To think his proves the government haven't got a clue about poverty?!

[whatthewhatthewhat]

Disgusting

chancellor

*this - grr fast typing!

I'll bite.

I don't believe there are 14 million people in poverty either.

I believe the problem is measuring 'relative poverty' which I think focuses on the wrong measure.

(I didn't watch the interview)

It’s not disgusting. It’s a brave and accurate point. Read what he said, not the headline.

The UN reckons 1 in 5 people in this country are “destitute” that’s nonsense. As is their definition of destitute.

I don't believe there are 14 million people in poverty either.
You'll be eaten alive now by posters who quite sincerely believe they are impoverished, and that there is real poverty in the UK.

I agree with @Unhomme. Relative poverty and absolute poverty are different beasts entirely and in order to tackle absolute poverty, there needs to be a highlight on that - not poverty measures as a whole.

I don't think this government will tackle either, nor have the moral capacity to want to, but I am sick to death of statistics being thrown about that mean something quite different to that in which the context they're brandished say they do.

I am in relative poverty, as are my children. We struggle with the cost of living and have to budget or go without certain things in order to survive but we have the essentials - rent, food, bills etc because we do without/budget for the priorities. We're still in relative poverty. We're still classed in those 14 million people in the U.K.

If you don’t think there is ‘real’ poverty in this country then you are deluded/wilfully ignorant/live a sheltered life.

@Enterthewolves That's not what he said. He said he rejects the idea that there are millions in DIRE poverty and that, we agree with. Nobody is saying absolute poverty doesn't exist. We're saying that 14 million is focusing on relative rather than absolute poverty and therefore he is factually correct in rejecting it.

I agree with @unhomme. 14 million is roughly 1 in 5 of the UK population. 3.6 million households in the UK (so probably 7 million people) consider themselves to be millionaires. So relative poverty is not a good measure.

I didn't think there was so much poverty but then I started to see it all around me. DCs school now offer free breakfast to all because so many children don't get any, the local food bank keeps running out of food, there are homeless as soon as I open my front door. The local night shelters have closed down. Now everywhere I look there is poverty.

If you don’t think there is ‘real’ poverty in this country then you are deluded/wilfully ignorant/live a sheltered life.
No, just coming from a third world country originally. Like it or not, the UK has only different strata of "rich" and "well-off" residents on the global scale. We are still discussing relative poverty measures, right?

There's people in real poverty here struggling to put food on the table, money in the electric etc but whether it's absolute poverty is another matter because in the U.K. there's a safety net, albeit a tricky to navigate one at times so it's relative poverty. Some countries have absolute poverty, this is quite different.

Unfortunately the main reason that people are severely struggling here are benefits being badly administered and debt (often from bad choices years ago but increasingly because of benefit delays). So hunger is hunger but it's disingenuous to those in other countries to compare people here to them when they are working 12 hour days for pennies and unable to buy food. One in 5 people here are not in poverty, they are simply the bottom 20% and not necessarily struggling.

I’m another one from the “3rd world” who thinks that it’s mainly an issue of relative poverty. Which still bears discussion - reducing income inequality is hugely beneficial and important for the country as a whole. I’m not going to give examples because things will then quickly turn into a race to the bottom.

I'm also from a '3rd World country' and poverty definitely exists in the UK, but people are really in a race to get to that horrid bottom or it's not poverty. It's stupid and shit.

i don't want to live in a society where someone has to be in absolute poverty before support is provided therefore absolute poverty isn't a great measure for me.

I want people to have adequate housing, adequate food, adequate fuel for cooking, heating and lighting (and water obvs). I can certainly see evidence of people without all those things. Particularly housing which causes health problems like asthma and all those elderly people that die of cold in the winter.

What we need is a far better definition of poverty and dire poverty. Until we get a more accurate definition, the minority who are in genuine dire poverty won't get the help they need.

As it stands the definition of poverty is widely regarded as a joke and that's a great dis-service to those who are most in genuine need.

@Grasspigeons Nobody here said that relative poverty shouldn't be tackled to ensure people are able to live a life with safe accommodation, be able to put food on the table and pay their bills. Support should be offered before the bottom line.

All we're saying is that poverty strikes certain imagery into the mind the parameters of poverty should be clearly outlined when speaking of it. When talking about poverty and 14 million people, it is absolutely journalists and politicians duty to set a clear definition as the UN's isn't what ordinary people would think of as poverty.

