Iain Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, invariably gives the example of drug or alcohol addiction when arguing that poverty is not just about low incomes. The other week, the Department for Work and Pensions published the findings of public polling , carried out as part of a consultation on the measurement of child poverty (criticised in a letter in today’s Guardian to which I contributed). One question was asked: ‘Could you please tell me how important you think each of the following are when deciding whether someone is growing up in poverty’. The factor most commonly cited as very important or important was ‘a child having parents who are addicted to drugs and alcohol’. This was then emphasised by Duncan Smith in a speech about the need for a new measure. Once again the impression was given that there is a close link between poverty and addiction.
So I decided to ask a written question to establish what evidence the DWP had for this link. The answer I received admitted ‘The government does not have an assessment of the number of children living in poverty with at least one parent addicted to drugs or alcohol’. It then referred to the public polling, which of course simply measures public perceptions and does not constitute actual evidence of a link. The few statistics that do exist indicate that a tiny minority of children are being raised by parents who are addicts and not all of those will be in poverty. So it really is time that the government stops fuelling the misleading and damaging idea that parental addiction is strongly associated with child poverty. Misleading because it’s not true and damaging because it’s likely to make the wider public less sympathetic towards families living in poverty.
And what is the poor’s biggest expenses?
People like you. You cost us 2,700 a day. That’s the entire tax for a min wage earner for a year, just to support you to turn up for one day, and pontificate.
When the poor’s biggest cost is tax, its not surprising they are poor.
You persist in looting their money, promising them a pension, when its less than a 50% chance that they actually receive it. That’s official policy.
State pension is a contingent liability.
Contingent liabilities are debts where there is less than a 50% chance of paying it.
ie. It’s fraud. Section 2, 2006 fraud act applies, or are you going to make you frauds legal? One up on making them state secrets.
@Baroness Lister:
Poverty, in and of itself, creates social exclusion. This then separates the poor from the mainsteam making them less likely to be embraced by the major group and from being found acceptable on any level. So what happens is, the same reaction you get toward criminals or immigrants. They join the under class of the non human. It is a propaganda ploy used to divide the public in order to direct enmity toward whichever group is centred on as deviant. It is seen as a way to direct hatred from their agenda and their acts of evil toward those who cannot defend themselves. Hitler did it with the Jews.
It is a scapegoat process and this man and his cronies have chosen the most vulnerable in society, the children of the impoverished, because they cannot fight back. Everything they may try to do would have to be on a pro bono basis. No one is going to get rich defending the poor.
However, the miscalculation here is, the country is poor. And so those who vote for this bunch of callous entitlement freaks will be affected financially by each move they make. The middle class have been stripped of their natural foot up. The good job no longer offers a living income, taking them into the next level. At best what was once upper nmidde is now lower middle class and struggling. The living of the tax payer has been eroded over the last thirty years by reason of greed at the top. Who, under both political groups, have been encouraged to indulge in the extreme. this was in order that those who are running the show can lift themselves into the off shore corporate class. Akin to the way Blair did it. The envy of him and his Judas money is rampant.
It needs a dramatic change in redistribution of wealth. Salaries and wages must rise to meet the real cost of living, with a return to free open education, as well as an honest movement toward philanthropy by those controlling the public purse. The direction of the NHS, for example, has changed to covering up the horror forced on them from above. Resulting in the outright murder of the sick and infirm.
The picture this nation is being sold, on a daily basis, of how the life of the poor really plays out, is a relentless stream of absolute misinformation. This is dragging all of us, including the middle class, back to the life of Bob Cratchet.
The words of, ‘Don’t play with those kids, they are not quite our class darling’ is deliberately instigated by the IDS group who despise their fellow man. Whom they, above all, have placed in this bottomless pit.
The drugging is a result of the lack of social compassion and rejection on many levels. Regardless of where it may manifest. Take James Blandford for example, he was as far from needy as you can get, yet felt the arm of exclusion in the same way as some of those who are our poor. What idiots like IDS seem to refuse to accept is, the more you force a group of people into worthlessness, the moe of it you get.
And building gated communities does not remove you from the tentacle of its destruction.
It needs a dramatic change in redistribution of wealth
=========
So double wages. Increase taxes to 90% for all.
Problem solved.
