Leicester slips into UK's top 10 areas with highest child poverty

[davieG]

By danjmartin  |  Posted: October 15, 2014

Deputy mayor Rory Palmer

 Comments (3)

Leicester is among the ten worst areas for child poverty in the UK, according to new research.

The End Child Poverty campaign says nearly 40 per cent children in the city are classed as being in poverty.

The group has published research, compiled by academics at Loughborough University, showing league tables for child poverty across the country.

Leicester ranks ninth.

 

The city council set up a Child Poverty Commission in 2011 to tackle the issue when 32 per cent of youngsters in the city were deemed to be living in poverty.

That fell to 29 per cent in 2012 but the latest figure, for 2013, is up to 37 per cent.

When asked about the apparent worsening of the situation Labour deputy mayor of Leicester Rory Palmer, who founded the commission, said he had always maintained it would take a generation to tackle the issue.

He said the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition Government had undermined work done locally.

He said: “Look, the figures are not acceptable but we have a real contrast. We have local government and our city council trying to reduce child poverty and protect the most vulnerable young people at a time when out budgets are being slashed.

“I have always said it will take a generation to solve this and we have a Coalition in Westminster which is making decisions which are not helping.

“It is no coincidence that the worst areas for child poverty are those big urban councils, like Leicester, that have had their budgets cut the most.

“We are still working very hard here to tackle child poverty.

“The most certain route out of poverty is good, well paid jobs.

“Our economic action plan has delivered 3,000 jobs in the city while the Coalition has been dangerously complacent.

“They have been debating how to measure child poverty - a debate that took two years and really is of no importance to the poorest people in Leicester.”

At the moment children are said to be in poverty if they live in a household with an income less than 60 per cent of the national average.

The council says that puts more than 26,500 city youngsters in poverty.

Coun Palmer said Coalition welfare reforms had also hit low income families.

He said: “It will not be easy but we will continue to work tirelessly to address child poverty.”

Tory city councillor Ross Grant said Coun Palmer was “posturing.”

He said: “The underlying problems in Leicester have been something the council, and therefore the Labour party, have not been dealing with for a long time.

“We get this posturing by the deputy mayor with his commission.

“Why wasn’t this being led by the assistant mayor for children’s services.

“Why was it given to someone effectively without portfolio?”

The ten council areas with highest child poverty are Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Newham, Manchester, Westminster, Islington, Enfield, Birmingham, Leicester, and Barking and Dagenham.

Donald Hirsch, author of the latest report and director of Loughborough University’s Centre for Research in Social Policy, said: “As well as drawing attention to some of the worst concentrations of child poverty in the UK’s big conurbations, our calculations highlight pockets of deprivation throughout the country.

“For example in the East Midlands, in some parts of Leicester and Nottingham nearly half of children are in families who in poverty, once their housing costs have been taken into account.”

Chairman of End Child Poverty David Holmes said: “These figures reveal just how widely and deeply child poverty reaches into our communities, even those areas generally regarded as well off. Far too many children whose parents are struggling to make a living are suffering as a result and missing out on the essentials of a decent childhood that all young people should be entitled to. We can and must do better for our children.

“Poverty ruins childhoods and reduces life chances.

“Failing to invest properly in children is a false economy: already child poverty costs the country £29 billion each year and in the long run taxpayers will foot an even higher bill for correcting the damage.

“We are calling on politicians of all parties to urgently set out a clear roadmap towards ending child poverty which includes the additional actions needed and the measures by which progress will be tracked."

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Leicester-slips-UK-s-10-areas-highest-child/story-23180183-detail/story.html#ixzz3GDwWXC6K 
Follow us: @Leicester_Merc on Twitter | leicestermercury on Facebook
Read more at http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Leicester-slips-UK-s-10-areas-highest-child/story-23180183-detail/story.html#lyRoMoEuVRxl71Cx.99

[David Guiza]

Obviously it's more complicated and complex than this, but I do wonder why so many parents choose to have children when they can't financially support their upbringing. I'm only 22 and probably do want children eventually, but regardless of how broody me or my girlfriend were for children - we'd both be aware enough to not make that plunge until we could properly support and care for them.

