[PaulB]

I'm guessing that we haven't mentioned this because most (if not all) of us here will be to some extent removed from it. However, Professor Alston's report doesn't make for comfortable reading.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pag ... 1&LangID=E

Here are a couple of snippets from the first couple of paragraphs

The UK is the world’s fifth largest economy, it contains many areas of immense wealth, its capital is a leading centre of global finance, its entrepreneurs are innovative and agile, and despite the current political turmoil, it has a system of government that rightly remains the envy of much of the world. It thus seems patently unjust and contrary to British values that so many people are living in poverty.

and

14 million people, a fifth of the population, live in poverty. Four million of these are more than 50% below the poverty line, and 1.5 million are destitute, unable to afford basic essentials. The widely respected Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts a 7% rise in child poverty between 2015 and 2022, and various sources predict child poverty rates of as high as 40%. For almost one in every two children to be poor in twenty-first century Britain is not just a disgrace, but a social calamity and an economic disaster, all rolled into one.

the report is sympathetic to the concept of universal credit but highly critical of the implementation. I'm left wondering why the UNHCR should feel the need to investigate poverty in one of the world's top economies?

[Flyin'Dutch']

Paul, do stay with the programme, the Government by way of a spokesperson has said that this is all not true as by their measure a lot of people are better off than they were in 2010!

[PaulB]

Paul, do stay with the programme, the Government by way of a spokesperson has said that this is all not true as by their measure a lot of people are better off than they were in 2010!

Ahh... that's OK then.... I was worried there for a minute.

[Flyingfemme]

They don't define the poverty that they are reporting and I find it very hard to believe that half of UK children are in real poverty.

Equally the idea of digital delivery of Universal Credit, to people who cannot afford PCs and broadband or those who just cannot use a computer, is ridiculous. A five week wait for people who have no money is stupid. How does one get politicians an civil servants with actual brains?

This report seems to be concentrating on the delivery of UK benefits rather than the poverty they are supposed to be reporting.

[PaulB]

They don't define the poverty that they are reporting and I find it very hard to believe that half of UK children are in real poverty.

There's a version of the report with references, that cites this.

https://socialmetricscommission.org.uk/ ... REPORT.pdf

[rikur_]

From recollection the UN has definitions for two levels of poverty - Absolute poverty, and Poverty.
IIRC 'Absolute' is fairly clearly defined - relating to basic needs such as sanitation, water, health, education, etc
IIRC their definition of 'Poverty' was less clear, and in many aspects was relative to society as a whole - and therefore a bit of a moving target.

In particular watch out for the phrase 'relative poverty' (as used by DWP)- as that is defined as less than 60% of median income - so it is more a measure of the spread of incomes, than how destitute those in 'relative poverty' are.

Some that I work with prefer to focus on social mobility - i.e. the ability of people to extract themselves (possibly with help) from poverty - as a better measure of systematic problems.
What I did like from the UN report was that it recognised the issue wasn't just an inner city issue, and picked up on the often overlooked coastal towns phenomena.

[lobstaboy]

Definitions of poverty

https://fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk ... d-figures/

[PaulB]

Definitions of poverty

https://fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk ... d-figures/

There are some pretty depressing charts in that link (even if the trends are downwards.)

20% poverty in the 5th (or is it 6th) largest economy in the world!!

[Jim Jones]

I people falling through the benefits net every week. Sometimes it’s lack of action on their part but there are plenty of structural issues. Sometimes I see someone for a short consultation, then they spend an hour on one of our phones trying to get through to the DWP, housing etc, 20 minutes on hold is not unusual. Most have a basic PAYG phone, but they can burn up all this weeks minutes on such a call. And requesting “can you ring me back?” is just ignored. Being sanctioned for missing benefits appointments is immediate . Most appeals succeed, but refunds can be many weeks later. (Having £1500 paid into you bank account is unmanageable for some who are used to running out of money several days before the next payment.).

Nothing in the present system promotes movement out of poverty. This could be a major weapon in the hands of the Labour opposition , but they seem unable to do any opposing of anything

[PaulB]

I suspect that few of "us" will come into direct contact with poverty, but may well "see" it at a distance.

What people need is an opportunity to get out of the rut they are in. This seems denied to many..... That said, some don't help themselves.

[Flyin'Dutch']

I suspect that few of "us" will come into direct contact with poverty, but may well "see" it at a distance.

What people need is an opportunity to get out of the rut they are in. This seems denied to many..... That said, some don't help themselves.

When I was a full time GP in the UK it was something one experienced every day.

But even when you don't work with all strata of the public it is there to see for everyone.

[PaulB]

When I was a full time GP in the UK it was something one experienced every day.

But even when you don't work with all strata of the public it is there to see for everyone.

I think that coming into real contact with those in poverty (as opposed to driving past in your car) is a real eye opener. (I was thinking of you and JJ when I wrote the OP).

[low&slow]

Relative measures of poverety are utter wibble, even the "absolute" measure is in fact a relative measure.

The only way to eliminate relative poverty is to make every equally poor. We might all be destitute but at least we wouldn't be poor, apparently. As soon as someone becomes economically productive and earns an income, they create poverty. The more productive you are, the more poverty you create.

Understand that these figures are measures of inequality, not poverty. Understand also that they fail to take into account services provided by the state, eg education, healthcare, etc. The vast majority of the world's population have to go to work to earn enough money to provide these things for themselves, in this country they are given away for free but because they are a benefit in kind, they are not counted as income.

I don't doubt that some people are extremely poor, but to say that 20% of the population live in poverty is drivel. It's a big number designed to get headlines.

[PaulB]

....but to say that 20% of the population live in poverty is drivel. It's a big number designed to get headlines.

That figure came from the full-fact link above sourced from the DWP's own numbers.

We're not comparing ourselves with sub-saharan Africa, but we are one of the most advanced economies in the world, yet poverty is there for us all to see.

[johnm]

Poverty here and in the US is largely because we have high expectations of a basic standard of living and people will see themselves and be perceived as poor if they don't have the basic expectations.

The whole point of the DWP is to establish mechanisms whereby those basic expectations can be met for the vast majority through a combination of work and benefits.

It is a fact that the technology or system that can't be abused or exploited in undesirable ways is yet to be invented, but the politicos can't accept that there will be people who freeload and/or work the system whatever you do and in trying (vainly) to stop that they fail dismally to meet their core objective.