You’re deluded Maude. The problem is people like Ruth Lister, whose sole aim is to take money from the people earning it, to those, herself included who aren’t.
Well, from my point, of view it is you who is deluded.
You are bright enough to know our pension pot, along with our entire welfare stash, was stolen by banks, hedge fund players and the derivatives market, and that regardless of this theft, those responsible make no efforts to pay back any of their gambling debt, whilst they continue to pay themselves dream team bonuses on an annual basis. Are you seeing straight?
How can you be so forgiving of these thieves? To the point where you have no qualms of one of the main players leaving the country to realise his stolen wealth abroad, without a word to suggest he should be in jail.
I do agree that government was part and parcel to this fraud. But who in government were/are the conspirators? And which country was it that colluded with these people? All of them? Those who are these officials should be held personally accountable and brought to trial for their misdeeds.
They, not those on welfare and struggling to survive on a daily basis, including those who starve to death, which is, oh, so quickly covered up and not referred to again, for fear of reprisal…
To close ones eyes to such horrendous occurence and watch from the wings as if it is simply a scene in a play shows how out of touch we all have become to allow this.
Baroness Lister is clearly aware of the game of blame and how it is twisted from those at the top who are responsible to those at the bottom who have no voice. And she is one of the few who I read here that is willing to raise it. Sad there are not more incensed by this outrage who come to visit this blog.
Just never forget who brought this on us and how well they are still doing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st40Gps08KI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01mKJU7G6hU
Once upon a time!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl1QQ-jX7nI
You are bright enough to know our pension pot, along with our entire welfare stash, was stolen by banks, hedge fund players and the derivatives market,
==========
You’re deluded. It never got to the banks.
Tell us how National insurance went to the banks? It never did. It was spent by the state, on its grand schemes such as 2,700 a day for Ruth Lister.
On the videos.
1. RBS ran out of money because people didn’t pay their debts.
2. How to get money back from the banks?
Well, tax the ones that needed the bailout, until they have paid the bailout money back. Don’t go anywhere near the well run banks that didn’t need a bailout.
I suggest a penal rate of interest on their bailout money. Ah, that’s exactly what’s happened, and the government’s booked a profit.
On the share losses, I suggest taking all the assets of the people who bought the shares, ‘on our behalf’.
Confiscate Gordon Brown’s assets. He lost billions.
Ruth
Duncan Smith actually goes even further than you imply here. The DWP survey asks people what they think are possible causes of child poverty. The answer most people give is parental addiction. Duncan Smith then claims that people think it is the MOST important reason.
But if you ask people what they think the MOST important reason is, just 20 per cent say parental addiction (British Social Attitudes Survey data). More details here: http://www.poverty.ac.uk/articles/dwp-adds-confusion-over-consultation-child-poverty-measurement
I’ve made a complaint to the DWP about this misuse of official statistics – still waiting for a reply …
Nick
Dorset County Council runs a special school for Travellers’ children which must be fairly standard practice in County education.
That would be a start in establishing which children do live in poverty without their being in care, and better looked after.
I don’t know how the care officers make their decisions abouit care or mother. It must be very difficult.
Blagger’s reply is slightly crass in the context, but never mind eh.
Why is it crass?
Ruth Lister is taking money from people, people who are in poverty, and spending it on herself.
1. 2,700 a day, to run one peer.
2. People below the poverty line pay tax.
Very simple clear statement of what’s going on.
Meanwhile, they can’t pay the state pensions. Probability of those being paid is less than 50%, and that’s the official line.
Why is it crass?
Ruth Lister is taking money from people, people who are in poverty, and spending it on herself.
Faith,hope,and charity of which the finest is….?
I do agree that the interests in political matters in the second chamber takes a very distinct second place to being a mmeber of the best club in London.
I followed one debate recently and there was only one person at any time in the chamber, out of 800+ members who knew what the substance of the Bill was. It may have been NHS commissioning, not an insignificant bill.
Still why should the ageing rich not have a place to sit in comfort and listen to sweet talk, (and a good many other noises besides)
from other members? We wouldn’t want them on the streets now, would we, or taken in to care?
or turned into glue.
Or the more modern version, Lasangne
Why is it crass?
Ruth Lister is taking money from people, people who are in poverty, and spending it on herself
The answer to that is not that easy, but it is very obviously so. Compassion for those poorer or less advantaged than oneself is, or should be, an exercice in lowering oneself to their level and hoping to raise them to a higher one.
