Less people living in Absolute Poverty according to Mrs May

The UK is one of the 10 richest countries in the world. We shouldn't have any poverty. It's not due to a lack of money but the choices that are made by government as to how that money is spent. The magic money tree doesn't exist for the poor, education, the NHS etc. but miraculously appears to bribe the DUP or for any other purpose that helps the government cling to power.

So you just shrug, mrsmopp, misquote and misunderstand the New Testament, and decide that tackling poverty and injustice is a losing battle. You tell the rest of us that we must do a quick comparative study before we use insubordinate rhetoric to fight a situation we believe we should stand up against rather than doffing our mental caps to our 'betters', believing they know what they are doing and that in knowing that they do the best for all. I'm afraid at least half the country would disagree with that premise.

When Jesus (that guy you almost quoted) said "The poor you will always have with you." he was talking to an audience that would know those words as he was quoting the Torah and they would be able to mentally add the ones that followed them: "Therefore I command you,‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land."

When people were poor in the 20s and 30s much of what holds people out of such poverty today did not exist - either for the rich or the poor. They lived in relative poverty - relative to the standard of living around them. We are still measuring relative poverty - not absolute poverty, or is that the situation you believe people must get to before we help?

To compare poverty today, with poverty in the 20s and 30s there is a world of difference. In those days people had very poor diets and children were running around in bare feet. Whole families crammed into one room and several families shared one toilet. Many people wore one set of clothes every day. They couldn't afford to see a doctor (no NHS). Mass unemployment. Infant mortality. Children with rickets. Incurable diseases. Have you read Love on the Dole or George Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London? This is all within living memory. I am not claiming poverty does not exist. The poor we will have always with us.
Will it ever be possible to eliminate poverty altogether I wonder? We live in hope.

it was the"there are more jobs,more people employed than before" that made my blood boil ...and of course there are eegits who believe him.There are more ZERO HOURS contracts ,more people on minimum wage ..and it IS MINIMUM wage not LIVING wage ,more people IN work who still cant earn enough to feed their families or who need top up benefits.And dont get me started on the universal credit fiasco!!!

Poverty is of course something to be sarcastic about isn’t it annie and use yet again in your tedious anti-Corbyn campaign

Good point paddyann.

How can there be more living in poverty by 2021? Corbyn of the communists will be PM and we will be living in the land of milk and honey

HOMELESS PEOPLE aren't on the benefits system so she wont count them ..they dont matter..they dont cost her any cash

I am glad to see a some challenges to this as I really couldn't believe it was true. Obviously, if you change the way you are calculating you can prove just about anything. Thanks to those who have highlighted her attempt (another failure for Theresa of the Tories) at slight of hand.

500,000 more Brits are expected to be living in poverty by 2021, despite record high employment

Homeless people living rough are not counted in absolute poverty figures according to Fullfact.

I agree - just use one definition of absolute poverty, then we all know what we're actually talking about.
I liked the way the fullfact article explains how a reduction in poverty statistically doesn't always mean people have a better standard of living and that there will always be some people who are statistically 'in poverty' but in reality, they are not (such as people between jobs and using some of their savings).
It made me realise that statistics can be useful, but actually what matters are individuals and their circumstance.

Thanks for the link Primrose a good clear article. I do think using the word ‘absolute’ is confusing - I see the reason for using the baselines figure of the median for 2010/11 but why not call it that. All the discussions and definitions of poverty ever since poverty studies began have used absolute in the UN way.

...”the deserving and the undeserving poor”, just what I was thinking trisher

homelessness isn't JUST people living rough ,its the tens of thousnads or more who are living in temporary accomodation,or hostels or sleeping on friends sofas,its families living in one room with no cooking or bathing facilities that have to share with countless others.Its young people who dont get housing benefits who have been in care and had to leave when they came of age ,or who have been turfed out of the family home or who left because conditions areunbearable due to alcohol abuse or drug abuse or physical/sexual abuse .Homelessness is on the rise as is poverty ,more children live in poverty now than at any time since WW11.

Surely the median income doesn't work if you live in an area where rents are way above the average. A better figure is the percentage of the income that is left after paying rent. (In DS's case not much!)

There's a very informative article on poverty at fullfact

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

This year the median income for the whole of the UK: median original income for the whole of the UK was £35,204.
at £26,000, the median disposable household income in 2016 was up £600 on the year before

It depends, too, on area and the cost of housing in that particular area which can fluctuate a lot over the UK.

So is it 60% of the first or second figure?

There are homeless in Cardiff who choose to stay in Cardiff than return to their home town and accomodation . This is not Cardiff trying to clear the city, there are not enough hostels and they will arrange accomodation in smaller towns which doesn't have people sleeping on the streets

And do you really think some people prefer to live on the streets, I'm not sure I do.
On the streets, in the countryside? I think that there are a few, a very few, who do prefer it.
I mentioned in a previous thread that people are living rough in the Mendips - but there is help available. Presumably they may come in to seek that help now winter is setting in.

Oh it's so much more complicated than I thought. Apparently the UK does not accept the UN definition.
So
A household is in relative poverty (also called relative low income) if its income is below 60% of the median household income. .

As we explained above, it defines “relative poverty” in comparison to median incomes in the current year.

It defines “absolute poverty” in comparison to the median in 2010/11.

It all puts me in mind of the Victorians and the deserving and undeserving poor

Mamacaz Trying to find out how the count is carried out is less easy than I expected, but a preparatory document for the census said Local Authorities have to undertake a homeless count every year. How they do it is up to them, but the census seemed to think that in most cases this is done satisfactorily and in bigger urban areas very well. They also count all those in hostels and night shelters. LAs usually liaise with the local police

I would guess that all but a very small proportion of homeless people will be in built up areas, whether cities, towns of all sizes and some villages, very few will be sleeping rough in rural areas.

Is the count of the homeless accurate to the last homeless person - I doubt it. I think that the result is probably accurate to within +/- 10%, which should be accurate enough for most purposes.

Perhaps they had better die and solve the problem

How on earth can you have a zero tolerance of the homeless?

FEWER !!

A genuine question: How are the homeless counted? I can see how a rough headcount of rough sleepers can be done in town/city centres and how numbers looking for overnight hostel accommodation or using other services targetting the homeless are collected, but how accurate a picture does this actually provide? If I remember rightly, haven't some places now adopted a no tolerance approach, which might have led to many moving to places that are off the radar?

As for fewer v less, I have started to overlook this 'error' on the basis that I firmly believe that it has never been recognised or applied by at least 90% of our population!