[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

This is a serious question but do parents on benefits still get milk tokens? My sister in law was on benefits when she had my nephew and she did get milk tokens then (he's 15 now). She could spend them on her local shop on anything...

There are many many families living close to the breadline now, if not over it. In many ways things are harder now for families whose children see their better of friends with all the technology there is and hard for kids to understand if their parents can't afford it. I know people who feed their kids and eat virtually nothing themselves but leftovers to try and save money and keep their kids on trend. It's shameful really but just goes to show how times have changed. In the 40s most people who lived in close nit communities were in the same boat financially and there was more of a community spirit, now it's very much every man for himself and who can get the newest gadgets etc....

That's a very good point actually Annie. "Community" is certainly not what it was

[Livia]

in the 1940s poor people wouldn't have bought disposable nappies, wipes and special baby food even if they had been around then.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by EyeballPaul

Have you seen the price of baby milk,nappies,calpol,gripe water,wipes,baby food,clothes.After bills are paid etc some people are skinto.

Ok ,and yes,I have 3 little ones,baby milk is probably the most expensive on that list and surely the things listed don't need buying every day,babyfood can be made along with your own food,it's not as though people have no money at all coming in,a lot of these people are skint as they are living above their means,NOT ALL but some.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Livia

in the 1940s poor people wouldn't have bought disposable nappies, wipes and special baby food even if they had been around then.

Yes Livia,didn't the nappies get washed and used time and time again

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Yes Livia,didn't the nappies get washed and used time and time again

They did Kaz and continued to do so until the 80s when disposables became more prevalent even though they add massively to landfills etc as they take something like 10 years to break down. It's a crime really but again it's another way in which as a society we have moved on to just look for quick convenience rather than economise etc

A breast fed baby in the original terry nappies would cost far less than a bottle fed baby in pampers. (Although I know not all women are able to breast feed)

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

If you're on benefits and you have kids you are considerably more well off now than the average working man would have been in the 1940s. The Guardian have surpassed themselves with this one. It just shows that you can say anything if you massage the statistics hard enough.

Livia... You don't have kids and I'm going to make an educated bet that you've never lived on benefits either. So this is pure guesswork as you actually have absolutely no idea.

Whilst I will agree that if you wa t to break out a spreadsheet and look at the literal amount of money, then yes you would be right, however the world is a completely different place to the world of the 1940s making a like for like comparison of which was "worse" more or less impossible.

[user104658]

Would also point out that if I was a single working man, I could live on next to nothing. Things are a lot less simple once a family is involved.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Would also point out that if I was a single working man, I could live on next to nothing. Things are a lot less simple once a family is involved.

these people choose to have children so they are ultimately responsible for raising for their kids and paying for them....however in the case of benefits they should be paid for child benefits in vouchers that can only be spent on childrens goods.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by the truth

these people choose to have children so they are ultimately responsible for raising for their kids and paying for them....however in the case of benefits they should be paid for child benefits in vouchers that can only be spent on childrens goods.

No.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No.

hell yes. why not?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

They did Kaz and continued to do so until the 80s when disposables became more prevalent even though they add massively to landfills etc as they take something like 10 years to break down. It's a crime really but again it's another way in which as a society we have moved on to just look for quick convenience rather than economise etc

A breast fed baby in the original terry nappies would cost far less than a bottle fed baby in pampers. (Although I know not all women are able to breast feed)

My mom was on about this the other day ,she said nappies were soaked in a bucket of Napisan overnight,then boiled and hung on the line,and a little off topic,maybe people are heavier today as they don't know what hard work really is like.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Would also point out that if I was a single working man, I could live on next to nothing. Things are a lot less simple once a family is involved.

how can a single working man or woman live on next to nothing? rent/gas/water/electric/food/drink/clothes/travel/fuel/car? plus he/she is planning and saving for the future

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

My mom was on about this the other day ,she said nappies were soaked in a bucket of Napisan overnight,then boiled and hung on the line,and a little off topic,maybe people are heavier today as they don't know what hard work really is like.

yeah my mom used them with me and my older brother I think, they were awful she said

[user104658]

Originally Posted by the truth

hell yes. why not?

Read my previous posts. Not going round in circles. If you disagree I... Err.. Don't care. It's not a surprise.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Ok ,and yes,I have 3 little ones,baby milk is probably the most expensive on that list and surely the things listed don't need buying every day,babyfood can be made along with your own food,it's not as though people have no money at all coming in,a lot of these people are sking as they are living above their means,NOT ALL but some.

I agree.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Read my previous posts. Not going round in circles. If you disagree I... Err.. Don't care. It's not a surprise.

Clearly you cant back up your absurd replies, this one doesn't even make sense. The child benefits must be paid by vouchers to ensure the money for the children isn't squandered as it is in many cases

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Livia... You don't have kids and I'm going to make an educated bet that you've never lived on benefits either. So this is pure guesswork as you actually have absolutely no idea.

Whilst I will agree that if you wa t to break out a spreadsheet and look at the literal amount of money, then yes you would be right, however the world is a completely different place to the world of the 1940s making a like for like comparison of which was "worse" more or less impossible.

No, I don't have kids and I've never lived on benefits. That doesn't mean that I'm not in touch with the real world and my post was in response to someone making the point about nappies.

And actually, you're right, the world IS a completely different place from the 1940s and making comparisons are more or less impossible. And that is the whole crux of this thread.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

No, I don't have kids and I've never lived on benefits. That doesn't mean that I'm not in touch with the real world and my post was in response to someone making the point about nappies.

And actually, you're right, the world IS a completely different place from the 1940s and making comparisons are more or less impossible. And that is the whole crux of this thread.

Not as to attitudes towards poverty though..

The point has I would say been made that in the 40s the poverty then could not be compared to now as there was in effect no welfare state.

