The Labour Party has had a successful Conference, burnished by a very successful speech from Andy Burnham. Next week we shall endure the Tories tarnishing the shine with predictable scorn and cries of unaffordability, unjustified optimism and Death Taxes, with no mention that it is largely their 14 years of misrule that has brought the country to this sorry pass (along with 40 years of multi-party acquiescence to misguided neo-liberal policies.)
I hope we Liberal Democrats will confine ourselves to constructive suggestions rather than knee-jerk opposition for the sake of opposition. It is refreshing to have a prime minister who speaks honestly about the country’s problems and seems cheerfully confident of finding solutions
In that vein, here are just two caveats.
(I do no know why the next paragraph is in bold)
First, on the abandonment of the Triple Lock. This is a Liberal Democrat policy which we introduced during the Coalition of 2010-15. At the time the UK’s State Pension was a mere 16% of median earnings – not enough to maintain an acceptable standard of living for those for whom it was the sole source of income. The aim of the Triple Lock was to raise the basic State Pension gradually to bring it up to a viable minimum level of about 40% of median earrings.
It is succeeding but not there yet: the current level is about 30% of median earnings, and is about £12,000 (roughly €13 000.) – still well below the basic state pensions of our nearest “big” European neighbours, France, Germany, Spain and Italy, where basic state pensions range between €17 000 and €19 000.
Politicians are very fond of talking-up Britain as “World Leading.” I’d be content in the pensions area to see us reach the average, and believe the Triple Lock should stay in place until then. Given that Labour’s abandonment of it doesn’t come into effect until 2030, maybe there’s still a chance.
Secondly I’m delighted to see Mr Burnham’s continued commitment to proportional representation, but disappointed, though not surprised, that:
1. We are to have yet another Commission.
The Electoral Reform Society (founded in 1888) has spent over a century pondering this and unhesitatingly recommends Proportional Representation by Single Transferable Vote in Multi-member Constituencies. (bold a deliberate choice here.) That’s it, full stop. Nothing further to discuss.
The Guardian reports, however, that we are likely to retain single member constituencies because “the PM sees the link between MPs and their constituencies as vital.”
The disadvantage of this is that a desperate family needing help may have no choice but to plead with an unsympathetic Tory. Similarly an entrepreneur wanting help to set up a business may be limited to a Labour MP committed to collective ownership (maybe that’s not a bad idea.)
Multi-member constituencies give choice.
Modern communications also make larger constituencies perfectly viable. We are no longer in the days of the carrier pigeon and the horse.
Much is made of the emotional link between the individual MP and her/his constituency ( reminds be of “the mystical union between Christ and His church.”). More nonsense. MPs swap them around like handbags (Makerfield!) and they change their size and shape with every boundary change. The house where I live has been in thee different ones in my lifetime: the Spen Valley when I was born, Batley and Morley when I first voted, Batley and Spen for about half the rest of my life, and now back to the Spen Valley with Batley abandoned to Dewsbury.
2. I’m also disappointed that we are to wait until the next parliament for the legislation to be presented. We didn’t wait for a mandate to pass the Reform Bills, give Votes for Women, lower the voting age to 18, demand photo ID in order to vote.
Labour should do it now, while they (and we, Liberal Democrats and Greens, maybe even Reform still) have a whopping majority.
Whether it's before or after an election, we do at least need a referendum on changing the voting system -- the precedent was set in 2011 with the AV referendum, and the people deserve a chance to veto such a massive change.
ReplyDeleteiINDEED. AN UNFORTUNATE PRECEDENT.
DeleteNot so unfortunate for those of us in favour of the status quo.
DeletePeter
ReplyDeleteThe triple lock issue is a difficult one and it begs the question:
How much should a state pension be and who should get it?
Various govts have tinkered with the pension systems unsuccessfully and I’d hope that Burnham’s announcement would stimulate a wider debate . If I recollect, state pensions were introduced over 100 years ago and were means-tested and meant as a very basic safety net for only the poorest retired folk.
It's also clear that the current system is judged to be non-viable in financial terms given the UKs demographics and yet at the same time the state pension does not provide a living income by itself and a large number of the retired are living in relative poverty
(I don't have the answers either!)
I can see no reason why we shouldn't be able to reach a level similar to that of the other big European countries, as spelled out in the original post. If they can afford it, why can't we?
DeleteThere are lots of other "tweaks" which could be made to make pensions more affordable. For example, pensioners who continue working after reaching pensionable age (as I did) could still pay NICs, along with their employers. (The idea that NICs are an "insurance" and once your each retirement age the "premium" has been paid is a fiction.)
Also tax relief on contritions to pension pots is very generous to the high earners, They can claim relief of 40% (maybe even 45% - I'm out of touch) even if their "pot" is already sufficient to keep them in luxury in retirement. Tax relief should be discontinued once a "pot" reaches, say, sufficient to generate median earnings.
Here's a question
ReplyDeleteIf we have a referendum on changing the voting system which voting system should we use for the referendum itself?
Frankly, I'm sorry that referendums have ever been introducedp into the UK. We are a "representative" democracy and in theory at least chose wise persons from each constituency to debate these complex issues and come to a reasoned conclusion. The complex issues can rare be reduced to one simple question with a Yes/No answer. In referendums people often vote on some issue other than the question on the paper. For example, I suspect that many people who voted "Yes" on the Brexit referendum weren't really bothered about Europe but wonted to give a kick in the teeth to the establishment becasue they felt (with considerable justification) neglected.
