Poverty, noun - what's the definition?

[davieG]

BBC

The government's determination to redefine the word poverty is likely to re-ignite the once red-hot political debate as to whether poverty actually exists in Britain.

There will be many people reading this now who instinctively believe that you cannot have a breadline if everyone can afford bread. It is obvious that the UK does not suffer from the levels of squalor and starvation associated with poverty in previous centuries or less developed countries.

But the deep trepidation felt by those who campaign on behalf of the most deprived and vulnerable citizens is that in challenging the notion of "relative" rather than "absolute poverty', we fatally undermine our commitment to the poorest in our society.

Political acceptance of the concept of "relative poverty" was hard won. An influential voice in the campaign to redefine the word for the 20th Century was Professor Peter Townsend, a left-wing academic who founded the Child Poverty Action Group in 1965.

He argued that "individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when… their resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average family that they are in effect excluded from the ordinary living patterns, customs, and activities."

This idea was seen by conservatives, however, as a socialist ideological attack on their values.

On 11 May 1989, John Moore, the Secretary of State for Social Security stood up to make a speech:

"We reject their claims about poverty in the UK", he said of his government's critics, arguing that absolute poverty had been abolished and that relative poverty was no more than inequality. His sentiments echoed the words of a senior civil servant who had told a Parliamentary committee the previous year: "The word poor is one the government actually disputes."

The idea of relative poverty as a measure of social exclusion, however, had taken hold - not just in Britain but also at the Council of Europe, the United Nations and the OECD. It became the yardstick to measure the success of developed countries in dealing with deprivation.

The politics of poverty in the UK has moved markedly with both Labour and Conservative now considering it a real and debilitating consequence of social inequality. Tony Blair walked into No 10 in 1997 promising to "eliminate child poverty" by 2020. David Cameron walked into No 10 in 2010 promising his party was "best placed to fight poverty in our country".

Gone are the days when senior British politicians argue whether relative poverty exists.

There are, though, clearly weaknesses in a measure of poverty based on a proportion of middle income levels. Many find it perverse that if a country gets poorer, the number of people categorised as poor can go down.

The figures published today show that the previous Labour government missed its target of halving the number of children living in poverty by 2010.

In 1998 there were 3.4 million children living in households with an income of less than 60% of the median in the UK. The 2010 figures show this has fallen to 2.3 million - 600,000 short of where ministers had promised to be.

There are those who argue that we should consider it a failure but celebrate the progress made towards an obligation under the Child Poverty Act for the total eradication of child poverty in the UK.

Others, though, question how many of the 1.1 million children apparently lifted out of poverty are the result of a welfare-based conjuring trick.

In a speech this morning, the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith makes the point that the focus on a poverty line based on relative incomes can skew welfare policy.

"By this narrow measure, if you have a family who sit one pound below the poverty line you can do a magical thing," he said. "Give them one pound more, say through increased benefit payments, and you can apparently change everything - you are said to have pulled them out of poverty."

Indeed, today's poverty figures would appear to make his point. Comparing 2010/11 with the previous year, median household income has fallen. The 60% line has dropped from £259 pw to £251 pw.

Families whose income is between those two lines have technically moved out of poverty - even though they may still be struggling on exactly the same income.

It is this perverse outcome that drives the government's determination to redefine poverty - including a basket of other measures such as worklessness and drug dependency that, it is argued, give a more nuanced understanding of deprivation.

The Child Poverty Action Group, however, is not convinced. Accepting that there is more to poverty than money, they fear the headline income measure will be downgraded and the commitment to reducing relative deprivation and social exclusion enshrined in the Child Poverty Act will be lost.

"To let the ambition of eliminating child poverty in a generation be diluted would be a monumental failure, and breach the legal commitment all parties made under the terms of the Child Poverty Act 2010," they stated in a report earlier month.

The terror is that a debate on the meaning of poverty will see, in their words, "the gains of the last decade squandered". Questions about the very existence of poverty, once the centrepiece of political debate in this country, may be asked once more.

[sphericalfox]

I hope this isn't a process of redefinition so in order that easy statistical improvements can be made in order to provide a government with something to crow about, though the actual improvements are negligible and insignificant to combat or reduce real poverty.