[Guest MattP]

I remember the days when poverty didn't mean not bring able to afford the next playstation release.

To suggest 40% of children are living in poverty here is an insult to the rest of the world.

What they must think in Africa and Asia of our poverty stricken children walking around with Iphones I've got no idea.

What is the actual definition of poverty these days for a British child?

[davieG]

Obviously it's more complicated and complex than this, but I do wonder why so many parents choose to have children when they can't financially support their upbringing. I'm only 22 and probably do want children eventually, but regardless of how broody me or my girlfriend were for children - we'd both be aware enough to not make that plunge until we could properly support and care for them.

 

I think part of the problem is they don't realise what it costs and the impact of losing up to 50% or more of their income. 

 

It's easy to get used to a child free lifestyle but significantly harder to let it go and cut back. Parents are also bombarded daily with things 'their kids must have or they will be deprived' so they are often blackmailed through guilt into spending more than they can afford for their children's sake. Of course you then have those who are dedicated followers of fashion and must keep up with the Jones whatever the cost.

[davieG]

I remember the days when poverty didn't mean not bring able to afford the next playstation release.

To suggest 40% of children are living in poverty here is an insult to the rest of the world.

What they must think in Africa and Asia of our poverty stricken children walking around with Iphones I've got no idea.

What is the actual definition of poverty these days for a British child?

According to that article it's "At the moment children are said to be in poverty if they live in a household with an income less than 60 per cent of the national average".

[Webbo]

While poverty is based on a percentage of average wages you can never cure poverty as the goal posts keep moving. If you made everyone in poverty's income up to 60% of average income then the national average would go up and all those people would be back in poverty again. If you forced a drastic reduction in the incomes of people at the top you could take thousands out of poverty without them being a penny better off.

[Guest MattP]

According to that article it's "At the moment children are said to be in poverty if they live in a household with an income less than 60 per cent of the national average".

Well judging by last months earnings then I'm now living in poverty this month

The dictionary definition is somewhat different to what they describe, personally think they do themselves no good by exaggerating these situations to this extent.

[Guest Kopfkino]

I remember the days when poverty didn't mean not bring able to afford the next playstation release.

To suggest 40% of children are living in poverty here is an insult to the rest of the world.

What they must think in Africa and Asia of our poverty stricken children walking around with Iphones I've got no idea.

What is the actual definition of poverty these days for a British child?

 

It's all to do with relative and absolute poverty. Relative poverty, as mentioned, is a household earning under 60% of the median household income in the UK. Absolute poverty is the deprivation of the basic things that a human needs. Obviously absolute poverty is rare in the UK and relative poverty will always exist

 

Anyway that doesn't make great reading for Leicester at all.

[Guest MattP]

Important to acknowledge the difference.

I've seen some horrific poverty on my travels that has brought me tears on occasions and I find it so wrong people over here seem to use that awful word to further their own agenda.

I'd rather give the money I have now to try and eradicate absolute poverty than relative poverty.

[Babylon]

Where are we hiding all these children? I wander through the city streets and mostly see fed and clothed kids. Are they all up chimneys or down the local pit?

 

Clearly there are going to be some kids who are neglected by parents and the money they are given to spend on their kids is used on other things like fags, drink, drugs etc, but that's a different story.

 

Perhaps they need to redefine it or pick another measure because there is no way 40% of people are anything close to living in what most people would consider poverty.

[davieG]

Perhaps it should be renamed to something like a Subordinate/Dependent Standard of Living?

[MooseBreath]

Average household income is £40k, so we're talking about households whose income is less than £24k per year. £2k per month gross and we're saying they're in poverty what a waste of time.

That can't be far above the point at which welfare hand outs kick in either, are they ignoring benefits when coming up with these stats?

[Guest MattP]

Only in Britain could 24k a year be considered living in poverty.

Unbelievable really, this country seems to have lost all touch with reality.

No wonder people want radical change in virtually everything.

[bovril]

To be fair that Waitrose essential ironing water doesn't come cheap!