DeleteOpponents of electoral reform will claim that the AV referendum defeated during the Coalition creates a precedent. They have a point, but there are many other precedents for making great changes (eg Votes for Women) without referendums.
I seem to rememer a poiician in the 1940s (Attlee? Churchill?) describing referednums as tools for fascists. We should kick them out of the system
Frankly, I'm sorry that referendums have ever been introducedp into the UK.
DeleteI don't like them much myself, but as someone who is generally against any and all change I think it's right that people proposing massive sweeping changes to our constitution should have to convince a majority of people that the change is a good one. It gives, if you like, the people a last chance to veto a big change that they don't want.
In effect it's like a chairman's vote, which is always cast for the status quo. The onus is on those proposing change to make the case for why it is better, and the benefit of the doubt always goes to the side proposing no change.
Think of it this way: would you have been happy if a government had tried to have Britain leave the European Union without a referendum, if it had been elected with that in its manifesto? I suspect not: you'd have been clamouring that such a big change shouldn't just be done by a government elected on whatever-per-cent of the vote, it should have to have that change endorsed by the whole country. And indeed during and after the referendum campaign itself there were cries from the Remain side that, for example, it should have needed a 60% majority, or it should have needed a majority in each of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, or whatever other scheme would have made it harder to enact a change they didn't like.
In a way, it's a pity we didn't have referendums sooner: if we had had a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, then we probably would never have left the European Union, because the British people would have rejected the treaty meaning that either the treaty would have had to be renegotiated into something that the British people could accept, or some kind of 'associate membership' would have had to be devised so Britain could sign up to the bits it wanted and not the bits it didn't. Either of those outcomes would not have stored up the resentment which eventually bubbled over into the vote to leave in 2016. Because that's what you get when the establishment, in the form of 'wise persons from each constituency', decide that they know better than those who elected them and that they can decide on behalf of those people what is best for them: you get stored-up resentment that eventually bubbles over.
It is succeeding but not there yet: the current level is about 30% of median earnings, and is about £12,000 (roughly €13 000.) – still well below the basic state pensions of our nearest “big” European neighbours, France, Germany, Spain and Italy, where basic state pensions range between €17 000 and €19 000.
ReplyDeleteBut that's why those countries are going bust. The state pension in France, particularly, is totally unsustainable, and everyone in France knows it.
Britain has pursued the correct policy of transferring responsibility for pension provision from the state to the individual, requiring workplaces to offer pensions so that people can build up saving throughout their working lives to support themselves in retirement. This is the correct way things should work, both financially (the alternative is national financial ruin, as awaits France) and morally (individual responsibility is always beter than pushign things onto the state).
Maybe but there are groups of people where private pensions won't work:
Deletea) those who haven't worked full time for long enough - perhaps to look after kids
b) those in low paid work where contributions simply won't create a big enough pension pot
c) those who've not been able to work - eg disabled, sick, injured
And read the following:
Approximately 4 in 5 workers (80%) in defined contribution schemes are not saving at levels sufficient to meet basic needs in retirement, according to Resolution Foundation analysis
Specific points indicate:
90% of the lowest earners and 80% of other workers in defined contribution schemes fail to meet the "Living Pension" target required for a basic standard of living.
A 2025 report by now:pensions and the Pensions Policy Institute found that close to nine million people in the UK are significantly "under-pensioned" compared to the wider population.
The median UK pension pot is roughly £32,700 to £57,500, which falls far short of the £330,000–£490,000 required to generate a moderate retirement income when combined with the state pension.
Maybe but there are groups of people where private pensions won't work:
DeleteRight but those groups are not who the basic state pension is for. You deal with those groups by using targeted top-ups with strict eligibility criteria, not universal provision which results in lots of money being wasted because it goes to people who don’t need it.
Approximately 4 in 5 workers (80%) in defined contribution schemes are not saving at levels sufficient to meet basic needs in retirement, according to Resolution Foundation analysis
Well that’s their choice. They can enjoy their extra money now and suffer the consequences when they get old. People should be free to make bad decisions, but you don’t then bail them out of the consequences.
You don't bail them out
DeleteMmm
But what do you do with them when they're retired with not enough pension?
They can't afford the rent and are homeless
They can't pay their council tax or utility bills and end up in huge debt
So they end up old, cold, hungry and ill and in an NHS hospital
I'm in Scotland as I've said
DeleteMy state pension is set by Westminster not Holyrood
Burnham wants to end the triple lock to help pay for social care ...... In England
So my state pension gets cut to pay for better social care that I can't access
Hardly seems fair does it?
But what do you do with them when they're retired with not enough pension?
DeleteDo with them? Nothing. They get the basic state pension which is enough for a basic, no-frills existence: enough to feed themselves with cheap food and keep the heat on just enough so that they don’t freeze, no luxuries.
Anything else would be to introduce massive moral hazard and disincentive everyone from saving, because if you know the state will give you enough money for a reasonable life even if you waste all your money on luxuries now, why would you save anything?
So my state pension gets cut to pay for better social care that I can't access
DeleteNo, because any increase in funding for social care in England will cause Barnett formula differentials that mean proportionately more money given to the Scottish assembly (which it can then choose to spend on social care or anything else devolved).
So your pension gets cut, yes, but then Scotland’s already-disproportionate public funding per head gets even bigger.
