Christmas is a time of high expectations for excited young children whose wishes are easily fulfilled in comfortable homes. But please spare a thought for those who live in poverty, and numbers have risen sharply in Norfolk, according to new figures just published.
So Jim Murphy’s blog on the welfare state and child poverty could not be more timely, he is the little known minister for employment and welfare reform.
Figures in the Eastern Daily Press (not online) show that 26 areas of Norfolk are now ranked among the most deprived 10% in England. It is the second worst among 16 shire counties in England. And the number of children in care in the Norfolk is beginning to rise again too, with poverty thought to be a contributory factor.
But how is poverty defined today, in our hugely commercialised society? I accept it has been prevalent in Conservative governments too, so what is the way forward? And what is government doing?
The widely accepted definition of poverty is having an income which is less than 60% of the national average (excluding the wealthiest members of society). On this measure, the proportion of the UK population defined as in poverty is roughly one in five. And this roughly one in five figure has remained the same through both Conservative and Labour governments.
“In fact, wind the clock back and the percentage of people in poverty has fallen by little over 10% since the first great UK poverty surveys were carried out at the end of the nineteenth century. But no one in their right mind would suggest that one fifth of the population in modern Britain are as steeped in poverty as their Victorian ancestors. Essentially, how poverty is measured has evolved. The social scientists have being busy moving the goalposts.”
Poverty was measured by the Rowntree “basket of goods” definition up until the 1950s, which included some food, housing and clothing. Rowntree showed that people were poor because they simply did not earn enough at work or were unable to find work, due to illness, injury or the cold economic winds of the Victorian free market.
David Hirsch, researcher at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, describes today’s poverty indicators as:
- Not having a High Street bank account
- Having to spend more than 10% of income on energy bills
- Poor access to transport, employment opportunities or healthy food
- How people feel that they compare to their peers
And research carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in the 1980s and then in 2000 revealed that 14% of people did not possess more than one pair of shoes and 25% were unable to save £10 a month for their retirement. According to social scientists, it is even possible for someone to have a mobile phone or television and live in poverty, that manufactured goods are now very cheap, but sending a child on a school trip is expensive.
Today, a link is being made between poverty and obesity as high fat, high sugar food is cheaper and more readily available than healthier alternatives. The hallmark of poverty today isn’t the gaunt feral look, but type two diabetes and an expanding waistline. This is how our society is evolving.
Mr Hirsch paints a very disturbing picture:
“We have come a long way in terms of measuring poverty. But whichever way it is measured, roughly 20% of the population suffer deprivation, while a hardcore of two to three million are in deep poverty. Many of those people in deep poverty will go without food today so that that their children can eat, in some respects not that much has changed in the past 100 years.”
You would imagine the government’s would be consulting with the Child Poverty Action Group, but they have condemned government plans to stop benefits for long term unemployed, fearing it will create even more hardship for the poorest, that instead government should provide decent support and training opportunities for the many who want work, but face barriers to getting it around skills, caring responsibilities and discrimination.
Has Ian Duncan Smith pressed the right buttons with his recent Breakdown Britain report which highlights that despite all the government’s spending, poverty is getting worse, resulting in appalling rates of family breakdown, educational failure, welfare dependency, drug and alcohol addiction and indebtedness. It seems to me he definitely has, he points towards family breakdown as a cause, a concern I share too:
“There is a direct, causal link between the strength and health of a child’s family and that child’s prospects in life. Yet government does not have courage to address the centrality of family breakdown in causing and sustaining poverty. Government has a vital role to play in protecting the most vulnerable, but it is often voluntary and community groups that are best equipped to help people overcome addictions, get back into work or enable families to develop the relationship skills to stay together.
“Poverty can only be defeated if government works more effectively with the voluntary sector and the public in addressing its root causes.”
I believe social justice and poverty can no longer be low key, that providing further training, support and education, helping create new job opportunities, as well as supporting families, are essential to help reduce poverty. What would your suggestions be?
“Relative Poverty” is socialist spin and should be called “inequality”.
A resident of Henley-on-Thames with 1 old car might be described as poor, if compared to most of their fellow residents. But they aren’t really poor.
Likewise, the residents of Rwanda and Haiti “enjoy” low levels of relative poverty – pretty much everyone is on the absolute poverty line, so there’s no wealth divide.
France has a low rate of relative poverty, to go with their high rate of unemployment, Ireland has much higher relative poverty than 20 years ago (when it wasn’t as well developed and prosperous as it is today).
What we should address is opportunity for people to rise from poverty. Deal with crime that blights poor people. Raise education standards, raise tax thresholds.
