Poverty in the UK - disappearing according to Boris

You can't have such drastic cuts to the benefit sector and correlate with a reduction in poverty. Many people fall into poverty when their health prevents them from working. The safety net has been taken away from many. The suffering us real and it's at the hands of this government.

The fact that in 2020 many people are worse off than in 1950s when food rationing still existed.
It seems that the government is leaving people to go hungry but is relying on the British public to plug the gaps it has left behind.
More than a million people are not just poor and food poor but effectively desitiute.
Access to food banks is controlled by a referral system then provided with vouchers to take to food bank. Many place limits on how frequently clients can visit.

The Trussel Trust distributed 87,496 to children during school holidays when they miss out on free school meals.

Professor Philip Alston, the UN special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights made a visit to the UK.
He said the government is in a state of denial

Found in a WI magazine a lot of WIs are helping out at food banks and are trying to persuade the government to stop austerity gave people a living wage so people don't end up in poverty and end insecure employment zero hours contracts.

Do you know that Tories count people who only work one hour in two weeks as working so much for increased employment figures Ha.

Anyone on here that said the people who support Labour are being critical of this government Johanson
Well the fact is that is true Tories brought in Austerity measures even though it was not needed they knew it would make people poor and affect well being.

Ladymuck Labour did badly at the elections because the people that switched from the LP to the Tories believed Johnson. Just before the election 3 middle aged men sharing a bed sit in Bolton were interviewed (Channel 4 I think) They were living away from their homes, on zero hours contracts and intended to vote for Boris because "he'd see them alright"

Believe it or not Labour supporters come from 3 diverse groups. The urban, comfortably off, well educated middle class, immigrants and young people. These people are inspired to do good for others, not just for themselves.

I despise people like Johnson and Cummings who are only out for what they can get and give no thought to those in poverty. Before anybody accuses me of being jealous of their wealth, I'm not.

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

Exactly Barmey! We're a rich country where our treatment of the poor is abysmal!

vegansrock a good post. How on earth can you say poverty has decreased when we have food banks, baby banks and the homeless sleeping in the streets, tents and families living in one room. This country is a disgrace on how we treat our people and that is down to the government.

'Relative poverty' is a measure of wealth that's compared to the average in a society. It's far more useful than the mere survival measure (where we're rich or poor depending on location).

That is why I put the link so people could see for themselves, sorry it hasn’t worked, will try again later when I get home.

What is their defintion of 'poverty', GG13? 10% sounds very low to me.

HumanProgress.org is an organisation following/mapping humans worldwide. According to them there is 10% of the worlds population in poverty.

I'm always amazed at how people take credit for their own good fortune and conveniently victim blame those in poverty.

Yes, we had pockets of severe poverty in the past. Yet we also had a good education system and work opportunities, peace, local food supplies and a thriving economy.

Those blessed with good health were fortunate to grow up in that optimistic climate.

I’ve never read such tosh as spouted by those who blame the poor for being poor. Social mobility has declined in the U.K. and inequality has increased. Nothing to do with whether or not people worked hard at school - what a simplistic generalisation. Some kids don’t work hard at school and are extremely well off due to being born into an already wealthy family with connections. Some kids work very hard at school but remain in poverty because of innate disadvantages - disability or illness or the need to care for similarly disadvantaged family members. But never mind its much easier to say the wealthy are well off by merit and the poor have only themselves to blame for making bad choices. It means we don’t have to care about those worse off than ourselves and feel smug about our own good fortune.

Maybe 7 children nowadays isn’t the norm.

Very touching story, craftyone, but the question in my mind is, 'Would you expect people to live like that now?