I've just checked Pension Credit, the "top up" which is supposed to help those with inadequate pensions to survive. A large percentage of those who are entitled to it don't apply, and those who do would get "topped up" only to £238 per week (single person) - roughly the same as the standard basic pension and not enough to maintain an adequate life-style.
ReplyDeleteroughly the same as the standard basic pension and not enough to maintain an adequate life-style.
DeleteDefine ‘adequate’. It’s supposed to be enough to stop you starving or freezing, not let you take holidays or eat out. That’s what your private pension is for.
The state is not there to ensure that everyone in the country has a good standard of life. The state is there to ensure that everyone has the chance to get a good standard of life, and that no citizen falls below a bare minimum standard of life. But beyond that bare minimum, it’s not the state’s responsibility; it’s up to you, and luck.
Delete"no citizen falls below a bare minimum standard of life"
Delete"It’s supposed to be enough to stop you starving or freezing, not let you take holidays or eat out. That’s what your private pension is for."
Well that's one view I suppose.
There's a big difference between merely surviving (on a minimum state pension for example) and living. And as I posted previously not everyone has the chance of a "decent" work/private pension
There's a big difference between merely surviving (on a minimum state pension for example) and living
DeleteYes exactly. And the state is there to make sure people survive. If you want to live, and how well you live, that’s up to you.
"the state is there to make sure people survive. If you want to live, and how well you live, that’s up to you".
Deleteoh dear a very minimalist viewpoint that even the Victorians went beyond and that's been seen to fail on so many different levels
Here's my take (that you certainly wont like)
The state has a direct responsibility to:
- provide a safe and secure environment for its citizens, especially the vulnerable
- enable all its citizens to prosper and achieve their potential through the fair provision of health care, education, housing and access to economic opportunities
Worth reflecting also on what a citizen's responsibility to the state is in return
provide a safe and secure environment for its citizens, especially the vulnerable
DeleteI agree — the first duty of a state is the security of its citizens, especially protecting them from non-citizens.
enable all its citizens to prosper and achieve their potential through the fair provision of health care, education, housing and access to economic opportunities
I agree - the state should enable all its citizens to prosper.
Good — we agree on the fundamentals.
Now notice that enabling someone to prosper is not ensuring that they propser, and the state should not be ensuring that its citizens prosper. If a citizen is given access to to a minimum level of education but then fails to prosper, that’s on them — the state has discharged its duty by giving them the chance to prosper and has no responsibility to make up for their failure to prosper through their own hard work and talents.
Indeed it has a duty not to make that up because to do so would be to establish a clear moral hazard.
Unfortunately in the UK we've had a couple of decades where the enabling has been forgotten:
Delete- failing schools - with failing kids consigned to the scrapheap through no fault of their own and -falling further behind the kids from families who can afford private tutors and private education; tuition fees in England deterring wannabe graduates. The wider economic impact is on an ill-educated and unproductive workforce
- failing healthcare - longer and longer waiting lists meaning those who can't afford private healthcare are increasingly disadvantaged. Wider economic impact on productivity
- failing housing - where the economically poor are housed in crap quality housing impacting directly on health, learning and productivity
- failing on economic opportunities - where town and city centres are economic ghost towns; traditional industries have not been replaced; workplace training is pitiful, Brexit costs, where industry fails to invest, and where around 40% of those in employment have to claim universal credit because they're not paid enough to live off....
You talk about "moral hazard" - take a trip to Doncaster, Govan, Walsall, Middlesborough, Blackpool and tell people there it's their own fault they're in the economic state they're in
You might even leave alive
It is not the state’s job to give everyone equal access to education, healthcare, or anything else. It’s simply to ensure that no one goes completely without such access.
DeleteOnce the state provides a basic minimum level of healthcare, or education, or whatever, then there’s nothing wrong with people paying out of their own means to get better than what the state provides.
In terms of Britain, yes, the NHS is atrocious and we should dismantle it and run our health more along the lines of how they do it in, say, Germany. Education, though, at least in England is pretty good — did you not see the international comparisons that came out? So on the point of giving people educational opportunities I think that at least England is doing very well (though the current government looks like it’s going to to do its best to drag England down to the dismal level of Scotland and Wales).
(Anyway we've drifted pretty far from basic pension provision; can I assume you agree with me on that?)
Deleteyou can't disentangle pensions from the rest of the inequalities. Tinkering with only one part of the problem doesn't provide a solution
DeleteTinkering with only one part of the problem doesn't provide a solution
DeleteWell, that much is true. So what’s the solution to an increasingly unaffordable welfare state?
Inequality has got worse over the last few decades between rich and poor, north and south, young and old
ReplyDelete4 million kids living in poverty
2 million pensioners living in poverty
Around 1 in 3 of those on universal credit are actually in work – that doesn’t pay enough for them to live off
around 7.5 million people living in substandard accommodation in England
an estimated 15000+ people sleep rough at night
3000+ food banks plus many local free food pantries with over 2.5 million households using the last year
And todays headline
“Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has pledged to abolish the £100,000 income threshold that currently disqualifies families from receiving 30 hours of free weekly childcare a rule Badenoch describes as an "absurd" disincentive to work harder or accept promotions.”
Good to hear that this group of “poor” people will get the help they need at least
Makes you proud to be British eh (or English in your case)?
Of course as we know this is all self inflicted - the poor only have themselves to blame.
