This poll is old. In terms of the political standing of the parties as a whole it is not so different from now but the underlying factors that it is highlighting are. In particular recent polling has shown that Osborne has increasingly gained respect (still not liked of course) for his handling of the economy as the good news has rolled in and Balls and Miliband have looked increasingly irrelevant.
So the gap overall in perceptions of economic competence in particular and leadership to a lesser extent are materially different from the time the poll was taken. Where has that change in perception come from? Well at the time this poll was taken the tories were already on board in a very big way so it is unlikely to be from there. I suspect some UKIP supporters may have drifted back on these issues even if they have not yet changed their voting intentions. But surely some must have come from 2010 Lib Dems.
For the reasons Mike says it is unlikely that those who have gone all the way to backing Labour are likely to have changed in such large numbers but my guess would be that more of the remaining Lib Dems would select Cameron on a binary choice than at the time this poll was taken.
Well yes. He has already admitting taking as much as he can from the EU and using it to fund the party.
So has he admitted is, or is it completely untrue?
He has admitted he takes as much as possible from the EU to fund the party, but denies The Times story which says he has personally benefitted to the tune of £60,000
Given that the Uk is a net contributor to the EU - he is taking Uk taxpayers money to fund his own lifestyle as the head of the "peoples army"..
If the Times allegations are true then I guess so
Let's see how it plays out in public. He has denied it, UKIP have denied it, we wouldn't like to call innocent people guilty now would we?
I understand you getting excited but I don't think this going to be a big deal
I haven't read the Times article, but my guess is that the situation will be complex; more so than even the MPs expenses saga. The fact the EU doesn't require receipts stinks. It looks as though it may be one of those borderline cases, but we'll have to see if anything else comes out.
However, his reaction to the Times just seems petulant, and his automatic blaming of someone who is probably innocent wasn't wise.
Mr. Fett, because we have 'relative poverty' (as well as other categories such as fuel/food poverty, but 'relative poverty' is by far the worst).
Relative poverty is defined as being an income which is only a certain percentage of the average of the whole country. As such, it's insane. If you can afford fuel, food, shelter, new clothes when necessary, little luxuries like books, cinema trips, eating out occasionally and 1-2 holidays a year then you are *not* poor.
Moreover, if, suddenly, every millionaire left the country it would 'lift' huge numbers out of this deranged definition of poverty. If every billionaire in the world suddenly entered the UK it would plunge huge numbers 'into' poverty.
We've utterly devalued an important piece of language (well, political idiots have).
Edited extra bit: this matters because when a politician talks about 'poverty' they often mean 'relative poverty'.
Can someone in relative poverty afford the things you mention? Are you sure?
Mr. T, I quite agree Miliband is not like Blair (although he's doing a pretty good impersonation of mannerisms and intonation. Watch his next speech, and even through the rather different voice it's quite apparent).
Mr. Fett, we abuse the term 'crisis' in the same way 'human rights' and 'poverty' have become practically meaningless.
Reminds me slightly of IngSoc's mad approach towards language.
Why has the word poverty become almost meaningless? In what respect?
Isn't it's meaning in political terms "relative poverty"?
So whereas someone of my age hears the word poverty and thinks of dying malnourished children in Ethiopia, an 18 year old now thinks it means being on benefits and not having sky tv
An 18 year old thinks of it as being on benefits and having Sky but not having the full Sky Sports package, more like.
Well yes. He has already admitting taking as much as he can from the EU and using it to fund the party.
So has he admitted is, or is it completely untrue?
He has admitted he takes as much as possible from the EU to fund the party, but denies The Times story which says he has personally benefitted to the tune of £60,000
Given that the Uk is a net contributor to the EU - he is taking Uk taxpayers money to fund his own lifestyle as the head of the "peoples army"..
The EU Parliament system is different to the Westminster system. All MEPs are given lump sum allowances, they don't reclaim permissible expenses like MPs.
As Miller's case proves - the smell test >>> "da rools"
Mr. Fett, because we have 'relative poverty' (as well as other categories such as fuel/food poverty, but 'relative poverty' is by far the worst).
Relative poverty is defined as being an income which is only a certain percentage of the average of the whole country. As such, it's insane. If you can afford fuel, food, shelter, new clothes when necessary, little luxuries like books, cinema trips, eating out occasionally and 1-2 holidays a year then you are *not* poor.
Moreover, if, suddenly, every millionaire left the country it would 'lift' huge numbers out of this deranged definition of poverty. If every billionaire in the world suddenly entered the UK it would plunge huge numbers 'into' poverty.
We've utterly devalued an important piece of language (well, political idiots have).
Edited extra bit: this matters because when a politician talks about 'poverty' they often mean 'relative poverty'.
Yes
Basically the powers that be change the definition of a word knowing the old meaning will still resonate with the public
"Milions living in poverty" conjours images of people sleeping rough on the streets, when the truth is that millions are earning less than £15,000 a year or something similar
Mr. Fett, that's the joy of relative poverty. We don't know, because it's an arbitrary line drawn based on how much other people earn.
If, on my street, a millionaire moves in it doesn't suddenly make me poor. If the poor people next door move out, it doesn't make me richer.
Poverty must be defined by an ability to survive on your income and have a small sum left over for little luxuries (I'd argue someone who worries about whether to spend or save a spare £10 is poor). It must not be defined relative to other people.
Mr. Fett, we abuse the term 'crisis' in the same way 'human rights' and 'poverty' have become practically meaningless.
Reminds me slightly of IngSoc's mad approach towards language.
Spot on, Mr. Dancer. Not only would political discourse become much better of politicians stopped using over dramatic language, but also if they stopped using military metaphors. For example, instead of "fighting for x" they could "argue in favour of x", or maybe "seek to convince voters that the best thing would be x".
The problem with the military or war-fighting metaphor is that in war one seeks to beat ones enemy, by fair means or foul. Is that what we want from our politicians? I am not sure it is, not least because it leads to some ludicrous attitudes (e.g. a poster on here claiming that the Yes campaign in Scotland would achieve a resounding victory - a victory over who? Their fellow Scots presumably as the are the only people who have a vote). The language we use not only reflects but also conditions the way we think. Treating someone who disagrees with you as an enemy to be crushed is not healthy.
I can understand successful football managers boycotting media outlets that displease them. But leaders of fringe political parties need all the publicity that they can get.
Haha. Since when did 20% in the polls constitute "fringe"?
@JackW PB's new Stuart Truth refusing to believe the polling.
Ouch .....
I believe the polling Mike .... but THE poll isn't until 7th May 2015 and our hilarious friend "Mr Truth" popped up during the last few months of the US campaign.
It's like saying the polls of April 2009 are the results of 2010 or more accurately for 2015 that the polls for April 1991 were the result for Apr 1992 :
ICM Poll :
06 Apr 91 - Con 39 .. Lab 43 .. LibDem 13
Result :
09 Apr 92 - Con 43 .. Lab 35 .. LibDem 18
So Mike, do you believe the polling today is the result for May 2015 ?
Single data point from the days before the spiral of shame adjustment. As I said yesterday, and which you ignored.
You may pick as many data points as you wish. The evidence is clear if you wish to seek it out.
As for the "spiral of shame adjustment" I've always been of the mind that much of this should relate to the shame of the pollsters and their inability to catch late swing and increased expected and differential turnout which certainly hit Labour squarely in 1992.
However I stand by my record in calling general elections here and across the pond and in noting that my critics in each electoral cycle are those who I project will lose - strange that, but not so strange that they are invariably proved wrong.
Mr. Fett, because we have 'relative poverty' (as well as other categories such as fuel/food poverty, but 'relative poverty' is by far the worst).
Relative poverty is defined as being an income which is only a certain percentage of the average of the whole country. As such, it's insane. If you can afford fuel, food, shelter, new clothes when necessary, little luxuries like books, cinema trips, eating out occasionally and 1-2 holidays a year then you are *not* poor.
Moreover, if, suddenly, every millionaire left the country it would 'lift' huge numbers out of this deranged definition of poverty. If every billionaire in the world suddenly entered the UK it would plunge huge numbers 'into' poverty.
We've utterly devalued an important piece of language (well, political idiots have).
Edited extra bit: this matters because when a politician talks about 'poverty' they often mean 'relative poverty'.
Firstly Mr Dancer I'm skeptical of your claims about relative poverty.
As to the definitions, concepts of poverty based around the culture the person is in is not a recent invention of politicians.
Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776
"By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without.
A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them."
I think we have to accept that it's very difficult for OGH to see the polling numbers the. LDs are getting at the moment and still stick with his incumbency and heartland vote argument. Bookies can be wrong and that is where this site gets it's name from really..we are here to beat the bookies. In that I would humbly suggest taking a look at the 36 seats where the LDs are still favourites...there is some cracking value about..
Well yes. He has already admitting taking as much as he can from the EU and using it to fund the party.
So has he admitted is, or is it completely untrue?
He has admitted he takes as much as possible from the EU to fund the party, but denies The Times story which says he has personally benefitted to the tune of £60,000
Given that the Uk is a net contributor to the EU - he is taking Uk taxpayers money to fund his own lifestyle as the head of the "peoples army"..
The EU Parliament system is different to the Westminster system. All MEPs are given lump sum allowances, they don't reclaim permissible expenses like MPs.