DWP blogging through Welfare Reform…
Ellee Seymour reminds us about others less fortunate at this time of year and in doing so draws my attention to Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform, Jim Murphy’s blog. Don’t know how I missed this one but…
There is something in my mind about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Last Christmas was marred by debt worries. I am not worried about the debts this year, although they are still there, they are being managed to whatever extent. It concerns me that N Power put up the price of gas and electric, by 25% twice within a few months. And this cold spell means that at least half of my jobseekers allowance of £55 each week is taken by this company.
My jobseekers allowance is lower than 60% of the national average, therefore I must be living in poverty. Perhaps, my memory has faded, but when I was unemployed in the 1960s, I could have sworn that my dole was half of a working wage. Now, it appears to be 25% of the minimum wage.
I am on a government New Deal, whereby I am supposed to set up in business as a self employed prison law and media consultant. It is hard going, trying to sell what is inside my head to unknown customers. I cannot help but think about all those gold prospectors who died trying to find gold. I think I have gold, but it feels as if I am in a ghost town and nobody rides through who I can interest in my wares.
However bad it gets out here, my mind is made up I will not seek refuge in prison again. On the bright side, I have good friends. A house and a dog. The Christmas tree is up and so are the decorations. The government is consulting about prisoners right to vote, it is a meaningless exercise because Parliament has to debate the issue and then implement the decision of the ECtHR. There is still the legal cut and thrust whilst the government tries it on to do the minimum to comply with its obligation to the Convention, and I seek to establish the principle of universal franchise.
I don’t feel for myself this poverty. It is not being able to give the presents I would like to give to my friends that I feel the hardest about. Trying to repay the kindness given to me over so many years is the hardest thing. I know they understand and do not expect anything. Still, Christmas time is not only for receiving but for giving also.
Bring back Thatcherism
While I baulk at defining questions such as “How do you feel compared to your peers?” I do think that Governments need to look at a more individual, experiential framework for defining poverty.
I’m no social scientist but I think this is idea is very unlikely to be taken up by governments or even funding organisations due to the problems of managing multiple definitions and thus the problem of multiple solutions.
I used to work for a grant giving charity where poverty was defined as (basically) a household earning less than £23k pa. with a severely disabled child.
But compare households on this income in Blackburn and Enfield – big difference in spending power.
Re. IDS – I totally agree as to where he is coming from on family-breakdown and poverty, but I wonder whether we have passed the point of trying to keep families together when in many situations the breakdown happened long before. That is, the key breakdown happened two or three generations ago.
The solution might be work hard to rebuild the idea of family (very difficult) or deal with the current reality.
Good post. Timely and poignant.
Ellie,
No better time to raise the issue of child poverty – and we should be cognisant of the impact on the elderly also (many of whom have contributed throughout their working careers and now get little in return).
It cannot be right in a comparatively wealthy society like the UK that the rich are getting richer – or that children are going hungry and all too often leave school unable to read or write. I grew up in Norfolk (in Great Yarmouth) and still have family there. Norfolk was never the richest county, but people worked hard in the various industries that have flourished for a short-time there. A good education and shortage of career opportunities meant I moved away – and when returning to visit, I cannot ever envisage going back. News of the new outer harbour is encouraging – although 30 years later than it should have been. I believe it needs vision and inspiration to mobilise the talents of the people rather than see them as a problem that needs solving. Most people would like to make a better life – they just need to be given the chance and motivation to do so. A better public profile for Norfolk would be good too – it has many great assets but we rarely hear about these nationally.
For me, Heather is the only one who has hit the nail right on the head when she argued that ‘it needs vision and inspiration to mobilise the talents of the people rather than see them as a problem that needs solving’.
As far as I can see, there is only one real way to eleviate impoverishment from the heartlands of Britain – the simple answer is, we need unpresidented economic growth.
Not just growth by 1.5 per cent, or 3 per cent a year – we need economic growth by 10 to 15 per cent, per year, in order to pull the worse off out of their misery, at the very least. This would bring the issue of poverty back in the political and economic where it’s supposed to be.
As Heather has alluded, the issue of poverty is being wrapped-up as somehow naturalised and individualised, which transform the issues around impoverishment into moral issues.
In the not-so-distant past, it was conservatives’ who thought that ‘unemployment was a price worth paying’ for economic success, because economic success was seen as the force for lifting individuals out of poverty – not the State.
What I find really strange in this debate, and in some cases, quite disturbing, is the hatred against affluence – whereby some people think it’s perfectly fine to attack the rich for being… em… just rich. Such negative attitudes have long-term political consequences for the debate on poverty, because all it does is to stigmatises people who have material aspirations.