“Are there no prisons?” … “And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?” … “I help to support the establishments I have mentioned—they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population
Inequality has got worse over the last few decades between rich and poor, north and south, young and old
DeleteI don’t care about inequality. It’s rather live in an unequal country where everyone is rich but some are super-mega-ultra-rich than in a country where everybody is equally poor.
4 million kids living in poverty
No there aren’t there are no kids living in real poverty in Britain. There are four million kids in relative poverty, by the Rowntree Foundation’s definition, but that’s not real poverty. It’s a measure of inequality, not poverty, and as above I don’t care about inequality.
I case it’s not clear how crazy ‘relative poverty’ is, when the country’s economy collapsed during the last two crises — the financial crisis and the lockdowns of 2020-1 — relative poverty, because of the way it is defined, went down. It’s a crazy measure where your economy crashing, making everyone poorer (really poorer, not relatively poorer) makes you look like you’re doing better!
Good to hear that this group of “poor” people will get the help they need at least
Do you think that a marginal tax rate of over 100% is not a disincentive to working harder or accepting promotions? I’d love to hear your reasoning
If you were earning £95,000, and were offered a promotion which came with a salary of £105,000, would you take it, knowing that it would cost you £15,000 in free childcare and so leave you at least £5,000 worse off (not even counting the tax as you start losing your personal allowance)?
Mr/Mrs/Miss/ Anonymous 1, along with the rest of the right wing, bang on and on and on about the welfare state being "unaffordable" as though that were an incontrovertible fact, until we come to believe it.
ReplyDeleteBut it is not "unaffordable". We are a very rich country and can well afford it (even to the extent of providing free child care for those earning over £100 000 a year, which the Tories seem to find perfectly acceptable - you couldn't make it up.)
The tax take in the UK is currently about 35% of GDP, in France it is 44%, Germany 39% and40% in the the EU14. So there's bags of scope for bringing pensioners out of poverty, and more beside.
The Chancellor, while preparing the next budget, should search around for lots of "bads" to tax (absurdly high incomes, "rent" (in the economic sense), monopolies, polluters, inherited wealth - ex Professor Murphey of Sheffield University has a long list.
We are a very rich country
DeleteWe’re not. Our GDP per capita is below that of Belgium. Is Belgium a ‘very rich country’?
The tax take in the UK is currently about 35% of GDP
Which is way too high.
So there's bags of scope for bringing pensioners out of poverty
There are no pensioners in real poverty. The figures given are for ‘relative poverty’ which is not real poverty.
should search around for lots of "bads" to tax (absurdly high incomes, "rent" (in the economic sense), monopolies, polluters, inherited wealth
High incomes — however ‘absurd’ — are good, not bad. As a country I want us to have more people on higher incomes, not fewer. Inherited wealth isn’t bad either. Pollution is bad but there are better ways of dealing with it than tax; and monopolies are also bad but they shouldn’t be taxed, they should be broken up.
Also you seem to be very confused about the purpose of tax.
DeleteThere’s basically two functions of tax: either you tax to raise revenue, or you tax to change behaviour.
Taxes on employment are an example of the former; taxes on cigarettes an example of the latter.
The thing is that the same tax can’t do both. Because if a tax is successful in changing behaviour (eg, people stop smoking to avoid the cigarette tax) then it doesn’t raise any revenue. But if a tax raises significant revenue, then it can only have changed behaviour at the margins.
Saying ‘bads’ should be taxed implies you want to use tax to change behaviour (so there are less of the bads). But if you are successful in that then there will be no revenue raised to pay for all the welfare spending you want.
I couldn’t really put it better than this:
Delete‘ Taxation, as already noted, is necessary to pay for the legitimate functions
of the state, and everyone should pay what the law requires. But the
presumption should be that what people earn belongs to them, not to
government. Government should have to justify taking people’s money;
individuals should not have to justify keeping it. […]
The absence of taxes should never
be referred to as a tax break, which former Chancellor Rachel Reeves did
repeatedly.’
here's the justification
Delete4 million kids living in poverty
2 million pensioners living in poverty
Around 1 in 3 of those on universal credit are actually in work – that doesn’t pay enough for them to live off
around 7.5 million people living in substandard accommodation in England
an estimated 15000+ people sleep rough at night
3000+ food banks plus many local free food pantries with over 2.5 million households using the last year
here's the justification
DeleteDid you not read the above? There are not ‘4 million kids’ or ‘2 million pensioners living in poverty’. Those figures are for ‘relative poverty’, not real poverty.
so it's relative poverty?
ReplyDeleteSo when a kid can't be fed properly at home and goes to school hungry they're only "relatively" hungry?
When a pensioner can't afford to stay warm in winter they're only "relatively" cold?
When a single mum has to go to the nearest food bank they're only "relatively" poor?
And the couple earning over £100k each and getting free childcare are only "relatively" rich?
What "relative" BS you're spouting.
And clearly in denial about the problems that these people face - although of course it's all their own fault isn't it?
The kids should have chosen richer parents.
The pensioner should do as Scrooge said and just die to reduce the population
And as for the single mum .... well enough said, she should have used her universal credit for better birth control eh?
So when a kid can't be fed properly at home and goes to school hungry they're only "relatively" hungry?
DeleteFind me a kid who goes to school hungry and it's not because of parental neglect.
When a pensioner can't afford to stay warm in winter they're only "relatively" cold?
If a pensioner can't afford to stay warm in winter it's not because they are poor, it's because energy prices are so ridiculously high due to governmental interference in the energy markets.
