malcolmg said: » show previous quotes Optimistic to think they will be ripples. Unless Westminster play ball it will be breakers
The biggest issue for rUK will be "what to do with Trident" - but hardly a bread and butter issue like "currency" or "interest rates" that will confront the Scottish electorate.....
I think you have a rather optimistic view on Scotland's bargaining position.
You want things in the gift of the rUK, which barely applies the other way round.....the big thing rUK want isn't on the table, but it's only one thing and does not affect day-to-day issues......
And if there are breakers, remember "who is in the bigger boat".....
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......
The LD to Lab switchers are essentially a left wing lot who were repelled by NuLab and its warmongering so they temporarily bought into the Lib Dems and subsequently were aghast when they formed a coalition with the hated Tories. I am personally aware of a number of people working for the BBC and elsewhere who went precisely down that road. However naturally they now feel far more comfortable with EdM and the supposedly radical baggage that surrounds him so they are returning to their natural territory. Hence the polling above which effectively puts them to the left of the Lab voters as a whole. To call them a key swing group is simply not the case because I'd suggest the older among them were almost certainly strong Lab voters prior to 2003 and the Tories should worry far less about this group than dealing with leakage to UKIP which is where the Tory inclined swing voters have gone. If the LDs want the LD to Lab switchers back they should ditch Clegg and elect the naive lefty gallery playing Farron. I'm sure the Tories would be secretly delighted.
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
The Taxpayer's Alliance recommended changing to an absolute figure for poverty, using the US Census Bureau's poverty threshold as a model.
malcolmg said: » show previous quotes Optimistic to think they will be ripples. Unless Westminster play ball it will be breakers
The biggest issue for rUK will be "what to do with Trident" - but hardly a bread and butter issue like "currency" or "interest rates" that will confront the Scottish electorate.....
I think you have a rather optimistic view on Scotland's bargaining position.
You want things in the gift of the rUK, which barely applies the other way round.....the big thing rUK want isn't on the table, but it's only one thing and does not affect day-to-day issues......
And if there are breakers, remember "who is in the bigger boat".....
Yes the one full of holesWhat has rUK got that Scotland wants, and what has Scotland got that rUK wants.....I think you'll find one list is longer than the other......
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".
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......
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.
As the great Leszek Kolakowski memorably reminded the arch charlatan Edward P. Thompson in 'My Correct Views on Everything' [Socialist Register, 11, (1974), p. 20]:
Absolute equality can be set up only within a despotic system of rule which implies privileges, i.e. destroys equality; total freedom means anarchy and anarchy results in the domination of the physically strongest, i.e. total freedom turns into its opposite; efficiency as a supreme value calls again for despotism and despotism is economically inefficient above a certain level of technology. If I repeat these old truisms this is because they still seem to go unnoticed in utopian thinking; and this is why nothing in the world is easier than writing utopias.
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.
At the risk of being even more pedantic, isn't there a confusion over the famous Sarah Palin quote:“The difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.”
But then lots of people made mistakes over Mrs Palin, from John McCain downwards.
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.
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
"Relative poverty lines: These are defined in relation to the overall distribution of income or consumption in a country; for example, the poverty line could be set at 50 percent of the country’s mean income or consumption...
Ultimately, the choice of a poverty line is arbitrary. In order to ensure wide understanding and wide acceptance of a poverty line, it is therefore important to ensure that the poverty line chosen does resonate with social norms (with the common understanding of what represents a minimum). "
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.
Wow, tough guy!
Ok without getting all picky, there should be a line under which we can say people are living in poverty....
Able to eat, clothe family, live in a home with a roof, clean water etc
Basically what 99% of people in England can do
But it shouldn't be relative to how other people are living
I take Smith's point to be about being socially ostracised for not having what is the norm.
A 13-year old who couldn't afford a mobile phone in England (if such a person exists) could suffer far more than a similar 13-year old in (say) sub saharan Africa.
The English teenager would feel his poverty more because everyone else could afford a phone (even though, because of welfare, the poor English kid would be materially much better off than the African).
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.
At the risk of being even more pedantic, isn't there a confusion over the famous Sarah Palin quote:“The difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.”
But then lots of people made mistakes over Mrs Palin, from John McCain downwards.
Doh! Orwell teaches us to avoid repeating a cliche.
Adapting one to boost reading interest is welcomed.
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......
That presumes that the IMF would have made a loan to a failed Labour administration. Also how would you paid the interest on that loan - in other words what taxes would you have increased or originated?
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.
Current UKIP supporters have recently decided that they like Mr Farage/UKIP. They're going to want to ignore stories that tell them they're wrong.
At the risk of being even more pedantic, isn't there a confusion over the famous Sarah Palin quote:“The difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.”
But then lots of people made mistakes over Mrs Palin, from John McCain downwards.
The 'lipstick on a pig' quote was popularised by Obama - but dates from earlier, and of course the oldest of them 'silk purse from sow's ear' is centuries old:
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.
Whilst I understand the view that poverty in this country isn't the same sort of poverty that we see in Live Aid videos, I still think that it's a fair way of describing some of the people who get left behind in this country.
We do Home Fire Safety Checks every day shift, where we get a target area, generated by Mosaic, and we knock on doors, offering fire safety advice and check or fit smoke detectors, but also, we've turned into social workers. We see some genuine hardship cases, so much so, that we've become experts at getting other organisations involved, be it social services, charities, police, housing authorities, local council, even Childline on a couple of occasions. For some reason, many people trust a fireman to sort things, even if we are really just a bunch of overpaid, lazy, over sexed tea drinkers. Seeing a toddler running around a filthy, cluttered house in just a dirty nappy, whilst a 50 inch TV blares away in the corner is an everyday sight. We see addiction, abuse, neglect, everyday. Of course, you can just shrug and call it bad parenting, feckless lifestyles, or whatever other excuse you want to use as an easy label, but that misses the point. Whilst we have whole swathes of towns and cities living like this, and we do, no matter what the statistics say, we can't really say we're doing enough. It's not Live Aid poverty, it's a poverty of ideas, of hope, of opportunity. Some of the kids we meet have never been to a museum, barely get to climb a tree, live on crap food, but get to watch pirate movies on big screen tellies. I do not know the easy answer, but to say there's no Third World poverty here is only papering over the cracks.
Poverty as a single word is unhelpful. English is usually a good language for this, so we urgently need two different words: one to cover the concept of not having what you need to exist, and one to cover the concept of not having what you need to participate in the society you live in. Both concepts are important, both need addressing, but to compare the two is comparing apples and pears.
Once again Vanilla spreads crap all over the page and refuses to let me log in without resetting my password. In the meantime, what does the recent polling from 1950 tell us about National Liberal support for Ed?
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.
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.
Adam Smith = socialist. We are all socialists now, comrade.
Adam Smith talked about relative deprivation in a way closer to the absolute poverty definitions such as USA below. ‘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-laborer would be ashamed to appear in publick without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty, which, it is presumed, no body can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England.’ ‘Wealth of Nations’ (WN V.ii.k.5: pages 869-70; Glasgow Edition 1976). Not the same as relative poverty when defined as a % of average income.
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.
It is getting better, but there would need to be a forensic review as to whether the UK economy is better now, than four years ago. I have a feeling that some of the recovery is built on sand, as it relates to people spending savings, taking out credit, house sales increase (partly due to help to buy).
Speaking to a neighbour who works for a scientific equipment company, they mentioned that they had been very busy over the last six month, with orders from around the world. It does seem that the world economy is rebounding after the recession, with companies investing in new equipment. I hope that this continues and that UK companies are in a good position to compete. They just have to be careful to stay ahead of Asian competitors who have a habit of offering very similar technology at a reduced price. A chinese company has just bought a copper mine in Peru for $6 billion and if you read the financial press, they are gradually buying up the worlds resources. Something for the UK and other governments to keep an eye on, as this will give Chinese companies an advantage in the years ahead.
