UK

Showers (AM and PM) 6° London Hi 10°C / Lo 6°C

Labour's record on poverty in tatters

Ministers abandon targets for children as new figures reveal rising number on breadline

By Michael Savage, Political Correspondent

The full scale of Labour's failure to help the poorest in Britain was laid bare yesterday with revelations that hundreds of thousands of people were being plunged into deprivation even before the recession hit, and that the Government had been unable to make any impression on the numbers of children and pensioners in poverty.

Ministers were forced to admit that they had all but abandoned Labour's historic promise to halve child poverty by next year, telling The Independent that the state of the economy meant that saving jobs had to be the priority.

The admission came as official figures blew apart the Government's credibility on helping those struggling the most. They painted a bleak picture of worsening poverty in Britain even before the recession took root. The number of people living in poverty had climbed to 11 million by March 2008, a rise of 300,000 since 2006.

The poorest have seen their incomes drop, with 200,000 working adults falling below the poverty line last year. The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) said inequality had risen to its highest level since 1961, warning that the situation would become even worse during the recession. Alastair Muriel, a research economist at the IFS, said: "If history is any guide, average income growth is likely to slow even further across the population." Meanwhile, pensioner poverty had also stalled, with 2.5 million living in relative poverty, the same amount as the previous year.

Michelle Mitchell, charity director for Age Concern and Help the Aged, criticised the Government for its lack of "concrete" progress in reaching poor pensioners. "Two million older people were in poverty before the recession even started," she said. "Now, after facing last year's rocketing inflation, pensioners on low incomes are still struggling with high food and fuel prices, while watching their income from savings evaporate."

Labour earned significant political capital in 1999 when it pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020 and halve it by 2010, with Gordon Brown describing it as a "scar on Britain's soul". But around 2.9 million children were still living in poverty in 2007-08, the same as the previous year. Children defined as living in poverty are those in households earning less than 60 per cent of Britain's "median income".

Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, conceded that the perilous state of the nation's finances meant that other concerns had to take priority over meeting the 2010 pledge. He said: "The short-term focus does have to be on maintaining and safeguarding employment."

Another measure suggested that child poverty was now on the rise. The number of children eligible for free school meals slightly increased this year in both primary and secondary schools – an extra 17,370 pupils qualify for free meals than did last year, as the effects of the recession begin to bite. Children are given free meals if their parents are on benefits or earn less than £15,575 per year.

The breaking of the promise over child poverty has angered senior figures within the Labour Party. John McFall, chairman of the Commons Treasury Committee, called on the Government to act urgently. "It is more important, not less, in these difficult economic times that the Government maintains its effort to eliminate child poverty," he said. "That action was missing in this year's Budget."

Earlier this year, the IFS calculated that the Government would have to target poor families with a £4.2bn bailout if it wanted to hit the 2010 commitment. It found that far from eradicating child poverty, it would be back up over the three million mark if no significant action was taken. But Mr McFall said that neither November's £20bn fiscal stimulus package, nor the Budget announced by the Chancellor two weeks ago, contained any significant measures to kick-start progress in reducing child poverty.

Ministers say they are now focusing their efforts on meeting the even more ambitious target to eradicate child poverty by 2020. Children's minister Beverley Hughes admitted that meeting the 2010 target would be "very difficult", but that the Government remained "absolutely committed" to wiping out child poverty by 2020.

The absence of measures to lower child poverty in the Budget meant the Government had "no hope" of hitting the 2010 target, said Carey Oppenheim, of the Institute for Public Policy Research. "These figures also pre-date the recession so the number of children in poverty today is likely to be higher," she said. "Many more children will be growing up in poverty, and at greater risk of underperforming in school or missing out on employment opportunities in later life. Turning this around requires greater financial support.

Theresa May, the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, said the promise to halve child poverty was one of many Mr Brown had failed to deliver. "It is a tragedy that the number of children falling into the poverty cycle is continuing to rise," she said. "The Government needs to wake up and get a grip of this problem. We must tackle the root causes of poverty, such as educational failure, family breakdown, drug abuse, indebtedness and crime."

Steve Webb, the Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesman, said Labour was "losing the fight against poverty", adding: "What chance has it got of abolishing child poverty if it can't even get half way?"