When a single mum has to go to the nearest food bank they're only "relatively" poor?
They're poor, but they're not in poverty. Poor is when you have less money than other people. In poverty is when you are dying from starvation.
And the couple earning over £100k each and getting free childcare are only "relatively" rich?
They're definitely rich, and good on them. Some of us don't live our lives consumed by envy of anyone who is doing better than us, and instead wish them well.
wow you really are in denial aren't you?
Delete1. "Child hunger in schools is a growing crisis in the UK, with surveys indicating that one in seven children skip breakfast and up to 40% of teachers report students arriving too hungry to learn. The problem is exacerbated by strict eligibility criteria for free school meals, leaving an estimated 800,000 children in poverty without support, leading schools to dip into budgets or have staff spend their own money to provide food."
2. Poor
"Having insufficient wealth to meet the necessities of life or to live in a manner considered acceptable in a society."
Doesn't matter what the cause of high energy prices is, "relatively" poor people can't afford it.
"UK household energy debt has reached unprecedented levels, with official Ofgem figures showing £4.43 billion in arrears as of mid-2025, while Energy UK estimates the true figure is closer to £5.5 billion. This crisis affects around two million households"
3. "poverty is when you are dying from starvation"
How stupid can you be?
Oxfam: "Poverty is when a person does not have enough to meet their basic needs"
Doesn't matter whether you prefer the term poverty, relative poverty, low income .... .
the fact is that we have many people in the UK who are suffering because they don't have enough money to buy the basics
4. So given your other posts, how do you justify using public money (sorry... taxpayers money) to give free childcare to a rich couple who can afford this themselves (although I appreciate they might have to cut back on the Bollinger a little to afford this). A good use of taxpayer's money?
Evidence to back up your bigotry please
with surveys indicating that one in seven children skip breakfast
DeleteBut why do they skip breakfast? It's not because there's no food in the house. It's because their parents are too lazy and neglectful to make sure they get up in time and eat breakfast before going to school. Nothing to do with poverty -- everything to do with bad parenting.
Having insufficient wealth to meet the necessities of life
Yes. That's poverty. Not 'having less than 60% of the median income'. Nobody in Britain today is not meeting the necessities of life (unless they have other problems, such as living on the streets -- but that is more usually due to mental illness than poverty).
3. "poverty is when you are dying from starvation"
How stupid can you be?
Oxfam: "Poverty is when a person does not have enough to meet their basic needs"
Yes. Not starving is a basic need. Poverty is when a person does not have enough to meet their basic needs. The Oxfam definition is exactly the same as mine.
the fact is that we have many people in the UK who are suffering because they don't have enough money to buy the basics
They have enough money to buy 'the basics'. They just suffer because they want better than the basics and they can only afford the basics. But it is not the job of government to stop people suffering. It's the job of government to stop people starving.
So given your other posts, how do you justify using public money (sorry... taxpayers money) to give free childcare to a rich couple who can afford this themselves (although I appreciate they might have to cut back on the Bollinger a little to afford this). A good use of taxpayer's money?
I would be perfectly happy to not give free childcare to anyone. I would be okay with a policy that tapered off free childcare so that, for example, for every pound you earned over £75,000 you got 10p less free childcare. The current policy is only unacceptable because it creates a cliff-edge with a greater than 100% marginal tax rate, which creates a disincentive to increase your income above that level. That's what's bad about it.
I mean, how can you possibly defend as sensible a policy where if you earn £99,999.99 you get maybe £15,000 in free childcare but if you get paid one single penny more you get nothing? In what world can you possibly think that is that a sensible policy?
DeleteIf there's going to be a means-testing of free childcare so that lower-income families get it and higher-income ones don't (which I'm not in principle against, I think in principle means-testing is perfectly reasonable) then it should be tapered, not 'one penny below this limit you get tens of thousands of pounds, one penny above you get nothing'.
(And in fact it’s crazier than that: a married couple both of whom are on £95,000 get the full free childcare. A couple where the wife is a homemaker and earns nothing but the husband brings in £105,000 gets no free childcare. How can you possibly say this madness is a sensible policy?)
DeleteThis from a "reputable" (?) website:
ReplyDelete"
Habitat for Humanity
Home
·
Advocacy
· Relative vs Absolute Poverty
Relative vs Absolute Poverty
Poverty in Africa
What is Poverty?
In simple terms, poverty is not having enough money or access to resources to enjoy a decent standard of living; be that the lack of access to healthcare, education or water and sanitation facilities etc.
Historically, poverty in the UK was defined as either primary and secondary in studies by Seebhom Rowntree in the 20th century.
Primary poverty means not having enough money to meet basic needs. It can also be considered as ‘living below the poverty line.’
Secondary poverty is when people earn just enough money to afford the necessities. But, they spend part of it on “coping mechanisms” to deal with financial and work-related stress. (high risk and/or difficult working conditions due to abuse and long hours) and therefore end up struggling to make ends meet
In the end, Rowntree identified low wages as the main cause of poverty in the UK, rather than the poorest being responsible for their own condition – which was the most common criticism back then (and still is today to some extent).
Secondary poverty is when people earn just enough money to afford the necessities.
DeleteSo it's not actually poverty at all then, is it?
You seem to have a denial problem with the poverty word so let's focus on the real issues
DeleteSome families do not have enough income to buy the basics - it's not about bad parenting or bad choices or lifestyle issues it's about money pure and simple
As a result some kids go hungry, some pensioners go cold, some young women can't afford period products ....
