Date published: 2009/06/12
The BBC says:
Ministers are making it a legal duty for the government, local authorities and other organisations to help to end child poverty across the UK.
The government looks set to miss its own targets on cutting the numbers of children living in poverty.
A new bill being published later will make it a duty to support families so that child poverty is eradicated by 2020, the goal set by Tony Blair.
Campaigners say this means future governments cannot easily drop the aim.
The latest figures available, for 2007/8, put the number of children living in poverty at 2.9 million.
Poverty in this case is measured relatively - those who live in households with an income of less than 60% of the average.
...
Under the Child Poverty Bill, a legal duty to work together to support families to end child poverty will be placed on central government, councils and services including the police, NHS primary care trusts and youth offending agencies.
...
It sets out four targets to be met by 2020 across the UK, which the government says will "define the eradication of poverty".These include having fewer than 10% of children living in relative low income poverty (i.e. in households with less than 60% of average).
The poverty definition is relative, so it's extremely unlikely it will ever be eliminated. So the "campaigners" have a job for life. But the "campaigners" are extremely naive if they believe that "future governments cannot easily drop the aim". Labour is about to get kicked out of office (in a big way) and the idea that these last minute bills will force future parliaments to do what they want is fantasy (and just wrong, and undemocratic, constitutionally). And an organisation (like this, or any, government) is obviously up to no good if it defines "10% of children living in relative low income poverty" as being "the eradication of poverty". "Eradication" normally means "0". And what are the police supposed to do to help "end child poverty"? Steal money from the workers without children and give it to the non-workers with children? Well, that's effectively what the government does already, but what does it have to do with the police, are they going to do it at the point of a gun instead of via the tax system?
_________________________________________________________
All material not included from other sources is copyright cambridge2000.com.
For further information or questions email: info [at] cambridge2000 [dot] com
(replace "[at]" with "@" and "[dot]" with ".").