 reduced from 26% to 22% in Scotland while absolute child poverty fell from 23% to 17%.” (gov.scot, on Child Poverty).
Scotland has child poverty reduction rates, and it is not meeting the targets it has set; but it is reducing child poverty from the resources it has been given by Westminster; but for the target failures? Ask Rachel Reeves. The BBC blanket UK figures is highly misleading, and there is simply no excuse for the political effects such misleading news content; because ordinary Scottish readers would then conclude that the Scottish Government’s is wasting its money, and is especially culpable. The BBC cannot go on ‘getting away’ with this editorial manipulation, which it is difficult to infer is not deliberate.
Thanks Richard
The scale of child poverty in the UK is a national scandal—but one that has been carefully engineered by successive governments obsessed with market discipline and fiscal rules, not human lives. That Labour now joins this shameful continuum makes it all the more urgent to spell out what real solutions would look like.
First, we need to reject the lie that the government is out of money. The state is the currency issuer, not a household. It can and must use its fiscal power to invest directly in people.
Here are some immediate, achievable steps:
Introduce a Guaranteed Minimum Income – not Universal Credit with its degrading conditions, but an unconditional floor beneath which no citizen can fall.
Restore and expand Child Benefit – reverse the freezes, scrap the two-child limit, and make it universal again. This alone would lift hundreds of thousands out of poverty.
Invest in social housing at scale – not just “affordable” homes, but publicly owned, rent-capped homes for families who need them.
Universal Free School Meals – no means testing, no stigma. Feed every child, every day, in every school.
End punitive benefit sanctions – these are ideologically driven cruelty masquerading as ‘incentive’.
Abolish the household benefits cap and benefit from Local Housing Allowance reform – these caps actively push families into poverty and homelessness.
Tax wealth, not work – impose proper taxes on capital gains, inheritance, and land values. Redistribute not just income, but power.
This is not utopian. It’s a matter of political will. We must stop asking what is affordable and start asking what is necessary. Child poverty is a policy choice. We have the tools to end it. The only question is: do we have the courage? The Courageous State does, but currently we don’t have one.
The policies needed to turn the situation around are well known and expounded well. Though they are scattered in different places so bringing them under one roof is useful.
However, what the advocates of a more equal society forget is how to effectively convey the message, especially against a media owned by the wealthy and who control the narrative. And also against a populist right wing who are far better at selling their message (using falsehoods unfortunately).
Defining a communication strategy against a tsunami of resistance in my view is the biggest question of all. That’s what undid Jeremy Corbyn in my view. Whatever your views on him he offered an alternative that the wealthy found threatening and ruthlessly demolished his personality rather than debate his ideas.
The more effective the ideas the more brutal the push back. Hence coupled with the ideas there needs to be a discussion of effective methods of conveying the argument. That latter point is where the left needs to do their thinking first in my view.
@Sanjay
You make a good point about communication.
The Corbyn story shows how successful a “go for the man not the ball” strategy is (for our opponents). They destroyed HIM but not his very popular ideas (very middle of the road social democratic ideas with a strong emphasis on justice, for the many not the few) – ideas which are STILL v popular today, if not more so.
It may, in the light of that, be to our ADVANTAGE right now that there is no figurehead for the very wealthy to aim at, no one party for the powerful to aim at with their lies smeats and ridicule.
Maybe this next revolution needs to be a “distributed” one – a set of ideas with a whole host of advocates, no central figureheads to be a target for smears (some tweet of Richard’s from 10 years ago, or the shocking news that he once threw his rattle out of his pram).
It’s OUR job to win this war, each one in their own sphere of influence.
I spent about 6 hours today with about 8 other men, including one friend who is a classic Farage target. We discussed covid, antivax, badgers & TB, Scottish independence, energy policy, community energy, socisl cohesion, politicians who thrive on conflict, conspiracy theories, how Lebanon copes with 2m refugees – it was rewarding because there was dialogue and respect. It involved 2 trips in an omnibus and a day in the woods and the best bit was conversation around the camp fire.
I suggest that we may need to be patient and NOT rush to find a new leader or a new party. They would be strangled at birth by those who control the flow of disinformation just like Corbyn was. (To see what I mean, go to parliament live and watch Reeves dealing with a question from Corbyn on Wednesday afternoon – and watch Torsten Bell’s face too. She completely dodges the question and snarls at Corbyn. Very telling and a real sign of just how insecure she really is.
I am beginning to feel we need to keep fighting the battle of ideas, and to discredit both broken politics and broken systems – but in a “distributed” way – everyone, everywhere, beavering away within our sphere of influence. It may be (God help us) that Trump and Farage have to be allowed to fail before the next phase can begin. Because certainly for Farage, until he fails and is seen to fail (and that will be painful for all of us, especially the poorest), he will still win hearts, minds and votes in communities like mine, as long as Badenoch and Starmer are making such a total mess of things nationally.
The key word in this ramble, is “Distributed”.
Noted
And she is very insecure
‘A Blueprint for a New Britain’. Just a personal take, but I do not think a blueprint is the starting point. Yes, massive radical structural sociopolitical and socioeconomic change is needed but built and developed on what foundations? I’m not one for mottos but Liberté, égalité, fraternité was, at the outset, a pretty good one. A basis or philosophy on which to build, especially fraternity. All I’m suggesting is that any blueprint needs to be built upon caring, kindness, compassion and empathy
I completely agree