I could add to the list.
None of these people want to be in that situation and their opportunities to get out of their situation is virtually non existent
And you bleat on about what a great country we've got and how are problems are all the fault of these nasty immigrants
I'm personally ashamed that I live in a country where the most vulnerable are treated this way and vilified by people like yourself, Farage and badenoch
Some families do not have enough income to buy the basics
DeleteNo, they don’t. Not in Britain. No family in Britain doesn’t have enough to buy the absolute essentials of life: to not starve, to have a roof over their head (there are no families sleeping rough on the streets).
And you bleat on about what a great country we've got and how are problems are all the fault of these nasty immigrants
What? I’ve never said anything about us having a great country. It’s far from great. It has the potential to be great, but it’s not great at the moment. And it’s not the fault of immigrants at all: it’s the fault of our incompetent politicians.
"Some families do not have enough income to buy the basics
ReplyDeleteNo, they don’t. Not in Britain. No family in Britain doesn’t have enough to buy the absolute essentials of life: to not starve, to have a roof over their head (there are no families sleeping rough on the streets)"
If you really believe this then you're delusional
There's plenty of independent and reliable research as to what's happening with low income families.
If you choose not to believe it that's your choice but it doesn't alter the facts
House of Commons Library – September 2026 research briefing notes that material deprivation (inability to afford basic items) rose from 18% in 2021/22 to a peak of 20% in 2022/23 of working-age adults in 2024/25.
House of Commons Library – September 2026 research briefing notes that material deprivation (inability to afford basic items) rose from 18% in 2021/22 to a peak of 20% in 2022/23 of working-age adults in 2024/25.
DeleteSo that is from https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10100/CBP-10100.pdf yes?
Which gives the source for that statistic in a footnote as https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/households-below-average-income-hbai--2
The methodology for that report is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/households-below-average-income-for-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2025/households-below-average-income-background-information-and-methodology-report-fye-2025#material-deprivation
And you will immediately see it is unreliable because it begins: 'Respondents to the FRS are asked a series of questions about access to goods and services and reasons why they do not have those goods and services if that is the case. HBAI uses answers to these questions and reasons given to produce material deprivation measures and report on these estimates alongside other low income and poverty measures.'
So it's a self-report survey, so inherently unreliable. People lie on self-report surveys. People especially lie on self-report surveys which are about how they spend their money. Do you think that anyone is going to put on a survey that their child doesn't have breakfast because they forgot to get cereal when they were at the supermarket picking up their fags? Of course not. They will pick that the child doesn't have breakfast because it 'is not a priority for us on our current income' (which is one of the options that counts towards deprivation, and isn't even a lie: the fags are clearly a higher priority).
But even without assuming dishonesty, the questions are ridiculously broad. For example, one question used to measure deprivation is 'do you have regular money worries at the end of the month?' Answer 'yes' to that and you are one point towards being in deprivation. But lots of middle-class families have regular money worries at the end of the month, especially with energy costs as high as they are these days! Another question is are you 'Able to put money aside for unexpected expenses'. Again, many young professionals paying high rents would answer 'no' to that one, and so put themselves another point towards being deprived, even though no one would count a young professional who has a good job but has no money left over because they are paying London rents as 'deprived' in any real sense.
Another point is given if children cannot afford to go on school trips. Being unable to afford to go on school trips with your classmates may be sad, but it is in no sense a 'basic essential'. Likewise an annual holiday.
You can find all these at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/households-below-average-income-for-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2024/technical-report-update-to-measures-using-material-deprivation-for-households-below-average-income-fye-2024
Basically if you actually look into it, rather than just believing the headline, you will see that that statistic is utterly bogus.
Better tell that to the house of commons - it's their report so they obviously take this seriously even if you don't.
DeleteBtw a school trip isn't a jolly jaunt it's part of the formal curriculum. Not being able to go on it disadvantages those pupils. And why are they disadvantaged? Because their parents are poor!
Get it?
The kid's disadvantaged through no fault of their own
Do you accept that? Yes no is all that's needed
Better tell that to the house of commons - it's their report so they obviously take this seriously even if you don't.
DeleteAs I wrote above: ‘I’ve never said anything about us having a great country. It’s far from great. It has the potential to be great, but it’s not great at the moment. And […] it’s the fault of our incompetent politicians.’
One of the ways in which our politicians are incompetent is that, like you, they accept obviously-bogus statistics that are given to them, instead of digging into the detail to find the truth.
Not being able to go on it disadvantages those pupils.
[…]
Do you accept that? Yes no is all that's needed
Yes, they are disadvantaged. But being disadvantaged is a long long long way from being in poverty. It is not the job of the government to make sure no one is ever disadvantaged — which would be an impossible goal anyway.
So I accept that they are disadvantaged. Will you likewise accept that they are not in poverty?
If you don't want your posts to be confused with someone else's then use your initial (as I've posted elsewhere)
Delete"obviously-bogus statistics that are given to them"
Oh dear, you're actually posting to a professionally qualified statistician (amongst other things)
These are NOT "bogus" but like any such data they have their limitations and need to be understood in context
As your still in denial try looking at the research done by
Joseph Rowntree Foundation
the Institute for Fiscal Studies
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/costs-of-child-poverty-a-rapid-evidence-review-of-the-effect-of-income-on-child-outcomes/costs-of-child-poverty-a-rapid-evidence-review-of-the-effect-of-income-on-child-outcomes
https://assets.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wpuploads/2025/07/Growing-up-in-a-low-income-family-childrens-experiences.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/685d11823e6b7941f4e00a74/Child_Poverty_Strategy_Launch_Publication.pdf
"Will you likewise accept that they are not in poverty?"