[Rincewind]

Of course it is. If they lower the level needed to be classed as being in poverty they can reduce payments made to people at the lower end of society thus leaving more for bailing out bankers. If you can afford a tin of soup then you are not in need of help.

This will please the 'I'm alright Jack's of this country and make the two C's running the country feel and look better.

I expect I will be put in the loony left category now. May as well take another step in that direction.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17680821

[Webbo]

This 60 % of mean income was always a stupid way of measuring poverty. If average wages go down you can move out of poverty without being any better off. If your wages go up but not as much as the average wage you can move into poverty despite being better off.

The only way this target can be achieved is by lowering the incomes of the wealthy, which was probably the ambition of the people who invented this ridiculous target.

[MooseBreath]

Relative poverty is obviously a farcical measure. All it does is cheapen how serious absolute poverty is and further convince the unemployed and people on low incomes that they are entitled to handouts. No-one in this country is even particularly poor, never mind in poverty, thanks to our robin hood style, incredibly generous benefits system which rewards incompetence and laziness.

[ADK]

Alot of our systems reward incompetence and laziness. I wouldn't say our benefit system does.

[Rincewind]

I don't see many people on benifits names appear as board members of large organizations who turn up for a meeting twice a year when dividends are paid out. Of course they are not lazy even when on a private yacht in the Caribbean.

[MooseBreath]

Difference being of course that the board member earned his right to live a lazy lifestyle whereas the people on benefits are simply handed it on a plate.

[Rincewind]

You mean the ones that had a Lord for a father and were sent to public schools? Their hands must be full of sores with the hard work they put in.

[Charl91]

You mean the ones that had a Lord for a father and were sent to public schools? Their hands must be full of sores with the hard work they put in.

Even at public schools you still have to work. And at least it's funded privately, rather than from taxes.

[davieG]

Incompetence and laziness gets rewarded at all levels of society, politics and business.

I doubt the % is any greater for those on benefits than it is anywhere else. I've certainly come across many instances both in the public and private sector.

[Rincewind]

It is easier to get to the top of the ladder if you start off on the 99/100 rung rather than at the bottom holding it steady with the first 10 rungs greased.

[Guest MattP]

Alot of our systems reward incompetence and laziness. I wouldn't say our benefit system does.

Don't confuse laziness with being shit, which is what a lot of people at the top of companies are in my experience, at least they make the effort to get to the boardroom, I resent my tax going towards someone who can;t even be arsed to get out of bed half of the time.

One of my ex-girlfriends teaches in Mali, if I ever used the word "poverty" to describe anyone in this country she used to go nuts.

[sphericalfox]

Don't confuse laziness with being shit, which is what a lot of people at the top of companies are in my experience, at least they make the effort to get to the boardroom, I resent my tax going towards someone who can;t even be arsed to get out of bed half of the time.

One of my ex-girlfriends teaches in Mali, if I ever used the word "poverty" to describe anyone in this country she used to go nuts.

Can I ask what profession you are in that you deal with executives on a regular basis at top companies?

[Guest MattP]

Can I ask what profession you are in that you deal with executives on a regular basis at top companies?

Worked in a Jewellery firm in a position that had regular contact with directors from suppliers including Mont Blanc, Rolex, Patek Phillipe and Tag, worked for a media company where I had some involvement with people in high positions within Trinity Mirror and Northcliffe Media and now I privately run gaming sites so am in contact with all reputed bookmakers in the UK and Australia.

[ADK]

If effort directly correlated with earnings you might have a point.

[Guest MattP]

If effort directly correlated with earnings you might have a point.

I agree, but it's far more likely and realistic that people will get annoyed with people getting something for absolutely nothing rather than getting a good amount for for doing a little bit.

Giving a bit of effort is the the best thing anyone can do in every form and part of their lifestyle, you leave yourself open to so much abuse if you don't.

[Rincewind]

Sometimes when in the Criterion at lunch time there are blokes in there doing paperwork I assume taken from the office. Strange thing is I have never seen a car mechanic working on a car in the pub.

