What is "poverty"?

[Gob]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MajGenl.Meade]

My son, it is not a lakh of moola

[dgs49]

Is it a ridiculous conceit to presume that you can effectively eliminate "child poverty" by supplementing the income of households so that they are at a minimum amount?

Does that not perversely encourage lazy people to have children that they could not otherwise support, just to take advantage of the government's "generosity"?

Just wondering.

[Gob]

Just because some will take advantage of the country's generosity and good will, does not make that generosity and good will wrong Dave.

[The Hen]

Why is it that most people who would seem to be on to below the poverty line have a much larger telly than me?

[Gob]

Not for long!

(I hope! Read the heart-rendering saga of our TV in the next episode of our blogsite.)

[The Hen]

What???

We are going to be poor soon????


Noooooooooo ......

[dales]

Poverty?

Who needs it?


eta: Gob do the "right thing" and kick in the telly.

[BoSoxGal]

I have a 13 year old vehicle and no television; if I did buy a television I'd have a 37" flat screen for a few hundred from Wally World.

It's hard for me to accept that anybody with a nicer car or TV than that is 'poor'. Granted, they may not be prioritizing repayment of massive student loans - but poor? Poor = hungry, in my book.

[loCAtek]

Haven't got a car, and the TV is the roommate's...

Since when was television so vital to child development, anywayZ?

At the beginning of the year, the roomie was granted greater financial child support from her Ex ...'granted' is the short version; what she did was: meticulously outlined for months, his/her incomes/expenditures to the court, in regards to the best interests of the children ...and won.

In examining the potential benefits of the windfall; a car was up for consideration.

Looking at the pros of greater transportation, versus the cons of slightly lower quality of life (fewer movies, less eating out, no vacations) the roommates decided- they had the train, who needed a car? when life could be enjoyed without one?

This summer with school out, the Room-Mommy bought her kids season passes to the local amusement park to 'get them out of the house' ...while the train drops them off right at the playground gates.

So far, they do thier chores in the morning; play at the park during the day; and come home at about the same time Mom comes home from work, so they can all enjoy dinner and a Netflix Movie. I, La Loca, sometimes watches movies, but mostly maintains the house- doing the yardwork; fixing the sink; and/or killing the occasional spiders.

Further plans are that the kids do some kind of summer job(s); be it lawn mowing, or retail at the mall.

...all this and yeah, we're poor. Our material things are pretty minimal, and autos are not in our future, but we're having good times

[loCAtek]

It's about perspective;

[BoSoxGal]

I think that poster has dated statistics; there are 7 billion people on the planet and I highly doubt that 4 billion of them are literate.

[rubato]

"Poverty" like "fairness" is a complicated concept. I think its more about differences in risk and uncertainty between different segments of society than it is in immediate misery.

When people point out the number of TVs and plastic toys in "poor" homes they are ignoring* the most important fact, that if a family member in my house (for example) has a health emergency there is almost no chance that it will have an effect on our economic futures while if it happens to a "poor" family the chance is very high that they will face bankruptcy, losing their housing, having their cars repossessed &c. If one of us lost their jobs we have zero chance of losing our home (or health insurance) or even having a significant change in lifestyle. If a poor family lost 1 income they would risk everything. Two people making $20,000/yr each (more than dgs thinks any working person should ever get) are critically vulnerable if one is laid off.



yrs,
rubato

* actually they are deliberately lying.

[Gob]

if I did buy a television I'd have a 37" flat screen for a few hundred from Wally World.

Our old set just went "bang!" after 17 yrs of solid service.

We've invested in a nice 55' plasma with a surround sound system and blue-ray player to match.

[The Hen]

I had been waiting for sometime for the telly to go phut.

Who said they don't make 'em like something anymore?

[loCAtek]

[The Hen]

Unnecessary.

[Gob]

Relevance? In Australia kangaroos are having sex? Point?

[Sean]

We've invested in a nice 55' plasma with a surround sound system and blue-ray player to match.

Well at least there's one salesman in Canberra who's just taken a huge leap away from the poverty line...

[Lord Jim]

Gob wrote:We've invested in a nice 55' plasma with a surround sound system and blue-ray player to match.

Ahh, that's excellent...

Just the thing for watching Real Football....