As I posted earlier I'm personally not bothered what term is used (arguing about the terminology is a waste of time) and I prefer to use "low income families" myself
The focus should be on what detrimental effects this has on the families concerned in terms of opportunities that are not available as a result
"It is not the job of the government to make sure no one is ever disadvantaged"
I had to smile at this one
Of course this is the govt's job - historically govts have had to focus on helping those disadvantaged by the "free market" system
But I'm interested. So in your view:
a) whose job is it?
b) and what IS the govt's job then?
Oh dear, you're actually posting to a professionally qualified statistician (amongst other things)
DeleteAh, so then you are skilled in the manipulation of data to hide the truth and make people think it says what you want them to believe. I understand where you are coming from now.
a) whose job is it?
Helping the disadvantaged? It's the job of their families, friends and neighbours.
b) and what IS the govt's job then?
The government's job (economically) is to solve collective action problems to provide things that the market cannot provide because they are non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Things like the military, infrastructure that can't be provided any other way, etc etc.
"Helping the disadvantaged? It's the job of their families, friends and neighbours"
DeleteNo man is an island
As a community aren't we all mean to be friends and neighbours looking after each other?
"Ah, so then you are skilled in the manipulation of data to hide the truth and make people think it says what you want them to believe. I understand where you are coming from now."
DeleteUnlike many professions the Royal Statistical Society - of which I'm proud to be an Elected Member - has a code of ethics that govern members' behaviour
I wish I could say the same for politicians
"The government's job (economically) is to solve collective action problems to provide things that the market cannot provide"
DeleteSo the market doesn't provide:
a liveable wage for some of the jobs it has
affordable housing
accessible education
access to adequate health care
decent transport
clean water
Should I continue?
As a community aren't we all mean to be friends and neighbours looking after each other?
DeleteYes. We are. That's why it is our job to look out for our neighbours, and to offload that job onto the government, and say 'we don't need to worry about helping our neighbours -- the government is taking care of that' is so horrendous a thing to do.
Unlike many professions the Royal Statistical Society - of which I'm proud to be an Elected Member - has a code of ethics that govern members' behaviour
So you're saying that when an organisation like the Rowntree Foundation hires a statistician to produce a report, they are paying for the truth, and not for a report which justifies (never by using a falsehood, of course, but always only by careful cherry-picking of the data) the policies they wanted to push anyway?
Pull the other one.
So the market doesn't provide:
DeleteSigh. Let's go through these.
a liveable wage for some of the jobs it has
Not all jobs should be paid a liveable wage'. Some jobs simply aren't worth doing enough to pay someone enough to live on. For example, being paperboy. There's no world in which it is worth paying someone enough to live on to deliver newspapers. So it should be possible to hire people who don't need the wage to live on to do those jobs, and it is no business of the government to dictate which jobs those are.
affordable housing
The market would provide sufficient housing that prices would drop so that it was affordable, if we got rid of all planning restrictions which prevent houses being built. The government's job therefore is not to build the houses, but to get rid of the restrictions.
accessible education
I agree that the government should provide a basic level of education for those who can't otherwise afford it. Those who want better than the basic level can of course pay for better out of their own resources.
access to adequate health care
I agree that the government should provide a basic level of education for those who can't otherwise afford it. Those who want better than the basic level can of course pay for better out of their own resources.
(But it shouldn't provide that health care using a single monolithic bureaucracy like the NHS -- we should move to something more like the German model of health care, which has much better outcomes than ours).
decent transport
There's no need for the government to provide transport. The government can provide roads and then people can either buy their own cars or, if there's a demand for shared transport at an economically viable price, the market will provide it.
clean water
The main thing stopping clean water being provided, and leading to hosepipe bans, etc, has been planning restrictions which have stopped water companies from building any new reservoirs for thirty years. So again this is a situation where the government's job should be removing the restrictions.
so still no initials to clarify whose post is which
Delete"Pull the other one"
No reputable statistician would cherry pick results from analysis.
Just because an outfit like JRDF has a vested interest doesn't mean their research isn't valid.
The phase "pig ignorant" springs to mind when people aren't qualified/experienced in an area so vilify the experts? Remember Brexit when various competent and qualified economic researchers predicted the economic consequences.
Chickens coming home to roost.
a liveable wage for some of the jobs it has
DeleteThe govt has to pick up the bill for low wages paid by the "market". around 33% of people on universal credit are in employment
"affordable housing
DeleteThe market would provide sufficient housing that prices would drop so that it was affordable, if we got rid of all planning restrictions which prevent houses being built."
Totally naive
The rot started with Thatcher "right to buy" where social housing was sold off (usually not to the tenant) and not replaced
The housing market has been distorted by those seeing it as an investment/pension and not a home
There's not enough affordable social housing and the market won't build it because they can't make enough money
accessible education
Deleteso what's your definition of "basic" education?
clean water
DeleteAgain this is down to market greed not regulation
Sewage discharge has nothing to do with reservoir build
All of these are to do with visible market failure where the low income and vulnerable groups are increasingly disadvantaged and left behind as the market can't make enough money from them
DeleteAt one level I don't have a problem with that - a market economy is driven by profit not by ocial responsibility after all
However, that means that govt has to pick up the pieces and fill the gaps which in turn means someone has to pay for this
And the only ones with the money to do this are those who've done well out of the market economy
Just because an outfit like JRDF has a vested interest doesn't mean their research isn't valid.