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

another fuck up
[info]bowesy wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 11:12 pm (UTC)
surely not another cock up by browns labour - and a failure to deliver

i am in shock
Why
[info]sobatai wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 11:32 pm (UTC)
"Ministers say they are now focusing their efforts on meeting the even more ambitious target to eradicate child poverty by 2020. Children's minister Beverley Hughes admitted that meeting the 2010 target would be "very difficult", but that the Government remained "absolutely committed" to wiping out child poverty by 2020."

----- ----- ----- -----

That's an easy thing for Beverley Hughes to say, given that she must know Labour won't be around to meet the 2020 target. Shameful stuff, but did anyone expect anything less from this discredited government?
More ambitious promises...?
[info]voogshok wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 11:44 pm (UTC)
Perhaps the agenda of the treacherous bolshevik horde
ought to have been even more bent on delerious
social engineering and control, like the eastern bloc of yore

so CCTV, id cards, dna database
and EVERYONE guaranteed a higher than average salary
[note to party - might sell from Holyrood]
Child poverty
[info]howardinmk wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 11:57 pm (UTC)
I know its old-fashioned to say so, but perhaps people should delay having children until they can afford to bring them up.
Re: Child poverty
[info]sobatai wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 02:20 am (UTC)
In Golem Brown's dystopian wasteland there are plenty that have children before they can spell "financially", nevermind understand what it means.
Just another landmark in the twelve years of wasted opportunity under the financial leadership of Golem Brown.
My condolence
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 05:10 am (UTC)
What's it like to be unable to count beyond "twelve"?
INDITE LABOUR FOR GROSS ABUSE:
[info]bgarvie wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 05:02 am (UTC)
This dysfunctional Government has singularly failed to effectively tackle child poverty. These champagne socialists have been too busy filling 'their pockets' with expenses to concentrate on child poverty. The facts show, the figures have increased alarmingly and have actually reversed to 1961 levels. This is a sorry testimony of a Government that hasn't a clue how to resolve problems. The country cannot afford to wait another year, it needs a General Election NOW.
What do you think that
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 05:16 am (UTC)
the slippery toff alternative is going to do?
In the absence of a Cromwell, I vote for a state of emergency that involves disolution of the houses of snouts and bombing of Iceland on the Thames and the Bank of England - to begin with.
Britain's Kinderfeindlichkeit is a reflection of
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 05:06 am (UTC)
three decades of sociopathic government, fraudulent signing of UNCRC on 19 April 1990, fraudulent ratification thereof on 16 December 1991 and open contenmpt for the fact that it came into force in the UK on 15 January 1992.

Was "Brown" in government then? "Brown" is in a hopeless position faced with an impossible task without the assistance of (or replacement by) a Cromwell. Loom at his own troops for example, let alone the slippery toff who has been appointed to replace him {by those who lok at you over shoulders opf both of them). The likes of Harperson, Straw, Balls and the minister for legalised child abuse et al, with their personal responsiobility for the fact that not only is the above state opf affairs ongoing, but it is aggravated by their mutilation of ECHR as a micky mouse hum an rights Act refsual to ratify Protocol 12.

Meantiome of course dootiful mass meeja, plays the game by attributing scandalous (and suicidal) kinderfeindlichkeit to "Labour" (precisley who what is this mythical "Labour" , can anyone tel us?) as a brianwashing tactic to prepeare the herd for a 'new' wave of herd management wearing a new brand of face paint, led by said slippery unprincipled toff. Note the evidential mass perceptual engineering as complete absence of meeja mention of Davis, who comitted political suicide by displaying principles and conviction as dsitinct from the level of slipperyness that is a high profile characteristic of stooges and quislings.

To me they are all snouts as dross of self-serving organised political gangs, that should be swept away and replaced by democracy, but there are within their ranks varying levels of 'fit' in relation to the quisling job description. "Brown" is a bad fit. Quite apart from the occasional noises he has made about obstructing the flow of wealth from the poor to the well off, his acting ability is atrocious to the detriment of overall circus performance. *That* is why he is doomed in favour of the slippery toff.

