1 Million More People Plunged Into Poverty In Coalition’s First Year

[ttosca]

Official DWP figures include 300,000 more children, as charities point out that the entire increase came from working households

---

A million more people were plunged into poverty during the first year of the coalition government, including 300,000 more children, according to official figures.

Charities pointed out that the entire increase in children counted as in poverty in 2011-12 came from working households. Children living below the poverty line were now twice as likely to come from working families than those without employment.

The situation is likely to get worse, say charities, because the statistics covered the period before a range of austerity measures and welfare cuts ? including the bedroom tax and the abolition of council tax benefit ? were introduced.

Oxfam's Katherine Trebeck said: "It is unacceptable that in the seventh richest country on the planet, we've seen the number of people living in poverty increase by nearly a million. With cuts to public services and social security in the pipeline, the number of people living on absolute low incomes will only increase over the years."

Alison Garnham, chief executive of Child Poverty Action Group, said: "Despite all the talk about 'scroungers' and generations of families never working, today's poverty figures expose comprehensively the myth that the main cause of poverty is people choosing not to work. The truth is that for a growing number of families, work isn't working. The promise that work would be a route out of poverty has not been kept as wages stagnate and spending cuts have hurt low-income working families."

The government has a legal responsibility to reduce relative child poverty to below 10% by 2020.

Some 2.3 million children (17%) were recorded as living in relative poverty in 2011-12, under the official measure of living in a household with less than 60% of median average disposable income. But using average household incomes from 2010-11, the figure rose by 300,000 to 2.6 million (20%).

Although the headline figure remained unchanged, this was because falling incomes throughout the country have dragged down the level at which "relative poverty" kicks in.

Similarly, the Department for Work and Pensions figures, published on Thursday, showed that 5.6 million working-age adults (unchanged from last year at 15%) and 1.9 million pensioners (down one percentage point to 16%) were in relative poverty, based on last year's average incomes. But using average disposable income from 2010-11 to calculate the level of relative poverty, the numbers were higher at 6.1 million working-age adults (up one point to 17%) and 2.1 million pensioners (unchanged at 18%).

The DWP said the number of children classed as living in absolute poverty increased by 300,000 last year, "due to incomes not increasing as fast as inflation, which was very high and is now coming down".

The work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, highlighted figures in the statistics showing that the number of children in workless poor families has reduced by 100,000 over the past year ? a two percentage point reduction ? while relative poverty among pensioners fell by 100,000 and among disabled people by 100,000.

He said: "While this government is committed to eradicating child poverty, we want to take a new approach by finding the source of the problem and tackling that. We have successfully protected the poorest from falling behind and seen a reduction of 100,000 children in workless poor families. Our welfare reform programme will further increase work incentives."

If housing costs are taken into account, Thursday's statistics show higher levels of relative poverty, with 3.5 million children (27%) falling below the poverty line on 2011-12 incomes ? unchanged on the year before. Measured against 2010-11 income levels, the number rose by 300,000 to 3.8 million (29%). Numbers of working-age adults living in relative poverty after housing costs are taken into account stood at 7.9 million (21%) and pensioners at 1.6 million (14%).

Barnardo's chief executive Anne Marie Carrie said: "This year many of these households will be pushed into financial chaos when the cap on benefits increases take effect, compromising the health and life chances of children as they are forced to grow up in poverty."

Matthew Reed, chief executive of the Children's Society, said: "It is shameful that, as one of the richest countries in the world, child poverty is being allowed to increase."

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jun/13/1million-more-people-poverty-coalition-first-year

That whole article reads like lies, damned lies and statistics TBH.

"Some 2.3 million children (17%) were recorded as living in relative poverty in 2011-12, under the official measure of living in a household with less than 60% of median average disposable income. But using average household incomes from 2010-11, the figure rose by 300,000 to 2.6 million (20%)."

What does that even mean?

PatPig

I think it means that using the median income of households from 2011-12, 17% were in relative poverty.