[Guest MattP]

Sometimes when in the Criterion at lunch time there are blokes in there doing paperwork I assume taken from the office. Strange thing is I have never seen a car mechanic working on a car in the pub.

Nothing wrong with doing a bit of work with some food and a pint in the pub, some of the finest ever ideas have came from it.

Not been in there for a while what's it like now? Used to have a fantastic selection of ciders.

[MooseBreath]

Can't say I know much about the pub at lunchtime. No chance I could afford that kind of luxury despite working on average 50 hours per week. Glad to see my impoverished countrymen are able to swan around drinking lager all day with my hard earned taxes though. The left wing are right, they deserve it.

[MooseBreath]

You mean the ones that had a Lord for a father and were sent to public schools? Their hands must be full of sores with the hard work they put in.

Typical of the kind of thinking that the left wing has instilled in some people in this country. Because a tiny, insignificant number of people were born into prosperity, you shouldn't have to put any effort in whatsoever and should just be given everything you could ever want.

The vast majority of wealthy people in this country are wealthy because they deserve to be due to the hard work they've put in.

[sphericalfox]

Typical of the kind of thinking that the left wing has instilled in some people in this country. Because a tiny, insignificant number of people were born into prosperity, you shouldn't have to put any effort in whatsoever and should just be given everything you could ever want.

The vast majority of wealthy people in this country are wealthy because they deserve to be due to the hard work they've put into swindling the poor and uneducated

[davieG]

Typical of the kind of thinking that the left wing has instilled in some people in this country. Because a tiny, insignificant number of people were born into prosperity, you shouldn't have to put any effort in whatsoever and should just be given everything you could ever want.

The vast majority of wealthy people in this country are wealthy because they deserve to be due to the hard work they've put in.

Typical of the right wing that has instilled in some people that all those on benefits are lazy incompetents.

The number of lazy incompetent benefit cheats is probably insignificant in terms of cash compared to tax cheats.

There's little to choose between the integrity of the political left and right.

[Mack]

I've not read all this but for me poverty in the 21st century was summed up by my Greek cousin this week.

We were talking on MSN and he told me that as he had had no job now for over a year his savings were gone on the rent and bills and he has lost his apartment.

So as a 27 year old man with two degrees and being able to speak three languages he is now not even able to find a job as a dish washer at a hotel for the summer season.

Reduced to moving back with his parents, my uncle and auntie, who are both in government jobs and have not been paid in over 6 months his car is gone, as has his mobile phone.

The family eat together once a day basic foods and my uncle and auntie continue to work without being paid.

My cousin is embarrassed that at his age and qualifications he cant even find the most basic of jobs, but keeps fighting whilst getting more and more depressed.

Yes they are not malnourished but by today's standards are living a poor life where mobile phones, cars, take aways, nights out, video games, expensive meals, DVD's and new clothes / home improvement etc etc are not possible.

There is a lot of bollocks talked about the situation in Greece in the media. As someone who has witnessed it first hand and who's family are living it I'd like to say what is happening in Greece right now is a disgrace.

[sphericalfox]

I've not read all this but for me poverty in the 21st century was summed up by my Greek cousin this week.

We were talking on MSN and he told me that as he had had no job now for over a year his savings were gone on the rent and bills and he has lost his apartment.

So as a 27 year old man with two degrees and being able to speak three languages he is now not even able to find a job as a dish washer at a hotel for the summer season.

Reduced to moving back with his parents, my uncle and auntie, who are both in government jobs and have not been paid in over 6 months his car is gone, as has his mobile phone.

The family eat together once a day basic foods and my uncle and auntie continue to work without being paid.

My cousin is embarrassed that at his age and qualifications he cant even find the most basic of jobs, but keeps fighting whilst getting more and more depressed.

Yes they are not malnourished but by today's standards are living a poor life where mobile phones, cars, take aways, nights out, video games, expensive meals, DVD's and new clothes / home improvement etc etc are not possible.

There is a lot of bollocks talked about the situation in Greece in the media. As someone who has witnessed it first hand and who's family are living it I'd like to say what is happening in Greece right now is a disgrace.

Probably should have stayed as part of Turkey then....

Steady now....!