Getting back to the topic, you can have all of the fiddling, fumbling and new 'initiatives' in the world, but they will all produce either nothing, or worse, unless there is :
a) change to the underlying law;
b) wholealse re-education (or sacking and wholesalwe replacement) of the anti-social cerebral prostitutes (who god help us are such joly good chaps that we allegedly don't need civil law reform) employed by society sit as civil case judges - it will not happen unless enforced, as is shown by the former LCJ's (Woolf) completely failed attepts to do so - and his replacement by Balir with obligingy 'conservative' Phillips who openly:
c) vilified people, including children, who although denied legal aid by the sociopath who appointed him, have the temerity to approach the court seeking civil rights enjoyed in more civilised States , without being represented by a leech;
d) caused the writing of new "CP" (regulations to non leeches) designed to deny access to justice by others than leeches;

in reinforcement of fraudlent ratification of UNCRC, refusal to ratify Protocol 12, mutilation of the HR act, etcetera - as though commissioned to enable society, by abusing its own young, to quietly commit suicide
Re: Britain's Kinderfeindlichkeit is a reflection of
[info]media_myths wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 07:41 am (UTC)
We don't need a Cromwell, we need a Gerrard Winstanley, John Lilburne or Robert Everard. Cromwell himself strangled democracy both within Parliament and within the New Model Army.
Re: Britain's Kinderfeindlichkeit is a reflection of
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 09:47 am (UTC)
How far do you think anyone less ruthless and effective would get, opposed by squealing snouts wielding Royal preogative?
The first need is of a ruthless sweeper, the second need is that the sweeper will hold the cleaned ground for long enough for democracy to put down rots.
Re: Britain's Kinderfeindlichkeit is a reflection of
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 10:14 am (UTC)
Democracy is feasible and almopst cost free on the basis of NI numbers (after a hunt for and elimiination of, the large number sold from within the DWP to imigration 'package deal' racketeers)
What are the priorities of the Labour Party?
[info]mannygoldstein wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 05:35 am (UTC)
- Fox-hunting
- War in Iraq
- War in Afghanistan
- 42 Days detention
- Banning Gurkha's
- Expenses claims
- Cutting 10p tax rate for low earners

All of the above have kept the Labour Party and the Labour Government busy but the most basic needs of their core constituency, have been ignored.

"All I believe and all I try to do comes from the values that I grew up with: duty, honesty, hard work, family and respect for others." (Gordon Brown)

Talk is cheap, can Gordon and the Labour Party tell us why, after more than a decade in office, a time when the tax receipts in the UK are at a record high level, they have not devoted the time or the money to eradicating child poverty in the UK?

Better yet, whats the point of the Labour Party?
[info]mike_spain wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 07:19 am (UTC)
I'd like to add an obsession with ID cards from Smith, man hating legislation from Harman and most of all, dragging their feet by all means possible on issues of fairness that don't meet their ideology. The reality is Brown and Labour operate no differently to the way soviet Russsia worked (or rather didn't). Ideology is the be all and end all of Labours time in power and is designed to change the social structure of the country above all else. They don't care about wealth or job creation, they care little for fairness and despite increasing amounts of tax receipts over 10 years, it was blown on ideology and the party faithful rather than infrastructure, the needy & worthy.
Re: Better yet, whats the point of the Labour Party?
[info]sobatai wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 02:16 pm (UTC)
The point of New Labour was the acquisition of power. It has no past, it now has no future.
Re: What are the priorities of the Labour Party?
[info]sobatai wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 03:56 pm (UTC)
The only priority for New Labour is to maintain itself in power. First the priority was the assumption of power and now it is holding on to power. It has no future, it has no past.
[info]democraticact wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 06:31 am (UTC)
The last years of the corrupt Conservative government ended with a recession, a 15 per cent base rate and more than 3 million unemployed. So perhaps we are somewhat better off under the equally corrupt government today ! Margaret Thatcher set Britain down the road of social inequality that rewarded the selfish voter. Tony Blair's success came in the same way. New Labour abandoned socialism and the fundamental decency that went with it. 40 odd per cent of the electorate have no political party to turn to for help. We need to ask ourselves what kind of society do we want to live in. If it isn't going to be more of tha same, then change won't come from David Cameron. Go to democraticbritain.org.uk and begin to make a difference.
[info]mykleboon wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 06:48 am (UTC)
Democraticact,

You really need to study your history a little more closely. The recession and 15% base rates were at the beginning of John Major's government, not at the end! In fact the long period of growth that Brown usesd to boast about started under a Conservative government - four and a half years of it! During that time, the balance of payments, unemployment, the public finances and inflation all improved and were on a continually improving trend. These trends continued for some years more. Try looking at the figures and plotting them on a yearly basis and you will see what I mean!
"growth" as you call it
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 07:17 am (UTC)
as a consequence of government through subversive quislings by organised economic crime syndicates.