As Miller's case proves - the smell test >>> "da rools"
Da rools are clear.
As set out in The Mirror's version of the story:
A former senior UKIP official has filed a formal complaint about Mr Farage’s expenses claims to the EU anti-fraud office OLAF.
EU guidelines - followed by UKIP - say the funds must be spent only on rent, utilities, insurance and business rates.
In line with all MEPs, Mr Farage gets a general expenditure allowance of around £3,800 a month to rent and run an office in his home country.
But no MEP has to file receipts to prove how they have spent the cash, leaving the system open to abuse.
[My bolding].
Farage has a simple task to prove he has abided by the guidelines: he only needs to publish the accounts maintained by the Littlehampton office. We know from The Times article that such books exist and were compiled by David Samuel-Camps.
Mr. Socrates, there's a danger that attacking Farage in most ways serves only (to quote[ish] Rule Britannia) to root thy native oak. If it looks like the Establishment attacking him it'll just reinforce his insurgent [to use a Mandelson term] status.
I think you're right long term. But as this looks like it will be a concerted smear by the median fans of the establishment parties, they've probably succeeded in knocking a couple of points of UKIP's European elections tally. Labour will surely win now.
Mr. Fett, we abuse the term 'crisis' in the same way 'human rights' and 'poverty' have become practically meaningless.
Reminds me slightly of IngSoc's mad approach towards language.
There are two things which, in contemporary academia, are always in crisis. The first is capitalism and the second is masculinity. It is rather like how there is a Gaelic revival in every period of Irish history, if we follow Irish nationalist historiography.
Mr. Fett, that's the joy of relative poverty. We don't know, because it's an arbitrary line drawn based on how much other people earn.
If, on my street, a millionaire moves in it doesn't suddenly make me poor. If the poor people next door move out, it doesn't make me richer.
Poverty must be defined by an ability to survive on your income and have a small sum left over for little luxuries (I'd argue someone who worries about whether to spend or save a spare £10 is poor). It must not be defined relative to other people.
I agree, but you must have missed the last 4 years of envy politics. To some, it's all about relative wealth.
I absolutely agree with you that term 'poverty' has been devalued by politicians - most of them have never experienced real poverty but use the word as a political football.
In the same way, children that have free school meals are seen as a deprived category that excuses lower educational performance.
Most children in East Africa would laugh as using that as an excuse. as not only do most have to pay to go to the simplest school, but many do not know whether their one daily meal will be there when they get home.
It is about time that our politicians accepted realism and stopped inventing sub-standard excuses for poor performance under their watch.
Mr Corporeal, I specifically included 'new clothes when necessary' as something people should be able to afford, and if they cannot they can legitimately be classed as poor.
I absolutely agree with you that term 'poverty' has been devalued by politicians - most of them have never experienced real poverty but use the word as a political football.
In the same way, children that have free school meals are seen as a deprived category that excuses lower educational performance.
Most children in East Africa would laugh as using that as an excuse. as not only do most have to pay to go to the simplest school, but many do not know whether their one daily meal will be there when they get home.
It is about time that our politicians accepted realism and stopped inventing sub-standard excuses for poor performance under their watch.
So as a wealthy developed nation we should set our poverty threshold to that of East Africa? A quite remarkable call, even by the low standards of the PB Conservatives.
Andrew Neil tweets: "Wages up 1.4% in Jan. Tomorrow average earnings are expected to grow 1.8% in Feb. So pay would be ahead of prices by 0.1%."
Wahey! No mention of spiralling housing costs, nor the fact that prices have been ahead of wages for years under this lot.
What do you mean by "spiralling housing costs", Bobafett?
Rents have been falling at a faster rate than inflation.
Mortgage interest rates have also been falling.
Capital values of housing stock have been rising.
Leaving aside occupancy costs such as maintenance and repair (which are calculated by the ONS but have relatively little significance in total housing costs), this would indicate that, on average, UK householders have got richer at the same time as their expenses have reduced relative to inflation.
This is "win, win" for householders unless I have the sums or theory wrong.
Mr. Anorak, I will never miss envy politics, which is as despicable and contemptible as identity politics. Anybody who believes that sort of thing ought to be thrashed around the head and neck with a large haddock.
Mr. Financier, I think that's a key part of fuel bills and why some politicians are so green. For them, a few hundred more pounds to fund a green levy is a 'sacrifice', but a token one. They can bear it easily and then feel good about themselves 'fighting climate change'. For those with very little it's a burden they struggle to bear, and then they feel angered when millionaire frontbenchers seem to consider it a noble thing.
Mr. Socrates, there's a danger that attacking Farage in most ways serves only (to quote[ish] Rule Britannia) to root thy native oak. If it looks like the Establishment attacking him it'll just reinforce his insurgent [to use a Mandelson term] status.
I think you're right long term. But as this looks like it will be a concerted smear by the median fans of the establishment parties, they've probably succeeded in knocking a couple of points of UKIP's European elections tally. Labour will surely win now.
I think all attacks on political parties during election campaigns get discounted by voters as politically motivated.
UKIP in particular gets regular attacks from the media luvvies, so I think they're inoculated to a greater extent than others.
@JackW PB's new Stuart Truth refusing to believe the polling.
Ouch .....
I believe the polling Mike .... but THE poll isn't until 7th May 2015 and our hilarious friend "Mr Truth" popped up during the last few months of the US campaign.
It's like saying the polls of April 2009 are the results of 2010 or more accurately for 2015 that the polls for April 1991 were the result for Apr 1992 :
ICM Poll :
06 Apr 91 - Con 39 .. Lab 43 .. LibDem 13
Result :
09 Apr 92 - Con 43 .. Lab 35 .. LibDem 18
So Mike, do you believe the polling today is the result for May 2015 ?
Single data point from the days before the spiral of shame adjustment. As I said yesterday, and which you ignored.
You may pick as many data points as you wish. The evidence is clear if you wish to seek it out.
As for the "spiral of shame adjustment" I've always been of the mind that much of this should relate to the shame of the pollsters and their inability to catch late swing and increased expected and differential turnout which certainly hit Labour squarely in 1992.
However I stand by my record in calling general elections here and across the pond and in noting that my critics in each electoral cycle are those who I project will lose - strange that, but not so strange that they are invariably proved wrong.
If you want to compare like with like you therefore need to remove the Spiral of Shame adjustment from yesterday's ICM.
By the way, Anthony Wells has done an essay on why you are wrong about 1992's "late swing". I can't find it at the moment but if you have a furkle on UKPR it's there somewhere.
Mr. Fett, because we have 'relative poverty' (as well as other categories such as fuel/food poverty, but 'relative poverty' is by far the worst).
Relative poverty is defined as being an income which is only a certain percentage of the average of the whole country. As such, it's insane. If you can afford fuel, food, shelter, new clothes when necessary, little luxuries like books, cinema trips, eating out occasionally and 1-2 holidays a year then you are *not* poor.
Moreover, if, suddenly, every millionaire left the country it would 'lift' huge numbers out of this deranged definition of poverty. If every billionaire in the world suddenly entered the UK it would plunge huge numbers 'into' poverty.
We've utterly devalued an important piece of language (well, political idiots have).
Edited extra bit: this matters because when a politician talks about 'poverty' they often mean 'relative poverty'.
Firstly Mr Dancer I'm skeptical of your claims about relative poverty.
As to the definitions, concepts of poverty based around the culture the person is in is not a recent invention of politicians.
Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776
"By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without.
A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them."
Mr Corporeal, I specifically included 'new clothes when necessary' as something people should be able to afford, and if they cannot they can legitimately be classed as poor.
I am pleased you and Adam Smith agree with me.
Mr Dancer, you are missing Smith's central point I'm afraid.
It is not the specifics of the item that are important, the linen shirt is chosen as an example of something the Romans lived comfortably without but was considered by 18th century custom to be necessary. The point is the customary-ness rather than it being clothing.
He goes on with other examples of things that would indicate poverty in one culture but not in another (or even poverty definitions being different for men and women in the same culture).
What he is advocating is the concept of relative poverty, where it's dependent on whatever the custom of the country is rather than a universal standard.
If the EU is a corrupt gravy train created by and for the political class the logical reaction to Farage's MEP expenses (whether dubious or not) is to vote to come out of the EU.
Mr. Socrates, there's a danger that attacking Farage in most ways serves only (to quote[ish] Rule Britannia) to root thy native oak. If it looks like the Establishment attacking him it'll just reinforce his insurgent [to use a Mandelson term] status.
I think you're right long term. But as this looks like it will be a concerted smear by the median fans of the establishment parties, they've probably succeeded in knocking a couple of points of UKIP's European elections tally. Labour will surely win now.
I think all attacks on political parties during election campaigns get discounted by voters as politically motivated.
UKIP in particular gets regular attacks from the media luvvies, so I think they're inoculated to a greater extent than others.
Agreed. Not a dog will bark in the street over this story.
I absolutely agree with you that term 'poverty' has been devalued by politicians - most of them have never experienced real poverty but use the word as a political football.
In the same way, children that have free school meals are seen as a deprived category that excuses lower educational performance.
Most children in East Africa would laugh as using that as an excuse. as not only do most have to pay to go to the simplest school, but many do not know whether their one daily meal will be there when they get home.