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.
For some reason, many people trust a fireman to sort things, even if we are really just a bunch of overpaid, lazy, over sexed tea drinkers.
Have they ever used you in a recruiting video? I'm half convinced already.
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.
This argument is getting a little silly.
What actually matters is not the definition per se, but whether the definition is any use in setting policy prescriptions.
If you look at Brown's strategy of focusing resources on the marginal individual, lifting them just over the threshold so he could claim that "x million have been lifted out of poverty" I think most people would accept that this was a gross misallocation of resources.
On this basis either (a) Brown was a uniquely bad man or (b) the concept of relative poverty as a % of median income is not helpful
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
"Relative poverty lines: These are defined in relation to the overall distribution of income or consumption in a country; for example, the poverty line could be set at 50 percent of the country’s mean income or consumption...
Ultimately, the choice of a poverty line is arbitrary. In order to ensure wide understanding and wide acceptance of a poverty line, it is therefore important to ensure that the poverty line chosen does resonate with social norms (with the common understanding of what represents a minimum). "
Carlotta would just have the poor eat cake and shut up
Since I haven't engaged in the 'Relative Poverty' discussion, this is just a simple baseless ad-hom attack - how very unlike you, or other posters of your bent.....
FWIW, I suspect those being discussed already eat too much cake......
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.
Adam Smith = socialist. We are all socialists now, comrade.
Adam Smith talked about relative deprivation in a way closer to the absolute poverty definitions such as USA below. ‘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-laborer would be ashamed to appear in publick without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty, which, it is presumed, no body can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England.’ ‘Wealth of Nations’ (WN V.ii.k.5: pages 869-70; Glasgow Edition 1976). Not the same as relative poverty when defined as a % of average income.
It is still a relative measure!
Income is just a shorthand for being able to afford a decent shirt, power, basic mod-cons etc etc.
This really isn't a hard concept.
At least @Isam grasps the concept of relative poverty, although he opposes it.
The PB Conservatives seem to oppose it yet then advocate it.
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!
I don't like the automatic calculation. These things require judgement
Having read the piece a couple of times, the allegations are that serious, he really needs to do one of the following
1) Demand an apology
2) Take legal action against The Times.
Otherwise, his opponents will really keep on using them against him because of the nature of the amount (60k) and that it went into his bank account.
Quite. Otherwise it styimies his dubious 'new politics' appeal. Voters everywhere unwrapping their Faragasm and realising it is just as crap as the Cleggasm they ordered in 2010
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.
Whilst I understand the view that poverty in this country isn't the same sort of poverty that we see in Live Aid videos, I still think that it's a fair way of describing some of the people who get left behind in this country.
We do Home Fire Safety Checks every day shift, where we get a target area, generated by Mosaic, and we knock on doors, offering fire safety advice and check or fit smoke detectors, but also, we've turned into social workers. We see some genuine hardship cases, so much so, that we've become experts at getting other organisations involved, be it social services, charities, police, housing authorities, local council, even Childline on a couple of occasions. For some reason, many people trust a fireman to sort things, even if we are really just a bunch of overpaid, lazy, over sexed tea drinkers. Seeing a toddler running around a filthy, cluttered house in just a dirty nappy, whilst a 50 inch TV blares away in the corner is an everyday sight. We see addiction, abuse, neglect, everyday. Of course, you can just shrug and call it bad parenting, feckless lifestyles, or whatever other excuse you want to use as an easy label, but that misses the point. Whilst we have whole swathes of towns and cities living like this, and we do, no matter what the statistics say, we can't really say we're doing enough. It's not Live Aid poverty, it's a poverty of ideas, of hope, of opportunity. Some of the kids we meet have never been to a museum, barely get to climb a tree, live on crap food, but get to watch pirate movies on big screen tellies. I do not know the easy answer, but to say there's no Third World poverty here is only papering over the cracks.
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
"Relative poverty lines: These are defined in relation to the overall distribution of income or consumption in a country; for example, the poverty line could be set at 50 percent of the country’s mean income or consumption...
Ultimately, the choice of a poverty line is arbitrary. In order to ensure wide understanding and wide acceptance of a poverty line, it is therefore important to ensure that the poverty line chosen does resonate with social norms (with the common understanding of what represents a minimum). "
Carlotta would just have the poor eat cake and shut up
Since I haven't engaged in the 'Relative Poverty' discussion, this is just a simple baseless ad-hom attack - how very unlike you, or other posters of your bent.....
FWIW, I suspect those being discussed already eat too much cake......
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.
Adam Smith = socialist. We are all socialists now, comrade.
Adam Smith talked about relative deprivation in a way closer to the absolute poverty definitions such as USA below. ‘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-laborer would be ashamed to appear in publick without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty, which, it is presumed, no body can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England.’ ‘Wealth of Nations’ (WN V.ii.k.5: pages 869-70; Glasgow Edition 1976). Not the same as relative poverty when defined as a % of average income.
It is still a relative measure! Income is just a shorthand for being able to afford a decent shirt, power, basic mod-cons etc etc. This really isn't a hard concept. At least @Isam grasps the concept of relative poverty, although he opposes it. The PB Conservatives seem to oppose it yet then advocate it. Which is it?
Bob, we are clearly failing to educate you on this so let us leave you to beliefs in the magic money tree and "ending relative poverty".
At the risk of being even more pedantic, isn't there a confusion over the famous Sarah Palin quote:“The difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.”
But then lots of people made mistakes over Mrs Palin, from John McCain downwards.
The 'lipstick on a pig' quote was popularised by Obama - but dates from earlier, and of course the oldest of them 'silk purse from sow's ear' is centuries old:
Having read the piece a couple of times, the allegations are that serious, he really needs to do one of the following
1) Demand an apology
2) Take legal action against The Times.
Otherwise, his opponents will really keep on using them against him because of the nature of the amount (60k) and that it went into his bank account.
Many are rightly very wary of bringing an action for defamation against a newspaper since section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 came into force. As Sir Stephen Sedley has observed, it is nothing less than a defamers' charter.
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.
This argument is getting a little silly.
What actually matters is not the definition per se, but whether the definition is any use in setting policy prescriptions.
If you look at Brown's strategy of focusing resources on the marginal individual, lifting them just over the threshold so he could claim that "x million have been lifted out of poverty" I think most people would accept that this was a gross misallocation of resources.
On this basis either (a) Brown was a uniquely bad man or (b) the concept of relative poverty as a % of median income is not helpful
Morris Dancer was complaining that relative poverty was an Ingsoc like corruption of the word by modern politicians.
I'd suggest that the concept that is not useful is that of a threshold style figure rather than a more spectrum-based analysis, to avoid a focus on the marginal, especially where it is to the exclusion of those lower down the scale..
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.
Adam Smith = socialist. We are all socialists now, comrade.
Adam Smith talked about relative deprivation in a way closer to the absolute poverty definitions such as USA below. ‘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-laborer would be ashamed to appear in publick without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty, which, it is presumed, no body can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England.’ ‘Wealth of Nations’ (WN V.ii.k.5: pages 869-70; Glasgow Edition 1976). Not the same as relative poverty when defined as a % of average income.
It is still a relative measure! Income is just a shorthand for being able to afford a decent shirt, power, basic mod-cons etc etc. This really isn't a hard concept. At least @Isam grasps the concept of relative poverty, although he opposes it. The PB Conservatives seem to oppose it yet then advocate it. Which is it?
Bob, we are clearly failing to educate you on this so let us leave you to beliefs in the magic money tree and "ending relative poverty".
