children living on an income well above the 60% threshold but with significant debt repayments are very likely to be significantly worse off than a family with one child living on 59% of median income, yet under the currently used system the former is considered not to be poor. If (and it is a big if...) this is a genuine attempt to dig a little deeper into the statistics and genuinely assess the wellbeing of poorer families in order to provide additional assistance then this should be welcomed. How does this make any sense? Poverty is being poor, i.e. having less money than you need to survive. Presumably this means that children whose parents are married and who both have low paid part time jobs will no longer be classed as poor, even of they are going to bed hungry because once the rent and heating bills have been paid there isn't enough money to spend on food. And does it mean that a single mother with a mental health problem who doesn't work but who was left a house by her parents that she rents out to cover her bills will be classed as living in poverty, even of she has plenty of money to get by on? It's just ludicrous. "The Lib Dem schools minister, David Laws, will say: "Traditionally we have defined poverty simply by income. But this is not enough. The experience of child poverty is about more than whether their family income this week is