Using average income, not the median, from a year previously, the figure rose to 20%.

The average income can be higher or lower than the median. In this case of the UK, the average is higher because there is great wealth inequality, so a tiny minority at the top will skew the 'average' to a higher figure.

This briefly explains the difference between average and median:

phoenix.about.com/od/homeprices/qt/median-vs-average.htm

No I don't think that is the case ttosca. The 'average' generally refers to the mean, but for income it is considered more appropriate to use the median as the 'average'. In both cases here I am sure they are talking about median, since it would be (even more) misleading to change the statistic being measured in addition to the year for which they were measuring it - you should generally only change on thing at a time.

But as your post shows, they are using misleadingly imprecise language in order to push a particular point.

The rather arbitrary definition of relative poverty is that your income is less than 60% of the median, albeit that this is defined as 'disposable income', a term which we are again expected to take on trust.

That's at least somewhat clear, and we can assume that the disposable income definition doesn't change.

But when they say 'using average household incomes from 2010-11', what do they mean?

Do they mean if they compare the poorest households in 2011-12 with the median household in 2010-11? I suspect that they might. But who can really tell? Their priority is to push their agenda, facts are secondary.

I think what that implies is that median disposable incomes fell slightly from 2010-11 to 2011-12, and therefore if you compare the poorest from 2011-12 with the average from 2010-11 then you can make the figures look worse.

But to do so is to admit that the concept of 'relative poverty' upon which so much of this stuff is predicated is nonsensical - if everyone's incomes fall, but the richest get poorer faster than the poorest, then fewer people are in relative poverty, even though everyone is worse off.

What they are doing is fudging the statistics to suit their agenda. Comparing 2011-12 figures with 2010-11 is effectively conflating relative poverty with an entirely arbitrary absolute poverty benchmark of 2010-11 average (median) incomes.

Clearly this is wrong.

But it does expose the wider nonsense of relative poverty. If you make an average income in say Walton-on-Thames, you will be in 'relative poverty' compared with your neighbours, many of whom are millionaires. This would be despite enjoying a reasonably comfortable existence.

I don't think you can necessarily identify poor children by looking at numbers. Some parents have little, and manage well. Others with the same financial resources might not be as good at managing their finances and the children may suffer. If you live in say Newcastle, then the standard tax credits package and the national minimum wage is unlikely to leave children in poverty, because housing costs are very low, and buying a house and paying a mortgage is possible even on those resources.

If you live in inner London, then you are subject to sky-high rents, and NMW + tax credits is a much more difficult position to raise a family.

These headlines about relative poverty don't identify this at all.

A family living in relative poverty according to these measures, in a cheap area may have sufficient money not to be objectively poor, whereas a family in London, not in relative poverty, may in fact be suffering considerable hardship.

On the other hand, the family in London in hardship, may be in an area with lots of opportunity and motivation, and their children might grow up to be successful professionals, despite their impoverished background, whereas the family in the northeast, not objectively poor, may grow up in an area with poverty of opportunity, and find their children and grand children in future faced with minimum wage jobs and tax credits for their future.

Pat-

I'll address some of your points:

No I don't think that is the case ttosca. The 'average' generally refers to the mean, but for income it is considered more appropriate to use the median as the 'average'. In both cases here I am sure they are talking about median, since it would be (even more) misleading to change the statistic being measured in addition to the year for which they were measuring it - you should generally only change on thing at a time.

So if we assume they are comparing mean relative income over two terms (11-12 and 10-11) so what? That's perfectly valid, so long as you
show what you are doing and don't mislead people. In this case, I think the paragraph is merely poorly phrased.

The rather arbitrary definition of relative poverty is that your income is less than 60% of the median, albeit that this is defined as 'disposable income', a term which we are again expected to take on trust.

Well, lots of things are 'arbitrarily defined'. That's how sociology works. For consistency, many researchers and governning bodies (the UK, the EU, and 'The Poverty Site' a UK-based website for poverty statistics, use the 60% threshold.

