Anger as Boris Johnson falsely claims child poverty has fallen despite huge rise under Tories

[danieldemol]

‘Boris Johnson has sparked anger by falsely claiming child poverty has fallen – despite soaring numbers below the breadline and official forecasts of worse to come.

The prime minister was confronted over the Conservatives’ record, which has left 600,000 more youngsters living in relative poverty since the party came to power in 2010.’

Read more here: Anger as Boris Johnson falsely claims child poverty has fallen despite huge rise under Tories

 

[Altfish]

‘Boris Johnson has sparked anger by falsely claiming child poverty has fallen – despite soaring numbers below the breadline and official forecasts of worse to come.

The prime minister was confronted over the Conservatives’ record, which has left 600,000 more youngsters living in relative poverty since the party came to power in 2010.’

Read more here: Anger as Boris Johnson falsely claims child poverty has fallen despite huge rise under Tories

What, Johnson lying!!!!

Who would have thought it?

 

[ChristineM]

‘Boris Johnson has sparked anger by falsely claiming child poverty has fallen – despite soaring numbers below the breadline and official forecasts of worse to come.

The prime minister was confronted over the Conservatives’ record, which has left 600,000 more youngsters living in relative poverty since the party came to power in 2010.’

Read more here: Anger as Boris Johnson falsely claims child poverty has fallen despite huge rise under Tories

What, Johnson lying!!!!

Who would have thought it?

@Altfish
My sentiments exactly. You can always tell when BJ is lying, his lips move

 

[exchemist]

What, Johnson lying!!!!

Who would have thought it?

Actually this is sort of interesting to me.

If "poverty" is defined as any household earning less than 60% of the median household income, it would seem that some people in "poverty" might not be be recognisably poor at all. It would also seem a close to impossible goal to eradicate "poverty" defined in this way, without some sort of communist revolution to control everybody's income to within a fairly narrow band.

But I admit I have not really dug into the various measures and their advantage and disadvantages. I'd be willing to learn more from someone who knows their way around the subject.

 

[Tambourine]

Actually this is sort of interesting to me.

If "poverty" is defined as any household earning less than 60% of the median household income, it would seem that some people in "poverty" might not be be recognisably poor at all. It would also seem a close to impossible goal to eradicate "poverty" defined in this way, without some sort of communist revolution to control everybody's income to within a fairly narrow band.

But I admit I have not really dug into the various measures and their advantage and disadvantages. I'd be willing to learn more from someone who knows their way around the subject.

How would you define "poverty", and for what purpose?

 

[exchemist]

How would you define "poverty", and for what purpose?

Indeed. That is a question you need to address to the writers of the newspaper article.

 

[Tambourine]

Indeed. That is a question you need to address to the writers of the newspaper article.

That was actually mentioned in the article, and the CPAG is pretty clear on this: They define the poverty line to be below 60% of the UK median income. They are fairly open as to its purpose as well - in the linked text, they exclaim rather openly that they oppose the widening income inequality in the UK.

My question was directed at you, since you questioned that definition, but did not supply a different one.

 

[exchemist]

That was actually mentioned in the article, and the CPAG is pretty clear on this: They define the poverty line to be below 60% of the UK median income. They are fairly open as to its purpose as well - in the linked text, they exclaim rather openly that they oppose the widening income inequality in the UK.

My question was directed at you, since you questioned that definition, but did not supply a different one.

What I'm interested to understand is why it is thought sensible to define poverty in this particular relative way. What is the logic? I don't mock it, but if I'm expected to buy in to it, I need to understand the basis for it.

I also repeat my observation that if one chooses a relative measure, it would seem to make it very hard for a government to reduce the proportion of the population below the threshold.

Do you know how they arrive at this definition?

 

[Tambourine]

What I'm interested to understand is why it is thought sensible to define poverty in this particular relative way. What is the logic? I don't mock it, but if I'm expected to buy in to it, I need to understand the basis for it.

You would have to dig deeper than I'm able to argue here. There are several different measures of poverty, some more relative, some less so.

Personally, I consider the term to be always relative to specific social circumstances, especially when talking about historical developments.