"Growth" of a goverrnmentally promoted concept of the good citizen, as a mindless, anti-social, rat-racing, part-time parenting, planet-busting, gluttonous consumer of anything and everything in sight.

"Growth" in Britain's banarepublicanisation to the the extent that it is now a bankrupt bana republic with no bananas to sell because its customers are busted and can't buy expensive money laundering services.

"Growth" in corporate welfare and perpetration of corporate welfare wars.

"Growth" in the level of blatant pseudo-democracy as nicely illustrated by the spectacle of sqealing bloodstained snouts jostling and snarling at each other for the best places at the trough...
Re: "growth" as you call it
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 08:15 am (UTC)
and corresponding "growth" in then value of peronal pensions of ex high office holdrers. We all know about Blair's but les is known about his pfredecessor's

http://www.allbusiness.com/banking-finance/financial-markets-investing/6073359-1.html
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=12093
Surprise
[info]cavirac wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 07:38 am (UTC)
The only surprise about this latest debacle is that we are not surprised anymore. The depth to which this government have sunk is quite beyond belief. When 26% of the population would still vote for them what chance has the country got. Every promise broken, fraudlent claims for expenses by ministers, who claim they made a mistake and quickly repay the money, just before they are exposed of course. The average person signing an expense claim for their company know that if it is wrong they will be sacked for gross misconduct. I was going to write "words fail me" but as I have got this far they obviously do not.
Child poverty
[info]juliandbsmith wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 08:31 am (UTC)
The poverty of ambition lies elsewhere, in the ambition of low achievers to have a family at the state's expense and the ambition of some employers to drive staff costs down whilst enriching directors pay. We all pay for aggressive and poor management and the culture of sullen resistance to education.
[info]mwreid wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 09:05 am (UTC)
The definition of ''poverty'' needs to be treated with care.

Less than 60% of average income may not necessarily mean ''poverty''.

Curiously there are some on benefits who are not in this definition of ''poverty'' and some in work who are.

Of equal concern shoulds be those children without fathers or stable homes with prospect of poor attainment and joblessness.

The benefit system has not improved matters for these children- but what is the answer ?
[info]sobatai wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 03:59 pm (UTC)
Yes, all Golem Brown needs to do is change the government's preferred measure of poverty and Bob's your uncle.
Poverty of attitude or make them squirm
[info]jona123 wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 09:11 am (UTC)
One of the reasons for the enduring poverty amongst many people of pensionable age is the issue of pension credits which are placed as hurdles to be overcome. They are hurdles of Bureacracy and Hurdles of Huniliation. The hurdles could be abolished and one could abolish the attendant costly Bureacracy by turning the pension into an income to be taxed according to ones gross income, and assetts. etc.
One might have hoped that the emeerging parties, such as the Greens might offer new hope, but , as I understand it, they are proposing a pension of 109 pounds and no humiliatig hurdles. Will it be free organic carrotts. to make up the shortfall?
Child Poverty
[info]gee_1 wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 09:53 am (UTC)
I am deeply disappointed that we continue to not to be on target to reach the 2020 taraget. However, I never really expected the government to achieve their Public Service Argeements for child poverty. I believe that attempting to make Child Poverty history is the best thing New Labour has done. Even though it is very unlikely that the 2020 target will reached and now even harder to reach, I believe it is more important than ever to keep the child poverty at the top of the political agenda. It has raised the importance of families and children back up the agenda. I hate to put this in economic terms, but, by moving children out of poverty, it makes them more likely to do better at school, then to go on to get higher skilled jobs, making our future economy more likely to prosper. By combating child poverty we will combat many other ills. This is more than economics and another failure for government. This is not about statistics. This is about innocent lives...

However, I wonder what will happen to the Child Poverty Bill?!
They will never improve. Vote them out
[info]prof_use wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 09:55 am (UTC)
I get the feeling that a majority of people in Britain have negative feelings about Labour and I am somewhat relieved that a majority has finally woken up again. I am however slightly concerned about the durability of this feeling. Was it only a year or so ago that Brown hit an all time low for popularity of a PM only to see Labour slowly climb in the opinion polls to reach parity with Cameron some 5 months later? Anyway people seem to have finally woken up again.