The reason for 60% is discussed:

"If one accepts that relative poverty is important in principle, then the obvious issue arises of what thresholds to use and on what basis. This is discussed in detail on the page on choices of low-income threshold. Our basic answer is that it does not matter, so long as the thresholds are defined in relation to contemporary average (median) income and are for households rather than individuals. It is for this reason that the main indicators on this website use a variety of thresholds, so that a fuller picture of trends can be developed. But, for reasons of consistency and clarity, there has to be a 'headline' threshold and, for this, we use the same threshold as both the UK government and the EU, namely a household income of less than 60% of contemporary median household income."

www.poverty.org.uk/summary/social%20exclusion.shtml

Their priority is to push their agenda, facts are secondary.

You seem to think that being anti-poverty is some sort of sinister agenda.

But it does expose the wider nonsense of relative poverty. If you make an average income in say Walton-on-Thames, you will be in 'relative poverty' compared with your neighbours, many of whom are millionaires. This would be despite enjoying a reasonably comfortable existence.

Well, the idea of 'relative poverty' isn't nonsense. It's an important economic indicator which is widely correlated with a host of other social factors like social class, health, obesity, education, etc.

Again, the Poverty Website talks about this if you (or anyone reading this is interested):

Relative poverty

The view that relative poverty is not important is a perfectly valid position to take - it is just not the view that the authors of this website, along with most other researchers, the EU, the UK government, and politicians of all hues across the political spectrum take. So, for example, the government's target of halving child poverty by 2010 is defined in terms of relative poverty.

The reason that we believe that relative poverty is important is because we believe that no one should live with "resources that are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities." 3 In other words, we believe that, in a rich country such as the UK, there should be certain minimum standards below which no one should fall. 4 And, as society becomes richer, so norms change and the levels of income and resources that are considered to be adequate rises. Unless the poorest can keep up with growth in average incomes, they will progressively become more excluded from the opportunities that the rest of society enjoys. If substantial numbers of people do fall below such minimum standards then, not only are they excluded from ordinary living patterns, but it demeans the rest of us and reduces overall social cohesion in our society. It is also needless.

www.poverty.org.uk/summary/social%20exclusion.shtml

--

I don't accept that 1/4 of the population living in secluded ghettos, where no one else dares to go and the people living there are completely excluded from the lives of the majority of the population is a desirable or acceptable state of things - regardless of whether or not (and some who are in relative poverty will also be in absolute poverty) they are actually literally starving.

Finally, with regards to your other comments about regions, relative and absolute poverty are supposed to be taken together to give a clearer picture of wealth distribution. Both are important indicators.

You should not be tempted to think that the UK doesn't suffer absolute poverty either, as it is also a big problem, with the number of families using foodbanks to survive has increased massively in the past few years:

2008-09: 26,000

2009-10: 41,000

2010-11: 61,468

2011-12: 128,697

2012-13: 200,000 (predicted)

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19953938

Hmm... what happened around 2010... I wonder...

Opposing poverty is a truism, but the article is a political one, and certainly how you posted it.

Also these bodies have an interest in promoting the poverty agenda. Compared with when they were first formed, however many years ago, we have less real poverty, but that doesn't mean they will ever stop saying that the sky is falling.

The Trussell Trust is opening more food banks and receiving more funding and getting more referrals in a sort of virtuous circle, which tells you that their Chief Executive is doing a good job, but it doesn't actually prove anything about absolute poverty, all it proves is that their service is expanding - two food banks in 2004, 22 in 2007/2008, and now several hundred.

They are a Christian charity, and more publicity means more churches supporting them which means more food banks, which means more users. In 2004, if someone came into the CAB and said 'my benefits are delayed, what can I do?' they might say 'nothing'. Now they can just refer to the nearest food bank, of which there may be several within a few miles. This does not mean that there are more hungry people now, far from it, in fact it is likely that there are fewer, because whereas in the past people would have had to resort to expensive loans, begging from friends, or living off meagre scraps, they now have another option.

