Number of Children living in absolute poverty hits 4 million.......

Official figures from the DWP show that 4 million kids are living in absolute poverty.....It's enough to make your heart drop isn't it !!

Not making any political points here..The last Government was severely lacking when it came to fighting poverty...

Surely in the year 2014 we can be getting our priorities right...

Charity begins at home..................Sort out your own people before you give aid abroad to corrupt Countries that buy arms with it !!

Breaks my heart.............

Sure it's 'absolute'?

Should actually be 'relative'.

Agree with you re foreign aid, especially to BRICS countries.

Completely agree

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Official figures from the DWP show that 4 million kids are living in absolute poverty.....It's enough to make your heart drop isn't it !!

Not making any political points here..The last Government was severely lacking when it came to fighting poverty...

Surely in the year 2014 we can be getting our priorities right...

Charity begins at home..................Sort out your own people before you give aid abroad to corrupt Countries that buy arms with it !!

Breaks my heart.............

Touching

but what kids is you're heart set on helping? British kids? 

what if some of these poverty stricken children are from immigrant families? Does you're ''charity'' extend to them?

Did'nt think so.

And BTW how many countries has this government sold weapons to? 

Your silence is deafening.

All foreign aid should be ended. Look after number one for a change.

So Onetwo are you suggesting nothing is done or that we should not help the people in our own country until we help everyone else's first?

Just to confirm, for my own understanding, in a country of 63 million we are claiming that at least 10% (assumin that the 4 million are children only) are in poverty. Surely not?

Truss has made a mistake somewhere for certain, as anyone with even GCSE geography understands there's a difference between absolute and relative poverty, absolute being something that pretty much doesn't even exist in this country.

The problem with poverty statistics is they are just that, stats, which means they are open to endless interpretations and vary wildly depending on how the data was gathered and under what parameters.

Isn't absolute poverty where someone earns less than a dollar a day, or perhaps two dollars a day?

Relative poverty is below the 60% median income threshold. #gcsegeography #alevelworlddevelopment

Yeah absolute poverty is less than a dollar a day.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Truss has made a mistake somewhere for certain, as anyone with even GCSE geography understands there's a difference between absolute and relative poverty, absolute being something that pretty much doesn't even exist in this country.

The problem with poverty statistics is they are just that, stats, which means they are open to endless interpretations and vary wildly depending on how the data was gathered and under what parameters.

I wouldn't be so hasty to crow. Truss is correct. According to government statistics, relative poverty is defined as an equivalised household income less than 60% of the national median. Absolute poverty is defined as an equivalised household income less than 60% of the median in the baseline year (I think 2009/10), adjusted for inflation.

Of course, the absolute poverty measure is still relative to UK income, but the term absolute poverty is correct.

You're also incorrect in your assessment of poverty stats. The stats Truss is referring to are official statistics. The data source is very robust.

Just the usual abuse.....Figures are correct....Official figures..

Let it go..

Tophat is just unhappy with his life...

Hope it gets better for him..

They might be official stats but you've gotta admit the description of it is absolute bullcack.

Nothing surprises me with our country at the moment as we're broken with policies not being thought through (Spare room subsidy, brilliant idea in general, the way they brought it in was Poopie with no proper thinking behind it.)

I don't want to see kids suffering..

Not interested in descriptions..

Keep the pedantry to yourself...

It's not pedantry Truss, if your calling what we have over here ABSOLUTE poverty what do you call poverty in Africa where they have nothing. They have absolute zilcho poverty??????

Yes it's bad that people are starving (it's not just kids by the way, it's kids all the way up to the elderly) and haven't got enough money for food/clothing/heating. It's why there's a number of food banks etc, and it's shocking that this has become a necessity in this country.

The description completely nullifies any good effort than come from people like yourself trying to change this as if you polled a bunch of people they'd say the same as what everyones asked in this thread, if we're absolute poverty then what are other countries.

Derbymanc wrote:They might be official stats but you've gotta admit the description of it is absolute bullcack.

Nothing surprises me with our country at the moment as we're broken with policies not being thought through (Spare room subsidy, brilliant idea in general, the way they brought it in was Poopie with no proper thinking behind it.)