It is you that doesn't grasp the concept of something being relative. Duh!
Sure, but the statistics on poverty are clearly completely unrelated to this phenomenon and thus are completely meaningless. We need to get a measure of poverty that concretely measures how many people lack the following:
- Healthcare - Education - Decent housing - Sufficient nutrition - Clothing - Safety of person - Legal representation if accused of crime - Parenting (for children)
If we actually measured this properly, we might be able to start being able to see where we should focus our attention. But the 60% of median income threshold is just a political agenda that doesn't help the problem.
Having read the piece a couple of times, the allegations are that serious, he really needs to do one of the following
1) Demand an apology
2) Take legal action against The Times.
Otherwise, his opponents will really keep on using them against him because of the nature of the amount (60k) and that it went into his bank account.
Many are rightly very wary of bringing an action for defamation against a newspaper since section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 came into force. As Sir Stephen Sedley has observed, it is nothing less than a defamers' charter.
I know, but I was thinking instigating legal action will give him some defence before the general election and people will be wary to repeat the allegations.
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.
Adam Smith = socialist. We are all socialists now, comrade.
Adam Smith talked about relative deprivation in a way closer to the absolute poverty definitions such as USA below. ‘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-laborer would be ashamed to appear in publick without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty, which, it is presumed, no body can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England.’ ‘Wealth of Nations’ (WN V.ii.k.5: pages 869-70; Glasgow Edition 1976). Not the same as relative poverty when defined as a % of average income.
The point is his definition centres around custom rather than trying to line him up with any absolute measures.
For Smith a shoeless Scottish man would be in poverty, but a shoeless Scottish woman would not.
Having read the piece a couple of times, the allegations are that serious, he really needs to do one of the following
1) Demand an apology
2) Take legal action against The Times.
Otherwise, his opponents will really keep on using them against him because of the nature of the amount (60k) and that it went into his bank account.
Quite. Otherwise it styimies his dubious 'new politics' appeal. Voters everywhere unwrapping their Faragasm and realising it is just as crap as the Cleggasm they ordered in 2010
Farage will run with the 'Establishment are out to get me' line, and do neither 1 nor 2.
HIGNFY made allegations about him last week, which he laughed off, leaving the viewer to make their own mind up as to their veracity.
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!
I don't like the automatic calculation. These things require judgement
Would just become a subjective mess.
In any event, you are still a supporter of a relative measure to poverty, to your credit.
I note Taffys above is another PB Conservative who understands and supports this.
Morris looking increasingly isolated.
I wonder if he will adapt his view given the arguments?
Having read the piece a couple of times, the allegations are that serious, he really needs to do one of the following
1) Demand an apology
2) Take legal action against The Times.
Otherwise, his opponents will really keep on using them against him because of the nature of the amount (60k) and that it went into his bank account.
Many are rightly very wary of bringing an action for defamation against a newspaper since section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 came into force. As Sir Stephen Sedley has observed, it is nothing less than a defamers' charter.
I know, but I was thinking instigating legal action will give him some defence before the general election and people will be wary to repeat the allegations.
You are assuming that this is all the Times have...
Usual strategy is to drip it out - wait for the denails - then move on to bucket of manure no 2, 3, 4....
Having read the piece a couple of times, the allegations are that serious, he really needs to do one of the following
1) Demand an apology
2) Take legal action against The Times.
Otherwise, his opponents will really keep on using them against him because of the nature of the amount (60k) and that it went into his bank account.
Many are rightly very wary of bringing an action for defamation against a newspaper since section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 came into force. As Sir Stephen Sedley has observed, it is nothing less than a defamers' charter.
I know, but I was thinking instigating legal action will give him some defence before the general election and people will be wary to repeat the allegations.
Sure, but the statistics on poverty are clearly completely unrelated to this phenomenon and thus are completely meaningless. We need to get a measure of poverty that concretely measures how many people lack the following:
- Healthcare - Education - Decent housing - Sufficient nutrition - Clothing - Safety of person - Legal representation if accused of crime - Parenting (for children)
If we actually measured this properly, we might be able to start being able to see where we should focus our attention. But the 60% of median income threshold is just a political agenda that doesn't help the problem.
I don't deny that. I think antifrank expressed my sentiments perfectly down thread, far better than I did. We have two types of poverty in this country. I think social poverty is the greater threat.
Relative poverty is just that. Compared to Bill Gates, we're all in relative poverty. Compared to most people in the 1930s, we're all rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
The United Kingdom and the Empire was at its apotheosis when poverty was rampant amongst the lower classes.
Poverty was a price worth paying for the Empire.
I know you're joking, but the fact the Empire largely exploited its colonial subjects rather than try to uplift them was the main reason it came apart. Not only would the latter have improve sentiment towards the British, it would also have made the Empire as a whole a lot economically stronger, and more able to resist the German threat throughout the 20th Century.
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.
The Tories lead on "the economy in general" by 33-22. This is predominantly Tory voters, 93% of whom agree. 26% of current LibDems, 27% of UKIP voters and 6% of Labour voters also think the Tories best on this. (Conversely current LibDems prefer Labour on unemployment and the NHS by more than 2-1 margins.)
We're dancing on the head of a pin here (not sure we quite qualify as angels) - e.g. 26% of current LibDems is 2.5% of the electorate, and even they aren't actually planning to vote Tory. The Conservatives can rightly be pleased that they've got the solid endorsement of their own supporters on this. But the scope for progress on the basis of "You think we're best on the economy, so vote for us, dammit" is limited - only about 8% of the electorate (2.5% planning to vote LD, 3% planning to vote UKIP and 2% planning to vote Lab) both think they are best on this issue AND are not already planning to vote for them, and there will be a reason why that 8% is planning to vote elsewhere - that they care more about the NHS, immigration or whatever.
Sure, but the statistics on poverty are clearly completely unrelated to this phenomenon and thus are completely meaningless. We need to get a measure of poverty that concretely measures how many people lack the following:
- Healthcare - Education - Decent housing - Sufficient nutrition - Clothing - Safety of person - Legal representation if accused of crime - Parenting (for children)
If we actually measured this properly, we might be able to start being able to see where we should focus our attention. But the 60% of median income threshold is just a political agenda that doesn't help the problem.
I don't deny that. I think antifrank expressed my sentiments perfectly down thread, far better than I did. We have two types of poverty in this country. I think social poverty is the greater threat.
Which type of poverty do you believe I defined, what is the other one, and how would you define it?
Having read the piece a couple of times, the allegations are that serious, he really needs to do one of the following
1) Demand an apology
2) Take legal action against The Times.
Otherwise, his opponents will really keep on using them against him because of the nature of the amount (60k) and that it went into his bank account.
Many are rightly very wary of bringing an action for defamation against a newspaper since section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 came into force. As Sir Stephen Sedley has observed, it is nothing less than a defamers' charter.
I know, but I was thinking instigating legal action will give him some defence before the general election and people will be wary to repeat the allegations.
You are assuming that this is all the Times have...
Usual strategy is to drip it out - wait for the denails - then move on to bucket of manure no 2, 3, 4....
All Farage needs to do is to open the books of his Littlehampton office to independent audit and/or public scrutiny.
We know the books exist. David Samuel-Camps has already stated he kept them.
I accuse David Cameron's Witney Office of abusing expenses. I have no evidence or separate witness, but all he has to do is open up the books to public scrutiny.
Having read the piece a couple of times, the allegations are that serious, he really needs to do one of the following
1) Demand an apology
2) Take legal action against The Times.
Otherwise, his opponents will really keep on using them against him because of the nature of the amount (60k) and that it went into his bank account.
Many are rightly very wary of bringing an action for defamation against a newspaper since section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 came into force. As Sir Stephen Sedley has observed, it is nothing less than a defamers' charter.