In terms of ghettos, if you look at the history of the welfare state, it's apparent that many well-meaning interventions have actually made things worse, creating those secluded ghettos to which you refer.

For example, in the 1960s the Labour government killed Birmingham, because it thought it was growing too fast: www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2013/05/birmingham

The Labour party also ghettoized London and other cities. They bulldozed Victorian housing where functioning long-established communities existed, and replaced them with new concrete towers, which with very few exceptions quickly turned into crime-ridden cesspits, and they did this on the basis that new must be better than old.

It's not true that more government spending results necessarily in better outcomes.

Pat-

You really have to go through some quite severe mention contortions to try to paint the huge rise in foodbanks as a success of 'Big Society'.

Opposing poverty is a truism, but the article is a political one, and certainly how you posted it.

First of all, poverty is political. Poverty is not a natural phenomenon in modern society. It hasn't been for hundreds of years. Any poverty which exists in any developed society today is the result of political and economic structures.

If you mean 'Party political', then that is just red herring to excuse the fact that poverty and hardship has increased massively under the Coalition govt. It's no use saying 'But you're just against the Tories'. I support none of the mainsteam parties, and was a vocal critic of New Labour when they were in power.

The fact is Coalition policies are putting thousands of people, including children, in to poverty and many policies are making people homeless as well as killing them.

Also these bodies have an interest in promoting the poverty agenda. Compared with when they were first formed, however many years ago, we have less real poverty, but that doesn't mean they will ever stop saying that the sky is falling.

Yes, the 'Poverty agenda'. What a wicked thing - to try to reduce or eliminate poverty. How evil of them. I suspect you're also worried about a 'Gay agenda'?

And actually, 'real' poverty is rising, since people are losing their homes and many can't afford to heat their homes and feed themselves. The Trussell trust is not the only organisation to raise this issue.

In terms of ghettos, if you look at the history of the welfare state, it's apparent that many well-meaning interventions have actually made things worse, creating those secluded ghettos to which you refer.

It's apparent that a good social security system helps prevent widespread poverty and immiseration and ghetto-isation, which is why this is such a problem in the United States and poorer countries which do not have social security systems in place and which is less of a problem in northern european states like Sweden, Denmark and Germany.

The Labour party also ghettoized London and other cities. They bulldozed Victorian housing where functioning long-established communities existed, and replaced them with new concrete towers, which with very few exceptions quickly turned into crime-ridden cesspits, and they did this on the basis that new must be better than old.

Who cares? I'm not here to defend Labour. When Labour come in to power, we can criticise Labour. Labour aren't in power, and it's the Coalition which are driving thousands in to poverty.

It's not true that more government spending results necessarily in better outcomes.

No, it isn't, but your statement is misleading. It's not true that more gov. spending results in better incomes, but it doesn't follow from this that govt. cuts won't necessarily have negative impacts - which quite clearly they are having.

Here are some more figures showing the social destruction caused by Coalition policies:

====================

Poverty rose by 900,000 in coalition's first year

Official DWP figures include 300,000 more children, as charities point out that the entire increase came from working households

An additional 900,000 people were plunged into poverty during the first year of the coalition government, including 300,000 more children, according to official figures.

Charities pointed out that the entire increase in children counted as in poverty in 2011-12 came from working households. Children living below the poverty line were now twice as likely to come from working families than those without employment.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jun/13/1million-more-people-poverty-coalition-first-year

---

Hunger trap generation: 250,000 MORE children in poverty than when the Tories were last in power

THE number of children living in poverty despite being in WORKING families has soared by 250,000 since the Tories were last in power, shock figures reveal.

And if single parents work more than 16 hours a week ? or 24 hours for a couple ? their sons and daughters miss out on free school meals, regardless of wages.