[ADK]

Q. What's the best way to reduce poverty?

A. Redefine it.

[Guest MattP]

Q. What's the best way to reduce poverty?

A. Redefine it.

Or what's the best way to increase it?

Same answer.

[sphericalfox]

Anyone else think Rory could be Ken's illegitimate son?

[Charl91]

Well judging by last months earnings then I'm now living in poverty this month

The dictionary definition is somewhat different to what they describe, personally think they do themselves no good by exaggerating these situations to this extent.

 

 

I've been living in poverty for the last 2 and a half years then! Can't say I've minded much.

[Alf Bentley]

Average household income is £40k, so we're talking about households whose income is less than £24k per year. £2k per month gross and we're saying they're in poverty what a waste of time.

That can't be far above the point at which welfare hand outs kick in either, are they ignoring benefits when coming up with these stats?

 

I don't know where you've got that £40k figure from, Moose.

 

According to the Office for National Statistics, as of 2011-12 UK median household income was £23,200 and mean household income was £28,200. Those figures won't have changed much in 2 years.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/middle-income-households/1977---2011-12/sty-middle-income-households.html

 

Most analysts use the "median" measure rather than the "mean", which is dragged upwards by the untypically high incomes of top earners.

 

So, taking the 2012 "median" figure: £23,200 x 60% = £13,920.....so, 40% of children in Leicester are living in households with an income of less than £13,920, or is there a separate median for households with children?

I'm sure that it's more complicated than that, and will be affected by housing costs, childcare costs, family size etc. An influx of immigrant families, often with several children, will explain part of this - but falling real incomes will also be a major part.

 

Now, obviously, Leicester isn't Burkina Faso. The UK has comparatively little "absolute poverty", but a lot of "relative poverty", while it'll be the reverse in undeveloped countries. "Relative poverty" does matter, though. If you're significantly more skint than most people around you, you notice.

 

So, we're NOT talking about families on £24k here.....or about MattP being forced to have a little less Bollinger of an evening and to cancel his butler's overtime...

 

£13,920 might be fine if you're a young single person with no commitments, but it wouldn't be much to bring a family up on.

 

Here's a calculator from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, if you want to see how rich or poor you are: http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/

[Guest MattP]

I don't know where you've got that £40k figure from, Moose.

 

According to the Office for National Statistics, as of 2011-12 UK median household income was £23,200 and mean household income was £28,200. Those figures won't have changed much in 2 years.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/middle-income-households/1977---2011-12/sty-middle-income-households.html

 

Most analysts use the "median" measure rather than the "mean", which is dragged upwards by the untypically high incomes of top earners.

 

So, taking the 2012 "median" figure: £23,200 x 60% = £13,920.....so, 40% of children in Leicester are living in households with an income of less than £13,920, or is there a separate median for households with children?

I'm sure that it's more complicated than that, and will be affected by housing costs, childcare costs, family size etc. An influx of immigrant families, often with several children, will explain part of this - but falling real incomes will also be a major part.

 

Now, obviously, Leicester isn't Burkina Faso. The UK has comparatively little "absolute poverty", but a lot of "relative poverty", while it'll be the reverse in undeveloped countries. "Relative poverty" does matter, though. If you're significantly more skint than most people around you, you notice.

 

So, we're NOT talking about families on £24k here.....or about MattP being forced to have a little less Bollinger of an evening and to cancel his butler's overtime...

 

Here's a calculator from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, if you want to see how rich or poor you are: http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/

 

Surely those figures would have considerably changed given over a million more people are in employment since that time? The immigrant factor has to be taken into account as well I agree, I'd imagine people coming from countries like Somalia will often find poverty in Leicester akin to living the high life back in Mogadishu.

 

I have a feeling 'relative poverty' is going to be up there with 'wealth redistribution' on my hate list of political phrases that are going to be used as excuses to start stealing people's money and earnings again.

 

You can't use the median instead either just because it suits the argument.

 

And Bollinger isn't very nice, it's Krug or Dom for me.