I know, but I was thinking instigating legal action will give him some defence before the general election and people will be wary to repeat the allegations.
I wonder how he'll pay for it?
He will need a lot of money, if he takes it to the ECHR.
Having read the piece a couple of times, the allegations are that serious, he really needs to do one of the following
1) Demand an apology
2) Take legal action against The Times.
Otherwise, his opponents will really keep on using them against him because of the nature of the amount (60k) and that it went into his bank account.
Quite. Otherwise it styimies his dubious 'new politics' appeal. Voters everywhere unwrapping their Faragasm and realising it is just as crap as the Cleggasm they ordered in 2010
Farage will run with the 'Establishment are out to get me' line, and do neither 1 nor 2.
HIGNFY made allegations about him last week, which he laughed off, leaving the viewer to make their own mind up as to their veracity.
There was some booing though; on reflection not sure whether it was at Farage or the allegations.
Was watching with a former collegue of Farage's who was defintely of the opinion that it OUGHT to have been OF Farage. Doesn't like him one bit, jot or even tittle!
The United Kingdom and the Empire was at its apotheosis when poverty was rampant amongst the lower classes.
Poverty was a price worth paying for the Empire.
I know you're joking, but the fact the Empire largely exploited its colonial subjects rather than try to uplift them was the main reason it came apart. Not only would the latter have improve sentiment towards the British, it would also have made the Empire as a whole a lot economically stronger, and more able to resist the German threat throughout the 20th Century.
One of the Empire's proudest achievements is that the largest volunteer Army in history came from India and Pakistan & Bangladesh.
The Empire must have done something right to make people want to fight for their colonial masters.
"It's not Live Aid poverty, it's a poverty of ideas, of hope, of opportunity."
Huzzah! Mr. Stopper, makes points about real poverty in England today. There are a relatively small number of people who do live in, if you will, traditional poverty, most of them invisible to the benefits system. There are an enormous number that live in this real poverty that Mr. Stopper outlines, and its a poverty that has nothing to do with 1-2 holidays a year or linen shirts, but it is one that is really soul destroying for the individual, damaging to the national well-being and one that nobody in politics wants to talk about, and it is getting worse not better.
Whilst I understand the view that poverty in this country isn't the same sort of poverty that we see in Live Aid videos, I still think that it's a fair way of describing some of the people who get left behind in this country.
We do Home Fire Safety Checks every day shift, where we get a target area, generated by Mosaic, and we knock on doors, offering fire safety advice and check or fit smoke detectors, but also, we've turned into social workers. We see some genuine hardship cases, so much so, that we've become experts at getting other organisations involved, be it social services, charities, police, housing authorities, local council, even Childline on a couple of occasions. For some reason, many people trust a fireman to sort things, even if we are really just a bunch of overpaid, lazy, over sexed tea drinkers. Seeing a toddler running around a filthy, cluttered house in just a dirty nappy, whilst a 50 inch TV blares away in the corner is an everyday sight. We see addiction, abuse, neglect, everyday. Of course, you can just shrug and call it bad parenting, feckless lifestyles, or whatever other excuse you want to use as an easy label, but that misses the point. Whilst we have whole swathes of towns and cities living like this, and we do, no matter what the statistics say, we can't really say we're doing enough. It's not Live Aid poverty, it's a poverty of ideas, of hope, of opportunity. Some of the kids we meet have never been to a museum, barely get to climb a tree, live on crap food, but get to watch pirate movies on big screen tellies. I do not know the easy answer, but to say there's no Third World poverty here is only papering over the cracks.
That is the contender for post of the year not some rehashed, plagiarism.
Compared to most people in the 1930s, we're all rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
True but that's of little consolation to most people. They compare themselves with their peers. And if you're the one kid on the estate that can;t afford a mobile phone or the right football boots, it can be a miserable existence.
Then again, it can also be a miserable existence if you;re the kid at certain surrey public schools that only drives an old banger....
Having read the piece a couple of times, the allegations are that serious, he really needs to do one of the following
1) Demand an apology
2) Take legal action against The Times.
Otherwise, his opponents will really keep on using them against him because of the nature of the amount (60k) and that it went into his bank account.
Quite. Otherwise it styimies his dubious 'new politics' appeal. Voters everywhere unwrapping their Faragasm and realising it is just as crap as the Cleggasm they ordered in 2010
Farage will run with the 'Establishment are out to get me' line, and do neither 1 nor 2.
HIGNFY made allegations about him last week, which he laughed off, leaving the viewer to make their own mind up as to their veracity.
There was some booing though; on reflection not sure whether it was at Farage or the allegations.
Was watching with a former collegue of Farage's who was defintely of the opinion that it OUGHT to have been OF Farage. Doesn't like him one bit, jot or even tittle!
The United Kingdom and the Empire was at its apotheosis when poverty was rampant amongst the lower classes.
Poverty was a price worth paying for the Empire.
I know you're joking, but the fact the Empire largely exploited its colonial subjects rather than try to uplift them was the main reason it came apart. Not only would the latter have improve sentiment towards the British, it would also have made the Empire as a whole a lot economically stronger, and more able to resist the German threat throughout the 20th Century.
One of the Empire's proudest achievements is that the largest volunteer Army in history came from India and Pakistan & Bangladesh.
The Empire must have done something right to make people want to fight for their colonial masters.
Of course it did some things right. The West Africa squadron, the banning of sati, the Indian railways, the Indian Civil Service, etc.
But the main reason subjects from the subcontinent fought for Britain was because they thought Britain would repay the effort by giving them self-rule.
Compared to most people in the 1930s, we're all rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
True but that's of little consolation to most people. They compare themselves with their peers. And if you're the one kid on the estate that can;t afford a mobile phone or the right football boots, it can be a miserable existence.
Then again, it can also be a miserable existence if you;re the kid at certain surrey public schools that only drives an old banger....
The question is whether the government should be taking efforts to address people's envy.
"It's not Live Aid poverty, it's a poverty of ideas, of hope, of opportunity."
Huzzah! Mr. Stopper, makes points about real poverty in England today. There are a relatively small number of people who do live in, if you will, traditional poverty, most of them invisible to the benefits system. There are an enormous number that live in this real poverty that Mr. Stopper outlines, and its a poverty that has nothing to do with 1-2 holidays a year or linen shirts, but it is one that is really soul destroying for the individual, damaging to the national well-being and one that nobody in politics wants to talk about, and it is getting worse not better.
Whilst I understand the view that poverty in this country isn't the same sort of poverty that we see in Live Aid videos, I still think that it's a fair way of describing some of the people who get left behind in this country.
We do Home Fire Safety Checks every day shift, where we get a target area, generated by Mosaic, and we knock on doors, offering fire safety advice and check or fit smoke detectors, but also, we've turned into social workers. We see some genuine hardship cases, so much so, that we've become experts at getting other organisations involved, be it social services, charities, police, housing authorities, local council, even Childline on a couple of occasions. For some reason, many people trust a fireman to sort things, even if we are really just a bunch of overpaid, lazy, over sexed tea drinkers. Seeing a toddler running around a filthy, cluttered house in just a dirty nappy, whilst a 50 inch TV blares away in the corner is an everyday sight. We see addiction, abuse, neglect, everyday. Of course, you can just shrug and call it bad parenting, feckless lifestyles, or whatever other excuse you want to use as an easy label, but that misses the point. Whilst we have whole swathes of towns and cities living like this, and we do, no matter what the statistics say, we can't really say we're doing enough. It's not Live Aid poverty, it's a poverty of ideas, of hope, of opportunity. Some of the kids we meet have never been to a museum, barely get to climb a tree, live on crap food, but get to watch pirate movies on big screen tellies. I do not know the easy answer, but to say there's no Third World poverty here is only papering over the cracks.
