Some 2.5 million Children in the UK are living in poverty, however figures vary according to different sources. The issues of poverty can vary from living in poor quality housing, parents sending kids to school without breakfast, inability to afford school uniforms, and relying on food from food banks.
As most people will remember from their school days, anyone who was different or didn't fit in could be subjected to bullying and exclusion from certain groups. Turning up to school in the wrong or ill-fitting uniforms or being seen accepting food from teachers will undoubtedly draw unwanted attention.
This may only serve to make school a negative environment for children.
None of this is providing the best possible start in life to children who begin their lives in poverty. So what is the Government doing to tackle this issue?
With figures set to rise, the government has decided to redefine child poverty. Will this mean families will no longer have to live in unsuitable housing? Will it mean they no longer have to rely on food banks or sending their children to school without breakfast, hoping that a kind teacher will feed them? Will it mean parents can afford to clothe their children in the required uniform? The obvious answer is, of course not. Changing what defines child poverty will do nothing to change the fact that children are being forced to live in such a way.
It will, however, lower the official figures, helping the government show they have lowered the amount of children living in poverty, while having changed nothing for the better.
Cutting tax credits as part of the £12bn in benefit cuts will only increase child poverty, though the new definition will probably not show this increase.
For real results something needs to be done to help families escape the poverty trap, especially as David Cameron claims he wants to make work pay. For this to happen, people need to be able to work in jobs which provide for their families. Instead of moving the goal posts, the government need to be looking at the reasons for parents being unable to gain employment in full time work which pays a living wage. If it's a lack of education, then providing this free of charge would make economic sense in the long term.