However, I think even you said it too, people were in the same boat and had empathy with each other, so tried their best to come together to help too.
There was also the knowledge too that there was poverty at that time.

Now the attitudes seem to be, no one should be in poverty so there needn't be poverty and some don't think there is so dismiss it, despite others saying that they have seen and come across.

It is different poverty and the attitudes are different because now in the main, people don't pull together as much or look out for one another.

It is really startling to hear that people should be washing nappies and heading back to such times.
Especially when those who have had children, would have possibly hated themselves to do that,as to cleaning nappies, washing them and drying them,who will have bought constantly the pampers style of nappies for their children,to then think other children, just because they are in a poor family, should not have them too.

It is the more,'I'm alright Jack' attitude now that is bad as to poverty, rather than that coming together in the main that likely existed in the 40s.

I wouldn't deprive anyone of anything I have myself,I have already upgraded 2 TVs in the last 4 years and given the other 2 to someone who had smaller TV's,one person who had none even.
A daft example to some maybe but to some, seeing those people with that newer,larger TV that they never had to buy, would be seen as someone on benefits getting more than they should.
I know because I have heard it directly.

It is ridiculous the way attitudes are thrown out as to demonisation as to all on benefits, because I have yet to see from someone who calls or terms those on benefits scroungers, the real thing, that is in fact, that it is a minority and not the vast majority who likely are scounging as to benefits.

It is easy when all is going good for anyone to look down on those who are far poorer, it's the easiest thing in the world to do but for me it is totally wrong,that is my opinion.

Things I have come across as to how some people have to live in the UK now in this day and age, have made me really sick and the hardline attitudes of those who can just judge and condemn,well that really makes me feel even more sick as to the UK in the 21st century.

What some would expect and only give to their children, that should be their right,to then go on and say it should not be the same for all children,especially if they are part of a very poor family is unbelievale..
If anything, attitudes towards the poor and any poverty have got worse than likely in the 40s and that is really saying something and nothing to be proud of in my view.

I have no children, I may never have chidlren but I would never,if I had anything to do with things, give to one child what I would expect another child to be deprived of.
I prefer the word 'selfless' anyday to 'selfish',I hope I never change from that either.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

' I heard from elderly members of church congregations who lived through the scarcity of the 1940s and 50s and wanted to help those facing hunger and poverty today. '

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...odbank-dilemma

Nice post Kizzy, but I do think you need to get out more....

[Livia]

I think what we all ought to understand is that the generation of people who lived through the war are nothing like the current generation. This is like comparing apples and oranges. The social structure was vastly different in the 1940s, the class system was vastly different and the Guardian trying to compare 2015 to 1943 is ludicrous but not wholly unexpected.

[smudgie]

Didn't people go into the poor houses still in the 40's.?
Now that was poor...and family and friends never had enough to spare to keep them out of those terrible places.
So, no competition for me.
Nowadays a lot of people do feel poverty stricken, some of it down to high expectations and a feeling of entitlement.
Strewth, we had to put coats on the bed to keep warm when we were young, so poverty and hardship are nothing new.
My father and his extended family all had to go to his granny's house for their tea, money was that tight so they all had to chip in and take what was on offer.

That is not to say that some people are Not hard up. Just that they tend to moan more.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Nice post Kizzy, but I do think you need to get out more....

I addressed the issues you raised, it's serious debates why post if you don''t want a reasoned response to your points?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

I think what we all ought to understand is that the generation of people who lived through the war are nothing like the current generation. This is like comparing apples and oranges. The social structure was vastly different in the 1940s, the class system was vastly different and the Guardian trying to compare 2015 to 1943 is ludicrous but not wholly unexpected.

I did comment on this earlier, 'the Guardian did not compile the study they just reported on it'.
I'm not sure why it's impossible to compare attitudes to poverty, the older generation are better equipped than anyone as they can give a personal account of both eras.
It's not a class issue either as the study is not alluding to any differences due to social stratification.
Social structure was different back then yes that is the whole point, as it was the publics reaction to the plight of people living in severe social deprivation which led to the welfare reforms initially.
Studies that question whether poverty is again reaching those depths and what modern attitudes are to that possibility is not ludicrous. As Joey said there always was the 'I'm alright Jack' voice but it was smaller, today it's deafening.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by the truth

Clearly you cant back up your absurd replies, this one doesn't even make sense. The child benefits must be paid by vouchers to ensure the money for the children isn't squandered as it is in many cases

What exactly doesn't make sense? I can make it as simple as possible for you, if you want:

1) A section of my post earlier in the thread on the topic of "why they shouldn't be paid as vouchers" was fairly extensive. I have nothing to add to it. If you want to know why I oppose it, go back and read it, it's still there, I'm not going to repeat posts endlessly.

2) I know that you don't agree with me.

3) I know, based on a couple of years' experience of your posts, that you will never agree with me.

4) I'm therefore not going to bother to try to change your mind and so it follows that;

5) I don't care what you think. I think you are wrong. It's more or less a given before I even enter a thread.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I did comment on this earlier, 'the Guardian did not compile the study they just reported on it'.
I'm not sure why it's impossible to compare attitudes to poverty, the older generation are better equipped than anyone as they can give a personal account of both eras.
It's not a class issue either as the study is not alluding to any differences due to social stratification.
Social structure was different back then yes that is the whole point, as it was the publics reaction to the plight of people living in severe social deprivation which led to the welfare reforms initially.
Studies that question whether poverty is again reaching those depths and what modern attitudes are to that possibility is not ludicrous. As Joey said there always was the 'I'm alright Jack' voice but it was smaller, today it's deafening.

Well put Kizzy, that was the point I was trying to make,you managed to do so more succintly.
Really great post overall from you too.