To think that this is unacceptable in this day and age

[nighttrains]

• An estimated 14.3 million people are in poverty in the UK
• 8.3 million are working-age adults, 4.6 million are children, and 1.3 million are of pension age
• Around 22% of people are in poverty, and 34% of children are
• Just under half (49%) of those in poverty are in “persistent povertyy_” (people who would also have fallen below the poverty line in at least two of the last three years). This is as of 2016/17

This is from fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/

It's appalling for a so called civilised country

You can blame the austerity cuts and 11 year freeze on benefits. If benefits had gone up at the same rate as they had (inflation rates only) instead of £72 per week it would be almost double. But as we all know benefit claimants are all "lazy work shy scroungers " so don't deserve anything. Strange that as soon as the pandemic hit the government gave each claimant household £80 per month but that stops in April, its a joke

Yes, just look at the number who use food banks.

I agree entirely, OP, but this is what people voted for. And with the combined effects of Covid and Brexit, it will only get worse.

It's one of the reasons I stopped doing frontline support work after 11 years. It had got the point where there was so little I could do to help people improve their lives that it felt utterly futile most of the time. At least doing benefits work, I can help a few people to be a little better off, but it's a drop in the ocean when I think about the amount of unmet need.

Here we go again! 'poverty' has largely evolved in its definition. What is now called 'poverty' would have been called 'modest' some years back, and 'luxury' in some countries.

There is a level of proper poverty, those who can't claim benefits for various reasons, and single males and motherless women, but it doesn't account for 22% and certainly bit 1/3rd if children in this country.

If UK was actually a civilized country you wouldn't get all those British people talking so much, sometimes downright monologuing, about what a civilized country it is. People don't go on and on about something that is self-evident.

@Fimofriend

If UK was actually a civilized country you wouldn't get all those British people talking so much, sometimes downright monologuing, about what a civilized country it is. People don't go on and on about something that is self-evident.

ehh?

@dontdisturbmenow

Here we go again! 'poverty' has largely evolved in its definition. What is now called 'poverty' would have been called 'modest' some years back, and 'luxury' in some countries.

There is a level of proper poverty, those who can't claim benefits for various reasons, and single males and motherless women, but it doesn't account for 22% and certainly bit 1/3rd if children in this country.

Since when have foodbanks been modest or luxurious? It’s a national scandal that they should be necessary in a first world country.

There’s always been a divide and imagine there always will be. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer so the saying goes. Wealth often creates wealth.

It is unfair however compared to some countries we are very lucky.

@dontdisturbmenow

Here we go again! 'poverty' has largely evolved in its definition. What is now called 'poverty' would have been called 'modest' some years back, and 'luxury' in some countries.

There is a level of proper poverty, those who can't claim benefits for various reasons, and single males and motherless women, but it doesn't account for 22% and certainly bit 1/3rd if children in this country.

Read socialmetricscommission.org.uk/MEASURING-POVERTY-SUMMARY-REPORT.pdf (it's too lengthy to summarise here) and see how they are defining poverty. It's nothing to do with being able to afford the Internet and big TVs which is no doubt what you are thinking.

If poverty is defined as a comparative to the mean then there will always be poverty.

@dontdisturbmenow

Here we go again! 'poverty' has largely evolved in its definition. What is now called 'poverty' would have been called 'modest' some years back, and 'luxury' in some countries.

There is a level of proper poverty, those who can't claim benefits for various reasons, and single males and motherless women, but it doesn't account for 22% and certainly bit 1/3rd if children in this country.

Motherless women? Eh? You seem to be of the mindset that unless you are starving to death in a camp of some sort you can’t possibly be poor. Refuge camps are a scandal all of their own. Poverty in the U.K. is real, and is unacceptable and shocking. This came up on my Twitter. Hard to argue with it.

