The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[StuartHopkin]

What is the level that means someone is classed as being in poverty?

Is it the 60% of the median household income, found that on a quick google....

[ripple11]

What is the level that means someone is classed as being in poverty?

Is it the 60% of the median household income, found that on a quick google....

Each year, the Government publishes a survey of income poverty in the UK called Households Below Average income (HBAI).

This survey sets the poverty line in the UK at 60 per cent of the median UK household income. In other words, if a household’s income is less than 60 per cent of this average, HBAI considers them to be living in poverty.

What is the poverty line infographic

Before or after housing costs?
HBAI provides two types of household data: before housing costs are deducted (BHC) and after housing costs have been removed (AHC). Many official poverty statistics employ the BHC information. At CPAG, we consider a better measure to be the income a household has left AHC, as this more realistically reflects the amount of money families and individuals have at their disposal. All the figures we use are AHC unless otherwise stated.

Adjustments made to HBAI
The HBAI poverty line takes into account the size and the composition of households through a process called equivalisation. As common sense would suggest, the poverty line for a household with one adult and one child is set at a lower level than a two parent family with more children.

The poverty line is not adjusted, however, for other important household characteristics such as disability or caring responsibilities.

How much?
The table below shows the HBAI poverty line for 2015 to 2016, for a couple and a lone parent with two children, excluding housing costs.

Family Composition

    
                                 Per month   Per year
Lone parent (2 children)   £1,287   £15,444
Couple (2 children)   £1,738   £20,852

[Pokerpops]

What is the level that means someone is classed as being in poverty?

Is it the 60% of the median household income, found that on a quick google....

That is a figure quoted in the JRF report I linked to.
Tbf the definition of poverty can be an arbitrary thing. Setting it by reference to the rest of the country makes it easier to quantify.

On a less quantifiable basis, and again from JRF,

Poverty means not being able to heat your home, pay your rent, or buy essentials for your children. It means waking up every day facing insecurity, uncertainty, and impossible decisions about money. The constant stress it causes can overwhelm people, affecting them emotionally and depriving them of the chance to play a full part in society.

[arbboy]

Is the figure the same whether you live in Mayfair or Teeside?  If so it just proves how pointless the figure is

[nirvana]

Disagree and ‘‘tis why democracy works so well. Who gave the logical people superiority over the emotional ones? An emotional vote is equally valid and it’s the leaders who capture hearts and minds that excel. Every one of us chooses to offer our whole life to a partner we love not one who is logically correct.
...

Yes - leaders who capture hearts and minds do excel.

That's precisely the point - the leaders who are good at technical details and knowledge and strategy concerning diplomacy, the law and economics should be the ones who excel.

It's the job of the Government - to govern.

You don't need warm, fuzzy feelings for that. You need facts, analysis and expertise.

That's part of the central problem with democracy - illustrated perfectly by every metaphor and analogy to relationships and families and anything where emotion is meant to play a part.

But those wise logical leaders better not implement policy that is merely logical to them and their sagely nodding friends.

They better implement policy that makes the people happy. Cos a happy workforce is a more productive one that grows the economy.

They did some research in Newcastle where productivity rose by 30% the week after the magpies won. Funny how the economic performance of the region rested upon emotion. Probably because the world is full of people like.

If a policy makes people happy, and that makes people more productive, and that boosts the economy - the logical, rational choice is to implement it.

For example. Having an extra Bank Holiday would make a lot of people happy.
Some politicians would want to do this because it would win them votes - the emotional flaw at the core of democracy.

Rational politicians would want to know - does the extra holiday and boost to general wellbeing mean that people go back to work after with increased productivity?
Or does the disruption just have a negative effect on the economy? - and then they should respond as appropriate.

It doesn't necessarily have to be an economic benefit - an extra Bank Holiday on General Election day, for example, could boost turnout and make people engage more with politics. It would also make a lot of people happy just having the extra  holiday.

The effect of government action might well be emotional - but the instigation of it shouldn't be, and doesn't have to be.

Bank Holiday for a General Election sounds great.

It just seems fundamentally flawed to think happy people work harder, especially when nearly all of them are only making someone else richer by working harder. I like to think happy people have better things to do.

This is why socialism is so pernicious. All of them are making a living for themselves first and generally speaking, working harder has many many benefits to that individual. It's irrelevant if it also makes someone else richer.. Shirley?

My comment is on the flippant side but I think my point is reasonable. There is plenty of room for an adjustment in the distribution of the wealth created by people’s work. We have about 4 million working people in the country who currently live in poverty.

We don't disagree that much tbf. At the same time as being very right wing in terms of my belief in the individual and a belief that people need to aspire to improve their lot by their own efforts first, and state second I would also acknowledge that there are far too many cases of severe deprivation and also massively reduced opportunity. It's about choices and distribution as you point out. Just hate the term re-distribution although I'd be happy to pay more tax if there was a decent plan around.

Don't know if it would solve anything but I'd like to see us drown the schools and youth services in money and resources (whether private or state) so people who have shit parents and crap role models get shown that there are other paths. Pay people to train to do the jobs the country needs (so obvious and no idea why this isn't done) and genuinely make an effort to equalise (or at least level up) opportunity for the greatest number of people possible.

[nirvana]

Boris going to court over the 350 million poster.......it was actually more.


2016
Payment to Brussels, net of rebate and money returned to the UK: £9.4 billion a year, or £181 million a week.
Payment to Brussels, net of rebate: £13.9 billion a year, or £267 million a week.
Gross payment to Brussels: £18.9 billion a year, or £363 million a week.