The scandalous plight facing families of the hunger trap generation is exposed in an analysis by The Children?s Society of new statistics from the Department for Work and Pensions revealed today in the Sunday People.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hunger-trap-generation-250000-more-1955326

---

Austerity policy may increase child poverty, doctors say

British Medical Association report says cuts to benefits and social care likely to hit the most vulnerable the hardest

The government's austerity policy of pruning back welfare benefits and social care could "set the country back even further" in terms of child poverty and child wellbeing, with the very poorest in society hit hardest, a landmark report from the British Medical Association says.

In the 250-page report, Growing Up in The UK, the BMA says that the most recent international work places the country 16th out of 29 nations in terms of child wellbeing, but the doctors say this "may not reflect the current situation ? and does not reflect the impact of policies implemented post the 2010 election".

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/16/austerity-increase-child-poverty-doctors

"You really have to go through some quite severe mention contortions to try to paint the huge rise in foodbanks as a success of 'Big Society'."

I didn't pain it as a success.

All I pointed out was that food banks have effectively only existed in the UK for barely a decade.

From the Trussell Trust's website:

"Whilst fundraising for Bulgaria in Salisbury in 2000, Paddy received a call from a desperate mother in Salisbury saying ?my children are going to bed hungry tonight ? what are YOU going to do about it?. Paddy investigated local indices of deprivation and ?hidden hunger? in the UK. The shocking results showed that significant numbers of local people faced short term hunger as a result of a sudden crisis. Paddy started Salisbury foodbank in his garden shed and garage, providing three days of emergency food to local people in crisis. In 2004 the UK foodbank network was launched teaching churches and communities nationwide how to start their own foodbank."

That was in the middle of the last Labour government. Nothing to do with the Coalition.

Obviously with the need having been identified, and the fact that food banks are an appealing concept for donors, because they know that their donations are going directly for food, which is a fundamental human need, they have grown very quickly.

You couldn't very well refer someone to a food bank 5 years ago if the nearest food bank was 50 miles away.

All the increasing number of people using food banks tells you is that more people are being referred to food banks. It doesn't tell you anything about whether the level of need has changed, or merely being better met (or differently met).

"Yes, the 'Poverty agenda'. What a wicked thing - to try to reduce or eliminate poverty. How evil of them. I suspect you're also worried about a 'Gay agenda'?"

I'm afraid I don't see the connection between being gay and poverty.

Anyway, if your organisation has a specific mission statement, a multimillion pound budget, and large numbers of staff, then if it doesn't promote its agenda then then it will cease to exist, or shrink drastically in size.

So you do have to paint the worst possible picture, in order to raise money. It shouldn't be confused with an unbiased view.

"And actually, 'real' poverty is rising, since people are losing their homes and many can't afford to heat their homes and feed themselves. The Trussell trust is not the only organisation to raise this issue."

I don't think the Trussell Trust were the ones raising the issue in this case.

People are losing their homes in large part because of the disastrous policies of the last Labour government, which jacked up house prices to absurd levels, enriching the war criminal Prime Minister and his cronies.

'Coalition plunging people into poverty' is nonsensical.

"It's apparent that a good social security system helps prevent widespread poverty and immiseration and ghetto-isation, which is why this is such a problem in the United States and poorer countries which do not have social security systems in place and which is less of a problem in northern european states like Sweden, Denmark and Germany"

Eh?

Half of Germany is a ghetto, albeit for different, historical left-wing reasons.

As for Sweden, you must have missed the recent riots - Stockholm has extensive ghettos, and Malmo is plagued by crime and hatred. jeffweintraub.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-jewish-problem-in-malmo-sweden.html

Pat-

That was in the middle of the last Labour government. Nothing to do with the Coalition.

This is becoming tedious. You're obviously at pains to defend the coalition.