It is about time that our politicians accepted realism and stopped inventing sub-standard excuses for poor performance under their watch.
So as a wealthy developed nation we should set our poverty threshold to that of East Africa? A quite remarkable call, even by the low standards of the PB Conservatives.
You appear to have taken over Tim's mantle of twisting simple words into a meaning that you well know was not meant.
No, but I do believe that politicians should stop using the word poverty when they mean relative poverty. They have to get our values correct and stop using excuses for repeated failure.
I don't know what to do for the best regarding the Euro elections. I thought I was going to stay at home or spoil my ballot paper - seeing as how I'm not hugely happy with any of the parties at the moment. But I've always cast a vote before... I'm not sure I have it in me to sit it out even if I think it's the right thing to do.
If you're fed up with all of them vote for whatever you think will shake things up the most.
Mr Corporeal, I specifically included 'new clothes when necessary' as something people should be able to afford, and if they cannot they can legitimately be classed as poor.
I am pleased you and Adam Smith agree with me.
Mr Dancer, you are missing Smith's central point I'm afraid.
It is not the specifics of the item that are important, the linen shirt is chosen as an example of something the Romans lived comfortably without but was considered by 18th century custom to be necessary. The point is the customary-ness rather than it being clothing.
He goes on with other examples of things that would indicate poverty in one culture but not in another (or even poverty definitions being different for men and women in the same culture).
What he is advocating is the concept of relative poverty, where it's dependent on whatever the custom of the country is rather than a universal standard.
This is not a recent change of the word.
Trying to explain economic theory to the PB Conservatives is like putting makeup on a pig. It's a waste of labour, and it annoys the pig.
Mr. Corporeal, I advocate a definition of poverty as meaning someone unable to afford the necessary things to live *and* to have a little left over for small luxuries. I'm not sure that I'm in disagreement with Adam Smith at all. I am sure that 'relative poverty' is tosh.
Mr. Socrates, there's a danger that attacking Farage in most ways serves only (to quote[ish] Rule Britannia) to root thy native oak. If it looks like the Establishment attacking him it'll just reinforce his insurgent [to use a Mandelson term] status.
I think you're right long term. But as this looks like it will be a concerted smear by the median fans of the establishment parties, they've probably succeeded in knocking a couple of points of UKIP's European elections tally. Labour will surely win now.
I think all attacks on political parties during election campaigns get discounted by voters as politically motivated.
UKIP in particular gets regular attacks from the media luvvies, so I think they're inoculated to a greater extent than others.
Agreed. Not a dog will bark in the street over this story.
Disagree.
As the story currently stands it will have a minor effect. It'll be added in to how people view Farage and UKIP but not be a major defining point.
If the story has legs then it'll have a greater effect of course.
Political perception is formed by lots of these small event, this will be added to the balance.
Andrew Neil tweets: "Wages up 1.4% in Jan. Tomorrow average earnings are expected to grow 1.8% in Feb. So pay would be ahead of prices by 0.1%."
Wahey! No mention of spiralling housing costs, nor the fact that prices have been ahead of wages for years under this lot.
When did the trend of CPI being ahead of wages start?
Six years ago in 2009.
Reversed tomorrow, if wage growth hits 1.8% as expected.
An anaemic increment with spiralling housing costs removed, after four long years of falling living standards under the Coalition. Good luck with spinning that one.
The other nonsense about the current definition of poverty is that it presents a huge temptation for politicians to obfuscate. Say the poverty line is £100 per week (the actual numbers don't matter for this discussion) and there are 2 million of people with an in come of £90-£100 p.w.. Then by upping the benefit payable by £11, the politician can say we lifted two million people out of poverty. However, the difference in living standards achievable on £101 p.w. and £99 p.w. isn't going to be noticeable and the people in real poverty are not going to helped to a reasonable standard of living by and extra £11. The effect is to give the politicians a chance to manipulate the system to score points whilst not helping the people who really need it.
I'll make one other point, if your definition of poverty includes not being able to eat out regularly and not being able to afford holidays, then there are an awful lot of people in apparently good jobs and with mortgages who must by those standards be defined as poor.
Andrew Neil tweets: "Wages up 1.4% in Jan. Tomorrow average earnings are expected to grow 1.8% in Feb. So pay would be ahead of prices by 0.1%."
Wahey! No mention of spiralling housing costs, nor the fact that prices have been ahead of wages for years under this lot.
What do you mean by "spiralling housing costs", Bobafett?
Rents have been falling at a faster rate than inflation.
Mortgage interest rates have also been falling.
Capital values of housing stock have been rising.
Leaving aside occupancy costs such as maintenance and repair (which are calculated by the ONS but have relatively little significance in total housing costs), this would indicate that, on average, UK householders have got richer at the same time as their expenses have reduced relative to inflation.
This is "win, win" for householders unless I have the sums or theory wrong.
Please advise if you believe I have.
Capital values of housing stock have been rising.
My house in the London suburbs has gained £42,000+ in value since I bought it in July. Unimproved.
Great me for me, you might opine. But how do you think this affects affordability for those millions who are trying to get on the ladder?
Well yes. He has already admitting taking as much as he can from the EU and using it to fund the party.
So has he admitted is, or is it completely untrue?
He has admitted he takes as much as possible from the EU to fund the party, but denies The Times story which says he has personally benefitted to the tune of £60,000
Given that the Uk is a net contributor to the EU - he is taking Uk taxpayers money to fund his own lifestyle as the head of the "peoples army"..
The EU Parliament system is different to the Westminster system. All MEPs are given lump sum allowances, they don't reclaim permissible expenses like MPs.
As Miller's case proves - the smell test >>> "da rools"
Da rools are clear.
As set out in The Mirror's version of the story:
A former senior UKIP official has filed a formal complaint about Mr Farage’s expenses claims to the EU anti-fraud office OLAF.
EU guidelines - followed by UKIP - say the funds must be spent only on rent, utilities, insurance and business rates.
In line with all MEPs, Mr Farage gets a general expenditure allowance of around £3,800 a month to rent and run an office in his home country.
But no MEP has to file receipts to prove how they have spent the cash, leaving the system open to abuse.
[My bolding].
Farage has a simple task to prove he has abided by the guidelines: he only needs to publish the accounts maintained by the Littlehampton office. We know from The Times article that such books exist and were compiled by David Samuel-Camps.
I would have thought it was nigh on impossible to prove or disprove anything in this case.
Farage could quite easily say he used any money not accounted for to pay for all manner of work related things... and if anyone says "But the EU guidelines say it can only be used to pay for this office" he will say "So what?"
Unless he is shown to have spent the money on something that is nothing to do with UKIP, ie a House, having his chimney cleared, a second mortgage, a duck house etc then there is nowhere for this story to go, because he has already boasted of taking as much as possible from the EU to fund the party.
Co-op bank has been subject of discussion between regulators and The Treasury for sometime, because there has been concern about the way it is set up.
My personal view is that there needs to be a review of banking, not just in this country, but around the world. I don't think regulation is sophisticated enough to be able to understand all the risks. Then there is the issue of rigged markets and dodgy dealing. UK banks have made large profits from mis-selling of PPI etc.
Mr. Fett, because we have 'relative poverty' (as well as other categories such as fuel/food poverty, but 'relative poverty' is by far the worst).
Relative poverty is defined as being an income which is only a certain percentage of the average of the whole country. As such, it's insane. If you can afford fuel, food, shelter, new clothes when necessary, little luxuries like books, cinema trips, eating out occasionally and 1-2 holidays a year then you are *not* poor.
Moreover, if, suddenly, every millionaire left the country it would 'lift' huge numbers out of this deranged definition of poverty. If every billionaire in the world suddenly entered the UK it would plunge huge numbers 'into' poverty.
We've utterly devalued an important piece of language (well, political idiots have).
Edited extra bit: this matters because when a politician talks about 'poverty' they often mean 'relative poverty'.
Firstly Mr Dancer I'm skeptical of your claims about relative poverty.
As to the definitions, concepts of poverty based around the culture the person is in is not a recent invention of politicians.
Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776
"By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without.
A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them."
"So we have fewer middle-paid production line and secretarial jobs, but a lot more middle-paid jobs in IT and professional services."
But surely the skill sets required are more demanding and require a higher standard of education.
Absolutely, Financier. Or absent higher education at least re-skilling. This was the grand finale of St. George's speech at the IMF conference. I quoted it yesterday in answer to a comment by Carola but it is worth a second helping:
But there is one area of reform that I believe is more important for our long term prosperity than all the rest – that can deliver growth rather than stagnation and simultaneously ensure that the gains from growth are shared.
And that is education.
The education policies we’ve been implementing, led by our Education Secretary Michael Gove, have been influenced by, and reflect, the work of education reformers in the US and elsewhere around the world.
The pioneering work of Mike Bloomberg and Joel Klein in New York, Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, Bill Haslam in Tennessee, Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Jeb Bush in Florida has inspired our approach.
You have – quite rightly – identified schools reform as the civil rights issue of our time.
The emphasis the AEI has placed on policies to advance greater social justice is nowhere clearer than in your work on education.
In both our countries poor children are disproportionately likely to go to poor schools.
