The re-emergence of absolute poverty in Britain

[joe_bloggs*]

Something terrible is slowly happening across the face of Britain.   We are seeing the return of absolute levels of poverty which have not existed on this scale since the Victorial age over a century ago.   Relative poverty is when people can’t afford the comforts and enjoyments which most people have, but absolute poverty is when people haven’t the money to pay for even their most basic needs.

The evidence is all around us.   There are now over 300 food-banks in Britain, and the number is rising every week.  

The Red Cross is setting up centres to help the destitute, just as they do in developing countries.   A new study published this week shows that even in prosperous area of the country like London, more than a quarter of the population are now living in poverty.   And a new scary fact is steadily emerging: an increasing number of these poverty households are not dependent on benefits, but where someone is at work.

In the north the first of the Northern Housing Consortium’s surveys just published presents a devastating picture.   It is based on 74 househoolds, a small sample but one which broadly reflects all households living in the social rented sector.   It reveals that two-thirds, after paying for rent and food and other essential bills, end up each week with less than £10 left, whilst more than a third end up with nothing at all.   A quarter can only afford £20 or less on food per week – how many of the rest of us could survive on that?  

http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2013/10/the-re-emergence-of-absolute-poverty-in-britain/

[spawnjohnuk]

hi creeky, re post 37...what am I suggesting ?

a,first its a disgrace

b,second the govs of this country,govern no one except the poor

c,third,the government in said such case is worthless

To answer the question,should all stop working if someone else isnt, well not exacty ,but that would be the start of a real fair society wouldnt it,however to continue on the theme that 'people just arnt that nice to each other' the contempt shown on this topic alone from one person to another IMO creates and allows the (government mentalities) this creates situations where some suffer and others dont and the beleif that 'its all your own fault .

No all dont need to stop working just because,but all do need to stop feeding a worthless bullying machine that at the end of the day is a giant tax taking sponge (the very thing it cries for support to stop) laugh if its funny 🙂

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@spawnjohnuk wrote:

hi creeky, re post 37...what am I suggesting ?

a,first its a disgrace

b,second the govs of this country,govern no one except the poor

c,third,the government in said such case is worthless

To answer the question,should all stop working if someone else isnt, well not exacty ,but that would be the start of a real fair society wouldnt it,however to continue on the theme that 'people just arnt that nice to each other' the contempt shown on this topic alone from one person to another IMO creates and allows the (government mentalities) this creates situations where some suffer and others dont and the beleif that 'its all your own fault .

No all dont need to stop working just because,but all do need to stop feeding a worthless bullying machine that at the end of the day is a giant tax taking sponge (the very thing it cries for support to stop) laugh if its funny 🙂

---

You are seeing something I can't see - which post numbers are you referring to?

If I accept that people having to go to a food bank is a disgrace then what is wrong in suggesting a solution to that problem.

Housing benefit paid direct to landlords, food stamps, universal health care, universal free education, clothing vouchers and energy allowance paid direct to suppliers - anything more that the country can afford, paid in cash.

I know where you are coming from with your second point that governments govern no one but the poor - to a certain degree I agree with you but feel that it would be more accurate to say that they don't govern 'the rich', and I don't just mean individuals,  as much as they should.

[bankhaunter]

The difference between housing benefit and any other benefits is that it is a specific sum of money given for paying a specific cost, if it is paid directly it remains between the landlord and tenant.

Given that a high proportion of landlords will not want the recipient of housing benefit as a tenant, it is also important that direct payment is not forced on that tenant nor the fact they recieve HB be known to the landlord.

Other benefits are general ones for the recipient to use as they see fit.

As I said earlier, it is not for others to decide how the recipient spends it, what proportion they spend on heating as opposed to food for example.

Food stamps, coupons and the like do stigmatise, the users might as well wear a badge with 'I am poor' written on it, the general public should never be able to see any individual is in receipt of means tested benefits.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@bankhaunter wrote:

The difference between housing benefit and any other benefits is that it is a specific sum of money given for paying a specific cost, if it is paid directly it remains between the landlord and tenant.

