I share this tweet because it provides a lot of underlying links to work on poverty in the UK and I am in a bit of hurry this morning:
Basic needs not covered below £120 a week for a single person and £200 for a couple says @jrf_uk and @TrussellTrust. From April Universal Credit will be £85 a week single and £133 couple, and less for both if under 25 https://t.co/vVoq3tgAmE NB it's paid monthly not weekly.
— Paul Lewis (@paullewismoney) February 27, 2023
The underlying research is here.
The findings are shocking. This table makes grim reading:
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is quite sure matters have now got much worse.
The question to ask is why we shouldn't be angry about this?
The point to make is that to be angry about poverty on this scale is not to be left wing, or radical, or socialist. It is simply a measure of being a compassionate, empathic human being. Any reasonable person should be angry about this.
Our government has failed the compassionate, empathic test by not just letting this happen in the name of austerity, but by actively promoting extreme poverty as part of its political agenda.
Keir Starmer is talking economics this morning. Will he address this? And how? Or will he be doing trickle down?
I will be watching.
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:
Those people who are going through this have little time to reflect on it because they will be living hand to mouth – just surviving. If they are lucky, alcohol and drugs will take the edge off it.
And if they are reflecting on it, then they’ll be directed to other causals like immigration and Europe that they can get angry at instead of the Tories.
Meanwhile, in la la land, the Express and Daily Mail will be getting those surviving looking down their noses at those who aren’t and preening themselves about being so clever and blessed and ascribing the situation of those above to a lack of character and graft.
I wonder who Keir Stymied will be talking to when he makes his ‘address’?
The report says:
“There was a reduction in the headline poverty rate and numbers between 2019/20 and 2020/21”
So the Tories are so incompetent that they cannot make it worse despite having tried.
I looked at the earlier years too and the same conclusion arises – for people already in the UK poverty has not risen – the current government are an utter shower.
Why are you trolls such unattractive people?
State support during the Covid era did make things better
They are now very much worse, as the report notes
But you would rather troll than care
So Tories aren’t evil, just banal evil?
Dry reading of statistics would on the surface make us all look like Eichmann. However such reading of statistics misses the observation that he committed mass killings and disregarded human lives (even when confronted with the real horrors of his regime) in the name of “just do my job”. Yes 2 things can be the same, both evil and boring.
On BBC website
The typical household bill will rise to £3,000 a year in April.
“Campaigners say ministers should stop the increase because Ofgem’s new cap reduces the cost of support.
In effect, the typical annual household bill is set to rise from £2,100 to £3,000 in April – because the government’s guarantee will become less generous and a £400 winter discount on all bills ends.
Holly Holder, from the Centre for Ageing Better, said: “No one can doubt the level of financial support the government has given so far during this energy crisis, but it hasn’t gone far enough to prevent millions being thrown into financial and physical peril.”
Much of industry is being pushed towards bankruptcy due to energy costs. They are having to raise prices.
Hunt is quoted as saying “the government doesn’t have the headroom to make a major new initiative to help people.”
We know there are alternatives. The issue why do they stick to the economics of Stanley Baldwin?
They have £30 billion of headroom – although there is no need for any – they can do what they want
Exactly.
It seems to be ‘Bankers agenda’ of balances being more important than investment or just plain businesses survival.
I know a local builder who is not only hampered by people having less to spend but a shortage of tradesmen/women to work with him. We have neglected technical education.
What Starmer will say is growth, growth and “aspiration” so we can “pay for it” before any poverty mitigation can be even thought of. Totally following Tory ideology as usual.
…”based on a basket of goods and services including food, energy, travel, mobile phone and internet use, as well as smaller items such as toothpaste and washing-up liquid.”
Funny how it doesn’t include rent. Massive inflation there for many as the pockets of the rentiers are filled. And mortgage interest repayments…. The rich get richer and the poor or less well off, well…
As the Tories say, “let them eat turnips”. We Brits don’t even get cake.
True
I am angry…. but I have two observations.
First, elderly rural voters rarely, if ever, come into contact with these people in any meaningful way. Their picture of poor people comes from the Daily Mail.
Second, I hear “these people should help themselves!!”…. but when they do by going on strike “they are greedy b******s holding us to ransom!!”.
How can one reason with these folk?
I am an elderly rural voter, and whenever I visit my local market town, or the nearest city then I can see extreme poverty in plain site. I see good people forced to beg, I see badly clothed children and I and many others who live near me are not stupid, and we can clearly see the causes of this misery. Please dont assume that us rural folk dont care and dont understand. There are also plenty of greedy uncaring folk in towns and cities as well as the decent liberals and socialists.
Anthony H and jenw – you are correct to call me up for such a broad generalisation – sorry. Indeed, I am errrr…… an elderly rural voter, too!
I guess what I am getting at is the fact there is a large group of people (of all sorts) that choose to (and can) lead their lives without seeing a poor person (except perhaps their Waitrose delivery driver).
I used to live in London where (a) I couldn’t go anywhere without poverty staring me in the face (b) I felt old (c) my politics were centre/left. Now I live in a small village (a) real poverty is quite concealed (b) I feel young (c) I am the “only socialist in the village”.