In both our countries inequality is perpetuated by a lack of educational opportunity for disadvantaged children.
And in the United Kingdom we are creating the British equivalent of charters – academies and free schools – to provide disadvantaged children with greater opportunities than ever before.
A majority of our secondary schools – broadly equivalent to US high schools – are now academies.
And even though our nation is a sixth the size of the US, we have more students in total in academies and free schools in the UK than there are children in charters in the US.
This is a revolutionary breakthrough in extending school autonomy – and parental choice.
We are also following in the footsteps of the great work being done in the US – from Tennessee to D.C – to ensure that teachers are properly evaluated on the impact they make in the classroom and rewarded for good performance.
What unites all of these reforms is a belief that our nation will only make progress if we make use of every child’s talents and liberate every student’s potential.
In all these ways we can ensure that the link between growth and prosperity remains unbroken.
The other nonsense about the current definition of poverty is that it presents a huge temptation for politicians to obfuscate. Say the poverty line is £100 per week (the actual numbers don't matter for this discussion) and there are 2 million of people with an in come of £90-£100 p.w.. Then by upping the benefit payable by £11, the politician can say we lifted two million people out of poverty. However, the difference in living standards achievable on £101 p.w. and £99 p.w. isn't going to be noticeable and the people in real poverty are not going to helped to a reasonable standard of living by and extra £11. The effect is to give the politicians a chance to manipulate the system to score points whilst not helping the people who really need it.
I'll make one other point, if your definition of poverty includes not being able to eat out regularly and not being able to afford holidays, then there are an awful lot of people in apparently good jobs and with mortgages who must by those standards be defined as poor.
It doesn't. The state-mandated measure of relative poverty is 60% of median household income. It's not hard to grasp this. That's about where it should be because, as Adam Smith alludes to in the essay kindly posted by Corporeal below, if you fall too far behind the caravan you are no longer in the caravan.
You can argue the toss about where the threshold should be set, but you would find very few serious economists arguing for an absolute measure that ignored general living standards in the country.
Unless you fancy setting our threshold to that of Africa?
Mr. Corporeal, I advocate a definition of poverty as meaning someone unable to afford the necessary things to live *and* to have a little left over for small luxuries. I'm not sure that I'm in disagreement with Adam Smith at all. I am sure that 'relative poverty' is tosh.
If you oppose the concept 'relative poverty' you disagree with Smith, since that is the definition he's advocating. Where 'poverty' can be at different levels in different cultures, or even different people in the same culture.
So the concept you complain modern 'political idiots' have devalued, is one that at the least is hundreds of years old and runs (among others) through the work of one of the most eminent economists ever.
As for the modern day. I think your image of the person relative poverty refers to is inaccurate, and if wealth definitions did not change over time you would declare everyone in the country rich by virtue of them being better of than medieval villeins rendering that term meaningless and really getting closer to Ingsoc.
Andrew Neil tweets: "Wages up 1.4% in Jan. Tomorrow average earnings are expected to grow 1.8% in Feb. So pay would be ahead of prices by 0.1%."
Wahey! No mention of spiralling housing costs, nor the fact that prices have been ahead of wages for years under this lot.
When did the trend of CPI being ahead of wages start?
Six years ago in 2009.
Reversed tomorrow, if wage growth hits 1.8% as expected.
An anaemic increment with spiralling housing costs removed, after four long years of falling living standards under the Coalition. Good luck with spinning that one.
The big fall in living standards came in 2009, Bobafett.
Since then the Coalition government has slowly narrowed the gap and tomorrow it is likely we will see the gap eliminated.
Its an Herculean task clearing out the Brownean Stables, but George and Danny have done it resolutely and without complaint.
@JackW PB's new Stuart Truth refusing to believe the polling.
Ouch .....
I believe the polling Mike .... but THE poll isn't until 7th May 2015 and our hilarious friend "Mr Truth" popped up during the last few months of the US campaign.
It's like saying the polls of April 2009 are the results of 2010 or more accurately for 2015 that the polls for April 1991 were the result for Apr 1992 :
ICM Poll :
06 Apr 91 - Con 39 .. Lab 43 .. LibDem 13
Result :
09 Apr 92 - Con 43 .. Lab 35 .. LibDem 18
So Mike, do you believe the polling today is the result for May 2015 ?
Single data point from the days before the spiral of shame adjustment. As I said yesterday, and which you ignored.
You may pick as many data points as you wish. The evidence is clear if you wish to seek it out.
As for the "spiral of shame adjustment" I've always been of the mind that much of this should relate to the shame of the pollsters and their inability to catch late swing and increased expected and differential turnout which certainly hit Labour squarely in 1992.
However I stand by my record in calling general elections here and across the pond and in noting that my critics in each electoral cycle are those who I project will lose - strange that, but not so strange that they are invariably proved wrong.
If you want to compare like with like you therefore need to remove the Spiral of Shame adjustment from yesterday's ICM.
By the way, Anthony Wells has done an essay on why you are wrong about 1992's "late swing". I can't find it at the moment but if you have a furkle on UKPR it's there somewhere.
Is there a spiral of shame in yesterdays ICM ? and if so who has the shame ?
As for 1992 if that is Anthony Well's view then most contemporary pollsters disagree as indeed do I for different reasons. Kinnock himself considered he was hit by late swing over the last week and he knew by the weekend before polling that he'd lost.
One other factor needs reinforcing and it is sometimes lost in the welter of polls and comment that the simple fact that these polls are snapshots of present opinion not the result of or a projection of the general election. Those who think otherwise should have a quiet word with former Prime Minister Kinnock.
@JackW PB's new Stuart Truth refusing to believe the polling.
Ouch .....
I believe the polling Mike .... but THE poll isn't until 7th May 2015 and our hilarious friend "Mr Truth" popped up during the last few months of the US campaign.
It's like saying the polls of April 2009 are the results of 2010 or more accurately for 2015 that the polls for April 1991 were the result for Apr 1992 :
ICM Poll :
06 Apr 91 - Con 39 .. Lab 43 .. LibDem 13
Result :
09 Apr 92 - Con 43 .. Lab 35 .. LibDem 18
So Mike, do you believe the polling today is the result for May 2015 ?
Single data point from the days before the spiral of shame adjustment. As I said yesterday, and which you ignored.
You may pick as many data points as you wish. The evidence is clear if you wish to seek it out.
As for the "spiral of shame adjustment" I've always been of the mind that much of this should relate to the shame of the pollsters and their inability to catch late swing and increased expected and differential turnout which certainly hit Labour squarely in 1992.
However I stand by my record in calling general elections here and across the pond and in noting that my critics in each electoral cycle are those who I project will lose - strange that, but not so strange that they are invariably proved wrong.
If you want to compare like with like you therefore need to remove the Spiral of Shame adjustment from yesterday's ICM.
By the way, Anthony Wells has done an essay on why you are wrong about 1992's "late swing". I can't find it at the moment but if you have a furkle on UKPR it's there somewhere.
Is there a spiral of shame in yesterdays ICM ? and if so who has the shame ?
As for 1992 if that is Anthony Well's view then most contemporary pollsters disagree as indeed do I for different reasons. Kinnock himself considered he was hit by late swing over the last week and he knew by the weekend before polling that he'd lost.
One other factor needs reinforcing and it is sometimes lost in the welter of polls and comment that the simple fact that these polls are snapshots of present opinion not the result of or a projection of the general election. Those who think otherwise should have a quiet word with former Prime Minister Kinnock.
Dig out the Wells essay on 1992 shy tories. Very interesting.
The 60% relative poverty definition is used as a common measure by The World Bank and other international bodies, but can you show which Act of Parliament made it a mandatory measurement.
Some pressure groups have used a 50% or 40 % measure.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
The other nonsense about the current definition of poverty is that it presents a huge temptation for politicians to obfuscate. Say the poverty line is £100 per week (the actual numbers don't matter for this discussion) and there are 2 million of people with an in come of £90-£100 p.w.. Then by upping the benefit payable by £11, the politician can say we lifted two million people out of poverty. However, the difference in living standards achievable on £101 p.w. and £99 p.w. isn't going to be noticeable and the people in real poverty are not going to helped to a reasonable standard of living by and extra £11. The effect is to give the politicians a chance to manipulate the system to score points whilst not helping the people who really need it.
I'll make one other point, if your definition of poverty includes not being able to eat out regularly and not being able to afford holidays, then there are an awful lot of people in apparently good jobs and with mortgages who must by those standards be defined as poor.
It doesn't. The state-mandated measure of relative poverty is 60% of median household income. It's not hard to grasp this. That's about where it should be because, as Adam Smith alludes to in the essay kindly posted by Corporeal below, if you fall too far behind the caravan you are no longer in the caravan.
You can argue the toss about where the threshold should be set, but you would find very few serious economists arguing for an absolute measure that ignored general living standards in the country.
Unless you fancy setting our threshold to that of Africa?
Why not just admit that very few people in England are living in poverty, and that is a good thing? Does it have to exist regardless?
By your definition it is impossible to eradicate, even if we were all millionaires
Andrew Neil tweets: "Wages up 1.4% in Jan. Tomorrow average earnings are expected to grow 1.8% in Feb. So pay would be ahead of prices by 0.1%."