Firstly, the rise in food banks during the Labour years was certainly indicative of a growing poverty problem. Secondly, the rate of increase jumped massively under the coalition, consistently, for three years:

2008-09: 26,000

2009-10: 41,000

2010-11: 61,468

2011-12: 128,697

2012-13: 200,000 (predicted)

Obviously with the need having been identified, and the fact that food banks are an appealing concept for donors, because they know that their donations are going directly for food, which is a fundamental human need, they have grown very quickly.

You seem to be missing the point that there is a rise in the need for food banks per se, as most civil society and poverty groups have identified. This is the result of coalition policies increasing hardship.

You couldn't very well refer someone to a food bank 5 years ago if the nearest food bank was 50 miles away.

There wasn't as much need for food banks 5 years ago, and the rise in foodbanks, as I have pointed out, is not merely the growth in industry, but a rise in demand as more people are struggling to feed themselves.

I'm afraid I don't see the connection between being gay and poverty.

There isn't a connection between the two. There is a connection between the type of person who talks about a 'poverty agenda' and a 'gay agenda'.

In the similar way that bigots talk about gay people having a 'gay agenda' because they want equal rights and to be free from discrimination, nasty people talk about a 'poverty agenda' because they would rather create a red herring where people talk about charities needing to fuel their own growth rather than the actual substance of real world poverty existing in society, its causes, and how it should be fixed.

Anyway, if your organisation has a specific mission statement, a multimillion pound budget, and large numbers of staff, then if it doesn't promote its agenda then then it will cease to exist, or shrink drastically in size.

You can stop talking about charities trying to self-promote themselves, there is plenty of evidence of growing poverty, unemployment, and homelessness in the UK since the coalition came to power. I have already included a few links which included statements from the BMA, Oxfam, the Children's Society, as well as figures from the DWP.

I could also include many more, if you like, but if you're determined to deny there is a problem and instead steer the conversation towards the idea of self-promoting charities, then I won't waste my time.

So you do have to paint the worst possible picture, in order to raise money. It shouldn't be confused with an unbiased view.

What's an unbiased view? We have the DWP figures which show the large increase in people plunged in to poverty. What is your source of 'unbiased figures' for poverty? Ian Duncan Smith, known serial liar?

'Coalition plunging people into poverty' is nonsensical.

Nothing nonsensical about it whatsoever. It's perfectly plain English, and makes sense grammatically and semantically.

"Firstly, the rise in food banks during the Labour years was certainly indicative of a growing poverty problem."

No, it's indicative of an energetic well-organised charity being set up. Are you saying that poverty grew under the past government?

"In the similar way that bigots talk about gay people having a 'gay agenda' because they want equal rights and to be free from discrimination, nasty people talk about a 'poverty agenda' because they would rather create a red herring where people talk about charities needing to fuel their own growth rather than the actual substance of real world poverty existing in society, its causes, and how it should be fixed. "

I'm afraid if you make a post about coalition policies 'plunging people into poverty' then you are not going to get much talk about how to solve problems. It's just not constructive.

If you have something specific like 'x thousand people were subject to delays in payment of ESA of over n days, causing them to be referred to food banks', then that's something to talk about, and I believe there are threads on similar topics on Mumsnet all the time.

But vague party political statements don't solve anything.

What a joke.

Food theft on rise as Hull families struggle

POLICE say they are tackling a sharp rise in food theft as families struggle to make ends meet.

Officers say financial pressures are forcing previously law-abiding people to turn to shoplifting to feed themselves and their families.

Food theft rose by 40 per cent in April, with the city centre, Holderness Road and Hessle Road named as hotspots.

Sergeant Robin Danby, of Riverside neighbourhood policing team, said: "There has been a noticeable rise in shop theft, with food and other essential items making up a significant part of it. It is part of a national picture that, because of financial constraints, people are stealing basic essentials to live.

www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Food-theft-rise-Hull-families-struggle/story-19307430-detail/story.html#axzz2WV07ppzz

All the wicked coalition's fault, no doubt.