On a lighter note;
It appears that somebody considers Ellee to be a bit of a ‘Uber Blogger’. Up there with Iain Dale & Bloggers4Labour.
Wow.. what a compliment.
I focused on child poverty because that was the basis of the Norfolk report, but the plight of pensioners concerns me very much too, particularly how many people today cannot save for their future pension and the impact this will have in years to come, as well as those suffering today.
Heather, Great Yarmouth is one of the Norfolk hot spots suffering highlighted as considerable poverty at the moment, the data is very complicated, but is available on the Norfolk County Council link. I cannot envisage going back to my hometown to live either, which is Wisbech, Capital of the Fens, with many beautiful Georgian buildings, but also high unemployment and considered to be a blighted drugs den, though the rest of my family live there quite happily.
And Courtney, if only we could have that high level of economic growth, but although I am not an economist, I wonder how truly competitive the UK is considering the cheaper labour in other countries.
We all have to do what little we can. I look after pensioners in my village, I am taking food to an elderly sick lady now who lives nearby. And I have recently read a post from Icedink (on my other blog list) who kindly gave money to a beggar today.
This is not the season to be judgemental, let’s help all those we can who have difficulties for different reasons. And let’s hope politicians get a grip on this too.
Economic growth of 10-15% would grind the world’s resources and the environment to a standstill. Everyone would lose out in the end.
Nobody begrudges properly earned wealth. But when you see the riches of footballers, pop stars and fat-cat directors, I wonder whether some of it has been properly earned.
The CPAG has emailed me their response, but they currently have a policy not to post comments on blogs, so unfortunately I cannot share it with you.
Christmas always highlights real poverty for those who cannot afford items for their children. Poverty is not when they can’t afford the latest DVDs etc but spend money on gambling and cigarettes.
Again, I think the only answer is education and by that I mean educating those who have never known poverty about what it is like as well. If you have inherited wealth I don’t think you can imagine what financial insecurity is like. I feel for John Hirst because debt problems are awful and there is no public sympathy. I have been there. Glad you have got your Xmas tree up, John.
Welshcakes: Do you make them? I use a recipie my daughter-in-law gave me, handed down from her mother through generations. A ‘wyt’n siarad Cymraeg?
So Jim says “properly earned”. Really Jim. Who the bloody hell are you to criticize anybody? If someone happens to be a talented footballer, writer, actor or businessman then they should be entitled to earn whatever they can. It is not the job of any government to dictate to people what they can earn or where.
Jim, you want to get that chip off your shoulder.
Good luck to you, Ellee!
“Courtney, if only we could have that high level of economic growth”.
“Economic growth of 10-15% would grind the world’s resources and the environment to a standstill.”
Well… I certainly underestimated the degree of disdain and cynicism directed towards the self-evident benefits that come from economic growth.
At least Ellee seems to agree that increasing affluence is still in principle a worthwhile goal – however, Jim’s reservations about the desirability of economic growth are completely unfounded. The idea that rapid economic growth is somehow unsustainable is instructive – indeed, everyone here (especially Jim) has benefited one way or another from the last major period of rapid economic growth – the post-war boom. That boom ended on the mid 70’s.
That boom increased affluence throughout society like never before in human history. Indeed, it can be argued that persistent impoverishment today, is the fault, of not enough economic growth since the late 70’s. Even though Jim is not quite arguing for the end to growth, or worst, for the economy to shrink – nevertheless, such resentment towards growth represents a much broader attack on social development and human progress in general.
Jim’s comments should remind us all how easy it is to forget how economic growth and affluence have had enormous beneficial effect, not just for us, but also for the world in general.
Indeed, Jim’s outlook completely ignores how much work there still needs to be done to increase the living standards of the poor in this country, and the rest of the world – an economy that is more productive and stronger could, and should in principle give all people the ability and opportunity to live better and healthier lives than ever before.
Jim’s constrained imagination is becoming more and more popular these days, such a misanthropic perspective is fast becoming a barrier to human progress in the here and now. Unlike Jim, I’m committed to the ideas of the Enlightenment, and human progress – it’s become an imperative for me to launch a counter-attack against such anti-growth thinking, because it is all through growth that humanity can harness its power in order to create a far better world that fit for us humans to live in.
I wish Ellee and all her readers a very merry Christmas, and a prosperous new year.
“Jim’s outlook completely ignores how much work there still needs to be done to increase the living standards of the poor in this country”
No I don’t! I don’t allude to any such thing – how dare you take me out of context like that! In my eyes your spin has destroyed in my eyes any of your credibility that might have remained in my eyes.