Is it necessary that some people should be grindingly poor and a few people be extremely rich?

ladymuck were your comments a wind up?? There are many people who worked hard doing long hours in not very good conditions just to keep their heads above water. There are those who work hard but shorter hours in nicer conditions. The first group maybe because they did not have the advantages of the second group who maybe had many more advantages through their life with a helping hand from parents, and the people they know. If you are in the second group just be thankful and dont run down people in the first group. Maybe a drink,a game of bingo and a smoke is all they have in their life to make it bearable.

real poverty was in the 50s in the slums of liverpool, ask me how I know. Me and my 6 siblings were given aspirations by our parents and we all gained good professional qualifications but then again we had 2 parents who worked very hard and who looked after us well without holidays apart from a day out now and then. Was a good life in many ways, 5 girls in a bedroom, we are very close now, all of us

We knew how to make a little meat from a pigs head stretch a very long way. One dress each plus one sunday spare, one pair of shoes. My parents never wasted money and sometimes sixpence was all they had

ladymuck Your last post has a very different message from your first. If you can’t see that, you would not pass even a GCSE in English Language, History, Sociology or any essay-based subject.

You must all be Labour supporters who don't believe that children should have an incentive to do well at school. Qualifications should mean a higher paid job.
Does an equal society mean that the better-educated earn the same as the illiterate? How unfair is that?
No wonder Labour did so poorly at the election!

Especially given the Jeremy Vine story of Johnson recycling speeches blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/my-boris-story/

PS. Johnson earned over £800,000 from writing and speeches last year, in addition to his MP's salary. Do you honestly think that's a fair exchange for the work he does, compared with somebody working hours in uncomfortable conditions doing unsociable shifts?

ladymuck Have you seen these people's bank accounts? Do you know for a fact that the ones you see drinking and smoking (and no doubt owning top end iphones and TVs) are earning no more than minimum wage? Even in low wage areas, there are those who are earning more than minimum wage. How much do they spend playing bingo? Do you really think that's something the rich do?

Are you aware that there are many who will never earn more than minimum wage - for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily because they don't work hard. Are you really suggesting they deserve no more than a bleak existence for their whole lives? Having a drink, a smoke and a few games of bingo hardly seem like the trappings of wealth. Try suggesting to any Tory MP that they should give up their expenses in exchange for a few packets of cigarettes, some alcohol and bingo!

No doubt you have been entirely self-sufficient, have slogged your guts out for 12+ hours a day in dismal surroundings and have overcome all sorts of hardships to live in the muck in which you now reside.

Grandad I too was reminded of someone who left.
We aren't all born with great academic brains.
Some people work very hard at school and don't manage to achieve good exam results. If they work hard they should never earn enough to have any luxuries, or ever have any fun? They should just exist?? That's a very caring attitude.

I think it's a disgrace that our PM doesn't know how UC works. What a shame about the bonus. Greggs would be better treating the workers to a night out.

Poverty has diminished but use of food banks has increased. Hmm..

'the wages people earn reflect their skills' do they? If only life were that simple!

The minimum wage should be enough to live on but without luxuries?

Why?

And further, if someone is working in order to get the minimum wage, what, in your view, should those who are unemployed be given? Not enough to live on?

If someone is working in the 5th richest country in the world, don't you think that they should be able to have some luxuries in their life? As Shakespeare wrote in King Lear, hundreds of years ago: 'Allow not nature more than nature needs/Man's life is cheap as beasts'.'

Do you honestly believe that working hard at school is enough to set someone up for life? That is a lot of reward for a couple of years of 'work'.

Someone with qualifications is likely to get an easier job than someone without. They are likely to have more autonomy, better working conditions and more job security, as well as better chances of promotion with a career structure. Do you think that they should also be the only people to have luxury in their lives?

What do you consider to be a luxury anyway? No more than 'a basic standard of living'? So a bed, table, chair and a roof, but no carpets? Enough food, but gruel, not chocolate, presumably? A book but no TV? Soap but no perfume? Who decides?

Why should anyone work and make profit for someone else in order to stay alive but without any pleasure in their life?

Typo. Obviously the mega wealthy don’t work with my son. They wouldn’t be mega wealthy if they did.