The Charitable balls which are so popular in London at this time of the season, or in NY or wherever, are all about being seen to be “charitable” but not having any compassion at all, having a jolly good time, whilst those whom they are charitable to, are suffering on the streets, or in the woods in dirty old vans,woodburners and broken windows.
If the noble baroness were doing that then I would be inclined to agree with the deductions that the erstwhile (and subtle)
lord enunciates.
She ain’t. She wants to know whether she should be finding out more about it in order to be compassionate, in full measure, and doing it in a way which would be best known to herself and not to anybody else, and lowering herself while doing it.
Being hugely publicly charitable is no charity at all. It is just getting rid of dosh, which may be inconvenient.
The Franciscan monks have an amusing, if hypocritical, approach to Charity and poverty.
They don’t want to be poor themselves, but they do want to help the poor and needy, even if it means making themselves rich in the process! (Mendicant Franciscans may be an exception, although I even have my doubtsd about their motives!)
Being a minister of state for DWP is not a recipe for later, ie after terms of office, riches. The treasury may be and DTI may not do too badly in the Directorship stakes too.
Other than that …….. Crass!
The good job no longer offers a living income (for the middle class)
Of course it does. However, if you have 50-60% taken by the state, and your state pensions looted by them too, you’re screwed.
Now here is a deluded statement if ever I read one.
Oh, yes it is. On salraies ,wages et., being adequate in todays economy? I agree if you are on expenses and bonuses only the few realise, then yes, of course it is.
However, you tell me how you can claim the standard of living is in any way held together by wage increases being on hold at a level we had 30 years ago? And in many cases, have been lowered from that time and not increaed at all.
When you look at the massive inflation over that thirty years (you need look no further than house prices) but add to that, school fees, utility costs, food and so on. How can a sane man claim what you are putting out? That is pure propaganda. And as far as taxes are concerned, they are way lower on the top 1% now than they have ever been. (Since taxes on income were brought into fund war that is)
In the 60’s the top bracket paid up to 90% of their personal income. It didn’t do them any harm did it? In fact it did the country a great deal of good. Didn’t see any of those fat cats starving in Westminster as a result of neglect because of 90% taxation did we?
You are clearly indoctrinated with the pumped up idiocy of the so called ‘Conservative’ thinking.
Not conservative when it comes to India and the immigration policy they are spouting at us today, as they push for an open door enflux are they? And certainly not conservatve when it comes to marriage and the meaning of vows between a man and a woman. Oh, no, then they consider themselves forward thinking and ‘proud’ of their turn toward an all encompassing political correctness they claim to despise when looking for votes. Which in reality, simply means, dictatorship through the back door. The threat to free speech and the rights of association is cast off in a haste they eye cannot keep up with. Suddenly progressive becomes the by word.
The drop in the buying level of pay across the low paid and the middle classes has taken away any gains made in the previous standard of living. Which is why those in the big palace on the river here are wanting to double their money, taken from the tax payers purse, as they are finding it harder to keep up with their duck houses, aren’t they?
Conservative thinking?
I think they are idiots.
“Poverty” is a major-component in the whole Appreciation of not only Human but all Other lifesupports-on-Earth.
We have none of us yet managed to establish our individual-self as needing just one human living;
and I think that our ‘leaders’, ‘bankers’, ‘educators’, and ‘governors’
are amongst the worst offenders,
in this 1-human-needs-only-1-living
respect;
and vis a vis the daily-re-assessable “fitness-for-purpose” Natural and Civilisational essential.
Neither are our best examples of Fitness credible in this same respect,
and I suspect every one of them,
from the individual teachers in schools, universities, corrrection-units, and on such TV and e-avenues as “Healthy Mind in a Healthy Body” demonstrators (in Mindfulness, yoga, pilates, body-mind-centering, awareness-through-movement, and ‘insanity-super-fitness-workout’ demonstrators,
to the neighbourly-groups, clubs, threesomes, couples and loners who are committed to some life-fitness association, institution or ‘spiritual-religious-tenet’ requiring a substantial amount of ‘self-sacrifice’ (qua “self-neglect” very often)
to be falling fatally short.