So, my generalisation came (incorrectly) from personal extrapolation.
I know that feeling of being younger in a smaller more rural location
Except I feel younger than most of the 40 year olds
Clive, I think you need a qualifying adjective in there, such as some or many elderly rural voters. You give the impression that we are all the same and we are not, at least not the ones I know and speak to. I never read the Daily Mail, not even when directed to articles from it on Facebook.
‘Rarely’ is not a good enough qualifier. I rarely see my brother. The last time was at a wedding ten years ago. I have just been into the village where I saw quite a few poor people, and I never blame them for their predicaments.
Clive
You can’t argue with these people.
‘These people’ are people who own high-end SUVs but would rather park their car on community green space than pay a parking fee; who complain about the state of the country but avoid paying taxes (perfectly legally of course) and shop at Aldi telling everyone how good the food is (just look at the expensive motors in any Aldi car park) and whom get caught every now and then not having paid their fare on public transport.
You can’t argue with them Clive because their motivation is simply having enough money to run their expensive lifestyles which always come first.
It has long seemed to me that ‘absolute ‘ poverty can be much more meaningful than ‘relative’ poverty or ‘inequality’. As Rowntree says the current levels of Universal Credit do not cover the cost of basic essentials for millions of households.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/system/files/essentials_guarantee_technical_report_.pdf
Although the relative incomes between rich and poor may not have changed much, the massive increase in the cost of essentials have rocketed – making millions more at the bottom end destitute.
The JRF measures of essentials do not include housng costs – at a time when rents and mortgages are rocketting.
Agreed
Starmer’s feeble statement nevertheless does coyly mention rents and mortgages, and inequality and suggests trickle down doesnt work and that things have to be rebuilt ‘from the bottom’. But as all the above comments note – there is no concrete action beyond implied growth and trickle down.
The Swedish academci Brett Chrisophers today
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/27/wages-down-rent-food-energy-prices-uk-companies-profits
points out the internal contradictions in the UK economy – that super profits and ‘rent extracting’ major companies can still flourish by driving wages down – either because they are monopoly utilites that people have to pay for or they are mainly exporting – so only marginally dependent on UK consumers.
Starmer has already said it would cost too much to renationalise utilities.
There must be a way to do it ? Introduce limits on what they can charge – ‘because they are natural monopolies’ – and bring in at least one state-owned competitor?
Adam Smith believed we should find a way
And of course we could do so
Came across this cogent Stiglitz essay re Australia – seems to agree more or less exaclty with sentiments and analysis in the Murphy et al cannon, but maybe presented to have slightly more appeal to the ‘mainstream’?
https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/joseph-e-stiglitz/2023/23/2023/australia-and-post-neoliberal-order
Good article
Thanks
Weownit thought that the government should have kept Bulb in public ownership. There would have been no need to pay Octopus to take the company over.
We could also wait until the rail company franchises come to an end, then take them into public ownership rather than continue subsidising them. The same goes for buses, water and all energy companies.
https://weownit.org.uk/blog/rail-privatisation-top-30-failures-30-years
It could be the Tories have realised they will be wiped out at the next election. Accordingly,they plan to wreck the economy and public services. Poverty will be allowed to rise to extraordinary levels not seen since the 1930s. Poorer areas will be left to rot. The way things are going with lots of businesses closing or shedding labour unemployment which is a lagging indicator will have risen by the next election. Any incoming government will face such a monumental task they will be bound to fail. The Tories will with the able assistance of its friends in the extreme Right media will run a virulent campaign full its usual lies. The British voters always have had short memories and are extremely susceptible to propaganda. Could any government be so dishonest and cruel? Nothing this crop of Conservative politicians do would surprise me. In my 82 years on this earth I have never experienced such a vindictive government. The Labour Party can ,of course emulate the 1945 Labour Government by implementing their policies which fundamentally changed our country in a way previously unimaginable.
Am I correct to say that such vast numbers in poverty, with insufficient means to live properly and healthily, has numerous effects on things that Tories do care about:
1. Growth – I know faceless investment funds forget this, but somewhere behind their ‘returns’ there are real people spending money – money which those stuck in poverty don’t have and can’t spend.
2. Healthy – living in poverty means living unhealthily, causing more illness, losing availability to the jobs market and costing the NHS more. Mental health of those constantly worrying about losing their job, their home, feeding their children etc. will be in tatters. Of course, the Treasury probably sees the associated life expectancy as a saving on the pensions budget!
3. Productivity – I didn’t notice analysis of how many of those living in poverty are working, but the percentages are such that it must be a majority of working-age poor. Struggling to make ends meet does not produce focused, enthusiastic employees and productivity suffers but the great god of Capitalism – all returns go to Capital, never labour, is served.
4. Crime – a small minority of the poor will turn to crime, but the associated effects on mental health are sadly also likely to produce violence and such crimes as matter greatly to Tory voters, like anti-social behaviour (although being aged under 25 in a public place is something a lot of them seem to think is, or should be, a crime!)