Absolute bullcack in what way? I think people are mistaking income levels with poverty. Relative poverty measures income against your peers. Absolute poverty provides a measure of purchasing power that stays consistent over time.

Poverty is by its very nature a relative measure. An income of £5,000 per year might make you wealthy in some countries. In the UK, you would not be able to afford the essentials.

The dollar a day figure is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a benchmark for poverty globally. Rather it was a average of poverty measures across developing countries. It's also 20 years out of date (but that's by-the-by).

You see what you've wrote there JBBRH, you understand it, some other people will understand it, a lot of people don't. They will look at poverty, equate it with eating/heating etc and will then look at other countries and go pfffft we haven't got poverty, someone's cooking the stats.

It would actually be better if you just said poverty, ABSOLUTE poverty sounds like the be all and end all of poverty.

BTW in this day and age and in this country, no person (young, teen, adult, elderly) should be going without adequate, food, heating, and clothing. It's a massive problem that seems to be getting worse and the government seem unwilling to look at properly.

Oh and sorry Truss you are right, it is pedantic to look at the description, problem is like I said if even one person doesn't realise this is a problem because of that then the description itself needs to change.


Just for Trussy as well,this is the problem with stats and polls

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-28145234#?foo=bar&

Derbymanc wrote:You see what you've wrote there JBBRH, you understand it, some other people will understand it, a lot of people don't. They will look at poverty, equate it with eating/heating etc and will then look at other countries and go pfffft we haven't got poverty, someone's cooking the stats.

It would actually be better if you just said poverty, ABSOLUTE poverty sounds like the be all and end all of poverty.

I understand entirely. The thing is that absolute poverty is about an inability to afford basic human needs, like heating and eating.

The basis of the term is that absolute poverty is a true measure of poverty in a particular country, as opposed to relative poverty, which is more accurately a measure of low income relative to one's peers, or of income inequality.

The fact that there are poorer people elsewhere in the world is a moot point. Firstly, in most cases those people will be in dire poverty: Starvation is far beyond simple poverty. Secondly, those people's poverty will be measured in the context of the costs of living specific to the countries they live in.

It is perhaps unsurprising that relative poverty levels are increasing in the UK, due to increasing income inequality. However, it is interesting that absolute poverty is increasing as it suggests that wage stagnation set against inflation of the prices of basic necessities, is becoming a significant problem. This cuts against the Tory message that food bank usage is only on the increase because of an increase of availability. Rather, it suggests that austerity policies are pushing people into poverty (or at least withdrawing support from those most in need).

I agree with the stats for this and understand exactly what your saying. The problem with the description of it is that there are people that will look at the headline and think that it's not as a big a problem as it is due to poverty elsewhere. (Try and explain to someone that any person in britain is worse off than someone in a slum in Nigeria.)

This means it can be ignored by some as not as big an issue as it is.

The price of basic necessities is not becoming a significant problem, it is a significant problem. Wage rises have not matched inflation and companies keep putting prices up and will continue to do so (who remembers npowers boss telling the elderly to put an extra jumper on a few years back.)

Anyone that doesn't realise food banks are also a necessity now doesn't know someone that has to use them and has been taken in by what we believe is a benefits culture whereas it's not as bad as it's made out. (It's not perfect but not everybody is milking the system.)

I'm not sure if i'm explaining it properly to be honest.

Problem with stas that talk about the average national income is that the also include C***S like Wayne Rooney on £300k a week which, to be honest does tend to f**k things up.

How many of these families claiming to be in poverty still have a dvd player and big telly though?

"Can't afford to feed my kids but at least I can take my mind of it by watching Jeremy Kyle and Bin Wars"

The big problem is Dave is that's all you hear about, the family with the 10 kids, 3 council houses and pee off on holiday twice a year. What's not being reported is the five families on the same street that have just enough to feed an clothe their kids.

Benefits is a massive issue for people because the system seems unjustly unfair to some people (I know swathes of family that have never worked but get to go away twice a year etc etc,) Yet you've got the others that have got next to nothing. The system is lopsided. Yet we believe the worst because it's all we're ever told about.