Given that a high proportion of landlords will not want the recipient of housing benefit as a tenant, it is also important that direct payment is not forced on that tenant nor the fact they recieve HB be known to the landlord.

Other benefits are general ones for the recipient to use as they see fit.

As I said earlier, it is not for others to decide how the recipient spends it, what proportion they spend on heating as opposed to food for example.

Food stamps, coupons and the like do stigmatise, the users might as well wear a badge with 'I am poor' written on it, the general public should never be able to see any individual is in receipt of means tested benefits.

---

There is no shame in being poor - is there?

I don't think any more nor less of someone because of the amount of cash they have.

I do believe it is 'up to others' to decide how certain benefits should be spent - certain benefits are there to provide the basics and there is no reason why it shouldn't be ensured that they are being used for the purposes intended.  

This may seem a pretty liberal idea to many but I find that far preferable to the right wing solution of requiring everyone to make their own 'life choices'.

[bankhaunter]

There is no shame in being poor - is there?

Why wouldn't there be, the low paid or unemployed receiving benefit are contantly attacked for being scroungers and it would be amazing for that not to rub off on those for whom everyday life is a constant struggle.

Those who find themselves with the dreaded spare room and have no possibility of moving elsewhere are now branded as acting unfairly even though the situation was not of their making.

Also being told they cannot be trusted to handle money or know how it should be spent and what it should be spent on would certainly add to that.

Do we really want to live in a society where those who cannot find any buy low paid work are told they can have this which they can only spend on food, this they can only spend on clothes and this which they can only spend on energy?

That would of course be given with no regard to differing circumstances.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Do we really want to live in a society where those who cannot find any buy low paid work are told they can have this which they can only spend on food, this they can only spend on clothes and this which they can only spend on energy?

Any worse than a society where those same people are given a lump sum resulting in evictions, use of food banks and inadequate clothing?

I'm not advocating that all benefits are paid via vouchers, just that the basic individual requirements are covered in this way.  Transport could be included in the system by way of bus and rail passes.  All these items cost low income families far more proportionally than the better off, so covering these basics relieves this situation.

The question of the 'bedroom tax' is a totally different subject and as I posted at the time this was being introduced, I believe the intention to better use the housing stock is right, the implementation was wrong - the 'tax' should not apply to those showing a willingness to move but for whom the council cannot provide appropriate accommodation.

[cee-dee]

Just when are people going to accept that we're NOT all equal.

We might all have an equal chance, but not everyone takes it and all don't have equal ability.

That being so, there's bound to be people with more to "spend" than others. Someone near the bottom of the pile may aspire to own a large house and car, have exotic holidays and live a jet set lifestyle but will never have the means fo do all that and be dissatisfied, always bemoaning their lot.

There are people who have a "more menial" job but manage to eat well, give their children a happy life and don't appear to be "short" of anything yet some other person with similar means appears to be on the breadline. Why is that? Is it because they choose to fritter their money away and waste things rather than adopting a similar hold on life to the "good managers"?

[upthecreekyetagain]

I don't know the answer to that one CD but I do believe that if the state provides benefits to some in order for them to have at least the basic requirements then there is also a duty on the state to ensure that those benefits are used for the purpose intended.

I've proposed one solution which I believe would achieve this and whilst I accept some of the criticism of that proposal I haven't seen any alternatives put forward.

Yes it's a disgrace that some people have to go to food banks in order to eat, yes it's a disgrace that some people haven't the means to pay their rent, yes it's a disgrace that some people haven't got adequate clothing but apart from spending yet more money that we haven't got, with no guarantee that it would be spent on any of the above needs, what is the answer?

It seems to be accepted that certain people will receive free prescriptions, eye treatment, council tax paid etc all of which I would suggest are of lesser importance than food to eat.

[bankhaunter]

Any worse than a society where those same people are given a lump sum resulting in evictions, use of food banks and inadequate clothing?

That can happen where the lump sum is simply inadequate to cover their total cost of living, coupons etc would not help as they would be for the same value, they would just mean the recipient had no flexibility.

Plenty of people do struggle but manage to cope, would they also get coupons etc?