That is the contender for post of the year not some rehashed, plagiarism.
Worth making the point that I have not applied for the title.
Nor do I claim to deserve it.
I was merely rejigging a PB meme for reading interest, in passing.
Nothing more.
This seems to offend some, who prefer stock cliches such as: "ad-hom attack" - among the most teeth-grindlingly awful PBisms ever conceived.
The United Kingdom and the Empire was at its apotheosis when poverty was rampant amongst the lower classes.
Poverty was a price worth paying for the Empire.
I know you're joking, but the fact the Empire largely exploited its colonial subjects rather than try to uplift them was the main reason it came apart. Not only would the latter have improve sentiment towards the British, it would also have made the Empire as a whole a lot economically stronger, and more able to resist the German threat throughout the 20th Century.
One of the Empire's proudest achievements is that the largest volunteer Army in history came from India and Pakistan & Bangladesh.
The Empire must have done something right to make people want to fight for their colonial masters.
Of course it did some things right. The West Africa squadron, the banning of sati, the Indian railways, the Indian Civil Service, etc.
But the main reason subjects from the subcontinent fought for Britain was because they thought Britain would repay the effort by giving them self-rule.
Mr Socrates, Do you want to provide some evidence for that last statement? Not only does it seem logically inconsistent, but flies in the face of all my reading of the Indian army in WWI and WWII.
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.
Seeing a toddler running around a filthy, cluttered house in just a dirty nappy, whilst a 50 inch TV blares away in the corner is an everyday sight.
Great post!
I would argue that these people are living in 'poverty', whether they are on 59% or 61% of median income.....
Mr Firestopper, do you work in S. Essex? I can think of a few places where I used to go where that description applies.
The dreadful problem is that the toddler will too often grow up with the "ambitions" of his or her parents. And that's the cycle we have to break.
I think Mr. Stopper works in the Midlands, but I have seen the same behaviours as he describes in Sussex and in London. Its a national problem It is getting worse. However, it doesn't suit any political party's narrative to even acknowledge it, much less do anything about it.
All Farage needs to do is to open the books of his Littlehampton office to independent audit and/or public scrutiny.
We know the books exist. David Samuel-Camps has already stated he kept them.
I accuse David Cameron's Witney Office of abusing expenses. I have no evidence or separate witness, but all he has to do is open up the books to public scrutiny.
No problem at all, Socrates.
Just send an email to office@witneyconservatives[dot]com marked for the attention of Richard Stallabrass and you will get a full answer to your query.
"London has become a citadel, sealed off from the rest of Britain Ukip and Scottish nationalism are symptoms of public hostility to the overweening power and dominance of the capital"
The sooner London declares independence the better. It's already a foreign statelet to most Brits...
The TBTF mega banks can't survive - at least not at a 33:1 capital ratio - without tens of millions of tax serfs who are legally obliged to backstop potential losses.
All Farage needs to do is to open the books of his Littlehampton office to independent audit and/or public scrutiny.
We know the books exist. David Samuel-Camps has already stated he kept them.
I accuse David Cameron's Witney Office of abusing expenses. I have no evidence or separate witness, but all he has to do is open up the books to public scrutiny.
No problem at all, Socrates.
Just send an email to office@witneyconservatives[dot]com marked for the attention of Richard Stallabrass and you will get a full answer to your query.
How long would Farage get away with a "do nothing" strategy? Will it all go away? It is after all only the media.
All Farage needs to do is to open the books of his Littlehampton office to independent audit and/or public scrutiny.
We know the books exist. David Samuel-Camps has already stated he kept them.
I accuse David Cameron's Witney Office of abusing expenses. I have no evidence or separate witness, but all he has to do is open up the books to public scrutiny.
No problem at all, Socrates.
Just send an email to office@witneyconservatives[dot]com marked for the attention of Richard Stallabrass and you will get a full answer to your query.
Does Farage have an email address that we can contact to get a copy of the books for his office?
If the media want to talk about the vast sums paid to MEPs - directly or indirectly - to keep them sweet over only being part of a toy parliament who's primary purpose is the provide camouflage for the entirely anti-democratic commission then he should talk about it - at great length.
"...the next Welsh Political Barometer poll (conducted collaboratively by YouGov, ITV-Wales and us here at the Wales Governance Centre) is due to be conducted in mid-May. We expect to publish results in the week of the European Parliament elections."
All Farage needs to do is to open the books of his Littlehampton office to independent audit and/or public scrutiny.
We know the books exist. David Samuel-Camps has already stated he kept them.
ou
I accuse David Cameron's Witney Office of abusing expenses. I have no evidence or separate witness, but all he has to do is open up the books to public scrutiny.
No problem at all, Socrates.
Just send an email to office@witneyconservatives[dot]com marked for the attention of Richard Stallabrass and you will get a full answer to your query.
Does Farage have an email address that we can contact to get a copy of the books for his office?
You might be able to contact him through the Old Etonian Association.
Just send a jpeg picture of yourself wearing an OE tie and they may oblige.
All Farage needs to do is to open the books of his Littlehampton office to independent audit and/or public scrutiny.
We know the books exist. David Samuel-Camps has already stated he kept them.
ou
I accuse David Cameron's Witney Office of abusing expenses. I have no evidence or separate witness, but all he has to do is open up the books to public scrutiny.
No problem at all, Socrates.
Just send an email to office@witneyconservatives[dot]com marked for the attention of Richard Stallabrass and you will get a full answer to your query.
Does Farage have an email address that we can contact to get a copy of the books for his office?
You might be able to contact him through the Old Etonian Association.
Just send a jpeg picture of yourself wearing an OE tie and they may oblige.
Poverty as a single word is unhelpful. blockquote>
I'm currently reading The Time Traveller's Guide to Elizabethan England. An excellent book. It describes Exeter, then one of the top 10 cities in England, with a population of 8,300. There were around 2,400 vagrants, widows and beggars who lived in poverty, as classified at the time. Some starved on the streets.
You could say that absolute poverty, then, was around 25% of the population. Probably another 60% worked the land or in service. They spent almost all of their income on rent, food and clothing. There were a class of wealthy merchants, professionals and gentlemen on top of that. The very top would include the knights, and the peers of the realm. Poverty was pretty clear because society was simple. If you were a free established member of a community and could afford food, clothing, shelter, and to celebrate the various holy days, you were probably 'ok'. The richest didn't have to work, and wouldn't be victims of food prices, but couldn't avoid disease or war much more effectively.
Today, I'm not so sure. Taking a southern English town as a base (I'm guessing here) there's probably a semi-hidden 5% I rarely see (who are in real poverty, with no permanent home - they're either on the streets, or shelters, or in B&B accommodation. They don't starve, but have pretty miserable lives. They will include quite a few with real addiction and health problems.
The council/housing association estates probably account for 20%. There will be a big difference in wealth across this category, but most don't have much money. Most won't have cars, but they will have TVs and electricity. Probably don't travel much. Many are really struggling.
There will be private renters on top of that. I don't how many. Some are transiting (saving to buy their own home), others students, others can't afford a home. Quite a small market around me. Probably around 10%.
The owner occupiers are the majority. Probably around 60%. This covers a huge range of those mortgaged to the hilt, eating baked beans each month, to those with families trying to make ends meet, to those sitting on huge equity (with no mortgage) going on cruises each year.
The final 5% are the real wealthy, those on very high salaries of £100k+ a year or thereabouts, who don't really struggle at all, except through choice when they overstretch themselves on private school fees.