The sort of growth you are talking about assumes an abundance of cheap resources (minerals etc.) that were once considered inexhaustible. They are not.
It is axiomatic that the rich will get richer. Since I was fortunate myself became to become a saver rather than a borrower, I can use my interest to spend £500 in the cash and carry to incur yet further economies of scale. As I said somewhere else, we have to fond another solution. the Tories don’t seem to have come up with policies that are any more convincing than anyone else’s.
Sorry, “in my eyes” three times is not elegant, I was seeing red 🙂
I have removed a number of comments because I found them upsetting. Can we please just discuss the topic.
Ellee,
Sorry to have upset you. I do feel strongly, though, about Mr Hirst’s comments about his ‘poverty’ (which is the topic). I think I made a perfectly valid point.
Marjorie
‘have to agree. Marjorie expressed a perfectly legitimate point of view.
I agree Ellee, a serious debate about what can, and should be done about poverty in Britain was being hijacked.
If people have nothing to suggest, or add to this debate, then they don’t deserve to have their comments published.
Jim, when it comes to the issue of poverty and what is to be done about it, in mine eye, seeing red is always a pretty good thing.
As for ‘spin’, I’m afraid you endow me with skills that I didn’t know I had.
“The sort of growth you are talking about assumes an abundance of cheap resources (minerals etc.) that were once considered inexhaustible. They are not”.
One cheap resourse we have today is of course human labour. Another potentially ‘inexhaustible’ resource for the near future could be nuclear energy. Neither are to my mind inexhaustible resources.
As for taking what you argued out of context, I don’t think I did – I used your unsubstantiated quote to back my argument. You argued that “[e]conomic growth of 10-15% would grind the world’s resources and the environment to a standstill.” This is not true.
China seems able to do it, so to other Tiger economies – and the world’s resources and the environment haven’t exactly ground to a halt – have they?
All this just begs the question why is it that an advance economy like Britain is so anemic and lacklusture when it comes to growth?
I`m sorry if i have upset you Ellee.
Sorry to go on, but a few days ago Mr Hirst stated on Guido’s website: “I make my living as a prison law and media consultant”. Hardly the same as being on the dole. He is a liar (amongst other things), so just be careful.
Of course China is doing it now! At the expense of oil reserves we considered our own! It cannot, and will not, last much longer. Not to mention the contribution to atmospheric and global pollution. Did you know the beautiful indigenous White River Dolphin has just been declared extinct in the Yangtze River due to river pollution? Is that the sort of life style you aspire to? Not for me, no thank you! No more “boom and bust” that you appear to advocate, those days are over, thank goodness.
We must find another way.
Because I am 25+ I am entitled to start a business under the New Deal Self Employment option. I can continue to receive benefit until the end of Test Trading.
Perhaps, the judgemental should wait until this 12 month trial period is over.
Yes, Mr Hirst, the New Deal is all very well and good (and I do wish you luck in your venture), but to say you are making your living as a Consultant is a lie, and at the very least, misleading. You are surviving from state handouts, which is your choice entirely. Personally, I chose not to go into the life of crime: I studied and worked hard, and I am rather cross that I pay £500+ per month in tax to pay for people who could be earning their own living. I hope than in time, you can get off the dole and give something positive to our society. Perhaps you could help others who are are in true, and unavoidable, poverty.
By which I don’t mean other criminals!
[…] Even some Tories seem to have swallowed the great socialist fib of the welfare state: “I believe … providing further training, support and education, helping create new job opportunities, as well as supporting families, are essential to help reduce poverty. What would your suggestions be?” […]
[…] Even some Tories seem to have swallowed the great socialist fib of the welfare state: “I believe … providing further training, support and education, helping create new job opportunities, as well as supporting families, are essential to help reduce poverty. What would your suggestions be?” […]
[…] Norfolk PCT is in crisis, with some vulnerable patients forced to pay for their treatment And a local judge has complained to the Government at the lack of provisions for mental health patients. There are also 26 areas of Norfolk ranked among the most deprived 10% in England. […]
I think the first thing to do is to change peoples views and mentalities. Government has a limited power, people are those who should make decisions for themselves.
Narcanon
The increases in food prices have a dominant role in increasing inflation in many countries now. It would be misguided to address these specific inflation causes with general macroeconomic instruments. Mainly, specific policies are needed to deal with the causes and consequences of high food prices. Although the current situation poses policy challenges on several fronts, there are effective and coherent actions that can be taken to help the most vulnerable people in the short term while working to stabilize food prices by increasing agricultural production in the long term.
—————————
joey
Drug Rehab