The Guardian's reported this morning that:
Europe faces a "lost decade", with the number of people trapped in poverty across the continent set to rise by up to 25 million by 2025 unless austerity policies are reversed, according to a damning new report from aid agency Oxfam.
The charity, which is better known for delivering relief programmes in developing countries, says the damage being inflicted on many European societies is reminiscent of the devastation wrought by the strict "structural adjustment" programmes imposed on poor countries by the International Monetary Fund over the past 25 years.
I admire that honesty. What it is saying is that this poverty is the result of political choice.
As the Guardian continues:
Using research carried out by thinktank the Institute of Fiscal Studies into the likely impact of austerity on poverty levels in the UK, and extrapolating it across all 27 European Union member-states, Oxfam predicts that relative poverty, defined as the number of people living below 80% of median income, could be set to rise by anything from 15 to 25 million people by 2025.
"The European model is under attack from ill-conceived austerity policies sold to the public as the cost of a stable, growing economy, for which all are being asked to pay. Left unchecked, these measures will undermine Europe's social gains, creating divided countries and a divided continent, and entrenching poverty for a generation," says the report.
And as Duncan Green at Oxfam notes the report's recommendations say:
An additional 15 to 25 million people across Europe could face the prospect of living in poverty by 2025 if austerity measures continue. It could take between 10 to 25 years for poverty to return to pre-2008 levels in Europe.
It does not have to be this way. Oxfam calls on European governments to do more than merely adjust existing austerity measures.
European governments must:
- Invest in people and economic growth:
- Invest in public services
- Strengthen institutional democracy
- Build fair tax systems
Oxfam is proud to stand with civil society in envisaging a new model of prosperity built on social justice and environmental sustainability.
I should add, I will be working with Oxfam on tax related issues over the next year.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Oxfam have got it right when they say ” the damage being inflicted on many European societies is reminiscent of the devastation wrought by the strict “structural adjustment” programmes imposed on poor countries by the International Monetary Fund over the past 25 years.” but what they miss is that that’s the deliberate intent. I’ve been reading ‘Goodbye America’ by Michael Rowbotham about those self-same programmes and to me at least, it appears clear that having repeatedly tried this stunt with emerging nations and got away with it every time, our financial predators have moved up a class and are now pulling exactly the same stunt on the primitive, backward and uneducated cultures of Europe. Like ours, for example. In the eyes of the financial predators, you see, we’re emerging now , and since far and away the majority of our backward, primitive and uneducated population have no idea at all what’s going on, I’d have to say they’re right!
This confirms what we already know that low wages, zero hours, bedroom tax, unemployment are all serving the finance sector.
“Oxfam predicts that relative poverty, defined as the number of people living below 80% of median income, could be set to rise by anything from 15 to 25 million people by 2025.”
80% of median income!………..since when is it 80%?
The UK, EU and OECD, even your own Joseph Rowntree Foundation uses 60% of median income as the measure, yet now Oxfam shifts to 80% just to get a bigger figure.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/poverty-definitions.pdf
An obvious distortion and attempt to boost numbers in the media….I can just imagine what your response would be if a right wing organisation had changed the parameters for the definition.
An EU report
presumably raising relative poverty to 80% of the median is a result of soaring food/housing costs ….?
I will investigate
Yet there are some who call for these very same governmental bodies to have more power and say over people.
No – we ask for a whole new spirit in government
Read The Courageous State
Curious, has anyone put a price tag on the Courageous State? No the book, the actual plan itself. Is it revenue neutral?
I sincerely hope it is not revenue neutral
Why should that be a priority?
Getting it right is the issue
Any estimate on the price tag?
What price do you put on ending poverty?
Well, that is an interesting question. Firstly, are we talking about real poverty as found in parts of the third world -or- are we talking about “poverty” as found in most of the developed world?