I agree that relative poverty is often the wrong measure. Firstly as it is defined (in 2015/6 for a family of 2 adults and 2 children) as 'only' having £1738 per month after housing costs.

www.cpag.org.uk/content/uk-poverty-line

Now, come on, families with £1700 per month to feed, clothe, pay bills, transport etc are not sitting in the dark and eating cold beans.

Granted they're not rich, and probably not even comfortable, but they have enough for a basic standard of living. Obviously there are people well below this level, who are in absolute poverty, but having less than some quite comfortable people doesn't necessarily mean people are absolutely destitute.

Also, based on this definition, the number of people in relative poverty actually went down in the 2007 recession, because median incomes went down more than those of the people at the bottom level of incomes, so while lower income people had the same or less money, they hadn't seen as big a drop as better off people, so some were no longer below the 60% of median, so were therefore 'no longer in poverty' because they had found themselves above a lower goalpost, which is clearly nonsense.

I suspect your feelings on

What Barbara said.

I came on to post something like that! Until politicians start being hinest and sayingmore like this then the issues people in real need cannot be addressed as too much money gets wasted on sticking plaster interventions.

I work in a food bank, I know the difference bewteen poverty and temporary lack of cash. Food banks are set up to serve the latter. We refer the former to as many agencies as we have links with. Sadly most of those are charitable, like us they rely in donations and good will!

Of course there are people worse off in the world. But the UK is not 'third world'. It does not have major food security issues or problems delivering clean water to huge portions of the population. Our children are routinely vaccinated and in the majority live beyond their 5th birthday. Education and healthcare are free.

But if your peers have all that and you don't - if you struggle to pay for food whilst your neighbour is swanning around in £500 dresses, if you can't put the heating on, if your postcode means you will live 10 years less than the people in the next nearest postcode, if you can access the free healthcare but can't afford the prescription or the busfare to the further away clinic you're referred to, if you can't send your children to school one day because you dont' have the money to buy shoes until you next get paid and the ones your child has are far too small with holes in....then yes, you're living in poverty. It's like comparing apples and pears.

I agree that relative poverty is often the wrong measure. Firstly as it is defined (in 2015/6 for a family of 2 adults and 2 children) as 'only' having £1738 per monthafter housing costs.
Well... that would be a family with a SAHM and a husband on £60K, renting a family home in London for (below average) £1600 PM. I think not too dissimilar to the thread recently discussed.

I didn't think there was much poverty either until I started working with people to help them apply for universal credit. I've heard some stories that have been hard to forget about at the end of the day.
It depends how you define poverty obviously and I've no idea if those figures are correct.

Poverty as a headline figure will never be eradicated whilst it is worked out as the median of all incomes, I accept that there are a lot of families in poverty but it is nowhere near 4 million.

The easiest way to eradicate poverty is the rich to leave the country as they are increasing the average, then poverty would plummet and we could all be poorer, but at least we wouldn't be in poverty.

I remember Dominic Raab who was absolutely slated for saying the main users of food banks are not in poverty but have a cash flow problem and, as awful as it sounded, he was absolutely right. Repeat users of food banks are low as a general population and most of the repeat users use twice a year. Food banks are there to help and support when there is an issue but most users are not there every single week for hand outs. But people see a Conservative and automatically think these stories just don't care and therefore everything they say is to be disbelieved.

I'm a Labour voter and a leftie but to deny critical thought through the facts is just contributing to the issue, not solving anything.

Sorry...

I suspect your feelings about poverty in the UK depend a lot of where you live. I live in one of the most deprived areas in the UK. Actually also one of the most deprived areas in the whole of the EU, incl Eastern countries (see the fact that the EU considers that out the 10 mosr deprived areas in the EU, 9 are in the UK. The Uk kas some very rich areas but also some VERY poor ones).
We are MC, no major moenu issues but then we also dnt go away on hols more than once a year and it has always been a cheap one (camping etc...). Compare to other people around us, we are looking RICH. I mean positively loaded. We couldnt buy a house further South, let alone london area.
Thats where the difference is. If you live in an affluent area, even people who are 'poor' wont be as 'poor' as those in the most deprived areas in the UK.
Our average wage here is 19k per year. Compare that to the 29k a year for the UK as a whole... I can promise you that many people here are living in poverty (as in not enough money for food so heavily relying on food banks, children having one warm meal a day, school dinners, unable to buy school uniform/school shoes, very lttle heating in the house etc etc). If that isnt poverty, Im wondering what you think beeing poor means.