So when considering the child’s needs, we need to be asking (and answering soundly)
“What is the constitutional make-up of
firstly the ideal-average person,
secondly the ‘best’ person (such as the Olympic gold-medallist, the Nobel prizewinner, and the war-maimed Paralympics participant) ?
thirdly, the mature and completely-sufficient parent/pair-of-parents or guardians ? (We need instantially to include here, that the young growing infant needs parents who already fully comprehend that the child has not just a ‘right’ to declare that the taller (but volume-shorter) of two vessels of liquid is the bigger, but in a ‘real-life’ sense is being totally directed by God (via all the Psychological inescapables of Human Development).
===========================
I therefore would join in thanking you, ‘et al’, for your work so far,
and citizenlike-respectfully would return you in some impolrtant-urgency to the key task of
comprehensively and fail-safedly
re-defining “Poverty”
in all its known, apparent, and possibly-influential forms.
Urgent: Accountant needed to disprove Blagger’s theorem.
a) Expenses and Financial Support: 22.604 Million.
b) An estimate puts the number of sitting peers at 775.
c) Cost per Peer: 29,166 (a/b) pounds per annum and falling.
Contrast this with the Potwallopers:
d) Total Cost and Expenditure 91.5 million pounds
e) There are 590 constituency MPs.
f) Cost for salaries to MP staff £67.1 million pounds.
g) Cost of MPs Expenses 24.4 million pounds (d-f)
h) Additional cost of MP salaries 48.4 million pounds.
j) Total cost per MP: 237,119 ([d+h]/e) per annum and rising.
k) Total expenses cost per MP: 41,356 (g/e) per annum rising.
Wallop! Peers are 88% ([c/j-1]*100) cheaper overall to fund than MPs.
Wallop! Peers are 29% ([c/k]-1*100) cheaper on expenses alone.
However, taking onboard the average daily attendance from 1997 to 2012 and testing for mean [396](m), mode [388] and median [394] proximity to determine whether the use of the mean would be reliable gives an expenses cost of 57, 081(n)(a/m) pounds per peer per annum making them 96% ([[n/c]-1]*100) more expensive on expenses than MPs to fund?
The low expenses figure suggests MPs are ‘never’ in Parliament and instead rely upon their staff to do their work. Peers cannot fund staff to the extent of MPs so they do the work themselves accounting for the extra cost.
Ref: IPSA: Discover how your MP spends your tax pounds?
http://www.parliamentary-standards.org.uk/AnnualisedData.aspx
Annual Review of the MPs’ Scheme of Expenses and Costs
Consultation – November 2011: Introduction, Page 4, Para 2
http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/Documents/1.%20Review%20of%20the%20MPs%27%20Scheme%20of%20Business%20Costs%20and%20Expenses%20-%20Consultation%20-%20November%202012.pdf
House of Lords Annual Report: Table 1, 2011-12
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldlordsrep.htm
House of Lords Statistics: Able to Sit: 775. July 2012.
Daily Attendance: Calculated Mean 396 of Row 3 Table 7. p6
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03900.pdf
Loving your work, Senex.
http://nortonview.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/protecting-personal-data/#comments
Me too!
Thanks Tizzy. Reason and evidence, but will it be enough to defeat Lord Blagger and his unicameral cause? Dr Norton as was (1980’s) always kept a coffee pot on the boil in class or so the web says; was if caff or decaf, all that boring reading suggests caff?
Unicameral?
My view is that we should be giving control to the electorate and removing unelected dictatorships.
Why would you want to object to that?
Or is it that you’re one of the people on the public purse pocketing other people’s money for the charade?
Urgent: Accountant needed to disprove Blagger’s theorem.
Urgent:Theorist needed to disprove Blagger’s accountant, more likely. (National accounts.
My own contention about the modern city/megametropolis type state that 80% of the world’s population now lives in, is that NO person in the developed world will be without a negative taxation start to their
incomes, and that negative number will get bigger and bigger, the less and less the world’s population relies on human non machine driven intervention in the production of crops from the soil.
Currently the developed world is still in imperial mode, regarding its cheap dependency on undeveloped world food imports which should be going to the local shanty city populations in the state of production, but which are bought up, to satisfy the appetites of all those non agricultural civilized people living in huge non productive megametropolises.
Capitalism is worse than ever!