Wahey! No mention of spiralling housing costs, nor the fact that prices have been ahead of wages for years under this lot.
When did the trend of CPI being ahead of wages start?
Six years ago in 2009.
Reversed tomorrow, if wage growth hits 1.8% as expected.
An anaemic increment with spiralling housing costs removed, after four long years of falling living standards under the Coalition. Good luck with spinning that one.
The big fall in living standards came in 2009, Bobafett.
Since then the Coalition government has slowly narrowed the gap and tomorrow it is likely we will see the gap eliminated.
Its an Herculean task clearing out the Brownean Stables, but George and Danny have done it resolutely and without complaint.
Crossover is here and it is time to celebrate.
In 2009 in the middle of the global financial crisis. Four years of going backwards under the Coalition. Good luck with it all Avery.
"Trying to explain economic theory to the PB Conservatives is like putting makeup on a pig. It's a waste of labour, and it annoys the pig."
You are at it again. Anyone who disagrees with me on here is a Tory and therefore thick, is not a helpful way of furthering interesting debate and is also insulting to those who are trying to have a sensible conversation. Not helpful.
Mr. Corporeal, given I've said we have people in real poverty, quite clearly I don't consider everyone rich by virtue of being wealthier than medieval villeins.
My definition accounts for changes in prices of fuel, and food, and essential things to live (in the future a computer may be practically an essential due to the rise of the internet, whereas 50 years ago it was science fiction). I'm not arguing for a single everlasting list of things that define poverty, but that poverty is an absolute, not a relative thing.
Mr. Corporeal, I advocate a definition of poverty as meaning someone unable to afford the necessary things to live *and* to have a little left over for small luxuries. I'm not sure that I'm in disagreement with Adam Smith at all. I am sure that 'relative poverty' is tosh.
If you oppose the concept 'relative poverty' you disagree with Smith, since that is the definition he's advocating. Where 'poverty' can be at different levels in different cultures, or even different people in the same culture.
So the concept you complain modern 'political idiots' have devalued, is one that at the least is hundreds of years old and runs (among others) through the work of one of the most eminent economists ever.
As for the modern day. I think your image of the person relative poverty refers to is inaccurate, and if wealth definitions did not change over time you would declare everyone in the country rich by virtue of them being better of than medieval villeins rendering that term meaningless and really getting closer to Ingsoc.
More power to your elbow trying to explain this simple concept.
Why the PB Conservative have such a blind spot over basic economics remains a mystery.
This leadership poll ratings are a waste of time. With Lib Dems in coalition, Cameron gets a little support from LD supporters and UKIP supporters would generally prefer Cameron to Miliband. And Cameron is PM, so he gets some recognition for that, whereas Miliband is just leader of the main opposition party.
Having said that Miliband looks like a geek who can't get a suit to fit and is up against a smart shiny foreheaded PR man. Perception is still a very important factor, when people consider leadership. It is not what they do, but how they look and speak when debating. So pretty superficial stuff really.
Andrew Neil tweets: "Wages up 1.4% in Jan. Tomorrow average earnings are expected to grow 1.8% in Feb. So pay would be ahead of prices by 0.1%."
Wahey! No mention of spiralling housing costs, nor the fact that prices have been ahead of wages for years under this lot.
When did the trend of CPI being ahead of wages start?
Six years ago in 2009.
Reversed tomorrow, if wage growth hits 1.8% as expected.
An anaemic increment with spiralling housing costs removed, after four long years of falling living standards under the Coalition. Good luck with spinning that one.
The big fall in living standards came in 2009, Bobafett.
Since then the Coalition government has slowly narrowed the gap and tomorrow it is likely we will see the gap eliminated.
Its an Herculean task clearing out the Brownean Stables, but George and Danny have done it resolutely and without complaint.
Crossover is here and it is time to celebrate.
In 2009 in the middle of the global financial crisis. Four years of going backwards under the Coalition. Good luck with it all Avery.
BobaFett - and how would Labour have made better progress out of the mess they made and with "no money".
Co-op bank has been subject of discussion between regulators and The Treasury for sometime, because there has been concern about the way it is set up.
My personal view is that there needs to be a review of banking, not just in this country, but around the world. I don't think regulation is sophisticated enough to be able to understand all the risks. Then there is the issue of rigged markets and dodgy dealing. UK banks have made large profits from mis-selling of PPI etc.
If I say I agree with this am I underlining my soft left credentials, or am I getting harder.
Mr Corporeal, I specifically included 'new clothes when necessary' as something people should be able to afford, and if they cannot they can legitimately be classed as poor.
I am pleased you and Adam Smith agree with me.
Mr Dancer, you are missing Smith's central point I'm afraid.
It is not the specifics of the item that are important, the linen shirt is chosen as an example of something the Romans lived comfortably without but was considered by 18th century custom to be necessary. The point is the customary-ness rather than it being clothing.
He goes on with other examples of things that would indicate poverty in one culture but not in another (or even poverty definitions being different for men and women in the same culture).
What he is advocating is the concept of relative poverty, where it's dependent on whatever the custom of the country is rather than a universal standard.
This is not a recent change of the word.
No, he's not. What he is advocating is that the threshold for absolute poverty shifts over time as a society develops. That's not the same as relative poverty (measured as a % of median income)
Mr. Corporeal, I advocate a definition of poverty as meaning someone unable to afford the necessary things to live *and* to have a little left over for small luxuries. I'm not sure that I'm in disagreement with Adam Smith at all. I am sure that 'relative poverty' is tosh.
If you oppose the concept 'relative poverty' you disagree with Smith, since that is the definition he's advocating. Where 'poverty' can be at different levels in different cultures, or even different people in the same culture.
So the concept you complain modern 'political idiots' have devalued, is one that at the least is hundreds of years old and runs (among others) through the work of one of the most eminent economists ever.
As for the modern day. I think your image of the person relative poverty refers to is inaccurate, and if wealth definitions did not change over time you would declare everyone in the country rich by virtue of them being better of than medieval villeins rendering that term meaningless and really getting closer to Ingsoc.
Why the PB Conservative have such a blind spot over basic economics remains a mystery.
Because in the land of the blind (Labour posters - who think, for example, that the 'cost of living crisis' started under the coalition) the one eyed man - or woman - is king.....
Perhaps it is time to deal with the problem of child poverty in a modest way.
"A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People from Being a Burthen to their Parents, or the Country, and for Making them Beneficial to the Publick."
Andrew Neil tweets: "Wages up 1.4% in Jan. Tomorrow average earnings are expected to grow 1.8% in Feb. So pay would be ahead of prices by 0.1%."
Wahey! No mention of spiralling housing costs, nor the fact that prices have been ahead of wages for years under this lot.
When did the trend of CPI being ahead of wages start?
Six years ago in 2009.
Reversed tomorrow, if wage growth hits 1.8% as expected.
An anaemic increment with spiralling housing costs removed, after four long years of falling living standards under the Coalition. Good luck with spinning that one.
The big fall in living standards came in 2009, Bobafett.
Since then the Coalition government has slowly narrowed the gap and tomorrow it is likely we will see the gap eliminated.
Its an Herculean task clearing out the Brownean Stables, but George and Danny have done it resolutely and without complaint.
Crossover is here and it is time to celebrate.
In 2009 in the middle of the global financial crisis. Four years of going backwards under the Coalition. Good luck with it all Avery.
BobaFett - and how would Labour have made better progress out of the mess they made and with "no money".
Er, I hate to break it to you but Labour aren't in government. You are. I know very few PB Conservatives have arranged to get their head around this strange turn of events, it being so long since it last happened, but here's how it works:
The government does. The opposition critiques.
It's a major advantage to be able to do stuff. But you also have to address the criticism.
@BobaFett Few would dispute that poverty is culturally constructed, varying between societies and time periods, and that it is, to an extent at least, relative. The bigger question is how it is measured. Any measure which can show a dramatic fall in poverty when (1) the average expectation of a minimum standard of living has not changed, and (2) the poor have got no richer, is bonkers (cf.this BBC article from 2012).
GDP per head fell by c.8% in 2008/9. Real wages declined gradually between 2008-13. As a result, unemployment rose by much less than one might have expected.
Both unemployment and inflation are now below their levels of May 2010, 2% more of the working age population are in work, and GDP per head is on the rise, so there is little doubt the economy is in better shape than in May 2010.
One can argue that Labour would have done better; or that the government deserves no credit for this improvement, but it's not really open to debate now that the economy is in better shape than it was four years ago.
The decision on Syria by Ed Miliband was key to affirming this segment.For many previous supporters of Blair's Labour,this was the moment of truth and they became part of the 5 million voters Labour lost between 1997-2010. We have a Labour leader who learns the lessons of history and will not repeat Iraq,which is where this group has been since 2003.
Mr. Corporeal, given I've said we have people in real poverty, quite clearly I don't consider everyone rich by virtue of being wealthier than medieval villeins.
My definition accounts for changes in prices of fuel, and food, and essential things to live (in the future a computer may be practically an essential due to the rise of the internet, whereas 50 years ago it was science fiction). I'm not arguing for a single everlasting list of things that define poverty, but that poverty is an absolute, not a relative thing.
So how would you measure poverty? And how would you update this measure?