So what do you choose as your baseline? Real poverty is probably around 5-10%. The policy focus then probably needs to be on those who struggle to participate in society (travel, transport, the odd-break, giving their kids a decent day out etc.) because they are always trying to make ends meet. Normally due to a mixture of high food, fuel, transport and housing costs. They probably account for a further 25-30%.
A poverty measure and a quality of life measure would perhaps both be helpful.
If the media want to talk about the vast sums paid to MEPs - directly or indirectly - to keep them sweet over only being part of a toy parliament who's primary purpose is the provide camouflage for the entirely anti-democratic commission then he should talk about it - at great length.
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.
This argument is getting a little silly.
What actually matters is not the definition per se, but whether the definition is any use in setting policy prescriptions.
If you look at Brown's strategy of focusing resources on the marginal individual, lifting them just over the threshold so he could claim that "x million have been lifted out of poverty" I think most people would accept that this was a gross misallocation of resources.
On this basis either (a) Brown was a uniquely bad man or (b) the concept of relative poverty as a % of median income is not helpful
Morris Dancer was complaining that relative poverty was an Ingsoc like corruption of the word by modern politicians.
I'd suggest that the concept that is not useful is that of a threshold style figure rather than a more spectrum-based analysis, to avoid a focus on the marginal, especially where it is to the exclusion of those lower down the scale..
Spectrum based analysis is always useful. I'm a great believer in Goodhart's Law:
All Farage needs to do is to open the books of his Littlehampton office to independent audit and/or public scrutiny.
We know the books exist. David Samuel-Camps has already stated he kept them.
ou
I accuse David Cameron's Witney Office of abusing expenses. I have no evidence or separate witness, but all he has to do is open up the books to public scrutiny.
No problem at all, Socrates.
Just send an email to office@witneyconservatives[dot]com marked for the attention of Richard Stallabrass and you will get a full answer to your query.
Does Farage have an email address that we can contact to get a copy of the books for his office?
You might be able to contact him through the Old Etonian Association.
Just send a jpeg picture of yourself wearing an OE tie and they may oblige.
I use mine as a belt. I trust that's acceptable.
Perfectly. Provided it is around Innocent_Abroad's* or College's neck.
BBC - "Italy's former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi must do one year's community service over tax fraud, a Milan court has ruled."
If TSE is still looking for thread ideas, suggestions as to what this 'community service' should entail could be both politically significant and informative. - or just a hoot...!
Interesting discussion of poverty, especially Twisted's thought-provoking post. MPs and indeed candidates see some of this too and are also called on to help - like fire-fighters, we're seen as people who can maybe help sort things out.
It's worth keeping in mind that attitudes to a "proper upbringing" vary. Twisted is worried that the kids have never climbed a tree or been to a museum. I've never climbed a tree and remember the occasional enforced childhood museum visit by the school with profound boredom, but I had a pretty good childhood by most definitions, mainly because my parents were keenly interested in me and we had constant interactions at every level. That is the real problem that Twisted rightly identifies - there's nothing wrong with kids watching big TV screens, but many get parked there for lack of interest, which has really serious effects.
This is a political blog, so the question is what the Government can usefully do. Attempts to "interfere" with bad parenting get short shrift in Britain, but I'd like to see some parenting classes in secondary schools to have a shot at planting ideas about engagement with and encouragement of kids. As for poverty, part of the issue above is that parents (often single parents) are really hard-pressed - yes, they can buy a TV on HP but life is a struggle all the same. The left-wing response isn't the straw man of making everyone equally wealthy but pushing back the fringes of the gulf between rich and poor, with high taxation of the very rich and support of people on low incomes as well as good public services including childcare help. This isn't a fantasy - it would be possible for us to adopt a Scandinavian approach if we wanted to, but we try to have a welfare state on the cheap, which is neither one thing nor the other.
The United Kingdom and the Empire was at its apotheosis when poverty was rampant amongst the lower classes.
Poverty was a price worth paying for the Empire.
I know you're joking, but the fact the Empire largely exploited its colonial subjects rather than try to uplift them was the main reason it came apart. Not only would the latter have improve sentiment towards the British, it would also have made the Empire as a whole a lot economically stronger, and more able to resist the German threat throughout the 20th Century.
One of the Empire's proudest achievements is that the largest volunteer Army in history came from India and Pakistan & Bangladesh.
The Empire must have done something right to make people want to fight for their colonial masters.
Of course it did some things right. The West Africa squadron, the banning of sati, the Indian railways, the Indian Civil Service, etc.
But the main reason subjects from the subcontinent fought for Britain was because they thought Britain would repay the effort by giving them self-rule.
I have thought for some time that the period between 1918 and 1930 was a lost opportunity to give a united India devolution and home-rule. Victorian attitudes to empire and race persisted for too long. The attempt by Baldwin in 1935 to do it through the India Act was too little, too late.
Although India would (to put it mildly) have struggled to match the growth of Canada and Australia is pretty obvious, but if it had become a successful dominion in partnership with the UK, I struggle to see how its subsequent stability, growth and development wouldn't have been much better.
It seems that a large proportion of people who voted Lib Dem at the last general election were voting against Conservative rather than for Lib Dem. This would have been primarily where Lib Dem were in second place.
They still seem to be against the Conservatives so may still vote Lib Dem to keep the Conservative's out.
Of course because of the coalition some ex Lib Dem voters will now hate Clegg more than Cameron and will not vote Lib Dem even holding their nose.
I don't like the automatic calculation. These things require judgement
Would just become a subjective mess.
In any event, you are still a supporter of a relative measure to poverty, to your credit.
I note Taffys above is another PB Conservative who understands and supports this.
Morris looking increasingly isolated.
I wonder if he will adapt his view given the arguments?
Saying it requires judgement does not mean the same as having no metrics.
"Poverty" is a broader concept as Socrates said - education, hope, cultural enrichment, life opportunities - than just the material/income statistics.
"Relative poverty" as used by the last government/innumerable pressure groups is a downright harmful approach as it leads to a focus on precisely the wrong actions
Lots of people applauding TFS's post. No remedies though!!
Mr. Taffys, we didn't get into this mess overnight and there is no magic wand that will get us out of it. The answer will eventually be, "Education, education, education", but there are, I think, are lot of steps that have to be put in place before that can even start. To begin with we, society at large, have to begin with admitting there is a problem that has to be addressed and I just don't see that happening because it is not in the interest of any political party to do so - Cameron dipped a toe in the water with his broken Britain idea and looked what happened to that. That 50 inch television Mr. Stopper mentioned represents Gordon Brown's idea of lifting a family out of poverty but, really, just goes to prove the point that going form just below some line to just above doesn't alleviate real poverty.
Any reformed addict will tell you that the cure starts with admitting the addiction. Until the politicians will admit the problem there can be no start for the cure.
Labour's economic strategy will lie in ruins tomorrow. Inflation down and earnings up. I don't know what they are going to try and tackle next but one hopes they choose more wisely since their last two efforts have not worked, growth is the highest in the G7 and wages will be higher in May 2015 than May 2010 in real terms using CPI. It's going to be painful for Labour when they central economic argument falls on deaf ears as incomes recover and the savings rate begins to rise. If corporate investment rises as the levels that have been forecast (something I remain sceptical of) then their last plank falls away as there will have been a rebalancing of sorts by the time the election rolls around.
Miliband needs to weild an axe and get rid of his whole economic team and replace them before the election with people untainted by these failures.
I've known (and been friends with) such families in the past, up in the Midlands. There were two distinct types IME, which can be typified in two examples: one where the family had troubles, but were struggling to send a daughter to university. And another family, where the parents had no hopes or ambitions for their children.
These were at the extremes; the other families were arrayed in between.
Both of these families were nice to know once they allowed you to be friends. Both were, at times, a real laugh. But one couple had ambition for their children, and the other had none. There were histories of physical or sexual abuse in the history of both families, and worklessness.