Developed world poverty which looks like this (timely example from the US):
Here are the percentages of households below the poverty level that the Census Bureau estimates had the following appliances:
Clothes washer: 68.7%
Clothes dryer: 65.3%
Dish washer: 44.9%
Refrigerator: 97.8%
Food freezer: 26.2%
Stove: 96.6%
Microwave: 93.2%
Air conditioner: 83.4%
Television: 96.1%
Video recorder/DVD: 83.2%
Computer: 58.2%
Telephone (landline): 54.9%
Cell phone: 80.9%
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-americans-poverty-typically-have-cell-phones-computers-tvs
Maybe you have not heard of relative poverty?
Maybe you want people to be living in abject misery
Maybe you want some in society to be haves whilst others can be flagged unambiguously as the have nots
Maybe you want people to depend on food banks
Maybe you want people to be alienated from the rest of the community in which they live
I do not want those things
Nor does Oxfam
Nor do compassionate, empathic human beings
Maybe you need to wonder what you are saying when making these comments
I am saying, tackle real poverty (helping those truly in need – malnourishment, lack of access to any health services, no sanitation, etc) and not being as concerned about those in the west who are in “poverty”.
As it relates to relative poverty, who is in more need of assistance: someone in poverty in the UK, Germany, the US -or- someone in sub-Saharan Africa? Relatively speaking, I would answer SSA every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The person in SSA actually finds themselves in poverty. Western “poor” do not know how well they have it. Perhaps they should take advantage of their opportunities?
Your argument embraces the idea that people should be left without food, water, health care and sanitation to qualify for aid in the UK
Is that where you wish us to go?
Who in the UK is left “without food, water, health care and sanitation” ?
Well actually, quite a lot
Over 300,000 are dependant on food banks
Being dependent on food banks is a far cry from being “without food”.
I think you’re coming very, very close to failing the neoliberal test
I try to be tolerant for a long time
But in the face of callousness I tend to make decisions
Not callous. All for helping those access food banks, donate to food banks and find ways for people not to need food banks.
This was a comment on the above stating there were those in the UK “without access to food”.
Simply not true.
Time for your rants here to come to an end
Your denial of the truth is so typically neoliberal
Simply provide evidence of those in the UK without access to food…..
Try reading Jack Monroe – A Girl Called Jack
I know Jack
Don’t you dare say there are people without access to food
So, Jack is without access to food?
Are the recipes made out of air? Jack indeed does have access to food.
So, you have no examples.
There are no people in the UK “without access to food”.
This is your claim. As is noted, a false claim.
You clearly have not read her story
And because of the failure of our benefits system there are definitely people without access to food all over the country
It is for example why schools throughout the country face the problem of hundreds of thousands of children coming to school without breakfast every day
From October, claimants who are declared fit to work by their Atos assessors and want to appeal the decision have to first apply for a mandatory reconsideration from the DWP. Appeals are thus blocked. There’s no time limit by which the DWP have to respond, and till they do respond the claimants, those who are too ill to be able to claim JSA, won’t get benefits apart from housing benefit and council tax releif. Some will still get DLA. These people are passing appeals in droves as they’re very ill, many in fact die soon after being declared fit to work, so many the DWP are refusing to divulge the figures despite FOI requests being made. Some will get DLA as I say, but many won’t. They’ll have nothing to live on, nothing at all, for a period with no legal time limit. For this we have to thank our wonderful parliamentarians who have passed this legislation. These unfortunates will not only have no access to food, but also no access to light or heat either. A handful of trips to the food bank, all you’re allowed to have, won’t see them through this period. So there’s your people without food in this country. Lots of them. The DWP have stopped tellling how many claimants they’re referring to foodbanks too, no doubt with a view to covering at least some of what’s happening up. Remember, these are very ill people we’re talkng about here. The appeal pass rate is around 40%. Rather than stop the obviously biased assessments, the government has knobbled the appeals system.
And there are those who say there is no poverty in the UK
Addendum:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10307615/Benefit-errors-cost-taxpayers-1-million-a-day.html
Ahem….
See my blog on that