Andrew Neil tweets: "Wages up 1.4% in Jan. Tomorrow average earnings are expected to grow 1.8% in Feb. So pay would be ahead of prices by 0.1%."
Wahey! No mention of spiralling housing costs, nor the fact that prices have been ahead of wages for years under this lot.
What do you mean by "spiralling housing costs", Bobafett?
Rents have been falling at a faster rate than inflation.
Mortgage interest rates have also been falling.
Capital values of housing stock have been rising.
Leaving aside occupancy costs such as maintenance and repair (which are calculated by the ONS but have relatively little significance in total housing costs), this would indicate that, on average, UK householders have got richer at the same time as their expenses have reduced relative to inflation.
This is "win, win" for householders unless I have the sums or theory wrong.
Please advise if you believe I have.
Capital values of housing stock have been rising.
My house in the London suburbs has gained £42,000+ in value since I bought it in July. Unimproved.
Great me for me, you might opine. But how do you think this affects affordability for those millions who are trying to get on the ladder?
It's price has increased, not it's value. And it's worth nothing until you try to liquidate it.
I would have thought it was nigh on impossible to prove or disprove anything in this case.
Farage could quite easily say he used any money not accounted for to pay for all manner of work related things... and if anyone says "But the EU guidelines say it can only be used to pay for this office" he will say "So what?"
Unless he is shown to have spent the money on something that is nothing to do with UKIP, ie a House, having his chimney cleared, a second mortgage, a duck house etc then there is nowhere for this story to go, because he has already boasted of taking as much as possible from the EU to fund the party.
Sam
Farage's protestations of innocence would be more credible had not EP funds been routed through his personal bank account.
Not that such an arrangement proves or even suggests fraud but it is 'irregular' And it hardly adds to the cause of transparency and accountability to which all politicians claiming expenses and allowances should subscribe.
Q: Can we have no people in relative poverty under present definitions?
A: No. It is impossible to re-allocate all wealth in a uniform way. Communist and socialist countries tried it and failed. Some people were always more equal than others.
The definition of relative poverty is one of the hang overs from socialism. However we should not expect socialists to understand this or agree that the definition of relative poverty should be dropped. Otherwise it ends another socialist policy.
Mr. Corporeal, given I've said we have people in real poverty, quite clearly I don't consider everyone rich by virtue of being wealthier than medieval villeins.
My definition accounts for changes in prices of fuel, and food, and essential things to live (in the future a computer may be practically an essential due to the rise of the internet, whereas 50 years ago it was science fiction). I'm not arguing for a single everlasting list of things that define poverty, but that poverty is an absolute, not a relative thing.
So how would you measure poverty? And how would you update this measure?
My definition would be to be unable to afford to simultaneously eat enough food to live and be able to live in a home with a roof... and it would never need to be updated
Andrew Neil tweets: "Wages up 1.4% in Jan. Tomorrow average earnings are expected to grow 1.8% in Feb. So pay would be ahead of prices by 0.1%."
Wahey! No mention of spiralling housing costs, nor the fact that prices have been ahead of wages for years under this lot.
When did the trend of CPI being ahead of wages start?
Six years ago in 2009.
Reversed tomorrow, if wage growth hits 1.8% as expected.
An anaemic increment with spiralling housing costs removed, after four long years of falling living standards under the Coalition. Good luck with spinning that one.
The big fall in living standards came in 2009, Bobafett.
Since then the Coalition government has slowly narrowed the gap and tomorrow it is likely we will see the gap eliminated.
Its an Herculean task clearing out the Brownean Stables, but George and Danny have done it resolutely and without complaint.
Crossover is here and it is time to celebrate.
In 2009 in the middle of the global financial crisis. Four years of going backwards under the Coalition. Good luck with it all Avery.
BobaFett - and how would Labour have made better progress out of the mess they made and with "no money".
The government does. The opposition critiques.
And what 'solutions' have Labour advanced for the 'cost of living crisis' that started on their watch?
Doesn't look like voters are impressed:
the Tories' team is most trusted on economic management, with Cameron and Osborne now beating Ed Miliband and Ed Balls on this score by 40% to 22%, a decisive margin. That is the biggest economic lead for the Conservative duo in more than two years, and the second worst score for Miliband/Balls to date......
Mr. Corporeal, I advocate a definition of poverty as meaning someone unable to afford the necessary things to live *and* to have a little left over for small luxuries. I'm not sure that I'm in disagreement with Adam Smith at all. I am sure that 'relative poverty' is tosh.
If you oppose the concept 'relative poverty' you disagree with Smith, since that is the definition he's advocating. Where 'poverty' can be at different levels in different cultures, or even different people in the same culture.
So the concept you complain modern 'political idiots' have devalued, is one that at the least is hundreds of years old and runs (among others) through the work of one of the most eminent economists ever.
As for the modern day. I think your image of the person relative poverty refers to is inaccurate, and if wealth definitions did not change over time you would declare everyone in the country rich by virtue of them being better of than medieval villeins rendering that term meaningless and really getting closer to Ingsoc.
More power to your elbow trying to explain this simple concept.
Why the PB Conservative have such a blind spot over basic economics remains a mystery.
Why do you think relative poverty is an economic rather than a social question?
Mr Corporeal, I specifically included 'new clothes when necessary' as something people should be able to afford, and if they cannot they can legitimately be classed as poor.
I am pleased you and Adam Smith agree with me.
This is not a recent change of the word.
Trying to explain economic theory to the PB Conservatives is like putting makeup on a pig. It's a waste of labour, and it annoys the pig.
You forgot to mention that it's also a waste of make-up. Anyway. I'll nominate you for comment of the year, even if it's only April.
Andrew Neil tweets: "Wages up 1.4% in Jan. Tomorrow average earnings are expected to grow 1.8% in Feb. So pay would be ahead of prices by 0.1%."
Wahey! No mention of spiralling housing costs, nor the fact that prices have been ahead of wages for years under this lot.
When did the trend of CPI being ahead of wages start?
Six years ago in 2009.
Reversed tomorrow, if wage growth hits 1.8% as expected.
An anaemic increment with spiralling housing costs removed, after four long years of falling living standards under the Coalition. Good luck with spinning that one.
The big fall in living standards came in 2009, Bobafett.
Since then the Coalition government has slowly narrowed the gap and tomorrow it is likely we will see the gap eliminated.
Its an Herculean task clearing out the Brownean Stables, but George and Danny have done it resolutely and without complaint.
Crossover is here and it is time to celebrate.
In 2009 in the middle of the global financial crisis. Four years of going backwards under the Coalition. Good luck with it all Avery.
BobaFett - and how would Labour have made better progress out of the mess they made and with "no money".
A: Simple, they would have asked the IMF for a loan and then blamed the IMF for having to make the cuts which the IMF imposed as a requirement of the loan......
Mr. Corporeal, given I've said we have people in real poverty, quite clearly I don't consider everyone rich by virtue of being wealthier than medieval villeins.
My definition accounts for changes in prices of fuel, and food, and essential things to live (in the future a computer may be practically an essential due to the rise of the internet, whereas 50 years ago it was science fiction). I'm not arguing for a single everlasting list of things that define poverty, but that poverty is an absolute, not a relative thing.
So how would you measure poverty? And how would you update this measure?
My definition would be to be unable to afford to simultaneously eat enough food to live and be able to live in a home with a roof... and it would never need to be updated
In which case very few people are in poverty in the UK. Interestingly, you oppose Adam Smith's definition and that of almost every economist but at least you give a clear answer.
Mr. Fett, I've stated those who cannot afford the necessities of life (fuel, food, shelter, new clothing when needed etc) and have a little left over for small luxuries (a book/cinema trip now and then and 1-2 small holidays a year [counting a weekend at the seaside as a holiday]) could be considered poor.
The necessities and luxuries will vary naturally as society changes. A dagger is no longer a necessity. In the 14th century it was. In a few years a computer may be a necessity.
Q: Can we have no people in relative poverty under present definitions?
A: No. It is impossible to re-allocate all wealth in a uniform way. Communist and socialist countries tried it and failed. Some people were always more equal than others.
The definition of relative poverty is one of the hang overs from socialism. However we should not expect socialists to understand this or agree that the definition of relative poverty should be dropped. Otherwise it ends another socialist policy.
Mr Corporeal, I specifically included 'new clothes when necessary' as something people should be able to afford, and if they cannot they can legitimately be classed as poor.
I am pleased you and Adam Smith agree with me.
This is not a recent change of the word.
Trying to explain economic theory to the PB Conservatives is like putting makeup on a pig. It's a waste of labour, and it annoys the pig.
You forgot to mention that it's also a waste of make-up. Anyway. I'll nominate you for comment of the year, even if it's only April.
I don't think misquoting others (badly, by mangling two separate sayings) can count as a 'post of the year':
Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.
Mr. Corporeal, given I've said we have people in real poverty, quite clearly I don't consider everyone rich by virtue of being wealthier than medieval villeins.
My definition accounts for changes in prices of fuel, and food, and essential things to live (in the future a computer may be practically an essential due to the rise of the internet, whereas 50 years ago it was science fiction). I'm not arguing for a single everlasting list of things that define poverty, but that poverty is an absolute, not a relative thing.
So how would you measure poverty? And how would you update this measure?