Labour have been appalling across the board for years and we badly need a change of administration. The next lot can't be as bad as this lot. If however they start to go the way of Major's tories and the current Labour party we can vote them out. Let's end this shameful chapter in British govts. and no excuses . . . do not vote Labour. Vote for your best local alternative and make people feel ashamed to want to vote for Labour. Supporting Labour should be seen as socially unacceptable like dogs fouling the pavement and smoking

I hope you maintain this tone of discussion with all your friends and your parents and anyone else that will be able to vote. Let's get rid of this lot at the polls

I think NuLab have had long enough to demonstrate their intentions, their abilities and their failings. making a statement like 'we commit to making child poverty a thing of the past' is nothing other than hot air. They are incapable of doing something like this. At best it's wishful thinking. This lot are incompetent

Correction - "the majority... have negative feeling about"
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 10:40 am (UTC)
spectacular levels and forms of misgovernment apparent all around them.

Unfortunately, that negativity is misdirected by the influence of a dootiful mass meeja, towards one faction of a class of apparatchiks and enablers of pseudo-democracy. As a result, there will be a ritual erection of the pseudo-democratic circus, the outcome of which will be replacement of the current dominant faction by a different one wearing different face paint - and the happy herd, with the help of dootiful mass meeja, will return to contentedly grazing, believing for the following couple of years before becoming discontented again), that it has accomplished change
Labour's record on poverty in tatters
[info]famulla wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 10:39 am (UTC)
What is tatters, Broke or going broke
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
mykleboon
[info]democraticact wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 10:53 am (UTC)
The Conservatives came to power in May 1979 and were in government untill May 1997. In that time there were three recessions. We had inflation rates of 25% ( 1975) 20% (1980) and 10% (1990). In 1985 unemployment was more than 3.5 million and in 1993 a couple of years after our last recesion - it was just under that figure. ( So much for Tory economic management.) The decussion here is about poverty and the fact that New Labour has deserted the very people it shoud be supporting. But I don't think whoever is making this gross social injustice is of much concern to you.
OBVIOUS
[info]tonymgolf wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 10:57 am (UTC)
I must be a very simple soul but surely the rise in so called poverty lies in part to the governments policy of the mass immigration of dirt poor badly educated 3rd world immigrants and their economically inactive dependents? 2 million plus in 12 years?
Re: OBVIOUS
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 11:19 am (UTC)
As a contributing factor only. More significant is 3 decades of a top-down drip of societally destabilising propaganda to the affect that :
a) full-time parents are second class citizens as non planet-busting, rat-racing, consumers;
b) women are an inferior sub-species of wimmin in the mould of dysfunctional parents Thatcher and Harperson (not forgetting Mrs WonderTone whose daughter is a telling illustration of the adage about daughters of families and societies).

"Poverty" isn't measured only in terms of spending power, nor does it just happen as an act of gawd or something found ubder a gooseberry bush - and as far as children are concerned it is largely a product, in this society, of being a tolerated nuisance or a fashion accessory - in compliance with pernicious misgovernment policy, tax-financed practice, and propaganda
[info]mykleboon wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 11:28 am (UTC)
Once again your history is bunk, democraticact! The recession of 1975 was under a Labour government. The recession of 1979-1981 started before the Conservative government could do much about it. It normally takes at least two years for any change in economic policy to affect the figures. The biggest collapse in output was in 1979. the period 1983-1990 was the second most rapid period of sustained economic growth since the mid nineteenth century, (Bank of England figures). All three recessions, only two of which were during a Conservative government's term of office, were mirrored in the USA. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, (the official body for deciding when the USA is in recession), output peaked in November 1973 and reached a trough in March 1975. In the early eighties recession, the US suffered a double dip: first from January 1980 to July 1980 and then from July 1981 to November 1982. In the early nineties, the USA recession began in July 1990 and ended in November 1991. All post war recessions in Britain have been accompanied by recessions in the USA. Taking the four most recent recessions, two of them have been under Labour and two of them under the Conservatives. Attempting to make political capital out of these figures is sheer lunacy!

By the way, unemployment is always a lagging indicator for both booms and recessions.