Of course, outrage at such levels of poverty should be the natural, truly human reaction to poverty – but years of co-ordinated ‘gaslighting’ by the media barons of the apocalypse means instead too many, including many actually struggling themselves, blame the poor and the immigrants who fill many of the jobs that go unfilled, and are willing to work long hours for low pay (i.e. be exploited).
Outrage should be the natural human reaction for those who claim a Christian (or Jewish or Muslim, or indeed most global faiths) faith because, contrary to what many vocal groups claiming to speak for Christ seem to be saying, the Bible’s most constant call is to remember and show care for the poor – and whether you take these words as ‘Spirit-breathed’ or ancient wisdom, the sense of a less unequal society is still overwhelming whether for compassionate or the hard-nosed ‘business’ reasons listed above.
The economic cost of not tackling this poverty is huge
When Keir Starmer was asked to justify growth by Krishnan Guru-Murthy form Channel 4 last night his answer was, in essence, trickle down
Staggering
I don’t yet get any sense from Starmer and co that they recognise investment in public services and infrastructure as just that – investment. Every bit as important to productivity and growth as anything the private sector might do. And without which the private sector won’t invest much anyway.
PSR, either you made the comment – if they are lucky alcohol and drugs will take the edge off it, as a sick joke or fatuous statement, you know nothing about addiction. Like so many, after decades on TV,radio and other media you repeat the brainwashing – alcohol and drugs. Alcohol is addictive like nicotine/cocaine/crack cocaine/opium/heroin and is the biggest killer than all the rest by far.
Addiction only takes the edge off for a very short time, the rest is pure dehumanisation. I saw Europe’s young turning from hash and grass to smack in 1979 – please stick to what you know and not to what you have been brainwashed into ‘understanding’. Oxycotin made a lot of doctors very rich in the USA and the drug (pharmaceutical) companies and legalised drug (nicotine) dealers are salivating at the profits they can make with the legalisation of marijauna. Otherwise you make a lot of sensible comments.
I sense your anger and get it
I think PSR did represent a view here that has roots in Marx and the opiate of the people
I suspect PSR, as a father of teenagers, knows a great deal about the risks of addiction, as I certainly do
Richard the lawyers love drug addiction they get lots of repeat business from it. Putting smack dealers in ordinary prison just means that lots of prisoners leave with a smack problem. At the very least put all the dealers in a separate prison, far more effective at containing the problem.
The overall cost in drug addiction directly and indirectly is enormous. It would be good if number crunchers could do a breakdown on these costs. As a percentage of the tax take it would truly shock the country. There would be great resistance to doing this as drugs per se provide a very lucrative income for a lot of parasites, instead of providing essential services to deserving sections of the community.
Stuart, having complained about PSR making what you described as a sick joke or fatuous statement, you now claim that “the lawyers love drug addiction” [because] “they get lots of repeat business from it”
Even if we overlook the fact that most criminal legal work is not “very lucrative” but rather horribly underpaid (see the recent barristers strike) “the lawyers” are not a monolith who “love” addiction because it brings them plenty of repeat business, any more than pharmacists “love” the repeat business from providing clean syringes to drug addicts, or doctors “love” the repeat business from dealing with overdoses.
I’m slightly sickened that you think all lawyers are so venal and antisocial.
I hope there will be a lawyer willing to help you when you next need legal assistance. I suggest you don’t call them a “parasite” until they’ve completed the matter.
My personal experience and that of many others including my wife and friends is that they are not interested in justice, they make their money from ‘the laws’.
I had a client once who warned me “don’t go near lawyers if you can avoid it”. It would take pages to tell of corrupt lawyers. There are some reasonable lawyers who bitterly complain about the amount they have to pay into lawyers compensation fund for all the bent ones.
My statement about lawyers isn’t confined to any particular country having experienced directly myself and through friends their corrupt nature in Spain, France and of course the UK.
Junkies might not provide the extremely lucrative work involved in commercial litigation but it does put food on the table. In most countries it is still locked into past ages. Why don’t legal proceedings start like normal work does @ 7.30 with a 10 minute tea break and 30-60 minutes for lunch. Cases thrown out because of a techn icality. Far too may lawyers in parliament where they always manage to leave a few ‘wrinkles’in new law to provide work for yes you’ve guessed it – lawyers. What was it Will Shakespeare said?
I think you are too cynical
I have a lot of bad things to say about some lawyers
But to be generic is a big mistake
We are straying wide of the original post here. I’ll just say that I’ve never met a lawyer who “loves drug addition” because it is good for business.
I don’t know when you last attended a court, but like most public services they have been chronically underfunded for years. And most lawyers don’t work in courts most of the time anyway.
Lawyers, accountants, doctors, politicians, train drivers, electricians, whatever – any group of people will include good and bad, and some of the bad will be very bad indeed. I suspect if asked most lawyers (like most people) will be interested in “justice” but it is “the laws” – or rather, knowing and using the law and other legal tools to advance the interests of clients – that is the day job, just as accounting and audit is the day job for most accountants, and treating sick people is for most doctors.
No, don’t go near accountants or doctors or electricians working in their professional capacity unless you can help it either. But if you have a problem within their competence, it might be worth paying one to help.