I also repeat my observation that if one chooses a relative measure, it would seem to make it very hard for a government to reduce the proportion of the population below the threshold.

If we disavow wealth equality as a political goal, yes. That is the dominant narrative of modern neoliberal politics - that increased wealth inequality is either an element of the natural order of things, the morally correct outcome of market liberalism, or both.

Also, this is not actually the case according to the CPAG: According to them, child poverty fell between 1999 and 2001, so clearly, it is not impossible to reduce poverty even by relative measures.

Do you know how they arrive at this definition?

As far as I can tell, they took it from a government statistic called Households Below Average income (HBAI). I have found no further elaboration.

As I said, there are different measures of poverty. I would argue that people and organisations tend to pick those they find most useful for their purposes.

 

[exchemist]

You would have to dig deeper than I'm able to argue here. There are several different measures of poverty, some more relative, some less so.

Personally, I consider the term to be always relative to specific social circumstances, especially when talking about historical developments.


If we disavow wealth equality as a political goal, yes. That is the dominant narrative of modern neoliberal politics - that increased wealth inequality is either an element of the natural order of things, the morally correct outcome of market liberalism, or both.

Also, this is not actually the case according to the CPAG: According to them, child poverty fell between 1999 and 2001, so clearly, it is not impossible to reduce poverty even by relative measures.


As far as I can tell, they took it from a government statistic called Households Below Average income (HBAI). I have found no further elaboration.

As I said, there are different measures of poverty. I would argue that people and organisations tend to pick those they find most useful for their purposes.

OK so you're in dark as much as I am. Fair enough.

I admit that what piqued my curiosity is the goal that Blair (was it?) set his government, of eliminating poverty according to this measure. That seems to me only possible if there is a radical narrowing of the entire bell curve spread in earnings - something I would have thought would be incompatible with any sort of recognisable market economy.

 

[Tambourine]

That depends on what you mean by "market economy". Many Cold War era European states maintained a market economy that was supported by a strong social welfare network and heavy regulations. This has fallen out of favor since the major privatization waves of the 1980s and 1990s and the success of Blairite Third Wayism.

Of course, if we narrow market economics down to the interests of the capitalists, then wealth inequality is very much the primary goal, but we don't/shouldn't have to do that.

 

[exchemist]

That depends on what you mean by "market economy". Many Cold War era European states maintained a market economy that was supported by a strong social welfare network and heavy regulations. This has fallen out of favor since the major privatization waves of the 1980s and 1990s and the success of Blairite Third Wayism.

Of course, if we narrow market economics down to the interests of the capitalists, then wealth inequality is very much the primary goal, but we don't/shouldn't have to do that.

Yeah but how is it possible to have an income distribution curve in which the left hand extremity of the distribution is more than 2/3 of the median? How do you do that without artificially bringing the median income down, i.e. making most people poorer? This is nothing to do with "the capitalists", it is to do with Joe Bloggs down the road.

 

[Tambourine]

Yeah but how is it possible to have an income distribution curve in which the left hand extremity of the distribution is more than 2/3 of the median? How do you do that without artificially bringing the median income down, i.e. making most people poorer? This is nothing to do with "the capitalists", it is to do with Joe Bloggs down the road.

Making most people poorer would do nothing to wealth distribution on its own, so I don't see what that would gain anybody? We can redistribute wealth without making the majority poorer, in fact the majority will generally be more well off that way. That does not need to be done by literally taking things from the wealthy, but can simply consist of building up services and infrastructure to alleviate financial stress on the majority population - lowering prices on education, public transport, public services, living space, making better paying careers more accessible to people from marginalized communities etc.

And I have no idea who Joe Bloggs is, sorry.

 

[exchemist]

Making most people poorer would do nothing to wealth distribution on its own, so I don't see what that would gain anybody? We can redistribute wealth without making the majority poorer, in fact the majority will generally be more well off that way. That does not need to be done by literally taking things from the wealthy, but can simply consist of building up services and infrastructure to alleviate financial stress on the majority population - lowering prices on education, public transport, public services, living space, making better paying careers more accessible to people from marginalized communities etc.

And I have no idea who Joe Bloggs is, sorry.

OK let's wait for someone with an understanding of statistics to show up.