I’ve never felt the need to storm away from my radio, for heaven’s sake, except for this morning. Nicky Campbell on Radio5Live had just started to cross-examine some blithering idiot representing a campaign against child poverty in the UK: Dare to Care. For once I was thankful for his ability to criticise Paxman-style, whereas normally I see this as a trait that makes complaints-where-none-exist for his TV vehicle, Watchdog. However, I saw red and had to scuttle away to my ablutions, treating the toilet cistern to a damn good thrashing whilst doing so.
Why? Because apparently the definition of child poverty in this country is the inability to attend a friend’s birthday party with a present.
The ‘logic’ behind this? Because as the world’s fifth largest economy our benchmark is higher.
Said blithering idiot tried to defend this position by saying that it was children who perceived poverty this way, and therefore as parents and adults we had to accept this, and more, we have to do something about it by raising awareness and supporting needy families. It was clear to me that this person had really rather cocked up by making this assertion, and at that point she wasn’t a particularly good evangelist for the campaign.
Any sane person could rebut with…
- Children are not mature enough to correctly establish worth and value against a global scale. They may be intelligent enough to give the impression of grasping these issues, but need adult guidance to hone a system of values.
- Children (and some adults, but that’s another bone of contention) will act like any selfish animal to obtain more of whatever they think they need. The adults’ task is to help them differentiate between ‘need’ and ‘want’.
- Poverty is defined by the lack of the basics required for healthy human existence, and yes, this benchmark will change over time. 200 years ago we might have supposed the only prerequisites to be food, shelter and clothing. Nowadays we may sensibly add education, nurture and healthcare to that list.
- Children may be victimised by their peers for not owning a mobile ‘phone, as I was victimised for not having Clark’s shoes or an Adidas sports bag. That does not mean that the victim is living in poverty. It simply means that the parents have exercised restraint against a coercive culture that seeks to make us all brand-ants. Or it simply means they’ve used their right to spend appropriately with limited resources.
- Adults should be providing moral guidance, and helping children to arrive at a sensible value system - not the other way around! By all means listen to the views of children, but to recalibrate a poverty benchmark because of selfish, immature behaviour is clearly and demonstrably incorrect.
I could go on, but don’t feel I need to. Bottom line? This is just another example of the cart leading the horse: the problem is we have a culture that increasingly devalues basic, wholesome principles, and places undue importance on materialistic items of luxury. The answer is to educate, not shift the baseline.
I’m all for providing for the needs of children, and there are families in the UK that do need help for food, clothing, shelter and education - but if these things can be provided there should be no burden of responsibility to do more.
Just because I can’t afford to stump up £1000 for a school trip to the Italian Alps doesn’t mean our family is on the breadline. It means I’d rather put the money into a savings account to fund college education, or have to pay for a roof repair to keep us all warm.
