On ‘child poverty’ - and I expect to get attacked for this. The focus on *child* poverty is partly a mask for something not nearly so pleasant. Children are ‘innocent’, so their poverty deserves relieving. The hidden implication is that poor *adults* aren’t innocent. 1/3

That is, poor *adults* are responsible for their own poverty. This is part of the ‘deserving’ vs ‘undeserving’ poor argument. Poor adults must be either stupid or lazy, and most probably both. That means they don’t deserve any help. 2/3

So we give children some token, short term, problem-alleviating risk, rather than addressing the structural issues, the inequality in our whole society, that lies behind *all* poverty, not just child poverty..... 3/3

I should say, I studied child poverty and child rights under the late, great Peter Townsend. He got it. He really did.