Where energy is concerned, it is unfair that the system of pricing means those who have to use a prepay meter pay the highest amount, although it has improved since, I was once actually shocked when I realise what the difference was, approx 30% more expensive than DD at the time.

Transport could be included in the system by way of bus and rail passes

But an individual's transport needs can have wide variations, on one hand you have a person living in a large town who could walk to most places, on the other you may have someone living in a village with no public transport at all.

Issuing of vouchers for this and that would have the effect of furthering a 'them and us' society, it would be very devisive.

I mentioned the bedroom tax as an example where people in reciept of a benefit have been labelled as acting unfairly through no fault of their own and being stuck with it, not helpful to their feelings of self esteem.

[bankhaunter]

I've proposed one solution which I believe would achieve this and whilst I accept some of the criticism of that proposal I haven't seen any alternatives put forward.

Proper intervention with help and advice tailored to the individual's particular circumstances, they are often quite different, could help a lot but would be reliant on proper funding, however I doubt that would ever happen, governments are not noted for theiy willingness to spend £1 today in order to save £5 tomorrow.

Free prescriptions, eye treatment and dentistry are just as important as food and save far more than they cost in the long run.

A good hard look at the way the taxpayer subsidies companies when employees are paid below a living wage and then have to be supported, wouldn't be a bad idea.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Proper intervention with help and advice tailored to the individual's particular circumstances, they are often quite different, could help a lot but would be reliant on proper funding, however I doubt that would ever happen, governments are not noted for theiy willingness to spend £1 today in order to save £5 tomorrow.

I agree that would be a fine aim - cost wise not really practical - we can't even afford decent levels of 'home care' for the relatively small number in need of that service.

Free prescriptions, eye treatment and dentistry are just as important as food and save far more than they cost in the long run

I agree with you but I think you are missing my point - I don't see anyone suggesting that those in need of such services should receive cash in hand for them allowing them to choose to use the service or spend the money elsewhere.

A good hard look at the way the taxpayer subsidies companies when employees are paid below a living wage and then have to be supported, wouldn't be a bad idea.

Again I agree with you but am not sure how it would make much difference to the number of people using food banks - if instead of receiving low paid plus benefits the worker received the same amount as pay and no benefits they would still have no more money.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Just when are people going to accept that we're NOT all equal.

We might all have an equal chance, but not everyone takes it and all don't have equal ability.

---

We don't all have "an equal chance".  You get the genes you're given ... and you have to live within the constraints these impose.

[bankhaunter]

Proper intervention with help and advice tailored to the individual's particular circumstances, they are often quite different, could help a lot but would be reliant on proper funding, however I doubt that would ever happen, governments are not noted for theiy willingness to spend £1 today in order to save £5 tomorrow.

I agree that would be a fine aim - cost wise not really practical - we can't even afford decent levels of 'home care' for the relatively small number in need of that service.

It wouldn't necessarily be that expensive, a few visits may help enormously, the essential thing is the advice is suitable for a particular set of circumstances, people trapped by payday loans for example, general advice may well be useless.

Free prescriptions, eye treatment and dentistry are just as important as food and save far more than they cost in the long run

I agree with you but I think you are missing my point - I don't see anyone suggesting that those in need of such services should receive cash in hand for them allowing them to choose to use the service or spend the money elsewhere.

The need for those services are extremely variable and would be too complicated for people to make claims, plus of course they wouldn't always know before they needed to make a claim and how much they would need before seeking treatment.

A good hard look at the way the taxpayer subsidies companies when employees are paid below a living wage and then have to be supported, wouldn't be a bad idea.

Again I agree with you but am not sure how it would make much difference to the number of people using food banks - if instead of receiving low paid plus benefits the worker received the same amount as pay and no benefits they would still have no more money.

It would help prevent those whose problems start with the length of time it may take to start receiving alternative benefits if they move to employment, having to deal with benefit changes might also be a major deterrent to those unemployed who get an opportunity for a short period of work.

A critical look at zero hours contracts needs to be made as well, they may be responsible for some of the use of foodbanks, under that type of contract the employee can lose a week's income at the drop of a hat.