Don't underestimate the lack of confidence that comes from factors such as being long-term unemployed, or being constantly told that you're no good, a scrounger, etc.
As Nick says, I don't think too many of these Lib-Lab switchers are coming back. Some might be tempted by the Greens, where they're standing, but Ed's lefty positioning is probably going to hold on to most of these.
So the Tories need Lab-Con swing (and Lib-Con swing too). It's not that implausible - as Jack says previous Labour governments have lost votes in the next election after losing power. The swing from Con-Lab 2008-2010 indicates these voters exist - but in they end they stuck with the status quo ("clung to nurse") or switched to the Cleggasm. I suspect some of them may be tempted to go with the status quo again.
Labour have the most united left in generations and should surely be much further clear than they are; the explanation must be that the recession and the change of government has pushed the country rightwards.
Will what Labour currently have be enough? I doubt it. NOM, Tories most seats.
Comments
I think you have a rather optimistic view on Scotland's bargaining position.
You want things in the gift of the rUK, which barely applies the other way round.....the big thing rUK want isn't on the table, but it's only one thing and does not affect day-to-day issues......
And if there are breakers, remember "who is in the bigger boat".....
Yes the one full of holes
That's similar to the point Mike is making in the threader.
Have a read.
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/welfarereform.pdf
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
At the risk of being even more pedantic, isn't there a confusion over the famous Sarah Palin quote:“The difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.”
But then lots of people made mistakes over Mrs Palin, from John McCain downwards.
Ok without getting all picky, there should be a line under which we can say people are living in poverty....
Able to eat, clothe family, live in a home with a roof, clean water etc
Basically what 99% of people in England can do
But it shouldn't be relative to how other people are living
That's the politics of envy
A 13-year old who couldn't afford a mobile phone in England (if such a person exists) could suffer far more than a similar 13-year old in (say) sub saharan Africa.
The English teenager would feel his poverty more because everyone else could afford a phone (even though, because of welfare, the poor English kid would be materially much better off than the African).
But then lots of people made mistakes over Mrs Palin, from John McCain downwards.
Doh! Orwell teaches us to avoid repeating a cliche.
Adapting one to boost reading interest is welcomed.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/09/who_first_put_lipstick_on_a_pig.html
Somehow I don't think our tim-mini-me will be making the Dictionary of Quotations.....
Whilst I understand the view that poverty in this country isn't the same sort of poverty that we see in Live Aid videos, I still think that it's a fair way of describing some of the people who get left behind in this country.
We do Home Fire Safety Checks every day shift, where we get a target area, generated by Mosaic, and we knock on doors, offering fire safety advice and check or fit smoke detectors, but also, we've turned into social workers. We see some genuine hardship cases, so much so, that we've become experts at getting other organisations involved, be it social services, charities, police, housing authorities, local council, even Childline on a couple of occasions. For some reason, many people trust a fireman to sort things, even if we are really just a bunch of overpaid, lazy, over sexed tea drinkers.
Seeing a toddler running around a filthy, cluttered house in just a dirty nappy, whilst a 50 inch TV blares away in the corner is an everyday sight. We see addiction, abuse, neglect, everyday.
Of course, you can just shrug and call it bad parenting, feckless lifestyles, or whatever other excuse you want to use as an easy label, but that misses the point.
Whilst we have whole swathes of towns and cities living like this, and we do, no matter what the statistics say, we can't really say we're doing enough.
It's not Live Aid poverty, it's a poverty of ideas, of hope, of opportunity. Some of the kids we meet have never been to a museum, barely get to climb a tree, live on crap food, but get to watch pirate movies on big screen tellies. I do not know the easy answer, but to say there's no Third World poverty here is only papering over the cracks.
Having read the piece a couple of times, the allegations are that serious, he really needs to do one of the following
1) Demand an apology
2) Take legal action against The Times.
Otherwise, his opponents will really keep on using them against him because of the nature of the amount (60k) and that it went into his bank account.
In the meantime, what does the recent polling from 1950 tell us about National Liberal support for Ed?
‘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-laborer would be ashamed to appear in publick without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty, which, it is presumed, no body can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England.’
‘Wealth of Nations’ (WN V.ii.k.5: pages 869-70; Glasgow Edition 1976).
Not the same as relative poverty when defined as a % of average income.
Speaking to a neighbour who works for a scientific equipment company, they mentioned that they had been very busy over the last six month, with orders from around the world. It does seem that the world economy is rebounding after the recession, with companies investing in new equipment. I hope that this continues and that UK companies are in a good position to compete. They just have to be careful to stay ahead of Asian competitors who have a habit of offering very similar technology at a reduced price. A chinese company has just bought a copper mine in Peru for $6 billion and if you read the financial press, they are gradually buying up the worlds resources. Something for the UK and other governments to keep an eye on, as this will give Chinese companies an advantage in the years ahead.
What actually matters is not the definition per se, but whether the definition is any use in setting policy prescriptions.
If you look at Brown's strategy of focusing resources on the marginal individual, lifting them just over the threshold so he could claim that "x million have been lifted out of poverty" I think most people would accept that this was a gross misallocation of resources.
On this basis either (a) Brown was a uniquely bad man or (b) the concept of relative poverty as a % of median income is not helpful
Poverty was a price worth paying for the Empire.
FWIW, I suspect those being discussed already eat too much cake......
Income is just a shorthand for being able to afford a decent shirt, power, basic mod-cons etc etc.
This really isn't a hard concept.
At least @Isam grasps the concept of relative poverty, although he opposes it.
The PB Conservatives seem to oppose it yet then advocate it.
Which is it?
Voters everywhere unwrapping their Faragasm and realising it is just as crap as the Cleggasm they ordered in 2010
That is an excellent post, TFS. I am reminded of that scene in the Matrix where NEO sees the giant fields of human 'batteries' for the first time.
You have to ask yourself whose purpose it serves to keep generation after generation in a suspended animation lifestyle like the one you describe.
I'll stick to stock cliches in future to please you.
FFS.
I'd suggest that the concept that is not useful is that of a threshold style figure rather than a more spectrum-based analysis, to avoid a focus on the marginal, especially where it is to the exclusion of those lower down the scale..
Sure, but the statistics on poverty are clearly completely unrelated to this phenomenon and thus are completely meaningless. We need to get a measure of poverty that concretely measures how many people lack the following:
- Healthcare
- Education
- Decent housing
- Sufficient nutrition
- Clothing
- Safety of person
- Legal representation if accused of crime
- Parenting (for children)
If we actually measured this properly, we might be able to start being able to see where we should focus our attention. But the 60% of median income threshold is just a political agenda that doesn't help the problem.
For Smith a shoeless Scottish man would be in poverty, but a shoeless Scottish woman would not.
HIGNFY made allegations about him last week, which he laughed off, leaving the viewer to make their own mind up as to their veracity.
In any event, you are still a supporter of a relative measure to poverty, to your credit.
I note Taffys above is another PB Conservative who understands and supports this.
Morris looking increasingly isolated.
I wonder if he will adapt his view given the arguments?
Usual strategy is to drip it out - wait for the denails - then move on to bucket of manure no 2, 3, 4....
All Farage needs to do is to open the books of his Littlehampton office to independent audit and/or public scrutiny.
We know the books exist. David Samuel-Camps has already stated he kept them.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/04/15/update-labour-lead-5/
The Tories lead on "the economy in general" by 33-22. This is predominantly Tory voters, 93% of whom agree. 26% of current LibDems, 27% of UKIP voters and 6% of Labour voters also think the Tories best on this. (Conversely current LibDems prefer Labour on unemployment and the NHS by more than 2-1 margins.)