DAVE667 wrote:Problem with stas that talk about the average national income is that the also include C***S like Wayne Rooney on £300k a week which, to be honest does tend to f**k things up.

How many of these families claiming to be in poverty still have a dvd player and big telly though?

"Can't afford to feed my kids but at least I can take my mind of it by watching Jeremy Kyle and Bin Wars"

That's why they use the median and not the mean.

And these figures are nothing to do with people 'claiming' to be in poverty. They're based on actual household incomes.

this is a pretty good link to read on the meanings of poverty.
http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/social%20exclusion.shtml

I can't find the stats for poverty in the UK, if Trussy comes back on can you post us the link please.

Derbymanc wrote:this is a pretty good link to read on the meanings of poverty.
http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/social%20exclusion.shtml

I can't find the stats for poverty in the UK, if Trussy comes back on can you post us the link please.

This explains how the stats Trussman was quoting are calculated:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/325418/hbai-low-income-how-is-it-measured-infographic.pdf

Cheers JB,

Doesn't help with my hatred of stats (seriously, it's not even 1 percent of the population of the UK) and again will be coloured by where you live and the people you interact with.

I'd probably say it's worse than what they think to be honest, especially for anybody renting and on the minimum wage at the moment.

f**k stats, the press once wrote and article where the said that the poorest street in Britain was Canal Road in Bradford....however, they neglected to mention that it's populated by businesses and maybe one actual residence.

Saw an article on this whilst I was away.

Truss forgets to mentio (or conveniently avoids fully referencing) that the report actually says that poverty in the UK is at it's lowest level since the early 1980s.

Hence my comment, JB, that stats are open to interpretation and can be used to present whatever case you want.

Food bank use has sky rocketed...Forgot to mention that too..

Like I say though it's not a Labour/Tory thing...

It's to highlight that it's 2014 not 214...You'd think we could get our priorities right.

Not 214, but still better off than any time in the last 30 years. Doesn't seem too shabby to me.

And I've commented on food banks plenty - greatest fallacy of the 21st century and tells a totally different story to that pedalled.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Saw an article on this whilst I was away.

Truss forgets to mentio  (or conveniently avoids fully referencing) that the report actually says that poverty in the UK is at it's lowest level since the early 1980s.

Hence my comment, JB, that stats are open to interpretation and can be used to present whatever case you want.

I agree with that - stats can be misused, or simply not very reliable. However, they can also be checked and verified.

So, for example, where you say that poverty in the UK is at its lowest level since the early 1980s, I can check that against the report, and see that you are referring to relative poverty before housing costs. However, going back to the definitions, I can see that relative low income looks at income compared with the median income in a given year. Furthermore, looking at before-housing-costs figures doesn't account for the fact that low income households may be more affected by changes in housing costs, as they represent a significant proportion of household budgets.

By contrast, the data shows that absolute poverty after housing costs has increased (although not significantly) over the last couple of years. I'd say that's a more important measure.

On that basis, I would question your assertion that poverty is at its lowest level since the 80s.

Problem with food bank use is that there are people using food banks who don't actually NEED to use them. The Church simply doesn't have it in them to vet/interrogate people sufficiently to turn anyone down either. Nasty rumour doing the rounds in our village that a local family have been seen at a number of food banks in the area but also seen sufficiently affluent enough to spend a lot of evenings at the pub and takeaways.

Not really a Christian attitude to go round and set their house on fire, but if they're taking food out of the mouths of genuinely needy people then I'm all for it. I donate what I can to the food bank, but I'd rather it went to some one who needed it that some greedy c**t who just wanted it.

As Dave alluded to above that can be an issue with food banks but the fact we still need them tells a story of our society as a whole, We really need to get a grip on the general cost of living the scandal that there are some people that genuinely cannot afford to eat properly or live comfortably (I don't mean with a PS4 etc, I mean with heating, decent furniture and a tv.)

Why do we absolutely lambast people for letting an animal starve, yet seem to do nothing to help our starving people?????????????

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Saw an article on this whilst I was away.

Truss forgets to mentio  (or conveniently avoids fully referencing) that the report actually says that poverty in the UK is at it's lowest level since the early 1980s.