[joe_bloggs*]

I think Bankhaunter has mentioned it before,a lot of people are increasingly having to turn to foodbanks as their benefit has been "sanctioned" There has just been a shocking report published by the Citizens Advice Bureau called "Punishing poverty"

There are many tales of benefits being stopped due to a mistake by the Jobcentre, or because a claimant faced unavoidable circumstances such as travel delays, hospital appointments and even job interviews which caused them to be late to an appointment with their advisor.It is no wonder some people have to resort to shoplifting for food

https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=CB5ED957FE0B849F!350&app=WordPdf&authkey=!AJTbB-gzwsSCayQ

[spawnjohnuk]

straight off the bat......posts 3 n 4 ,to answer a question on how peeps see others

anyhow,I am aware you have always advocated means testing creeky,and I agree ,and I also agree with vouchers to those who prove time and time again,they cannot grasp 'manage' (as cd suggests) However I  am firmly with bank on 'not in any way shape or form 'all poorest as thats descrimination in a 1940 's role again imo

Under this present set up however ,means testing is the last thing the govs of this country want as it will allocate spending in a correct and fair manner and that willl of course mean less if anything for them .

Hence my opposition to all who talk sponge without ever mentioning  the sponge' ie the disgraceful governments of this country,ie all of them since Thatcher ,ie shareholders and money wanters...exchange k for 't' as see fit 🙂

[picoteet]

Nobody needs to be in poverty. When I was 27 I was unemployed, facing bankruptcy and eviction with no prospects or qualifications and a mountain of debt. Then we discovered our third child was due.

We started a small business literally from nothing, worked hard and cleared our debts within 5 years. Today's society no longer encourages people to take responsibility for themselves.

[blackburn_stevie]

OK, time for Stevie to have his say. Some of you may like what I have to say and some of you may not. All that I can say to that is ..... read the script at the bottom of all of my posts. The bit in red.

So, my dearly beloved wife and I aren't rich, but on the other hand, we don't have to worry about where the next meal is coming from. This is because we know exactly how much money is coming into the household budget each week and we know how much we have to pay out for the mortgage, gas, electric, Sky, council tax etc. Once all of the "We MUST pay for this" type of stuff is paid for we have a look at what's left. Now, six years ago, we had to calculate the cost of fags for both of us into the equasion but then we both quit the dreaded weed and found that we had an extra £200 per week of extra cash. We played it crafty and went to our bank gaffer and arranged a loan to pay off all our credit cards, store cards and the like with a loan repayment of £700 per month. The loan was paid off inside a year and we were now debt free (not counting the mortgage) Since then, we only pay cash for stuff that we want and we go on holiday when we want. Life's not bad and it feels good to be able to give the kids £1,000 each at Christmas. And all through stopping smoking.

[*.*..lola..*.*]

Its a disgrace, full stop
we are all in it together,therefore where is the story about cameron at the food bank,feeding his family?
just reading this thread shows the level of contempt some people regard others with ,hence the government's (yeh right) show plunders forever forwards towards the only goal they know....brainwashimg to control the section of society that has less than them.

In this day and age that represents about a quarter population for them to bully,in real terms that means they are worthless and I agree with that .

Good post, John

we are all in it together

Clearly...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/340-mps-energy-bills-paid-2671053

...GRRR!!!

[spawnjohnuk]

I know lola, isnt it a disgrace and thats a tip of the govs and what they do and believe iceberg.

All the posts by peeps that say what a person should do to manage and how to blame yourself (albeit ok advice in most cases) fail to tackle (and blindly refuse to see) the set up that causes all this 

No doubt in my mind eventually the country needs to tackle the ''working class problem''  (laughs up sleeve) ie more people than jobs in a society that feels all who can work should work (fair enough) but this of course saves zero in such a set up as same paid in benefits regardless so no economy boom had there .

., my point is,point your fingers in the right direction folks ,then when thats sorted move on to next issue (if you so desire )

 Democracy replaced with Hypocrisy,and the answer seems to be ''lloookkk free food so he can buy cigs ''' 

[*.*..lola..*.*]

Divide and rule, John

Whilst we are all at each others throats blaming the low-paid and the unemployed for everything that's going wrong with the economy, it is conveniently deflecting the attention away from the true culprits.