We're dancing on the head of a pin here (not sure we quite qualify as angels) - e.g. 26% of current LibDems is 2.5% of the electorate, and even they aren't actually planning to vote Tory. The Conservatives can rightly be pleased that they've got the solid endorsement of their own supporters on this. But the scope for progress on the basis of "You think we're best on the economy, so vote for us, dammit" is limited - only about 8% of the electorate (2.5% planning to vote LD, 3% planning to vote UKIP and 2% planning to vote Lab) both think they are best on this issue AND are not already planning to vote for them, and there will be a reason why that 8% is planning to vote elsewhere - that they care more about the NHS, immigration or whatever.
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/14/7_worst_right_wing_moments_of_the_week_— stephen_colbert_is_destroying_america_apparently_partner/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
Everyone else will need new Irony meters
Was watching with a former collegue of Farage's who was defintely of the opinion that it OUGHT to have been OF Farage. Doesn't like him one bit, jot or even tittle!
The Empire must have done something right to make people want to fight for their colonial masters.
Huzzah! Mr. Stopper, makes points about real poverty in England today. There are a relatively small number of people who do live in, if you will, traditional poverty, most of them invisible to the benefits system. There are an enormous number that live in this real poverty that Mr. Stopper outlines, and its a poverty that has nothing to do with 1-2 holidays a year or linen shirts, but it is one that is really soul destroying for the individual, damaging to the national well-being and one that nobody in politics wants to talk about, and it is getting worse not better.
In case you missed it, here it is again That is the contender for post of the year not some rehashed, plagiarism.
True but that's of little consolation to most people. They compare themselves with their peers. And if you're the one kid on the estate that can;t afford a mobile phone or the right football boots, it can be a miserable existence.
Then again, it can also be a miserable existence if you;re the kid at certain surrey public schools that only drives an old banger....
But the main reason subjects from the subcontinent fought for Britain was because they thought Britain would repay the effort by giving them self-rule.
The dreadful problem is that the toddler will too often grow up with the "ambitions" of his or her parents. And that's the cycle we have to break.
Nor do I claim to deserve it.
I was merely rejigging a PB meme for reading interest, in passing.
Nothing more.
This seems to offend some, who prefer stock cliches such as: "ad-hom attack" - among the most teeth-grindlingly awful PBisms ever conceived.
"They compare themselves with their peers."
Indeed they do.
If the "four Yorkshiremen" had lived in deepest Surrey, they might have been complaining about their current miserable existence
If you feel impoverished, go and live next to someone poorer.
Lynne tried to shore up Lib Dems in local election.
http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2014/04/labours-control-of-haringey-council-must-end.htm
http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2014/03/haringey-councils-latest-housing-scandal.htm
Signs of desperation? Half of your cllrs have given up?
I would argue that these people are living in 'poverty', whether they are on 59% or 61% of median income.....
The Rowntree Foundation on Poverty:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/poverty-definitions.pdf
2010: Con 34.5%, Lab 36.6%, LD 22.1%, UKIP 1.7%
YouGov Westminster: Con 34%, Lab 42%, LD 9%, UKIP 11%
YouGov London-local: Con 34%, Lab 40%, LD 12%, UKIP 9%.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/3.stm
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/n4ojuqo0a6/YG-Archive-140411-Eveningstandard-London.pdf
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/region-london/
Or try to get wealthier....
Lots of people applauding TFS's post. No remedies though!!
Just send an email to office@witneyconservatives[dot]com marked for the attention of Richard Stallabrass and you will get a full answer to your query.
Better education = better opportunities to break the cycle.
Dumbing down, benefits and entitlements = status quo.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hWQ6Ro9eXSsJ:blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/
Just send a jpeg picture of yourself wearing an OE tie and they may oblige.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4880/richard_hoggart_a_public_intellectual_for_progress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law
* His children can be saved. They have a footcha,
If TSE is still looking for thread ideas, suggestions as to what this 'community service' should entail could be both politically significant and informative. - or just a hoot...!
It's worth keeping in mind that attitudes to a "proper upbringing" vary. Twisted is worried that the kids have never climbed a tree or been to a museum. I've never climbed a tree and remember the occasional enforced childhood museum visit by the school with profound boredom, but I had a pretty good childhood by most definitions, mainly because my parents were keenly interested in me and we had constant interactions at every level. That is the real problem that Twisted rightly identifies - there's nothing wrong with kids watching big TV screens, but many get parked there for lack of interest, which has really serious effects.
This is a political blog, so the question is what the Government can usefully do. Attempts to "interfere" with bad parenting get short shrift in Britain, but I'd like to see some parenting classes in secondary schools to have a shot at planting ideas about engagement with and encouragement of kids. As for poverty, part of the issue above is that parents (often single parents) are really hard-pressed - yes, they can buy a TV on HP but life is a struggle all the same. The left-wing response isn't the straw man of making everyone equally wealthy but pushing back the fringes of the gulf between rich and poor, with high taxation of the very rich and support of people on low incomes as well as good public services including childcare help. This isn't a fantasy - it would be possible for us to adopt a Scandinavian approach if we wanted to, but we try to have a welfare state on the cheap, which is neither one thing nor the other.
Although India would (to put it mildly) have struggled to match the growth of Canada and Australia is pretty obvious, but if it had become a successful dominion in partnership with the UK, I struggle to see how its subsequent stability, growth and development wouldn't have been much better.
They still seem to be against the Conservatives so may still vote Lib Dem to keep the Conservative's out.
Of course because of the coalition some ex Lib Dem voters will now hate Clegg more than Cameron and will not vote Lib Dem even holding their nose.
"Poverty" is a broader concept as Socrates said - education, hope, cultural enrichment, life opportunities - than just the material/income statistics.
"Relative poverty" as used by the last government/innumerable pressure groups is a downright harmful approach as it leads to a focus on precisely the wrong actions
Any reformed addict will tell you that the cure starts with admitting the addiction. Until the politicians will admit the problem there can be no start for the cure.
Miliband needs to weild an axe and get rid of his whole economic team and replace them before the election with people untainted by these failures.
It might also be worth mentioning (again) the government's excellent troubled families programme, which builds on schemes introduced by some Labour councils:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/troubled-families-programme-on-track-at-half-way-stage
And why such expensive and labour-intensive programmes might be value for money:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79377/20130208_The_Fiscal_Case_for_Working_with_Troubled_Families.pdf
I've known (and been friends with) such families in the past, up in the Midlands. There were two distinct types IME, which can be typified in two examples: one where the family had troubles, but were struggling to send a daughter to university. And another family, where the parents had no hopes or ambitions for their children.
These were at the extremes; the other families were arrayed in between.
Both of these families were nice to know once they allowed you to be friends. Both were, at times, a real laugh. But one couple had ambition for their children, and the other had none. There were histories of physical or sexual abuse in the history of both families, and worklessness.
Don't underestimate the lack of confidence that comes from factors such as being long-term unemployed, or being constantly told that you're no good, a scrounger, etc.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/dwp-ipsos-mori-benefit-cap-topline-2014.pdf
To me the most striking figures were:
How long have you/your family been receiving benefits...
5-10 years: 28
10 years +: 33
So the Tories need Lab-Con swing (and Lib-Con swing too). It's not that implausible - as Jack says previous Labour governments have lost votes in the next election after losing power. The swing from Con-Lab 2008-2010 indicates these voters exist - but in they end they stuck with the status quo ("clung to nurse") or switched to the Cleggasm. I suspect some of them may be tempted to go with the status quo again.
Labour have the most united left in generations and should surely be much further clear than they are; the explanation must be that the recession and the change of government has pushed the country rightwards.
Will what Labour currently have be enough? I doubt it. NOM, Tories most seats.
Bluster, bluff, gobble, gobble, trough, bluster.