Hence my comment, JB, that stats are open to interpretation and can be used to present whatever case you want.

I agree with that - stats can be misused, or simply not very reliable. However, they can also be checked and verified.

So, for example, where you say that poverty in the UK is at its lowest level since the early 1980s, I can check that against the report, and see that you are referring to relative poverty before housing costs. However, going back to the definitions, I can see that relative low income looks at income compared with the median income in a given year. Furthermore, looking at before-housing-costs figures doesn't account for the fact that low income households may be more affected by changes in housing costs, as they represent a significant proportion of household budgets.

By contrast, the data shows that absolute poverty after housing costs has increased (although not significantly) over the last couple of years. I'd say that's a more important measure.

On that basis, I would question your assertion that poverty is at its lowest level since the 80s.

I can tell you have actually lived in the real World...

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Saw an article on this whilst I was away.

Truss forgets to mentio  (or conveniently avoids fully referencing) that the report actually says that poverty in the UK is at it's lowest level since the early 1980s.

Hence my comment, JB, that stats are open to interpretation and can be used to present whatever case you want.

I agree with that - stats can be misused, or simply not very reliable. However, they can also be checked and verified.

So, for example, where you say that poverty in the UK is at its lowest level since the early 1980s, I can check that against the report, and see that you are referring to relative poverty before housing costs. However, going back to the definitions, I can see that relative low income looks at income compared with the median income in a given year. Furthermore, looking at before-housing-costs figures doesn't account for the fact that low income households may be more affected by changes in housing costs, as they represent a significant proportion of household budgets.

By contrast, the data shows that absolute poverty after housing costs has increased (although not significantly) over the last couple of years. I'd say that's a more important measure.

On that basis, I would question your assertion that poverty is at its lowest level since the 80s.

1. It was not my assertion, but the report's (via the article I read)
2. I still dispute the absolute poverty definition, which goes back to my original point about stats being mis-leading and variable according to basis of measurement. The definition is entirely arbitrary, therefore if someone simply decided that 'absolute poverty' was measured by $/day then the statistical output would be entirely different from if the definition were, say, "personal income 50% of the regional average with no financial supoort from local or regional government".

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Saw an article on this whilst I was away.

Truss forgets to mentio  (or conveniently avoids fully referencing) that the report actually says that poverty in the UK is at it's lowest level since the early 1980s.

Hence my comment, JB, that stats are open to interpretation and can be used to present whatever case you want.

I agree with that - stats can be misused, or simply not very reliable. However, they can also be checked and verified.

So, for example, where you say that poverty in the UK is at its lowest level since the early 1980s, I can check that against the report, and see that you are referring to relative poverty before housing costs. However, going back to the definitions, I can see that relative low income looks at income compared with the median income in a given year. Furthermore, looking at before-housing-costs figures doesn't account for the fact that low income households may be more affected by changes in housing costs, as they represent a significant proportion of household budgets.

By contrast, the data shows that absolute poverty after housing costs has increased (although not significantly) over the last couple of years. I'd say that's a more important measure.

On that basis, I would question your assertion that poverty is at its lowest level since the 80s.

I can tell you have actually lived in the real World...

Deary me, this drivel again

Pity, as the issue was actually being quite sensibly debated.

Don't start again Trussy, you've had stuff handed to you as have probably most of us. Everyones point is valid (Your always stating that) and if you don't agree with it explain why instead of making sweeping statements (IE DM doesn't know what he's talking about as he's never had the issues we're talking about) It causes arguments, gets the MODS back up and they then make sweeping bans where we're not allowed to discuss it at all.

Believe it or not some people might learn something from these debates.

What is this real world that Truss keeps banging on about?

I think it's the lower/working class world. Anyone wants to see it I can give you a tour round the place. It's a bit like everything else, some of it's good, some of it's bad, some of it is weird.

There's less spare money knocking around for emergencies/leisure but you can make a go of it if your willing to try.

It's also generally where people see the laziest of society and see a bunch of benefits scroungers, whilst some of that is true (a lot of middle/upper class don't need the main benefits system, that's why they're middle/upper) A lot of it is not, it's full of hard workers and decent families.

