UN to investigate extreme poverty in the UK

[768]

JagLover said:

dudleybloke said:

Blair's Labour classed children sharing a bedroom as living in poverty so the metric depends on who is doing the measuring.

Well I grew up "living in poverty" then

In a suburban London house now valued at £600K+

Two of our kids share a bedroom. Send us food packages will you?

Doesn't have to be from Waitrose, my twins will monster anything.

[zygalski]

768 said:

JagLover said:

dudleybloke said:

Blair's Labour classed children sharing a bedroom as living in poverty so the metric depends on who is doing the measuring.

Well I grew up "living in poverty" then

In a suburban London house now valued at £600K+

Two of our kids share a bedroom. Send us food packages will you?

Doesn't have to be from Waitrose, my twins will monster anything.

Do you have a link to show where Tony Blair defined child poverty as children sharing a bedroom?
I can't seem to find it anywhere. Was it a piece in the Daily Mail?

This article
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/207562.pdf
discusses New Labour's strategy to tackle child poverty and repeatedly defines it as a family that has less than half the mean national level of income on an 'after housing costs' basis.

When Tony Blair gave his speech in 1999 in a pledge to end child poverty within a generation it doesn't mention bedrooms.
http://www.bris.ac.uk/poverty/downloads/background...
He defines child poverty as '...after 18 years of Conservative government there was more poverty –one third of children living in families under half average income levels.'

[R Mutt]

Brave Fart said:

austinsmirk, thank you for your posts, they are very honest and revealing. May I ask a question? Why is it that upmarket developments must include x% of social housing? Those paying £450k plus definitely do not want social housing near them (criticise all you like; it's true) and, as you've highlighted, those on benefit don't really want to live there and feel intimidated by £50k SUV's parked around them. I mean, who wins here?
Wouldn't it be better to build separate developments for the two groups? For instance, "affordable" homes could be near public transport and within reach of part time jobs in urban areas.
I realise this all sounds very Hyacinth Bouquet, but I just don't see how mandated social housing percentages can ever work. Certainly where I live, almost all social problems are caused by housing association occupants - sorry, but it's true.

Because people are going mental about social cleansing where a single block has separate entrances for the council and private tenants . I don't know where they expected people to live before. Actual council flats I suppose, but they don't make those anymore. But they should, rather than the councils paying thousands a month to private landlords for a single family.

Just want to throw in an objection to your statement about housing associations. They own (by freehold) most the flats in London despite residents owning the property/ lease including mine and my service charge pays for them to build more of the same. Massive scam but it's the only way housing gets built.