[Alf Bentley]

Surely those figures would have considerably changed given over a million more people are in employment since that time? The immigrant factor has to be taken into account as well I agree, I'd imagine people coming from countries like Somalia will often find poverty in Leicester akin to living the high life back in Mogadishu.

 

I have a feeling 'relative poverty' is going to be up there with 'wealth redistribution' on my hate list of political phrases that are going to be used as excuses to start stealing people's money and earnings again.

 

You can't use the median instead either just because it suits the argument.

 

And Bollinger isn't very nice, it's Krug or Dom for me.

 

Will those figures have changed considerably - or in the direction you think? The IFS doesn't think so (2014 report):  ww.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2014/gb2014_ch6.pdf

"Average living standards have fallen dramatically since the recession, as income growth has failed to keep pace with the rate of inflation. Our projections suggest that real median household income in 2013–14 is more than 6% below its pre-crisis 

peak. This fall in average incomes has largely been driven by declines in real earnings. [...] Looking forward, there is little reason to expect a strong recovery in living standards over the next few years. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, real 

earnings are not expected to return to their 2009–10 levels until 2018–19. Further discretionary cuts to benefits and tax credits will put downward pressure on real incomes, particularly for low-income households."

 

Anyway, it's a matter of record that, by any measure, average real pay is falling - and you claim that all these "scroungers" like Philpott make a mint out of benefits, so surely people's incomes will be falling as they come off benefits! 

 

I didn't just arbitrarily use the "median" to suit my argument. It is widely preferred by most analysts, as the incomes of people like Abramovich & Rooney artificially drag the "mean" up....if you average Rooney's income, yours and mine, the mean would be £6m+, the median would be whatever you're on....unless you've had a seriously bad year, in which case it would be what I'm on. Glad to hear that you're still enjoying your Krug, despite your poverty-stricken status! 

 

Here's Wikipedia on using the median to measure poverty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom#How_poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom_is_defined_and_measured

"There is no one definition of poverty. The most common measure, as used in the Child Poverty Act 2010, is ‘household income below 60 percent of median income’. The median is such an income that exactly a half of households earn more than that and the other half earns less".

 

And here's the ONS: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/middle-income-households/1977---2011-12/sty-middle-income-households.html

"Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per person, is often used as a measure of a country’s standard of living, with higher GDP per person indicating higher living standards. GDP per person, however, was not designed as a measure of individual or national well-being. Many economists argue that growth in median household incomes provides a better measure of how people’s well-being has changed over time".

[DennisNedry]

With the amount of generous and easily obtainable benefits that are available in this country I can't see how anywhere near that amount of the population is really in poverty.

[Guest Kopfkino]

 

Surely those figures would have considerably changed given over a million more people are in employment since that time? The immigrant factor has to be taken into account as well I agree, I'd imagine people coming from countries like Somalia will often find poverty in Leicester akin to living the high life back in Mogadishu.

 

I have a feeling 'relative poverty' is going to be up there with 'wealth redistribution' on my hate list of political phrases that are going to be used as excuses to start stealing people's money and earnings again.

 

You can't use the median instead either just because it suits the argument.

 

And Bollinger isn't very nice, it's Krug or Dom for me.

 

The figures used for the study were the 2011 figures so Alf's will be the right figures which makes the study 3 years out of date already  . Tho I doubt the median would be affected greatly by the increase in employment due to nature of the jobs created, wage inflation would affect the median more and that hasn't been high. 

[Guest MattP]

Well Mick Philpott knocked out about 12 kids so I imagine his benefits would have exceeded a normal working wage. Even if earnings are going down I'd still imagine that figure is going up and I would hope a working wage is still more than JSA under the current government.

 

The me, you and Rooney argument isn't standing upto anything, the fact is it's not three people we are judging it on, it's 50 odd million.

 

household income below 60 percent of median income’. The median is such an income that exactly a half of households earn more than that and the other half earns less"

 

I think the long term flaw in working this out could be the word 'earns'.

 

To suggest even that figure comes close to anything in terms of the word 'poverty' is ridiculous and I actually think a tad offensive.

[Dr The Singh]

Anyone else think Rory could be Ken's illegitimate son?

I think your Rory's illegitmate son............