As far as the average voter is concerned, £181 million and £350 million both sound like a lot of money. Either would get the point across, with the same force. So why did Boris use the gross figure, when the convention is to use the net figure? Simple: it drives the other side quite loopy. They threaten to sue. And as they explode with anger, the discussion turns to how much of British money is spent to the EU – a conversation subject that suits Brexiteers. This tactic worked so effectively in the referendum because their opponents rose to the bait every time.

How did this get this far - patently ludicrous whether you like Boris Johnson or not

[DungBeetle]

What is the level that means someone is classed as being in poverty?

Is it the 60% of the median household income, found that on a quick google....

Depends if you want to be dishonest and drop “relative” from the description “relative poverty” because you want to do some obvious political point scoring?  If so then yes that is your poverty definition.

[Pokerpops]

Is the figure the same whether you live in Mayfair or Teeside?  If so it just proves how pointless the figure is

How many people do you think are living in Mayfair and earning <60% of Median Household Income?
I expect more from someone of your obvious smarts.

[DungBeetle]

Is the figure the same whether you live in Mayfair or Teeside?  If so it just proves how pointless the figure is

How many people do you think are living in Mayfair and earning <60% of Median Household Income?
I expect more from someone of your obvious smarts.

Congratulations for missing his point.  Do you think they are all in Teeside?

[ripple11]

Boris going to court over the 350 million poster.......it was actually more.


2016
Payment to Brussels, net of rebate and money returned to the UK: £9.4 billion a year, or £181 million a week.
Payment to Brussels, net of rebate: £13.9 billion a year, or £267 million a week.
Gross payment to Brussels: £18.9 billion a year, or £363 million a week.

As far as the average voter is concerned, £181 million and £350 million both sound like a lot of money. Either would get the point across, with the same force. So why did Boris use the gross figure, when the convention is to use the net figure? Simple: it drives the other side quite loopy. They threaten to sue. And as they explode with anger, the discussion turns to how much of British money is spent to the EU – a conversation subject that suits Brexiteers. This tactic worked so effectively in the referendum because their opponents rose to the bait every time.

How did this get this far - patently ludicrous whether you like Boris Johnson or not

3 years to get this to court and over 200 grand raised on crowdfunding..........madness.

 Give the money to charity and get on with your life mate.

[Pokerpops]

Is the figure the same whether you live in Mayfair or Teeside?  If so it just proves how pointless the figure is

How many people do you think are living in Mayfair and earning <60% of Median Household Income?
I expect more from someone of your obvious smarts.

Congratulations for missing his point.  Do you think they are all in Teeside?

Maybe he, or you, need to explain his point a bit better.

[DungBeetle]

Is the figure the same whether you live in Mayfair or Teeside?  If so it just proves how pointless the figure is

How many people do you think are living in Mayfair and earning <60% of Median Household Income?
I expect more from someone of your obvious smarts.

Congratulations for missing his point.  Do you think they are all in Teeside?

Maybe he, or you, need to explain his point a bit better.

Leaving aside the fact £15k a year is tougher in Watford than in Middlesborough (which is his point), it’s a matter of honesty:

Do I think inequality is a problem in this country? Yes.
Would I struggle to live on 15k with kids? Yes
But let’s call it what it is.  Inequality.  If you have 15k a year you shouldn’t starve or go without heat in the UK.
Inequality is a topic intensely worthy of debate.  I’d like a scandanavian tax system, but call for virtually zero personal allowance and 25% VAT and everyone starts squealing as they only want the rich to pay.

When I see a report begin with “12 million Britons are in poverty” as I did last week, or a poster on here quote “4 million working Britons are in poverty” I just roll my eyes and stop reading because their political bias is plain for all to see.   Just be honest about the term poverty v inequality and we can have a proper debate.

Scandaniavian tax rates anyone?  Or do you want to blame the rich bogeyman and hide behind your “poverty” stats?

[DungBeetle]

Is the figure the same whether you live in Mayfair or Teeside?  If so it just proves how pointless the figure is

How many people do you think are living in Mayfair and earning <60% of Median Household Income?
I expect more from someone of your obvious smarts.

Congratulations for missing his point.  Do you think they are all in Teeside?

Maybe he, or you, need to explain his point a bit better.

Leaving aside the fact £15k a year is tougher in Watford than in Middlesborough (which is his point), it’s a matter of honesty:

Do I think inequality is a problem in this country? Yes.
Would I struggle to live on 15k with kids? Yes
But let’s call it what it is.  Inequality.  If you have 15k a year you shouldn’t starve or go without heat in the UK.
Inequality is a topic intensely worthy of debate.  I’d like a scandanavian tax system, but call for virtually zero personal allowance and 25% VAT and everyone starts squealing as they only want the rich to pay.

When I see a report begin with “12 million Britons are in poverty” as I did last week, or a poster on here quote “4 million working Britons are in poverty”, I just roll my eyes and stop reading because their political bias is plain for all to see.   Just be honest about the term poverty v inequality and we can have a proper debate.

Scandaniavian tax rates anyone?  Or do you want to blame the rich bogeyman and hide behind your “poverty” stats?

[Woodsey]

Anyone who thinks there is a lot of poverty in this country (some politician was even saying 15 mill the other day) needs to get their arse over to India or somewhere similar for a reality check and a benchmark as to what real poverty is.......

[DungBeetle]

Anyone who thinks there is a lot of poverty in this country (some politician was even saying 15 mill the other day) needs to get their arse over to India or somewhere similar for a reality check and a benchmark as to what real poverty is.......

They aren’t interested in the truth.  The term “poverty” has been childishly cannibalised over the last decade by the Left and it just hinders debate.