My definition would be to be unable to afford to simultaneously eat enough food to live and be able to live in a home with a roof... and it would never need to be updated
So according to you someone who couldn't afford to clothe their children wouldn't be living in poverty?
There is a word for people like you, but it can't be used on this site.
Mr. Corporeal, given I've said we have people in real poverty, quite clearly I don't consider everyone rich by virtue of being wealthier than medieval villeins.
My definition accounts for changes in prices of fuel, and food, and essential things to live (in the future a computer may be practically an essential due to the rise of the internet, whereas 50 years ago it was science fiction). I'm not arguing for a single everlasting list of things that define poverty, but that poverty is an absolute, not a relative thing.
So how would you measure poverty? And how would you update this measure?
My definition would be to be unable to afford to simultaneously eat enough food to live and be able to live in a home with a roof... and it would never need to be updated
It goes further than that: access to clean water and sewerage, and power are vital nowadays for everyone. And when you start going down that road, there are many other items that can be added.
Mr Corporeal, I specifically included 'new clothes when necessary' as something people should be able to afford, and if they cannot they can legitimately be classed as poor.
I am pleased you and Adam Smith agree with me.
Mr Dancer, you are missing Smith's central point I'm afraid.
It is not the specifics of the item that are important, the linen shirt is chosen as an example of something the Romans lived comfortably without but was considered by 18th century custom to be necessary. The point is the customary-ness rather than it being clothing.
He goes on with other examples of things that would indicate poverty in one culture but not in another (or even poverty definitions being different for men and women in the same culture).
What he is advocating is the concept of relative poverty, where it's dependent on whatever the custom of the country is rather than a universal standard.
This is not a recent change of the word.
No, he's not. What he is advocating is that the threshold for absolute poverty shifts over time as a society develops. That's not the same as relative poverty (measured as a % of median income)
Your definition of relative poverty is overly restrictive, the % of median income is one (common) measure of relative poverty but is not the entirety of the concept.
Smith's use of societal custom (including all the possible illogical foibles between different cultures or within a culture) as a measuring stick place his definition firmly in the territory of relative poverty.
Mr Corporeal, I specifically included 'new clothes when necessary' as something people should be able to afford, and if they cannot they can legitimately be classed as poor.
I am pleased you and Adam Smith agree with me.
Mr Dancer, you are missing Smith's central point I'm afraid.
It is not the specifics of the item that are important, the linen shirt is chosen as an example of something the Romans lived comfortably without but was considered by 18th century custom to be necessary. The point is the customary-ness rather than it being clothing.
He goes on with other examples of things that would indicate poverty in one culture but not in another (or even poverty definitions being different for men and women in the same culture).
What he is advocating is the concept of relative poverty, where it's dependent on whatever the custom of the country is rather than a universal standard.
This is not a recent change of the word.
No, he's not. What he is advocating is that the threshold for absolute poverty shifts over time as a society develops. That's not the same as relative poverty (measured as a % of median income)
You are arguing – quite validly - about the *threshold*.
But if you shift the measure of poverty in line with national standards, that is a relative measure!
Comments
So the gap overall in perceptions of economic competence in particular and leadership to a lesser extent are materially different from the time the poll was taken. Where has that change in perception come from? Well at the time this poll was taken the tories were already on board in a very big way so it is unlikely to be from there. I suspect some UKIP supporters may have drifted back on these issues even if they have not yet changed their voting intentions. But surely some must have come from 2010 Lib Dems.
For the reasons Mike says it is unlikely that those who have gone all the way to backing Labour are likely to have changed in such large numbers but my guess would be that more of the remaining Lib Dems would select Cameron on a binary choice than at the time this poll was taken.
However, his reaction to the Times just seems petulant, and his automatic blaming of someone who is probably innocent wasn't wise.
"So we have fewer middle-paid production line and secretarial jobs, but a lot more middle-paid jobs in IT and professional services."
But surely the skill sets required are more demanding and require a higher standard of education.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkFtUYfnpqs
http://www.icmresearch.com/data/media/pdf/2014_apr_guardian.pdf
Basically the powers that be change the definition of a word knowing the old meaning will still resonate with the public
"Milions living in poverty" conjours images of people sleeping rough on the streets, when the truth is that millions are earning less than £15,000 a year or something similar
If, on my street, a millionaire moves in it doesn't suddenly make me poor. If the poor people next door move out, it doesn't make me richer.
Poverty must be defined by an ability to survive on your income and have a small sum left over for little luxuries (I'd argue someone who worries about whether to spend or save a spare £10 is poor). It must not be defined relative to other people.
The problem with the military or war-fighting metaphor is that in war one seeks to beat ones enemy, by fair means or foul. Is that what we want from our politicians? I am not sure it is, not least because it leads to some ludicrous attitudes (e.g. a poster on here claiming that the Yes campaign in Scotland would achieve a resounding victory - a victory over who? Their fellow Scots presumably as the are the only people who have a vote). The language we use not only reflects but also conditions the way we think. Treating someone who disagrees with you as an enemy to be crushed is not healthy.
As for the "spiral of shame adjustment" I've always been of the mind that much of this should relate to the shame of the pollsters and their inability to catch late swing and increased expected and differential turnout which certainly hit Labour squarely in 1992.
However I stand by my record in calling general elections here and across the pond and in noting that my critics in each electoral cycle are those who I project will lose - strange that, but not so strange that they are invariably proved wrong.
Table 7.
"ICM shows Greens polling higher than LDs! "
Spending = investment, you know.
As to the definitions, concepts of poverty based around the culture the person is in is not a recent invention of politicians.
Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776
"By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without.
A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them."
34 - 32
Bookies can be wrong and that is where this site gets it's name from really..we are here to beat the bookies.
In that I would humbly suggest taking a look at the 36 seats where the LDs are still favourites...there is some cracking value about..
As set out in The Mirror's version of the story:
A former senior UKIP official has filed a formal complaint about Mr Farage’s expenses claims to the EU anti-fraud office OLAF.
EU guidelines - followed by UKIP - say the funds must be spent only on rent, utilities, insurance and business rates.
In line with all MEPs, Mr Farage gets a general expenditure allowance of around £3,800 a month to rent and run an office in his home country.
But no MEP has to file receipts to prove how they have spent the cash, leaving the system open to abuse.
[My bolding].
Farage has a simple task to prove he has abided by the guidelines: he only needs to publish the accounts maintained by the Littlehampton office. We know from The Times article that such books exist and were compiled by David Samuel-Camps.
I absolutely agree with you that term 'poverty' has been devalued by politicians - most of them have never experienced real poverty but use the word as a political football.
In the same way, children that have free school meals are seen as a deprived category that excuses lower educational performance.
Most children in East Africa would laugh as using that as an excuse. as not only do most have to pay to go to the simplest school, but many do not know whether their one daily meal will be there when they get home.
It is about time that our politicians accepted realism and stopped inventing sub-standard excuses for poor performance under their watch.
I am pleased you and Adam Smith agree with me.
Other than that it's a great point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_England_(European_Parliament_constituency)#Election_results
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_(European_Parliament_constituency)#Election_results
Rents have been falling at a faster rate than inflation.
Mortgage interest rates have also been falling.
Capital values of housing stock have been rising.
Leaving aside occupancy costs such as maintenance and repair (which are calculated by the ONS but have relatively little significance in total housing costs), this would indicate that, on average, UK householders have got richer at the same time as their expenses have reduced relative to inflation.
This is "win, win" for householders unless I have the sums or theory wrong.
Please advise if you believe I have.
Mr. Financier, I think that's a key part of fuel bills and why some politicians are so green. For them, a few hundred more pounds to fund a green levy is a 'sacrifice', but a token one. They can bear it easily and then feel good about themselves 'fighting climate change'. For those with very little it's a burden they struggle to bear, and then they feel angered when millionaire frontbenchers seem to consider it a noble thing.
http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/news/11148199.MP_Sadiq_Khan_claims_Shadow_Cabinet__bragging_rights__after_beating_colleagues_in_London_Marathon/?ref=var_0
UKIP in particular gets regular attacks from the media luvvies, so I think they're inoculated to a greater extent than others.
Reversed tomorrow, if wage growth hits 1.8% as expected.
By the way, Anthony Wells has done an essay on why you are wrong about 1992's "late swing". I can't find it at the moment but if you have a furkle on UKPR it's there somewhere.
Relative Poverty can be 60% of median income or which other arbitrary measure suits the pressure group.
It is not the specifics of the item that are important, the linen shirt is chosen as an example of something the Romans lived comfortably without but was considered by 18th century custom to be necessary. The point is the customary-ness rather than it being clothing.
He goes on with other examples of things that would indicate poverty in one culture but not in another (or even poverty definitions being different for men and women in the same culture).
What he is advocating is the concept of relative poverty, where it's dependent on whatever the custom of the country is rather than a universal standard.
This is not a recent change of the word.
'Miliband has been very quiet, likewise Cable, over the huge can of worms spilling out from the omnishambles at the Co-Op.'
Well the Co-Op was Ed's model bank.
You appear to have taken over Tim's mantle of twisting simple words into a meaning that you well know was not meant.
No, but I do believe that politicians should stop using the word poverty when they mean relative poverty. They have to get our values correct and stop using excuses for repeated failure.