When parents are having to go without food so that their children can eat, when pensioners are having to choose between eating or heating that is poverty.
@dontdisturbmenow your right its not 1/3 or children its closer to 40% now those figures are from 2016/17 before the 2 child cap came in things are much worse now. Can I suggest that you step out of your bubble and try and see things from the other side

@TableFlowerss

There’s always been a divide and imagine there always will be. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer so the saying goes. Wealth often creates wealth.

It is unfair however compared to some countries we are very lucky.

Some countries, yes. Not economically developed western ones though. Look at The picture I posted above.

Being skint is very expensive! Electricity meters, inefficient heating, poor /no insulation, can’t afford to buy in bulk or take advantage of BOGoF offers, constant repair costs coz you can nearly afford a repair but a replacement is put the wuestion, using a laundrette... etc etc.

Theres a growing divide between highest-paid and worst-paid jobs.

Social mobility is decreasing.

As has been said already. Poverty will never be eliminated because its definition changes the ensure this is the case. It is based on the average income so there will.allwats be people earning below average.

Some countries, yes. Not economically developed western ones though. Look at The picture I posted above

@cardibach

Look at the US, the richest nation on the planet and the divide between rich and poor is greater there!!

There is a level of proper poverty, those who can't claim benefits for various reasons, and single males and motherless women

Motherless women?? I'm joining @cardibach in a wtaf moment here.

I don't know what to think though. I am originally from a deprived NW area. I went back there a few weeks ago and observed that it looks poorer than I remember. Every single shop is B&M, Aldi and crappy cheapo shops. There just isn't the money you see down south. Not everyone can leave where they were brought up and move to the money, like DH and I did.

In contract where I live now is a really affluent area. It is located in a place where you can access London and other wealthy business districts and education. Yet, whilst working for a charity, I came across loads of people living in poverty because they can't hold down a job more than a couple of weeks. They just didn't have the tools to deal with life.

In addressing poverty I don't think it is just about investment. We also need to do something about our education system and mental health. I came across loads of people whose crappy upbringing, lack of education and training and lack of family support means they have been set up to fail, no matter what jobs are available around them.

@WokesFromHome

Spot on.

It’s not as bad as it used to be. There may be ups and downs short term (ie 20yrs) but long term (ie 50yrs+) poverty is much reduced.

Although poverty does exist, it s nowhere near what is suggested by these metrics. SMC group have used a relative measure. This means that if there was a fictional country of 1 million people. 1/4 had an average wealth of £10million, 1/4 £50 million, 1/4 £100 million and 1/4 £200 million, then 25% of the population would be classed as 'in poverty'. By this measure, no matter how wealthy the population gets, a significant part of the country will always be classed as in poverty. People in Sudan, India, Bangladesh and Iraq would be utterly stunned to visit some of these houses and see what poverty means.

WokesFromHome. Are you me?

I read a statistic the other day that said a high percentage of people born since 1980 will inherit more from their parents than they will ever earn in their lifetime. That is shocking at both ends of the spectrum.

I now live in a very affluent area and am genuinely shocked when I return to the town where I grew up. The opportunities that allowed me to go to university and move on are not available to kids growing up there today. It also saddens me sometimes that people there take it as normal and really have no concept of the sort of wealth that is taken for granted elsewhere.

The linked article suggests that the poverty rate has declined slightly over the last 10-15 years (contrary to general perceptions - mine included). But any such discussion is always going to get bogged down into the merits of relative vs absolute measures of poverty.

Define "poverty".

In this country, it's merely being less rich than others. When you have shelter, food, education, medical treatments and all of it is free when you need it, our definition of poverty still describe a comfortable life. Even if you have bills to pay, from money that was just gifted to you by the state and you didn't earn anyway...

Before I get jumped on and be accused of wanting people to starve naked in the streets...,I am merely pointing out that unless we decide to become a pure communist country where everybody has the exact same income and assets (which never worked anyway), there will always be someone richer and someone poorER.

Some maybe, but definitely not a “high percentage”.