I don’t think shills for a party who made extreme poverty and inequality worse than they were in 1997 is really in any position to issue “challenges”.

IMHO.

Hi Martin,

Well done on remembering and repeating the Tory spin, but here’s what the IFS have to say about Cameron’s ‘extreme poverty’ measure:

“A number of commentators have expressed concern at this increase, referring to those with current incomes less than 40% of the contemporary median as living in ‘severe’ or ‘deep’ poverty. However … those with the lowest incomes are not necessarily those with the lowest living standards …

At first glance, this would seem to indicate that ‘severe’ poverty really is ‘severe’. However, other work has suggested that people in this group have, on average, living standards equivalent to those with much higher incomes (where living standards are measured by expenditure/consumption and/or material deprivation) … we believe that it is unhelpful to refer to those with incomes less than 40% of the contemporary median as living in ‘severe’ or ‘deep’ poverty.” (p.34)

@2:

So, what you’re basically saying is that you agree that Labour have probably made extreme poverty and inequality worse, and so to cover their arses, you’re now attempting to redefine poverty not to be anything to do with income?

SOPHISTRY IS BRILLIANTS.

“So, what you’re basically saying is that you agree that Labour have probably made extreme poverty and inequality worse, and so to cover their arses, you’re now attempting to redefine poverty not to be anything to do with income?”

It’s more about ‘understanding some of the complexities around using the data about poverty and inequality, using independent analysis rather than party political spin which cherry picks data’.

It’s part of our programme to teach you basic data analysis to go with your comprehensive knowledge of every Conservative Party talking point – last week, you learned what an inverse correlation was, do you remember?

According to this and other international studies, Denmark is the happiest country:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5224306.stm

It seems not to be widely appreciated that at least up to the onset of the financial crisis in 2007, the burden of taxation in Britain – meaning: total tax revenues as a percentage of national GDP – was lower than in most European countries: the notable exception being Germany where the tax burden was marginally lower.

Curiously, Denmark had the highest tax burden among the relatively OECD countries:
http://lysander.sourceoecd.org/pdf/factbook2009/302009011e-10-04-01.pdf

“The 1980s saw the largest increase in poverty and inequality in 20th century Britain.”

No, it didn’t. You’ve rather given the game away by referring to poverty and inequality as two different things…..which they are of course but not normally in your language.

The usual leftish definition of “poverty” is that relative poverty thing. Which is of course inequality. By defining them as two different things as above you’ve got a problem. For as two different things then of course poverty is the older meaning: not having less than others but having less in total.

And of course on that basis poverty did not rise in the 80s…..as it hasn’t in fact risen at any time in the 20th century (outside, possibly, one or two recession years). The living standards of the poor, whether we measure them by income or consumption, have continued to rise.

Hi Tim,

“The usual leftish definition of “poverty” is that relative poverty thing. Which is of course inequality.”

Not necessarily the same thing, though, e.g.

Poverty = household income below 60 per cent of the median income level in that year

Inequality = Gini co-efficient

In theory, one could rise but not the other (I think)

(7) in theory and has happened in fact. Relative poverty can fall (the number of people below a particular share of median income) while the range of inequality increases. Some (eg Blair, Cameron) argue that the focus should be on poverty while being agnostic about inequality.

In 1997, overall relative poverty in the UK (households, after housing costs, 60% median) was 24.4%, the gini was 0.38

By 2004, relative poverty had fallen by a fifth (20.5%) while the gini was almost the same (0.375) and down v.marginally

By 2007, relative poverty was back at 22.5% overall (but down on 1997) while the gini was higher than 1997 (0.4). These are the latest official figures we have.

Overall, 97-07 relative poverty did fall under Labour, while inequality (on the Gini measure) rose this is driven by the growth of income of the top 1% especially the top 0.2%, as inequality between the 90:10 range has fallen.

The aggregate fall reflects very different outcomes for different groups, often based on policy priorities for redistribution, with on aggregate (approx) pensioner poverty down 900,000, child poverty down 400,000 but single adult poverty up 600,000 (because single adult out of work benefits reduced sharply in real value; while extra support when to those in work with children through tax credits).

.

Those relative poverty and gini stats were from the IFS spreadsheets, downloadable here
http://www.ifs.org.uk/fiscalFacts/povertyStats

As for public spending and poverty, how are we supposed to be able to afford to renew the Trident submarine fleet – or the Olympic games in 2012?

Nuclear weapons didn’t prevent the Korean war, the insurgency in Malaysia, the Mau Mau in Kenya, the Vietnam war, 9/11, the despotism of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, the Madrid bombing in 2004 or the London bombing in July 2005.

In the remote possibility that we really need to threaten use of a nuclear deterrent, we shall have to revert to the old method of airborne delivery.

What of the Olympics games gravy train?

“At the last count there were 200 officials in the Olympic Development Authority. The lowest-paid member of its management team is on £243,000, and the highest, David Higgins, £624,000.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/24/olympics-london-sport

“In the past year, board members of the Olympic Organising Committee received £1,000 per two-hour meeting and the chief executive, Paul Deighton, a former Goldman Sachs banker with a personal fortune of more than £100m, was paid a salary of £557,440. The committee chair Lord Coe splits his time between his Olympic work, for which he receives more than £250,000 a year, and managing the Complete Leisure Group, a sports marketing company he established, with the former bankrupt and tax exile Peter Abbey, a month after Britain won the 2012 bid.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/london-2012-a-gold-medal-muddle-968634.html