Mr. Corporeal, I advocate a definition of poverty as meaning someone unable to afford the necessary things to live *and* to have a little left over for small luxuries. I'm not sure that I'm in disagreement with Adam Smith at all. I am sure that 'relative poverty' is tosh.
As the story currently stands it will have a minor effect. It'll be added in to how people view Farage and UKIP but not be a major defining point.
If the story has legs then it'll have a greater effect of course.
Political perception is formed by lots of these small event, this will be added to the balance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/27009862
A few days ago I posted a link about a UKIP councillor saying some rather unfortunate comments. To even things up, Swindon's Conservative mayor's just resigned for similar stupidity:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/swindon-mayor-says-sorry-for-calling-disabled-people-mongols--but-charities-dismiss-forced-apology-9258603.html
I'll make one other point, if your definition of poverty includes not being able to eat out regularly and not being able to afford holidays, then there are an awful lot of people in apparently good jobs and with mortgages who must by those standards be defined as poor.
My house in the London suburbs has gained £42,000+ in value since I bought it in July. Unimproved.
Great me for me, you might opine. But how do you think this affects affordability for those millions who are trying to get on the ladder?
Farage could quite easily say he used any money not accounted for to pay for all manner of work related things... and if anyone says "But the EU guidelines say it can only be used to pay for this office" he will say "So what?"
Unless he is shown to have spent the money on something that is nothing to do with UKIP, ie a House, having his chimney cleared, a second mortgage, a duck house etc then there is nowhere for this story to go, because he has already boasted of taking as much as possible from the EU to fund the party.
Evidence for this ?
Co-op bank has been subject of discussion between regulators and The Treasury for sometime, because there has been concern about the way it is set up.
My personal view is that there needs to be a review of banking, not just in this country, but around the world. I don't think regulation is sophisticated enough to be able to understand all the risks. Then there is the issue of rigged markets and dodgy dealing. UK banks have made large profits from mis-selling of PPI etc.
But there is one area of reform that I believe is more important for our long term prosperity than all the rest – that can deliver growth rather than stagnation and simultaneously ensure that the gains from growth are shared.
And that is education.
The education policies we’ve been implementing, led by our Education Secretary Michael Gove, have been influenced by, and reflect, the work of education reformers in the US and elsewhere around the world.
The pioneering work of Mike Bloomberg and Joel Klein in New York, Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, Bill Haslam in Tennessee, Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Jeb Bush in Florida has inspired our approach.
You have – quite rightly – identified schools reform as the civil rights issue of our time.
The emphasis the AEI has placed on policies to advance greater social justice is nowhere clearer than in your work on education.
In both our countries poor children are disproportionately likely to go to poor schools.
In both our countries inequality is perpetuated by a lack of educational opportunity for disadvantaged children.
And in the United Kingdom we are creating the British equivalent of charters – academies and free schools – to provide disadvantaged children with greater opportunities than ever before.
A majority of our secondary schools – broadly equivalent to US high schools – are now academies.
And even though our nation is a sixth the size of the US, we have more students in total in academies and free schools in the UK than there are children in charters in the US.
This is a revolutionary breakthrough in extending school autonomy – and parental choice.
We are also following in the footsteps of the great work being done in the US – from Tennessee to D.C – to ensure that teachers are properly evaluated on the impact they make in the classroom and rewarded for good performance.
What unites all of these reforms is a belief that our nation will only make progress if we make use of every child’s talents and liberate every student’s potential.
In all these ways we can ensure that the link between growth and prosperity remains unbroken.
You can argue the toss about where the threshold should be set, but you would find very few serious economists arguing for an absolute measure that ignored general living standards in the country.
Unless you fancy setting our threshold to that of Africa?
So the concept you complain modern 'political idiots' have devalued, is one that at the least is hundreds of years old and runs (among others) through the work of one of the most eminent economists ever.
As for the modern day. I think your image of the person relative poverty refers to is inaccurate, and if wealth definitions did not change over time you would declare everyone in the country rich by virtue of them being better of than medieval villeins rendering that term meaningless and really getting closer to Ingsoc.
Since then the Coalition government has slowly narrowed the gap and tomorrow it is likely we will see the gap eliminated.
Its an Herculean task clearing out the Brownean Stables, but George and Danny have done it resolutely and without complaint.
Crossover is here and it is time to celebrate.
As for 1992 if that is Anthony Well's view then most contemporary pollsters disagree as indeed do I for different reasons. Kinnock himself considered he was hit by late swing over the last week and he knew by the weekend before polling that he'd lost.
One other factor needs reinforcing and it is sometimes lost in the welter of polls and comment that the simple fact that these polls are snapshots of present opinion not the result of or a projection of the general election. Those who think otherwise should have a quiet word with former Prime Minister Kinnock.
The 60% relative poverty definition is used as a common measure by The World Bank and other international bodies, but can you show which Act of Parliament made it a mandatory measurement.
Some pressure groups have used a 50% or 40 % measure.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
By your definition it is impossible to eradicate, even if we were all millionaires
Four years of going backwards under the Coalition.
Good luck with it all Avery.
You are at it again. Anyone who disagrees with me on here is a Tory and therefore thick, is not a helpful way of furthering interesting debate and is also insulting to those who are trying to have a sensible conversation. Not helpful.
My definition accounts for changes in prices of fuel, and food, and essential things to live (in the future a computer may be practically an essential due to the rise of the internet, whereas 50 years ago it was science fiction). I'm not arguing for a single everlasting list of things that define poverty, but that poverty is an absolute, not a relative thing.
Why the PB Conservative have such a blind spot over basic economics remains a mystery.
http://embedle.com/e/Amc9AObo#http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27031012#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa
This leadership poll ratings are a waste of time. With Lib Dems in coalition, Cameron gets a little support from LD supporters and UKIP supporters would generally prefer Cameron to Miliband. And Cameron is PM, so he gets some recognition for that, whereas Miliband is just leader of the main opposition party.
Having said that Miliband looks like a geek who can't get a suit to fit and is up against a smart shiny foreheaded PR man. Perception is still a very important factor, when people consider leadership. It is not what they do, but how they look and speak when debating. So pretty superficial stuff really.
Would that we had a government that could have continued that recovery.
Instead we got Osborne / Tory austerity wrecking ball. Real Wages immediately went back into reverse.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Charles, indeed, that's it.
"A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People from Being a Burthen to their Parents, or the Country, and for Making them Beneficial to the Publick."
The government does.
The opposition critiques.
It's a major advantage to be able to do stuff. But you also have to address the criticism.
Few would dispute that poverty is culturally constructed, varying between societies and time periods, and that it is, to an extent at least, relative. The bigger question is how it is measured. Any measure which can show a dramatic fall in poverty when (1) the average expectation of a minimum standard of living has not changed, and (2) the poor have got no richer, is bonkers (cf. this BBC article from 2012).
Both unemployment and inflation are now below their levels of May 2010, 2% more of the working age population are in work, and GDP per head is on the rise, so there is little doubt the economy is in better shape than in May 2010.
One can argue that Labour would have done better; or that the government deserves no credit for this improvement, but it's not really open to debate now that the economy is in better shape than it was four years ago.
We have a Labour leader who learns the lessons of history and will not repeat Iraq,which is where this group has been since 2003.
I would have thought it was nigh on impossible to prove or disprove anything in this case.
Farage could quite easily say he used any money not accounted for to pay for all manner of work related things... and if anyone says "But the EU guidelines say it can only be used to pay for this office" he will say "So what?"
Unless he is shown to have spent the money on something that is nothing to do with UKIP, ie a House, having his chimney cleared, a second mortgage, a duck house etc then there is nowhere for this story to go, because he has already boasted of taking as much as possible from the EU to fund the party.
Sam
Farage's protestations of innocence would be more credible had not EP funds been routed through his personal bank account.
Not that such an arrangement proves or even suggests fraud but it is 'irregular' And it hardly adds to the cause of transparency and accountability to which all politicians claiming expenses and allowances should subscribe.
A: No. It is impossible to re-allocate all wealth in a uniform way. Communist and socialist countries tried it and failed. Some people were always more equal than others.
The definition of relative poverty is one of the hang overs from socialism. However we should not expect socialists to understand this or agree that the definition of relative poverty should be dropped. Otherwise it ends another socialist policy.
Doesn't look like voters are impressed:
the Tories' team is most trusted on economic management, with Cameron and Osborne now beating Ed Miliband and Ed Balls on this score by 40% to 22%, a decisive margin. That is the biggest economic lead for the Conservative duo in more than two years, and the second worst score for Miliband/Balls to date......
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/14/support-tories-falls-budget-boost-deflated-maria-miller-row
Interestingly, you oppose Adam Smith's definition and that of almost every economist but at least you give a clear answer.
The necessities and luxuries will vary naturally as society changes. A dagger is no longer a necessity. In the 14th century it was. In a few years a computer may be a necessity.
Edited extra bit: and how would you define it?
We are all socialists now, comrade.
Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Teaching a pig to sing
There is a word for people like you, but it can't be used on this site.
Smith's use of societal custom (including all the possible illogical foibles between different cultures or within a culture) as a measuring stick place his definition firmly in the territory of relative poverty.
But if you shift the measure of poverty in line with national standards, that is a relative measure!