I would strongly recommend that you refrain from imputing motives and beliefs to people you do not know. You have no means of judging whether or not I am concerned about child poverty or its cuases. I am interested in the facts, and the facts do not support your misleading statements! Prejudice or inaccuracy is never a good basis for developing policy.
Correction mykleboon
[info]democraticact wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 12:29 pm (UTC)
Yes I did see the obvious mistake which is self evident from the fact that the Conservative government dates from 1979 - as stated. ( It went through before I could make the correction.) But the point is that the issue here is poverty and you haven't addressed it or its possible cause.
Thick and fast
[info]dorkingboy wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 12:39 pm (UTC)
the failures, scandals, U-turns, in-fighting, lies, half-truths, spin, counter-spin are coming far too thick and fast for the average person to keep track of.
I suggest there is a fact-based reference file created - including Mandelson's fiddling, Byers spin, Blair's lies, right up to the latest "in the rules" troughing by Jacqui Slapper - so when elections are held - the true nature of these people comes to the fore.
Hold on - the flaw in this suggestion is - Mandelson isn't elected, Brown wasn't elected as PM - hey ho!
[info]rozr wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 01:08 pm (UTC)
Anyone need any more proof that Labour are and always have been incompetent? Why would anyone at all ever want to vote Labour again? Don't tell me. Plenty will, like some of the commentators for this paper who in spite of everything that's being revealed, from Brown bankrupting the Treasury, to Brown letting the bankers get away with gambling and theft, to Labour in general allowing the extremely corrupt expenses "system" to continue during the last 12 years when they could have put it right.... We'll still have Steve Richards and the like pleading with us to vote for some pie in the sky ideal of a Labour party that doesn't actually exist but hey, folks,it just might devolve if only you keep Labour in power..... No. Labour have to do a lot more than make excuses or blame some other party before they will be electable again.
Misuse of statistics
[info]redbirdpete wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 02:41 pm (UTC)
Far be it from me to stick up for this appalling government, but using a 60% percentage of the median income is a measure of equality of income, not poverty. It tells us something about the spread of income in this country, it tells us little or nothing about poverty. And unless it is adjusted depending on the number of incomes coming into a household, it doesn't even tell us that.

To put it another way, to eliminate poverty using that measure you'd need to take at least the following measures:

Ban multi-income households.
Ban self-employment
Ban people from holding multiple jobs
Pay all employed people exactly the same

Surely, since most of us don't want a communist country (which would have to be more extreme than any communist state that has yet to exist) but would like to help people living in poverty, some more meaningful measure should be devised?
Democraticact
[info]mykleboon wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 04:40 pm (UTC)
If you had not deviated from the poverty issue by making cheap and untrue party political points, then I probably would not have posted on this thread. Actually, if you read the parallel thread: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/sean-ogrady-this-exposes-labours-poverty-of-ambition-1681049.html you will see that I have posted a message that queries the statistics used to asess poverty. In particular I note that statistical poverty could be reduced by doing some very silly things. One that I did not mention would be to take money away from the poorest sections of society, (those that are a long way from the 60 per cent of median income), and give it to those who are only just below the 60 per cent of median income "poverty" threshold.

Actually the real scandal is the increase in the number of people in deep poverty - i.e. those below about 40 per cent of median income. The 60 per cent of median income is almost exactly where the peak in the income distribution occurs!
OKAY I READ THIS LOUD AND CLEAR
[info]famulla wrote:
Friday, 8 May 2009 at 04:42 pm (UTC)
Now tell me what are doing about the mess.
Toyota reports first annual loss
LONDON (ShareCast) - Japanese carmaker Toyota Motor (Frankfurt: 853510 - news) stunned investors when it announced its first annual loss it expects even deeper losses this year. The group reported a bigger than expected net loss of 437bn yen ($4.4bn) for the 12 months and warned it would probably make a loss of about 550bn yen ($5.5bn) this financial year. It also announced a cash dividend for the full year of 100 yen per share, a decrease of 40 yen. Toyota blamed poor sales, especially in the US and Europe, and the strong yen for the loss.? The negative impact was a consequence of the significant deterioration in vehicle sales particularly in the US and Europe, the rapid appreciation of the yen against the US dollar and the euro and the sharp rise in raw materials," said president Katsuki Watanabe.
This is what the BIG auto says, what are we doing?
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Its called tactics
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Saturday, 9 May 2009 at 01:44 am (UTC)
Children don't have a vote. The elderly will die of cold this winter because they can't afford to heat their houses. Why waste time paying lip-service to someone who will not vote for you next year? And the benefits classes can always be relied on to vote labour (if the polling station is close to the pub) as they are worried Tories may cut their benefits and try and make them get a job.

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date