The bad just gives it a bad name.

Duty281 wrote:What is this real world that Truss keeps banging on about?

It's where only the impoverished/seriously hard-up live.

If you've achieved anything in live, and in doing so avoided being homeless/a drug addict/desperately in reliance on handouts, then you've never lived in the real world and therefore any opinion you express is automatically invalid.

Somewhat ironic given most people's two most difficult achievements in life are career and house and Truss had both handed to him by daddy-in-law.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:What is this real world that Truss keeps banging on about?

It's where only the impoverished/seriously hard-up live.

If you've achieved anything in live, and in doing so avoided being homeless/a drug addict/desperately in reliance on handouts, then you've never lived in the real world and therefore any opinion you express is automatically invalid.

Somewhat ironic given most people's two most difficult achievements in life are career and house and Truss had both handed to him by daddy-in-law.

It's the place where guys off their head on acid or something go around headbutting over-weight middle-aged sex tourists in bars they have no right frequenting in the first instance whilst their Celia Imrie lookalike wives berate them for threatening to punch their teenage son just because he won a game on the X-Box earlier in the evening.

That's the ugly face of drugs, alcohol and violence in Britain.

Whereas TRUSSMAN....just the ugly face

Well I was going to answer Duty's question..

But I see you two beat me to it !!!

We know you're a busy man TRUSS, fending off advances from women way out of your league and sorting out problems in the office (that your incompetence created in the first place)

Just don't try and tell us we don't care.

You knew Rebecca then ??

How many sugars did she take ??...

Nice to know you care though..

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:What is this real world that Truss keeps banging on about?

It's where only the impoverished/seriously hard-up live.

If you've achieved anything in live, and in doing so avoided being homeless/a drug addict/desperately in reliance on handouts, then you've never lived in the real world and therefore any opinion you express is automatically invalid.

Somewhat ironic given most people's two most difficult achievements in life are career and house and Truss had both handed to him by daddy-in-law.

Ah, thank you TopHat. Sounds terribly socialist to me.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You knew Rebecca then ??

How many sugars did she take ??...

Nice to know you care though..

I don't care, I just don't not care

Becky says Hello...well, I think that's what she says, hard to tell when she's got her mouth full and her thighs firmly clamped over my ears

[quote="TopHat24/7"]

Duty281 wrote:

If you've achieved anything in live, and in doing so avoided being homeless/a drug addict/desperately in reliance on handouts, then you've never lived in the real world ironic given most people's two most difficult achievements in life are career and house and Truss had both handed to him by daddy-in-law.

Don't suppose this takes into account my working two jobs as well as doing my studies in order to spend the summer of 88 in England with Jo....Or having the bollox to leave home at 19 and go live in a foreign Country on a wing and a prayer...

I was an A/B student and would have done alright anyway..Me thinks !!

You probably would have done alright Trussy (wish i'd done better at school,) but YOU can't go round throwing the 'you've had everything handed to you line' when that's exactly what's happened to you.

It also makes it look like your embarassed by it and are trying to push yourself as a working mans hero which you don't need to do.

You've done well for yourself but your not the only one that's worked his way up (or sideways) and the way you talk sometimes that's how you come across (hence our little ding dong last week.)

Just pointing out that there was a little more to it...

However opinions make the World go round..

See Trussy, none of that comes off as sincere. and you have had everything handed to you. I know people that would kill to be given a house and a career stacking shelves in the middle of Cheetham Hill (not saying that's you btw)

If you don't mind me asking but where abouts in manchester are you staying now (area, I don't mean the street

Statements like 'I don't forget where I came from etc etc' make you come across as a bit of a n0bber and sounds like your trying to be elitist. It also sounds like your trying to invalidate someone else's point. There isn't much difference between a person that's been born into wealth or married into it. The difference is that person that has to toil for every single penny.

Your view is as valid as everyone else's and is obviously going to come out of your own experiences, you try too often to put someone else's view down due to you not understanding their experience's or your belief that people from certain backgrounds have to have a certain viewpoint or it isn't valid (hence our little blow out last week.)