DeletePresumably the same applies to, for example, the Adam Smith Institute? But how can that be, when they both produce reports which use statistics to come to opposite conclusions?
Obviously neither is lying about the statistics (because that would be forbidden by the code of ethics!).
So surely the only possible explanation for how two institutions named after dead white men can both use statistics to come to opposite conclusions, with neither lying, is that they each use whichever statistics support their case and ignore (or explain away) the ones which don't?
Just like a lawyer will present the evidence that supports his client's case and ignore or explain away the evidence which doesn't.
In other words -- cherry-picking.
The govt has to pick up the bill for low wages paid by the "market".
No it doesn't. That is a policy choice.
There's not enough affordable social housing and the market won't build it because they can't make enough money
No, they won't build it because planning permission is so restrictive that they can only get permission to build a very small number of homes per year -- so of course they concentrate on the top end because those are the ones with the highest profit margin. But if they could build as many houses per year as they wanted, they would build all types, because even the lower-end houses they can still sell for a profit (albeit a smaller profit) and obviously some profit, even if smaller, is always better than no profit.
so what's your definition of "basic" education?
Learning to read, write, be able to do enough maths to function in society, learn about the history of Britain, that sort of thing.
Sewage discharge has nothing to do with reservoir build
You wrote 'provide clean water'. Dealing with sewage discharge is nothing to do with providing clean water to homes and there is absolutely no reason why the two should be done by the same body (historically they have been but there's no particular logical reason for that, any more than supermarkets should also run waste collection).
But, if we consider cleaning up sewage as opposed to providing clean water to homes, then I agree that that is something which is non-rivalrous (you getting the benefits of clean beaches etc doesn't stop me from getting the exact same benefits) and non-excludable (it's impossible to stop someone benefitting from the cleanliness of the environment) and therefore an example of something which should be paid for by government funded through taxes, in the same way as other non-rivalrous and non-excludable things like the military.
All of these are to do with visible market failure where the low income and vulnerable groups are increasingly disadvantaged and left behind as the market can't make enough money from them
DeleteNo, they are to do with market failure due to regulation.
Not that in unregulated markets low-income consumers are not left behind: the market caters for them by producing budget versions of the more expensive products. Television, mobile telephones, computers, cars, household appliances, food, etc etc, all keep getting cleaner year after year after year --because in unregulated markets the incentive is always to expand your customer base as much as possible, by finding ways to produce things more efficiently so you can sell them cheaper.
It's only in markets where the supply is restricted by regulation, eg housebuilding, where you see these market failures.
If we removed the regulations on housebuilding you would see the same effect as we do in the unregulated market for mobile telephones: lots of cheap low-end houses.
Learning to read, write, be able to do enough maths to function in society, learn about the history of Britain, that sort of thing.
DeleteOh, and also I would go back to making a GCSE in a foreign language compulsory too.
And I would go back to selecting on academic ability to make sure that clever kids could go to the best state schools regardless of their parents’ means (ie end being able to pay to get into good schools’ catchment areas). There’s nothing wrong with paying for your child to get a better education but you should do it directly, not by distorting the housing market.
"Oh, and also I would go back to making a GCSE in a foreign language compulsory too."
DeleteArabic presumably?
Arabic presumably?
DeleteDon’t care. Any foreign language. It would presumably be good for the spooks to have more Mandarin and Arabic speakers available as those are our most dangerous enemies, so those might be good choices.
"So surely the only possible explanation for how two institutions named after dead white men can both use statistics to come to opposite conclusions, with neither lying, is that they each use whichever statistics support their case and ignore (or explain away) the ones which don't?"
ReplyDeleteOh dear
You need to read more carefully.
Not sure which AS research you're referring to (as you don't bother citing) but if it's the one responding to IFS then they're talking about different things
AS argues that the measure used for "poverty" doesn't actually measure poverty
As I've posted previously this is a red herring argument and why I use the term low income families
Use that term rather than "poverty" and do you still disagree with the overall findings - that more kids are in low income families?
And do you then deny that this puts those kids into a disadvantaged position vis an vis their peers through no fault of their own?
And do you then argue that it's not the govt's responsibility to help those kids?
"No, they won't build it because planning permission is so restrictive that they can only get permission to build a very small number of homes per year "
Delete"More than one million homes granted planning permission since 2015 have remained unbuilt"
LGA
Hardly seems to be a problem of "restrictive" planning permission does it?
"Sewage discharge has nothing to do with reservoir build
DeleteYou wrote 'provide clean water'. Dealing with sewage discharge is nothing to do with providing clean water "
Yes it is.
Illegal discharges foul and pollute clean water
AS argues that the measure used for "poverty" doesn't actually measure poverty
DeleteAnd the Adam Smith Institute is correct about that.
Use that term rather than "poverty" and do you still disagree with the overall findings - that more kids are in low income families?
Certainly more kids are in families with relatively lower incomes. That’s kind of a mathematical inevitability if the economy is growing successfully.
And do you then deny that this puts those kids into a disadvantaged position vis an vis their peers through no fault of their own?
I don’t deny that at all. Clearly having a relatively lower income will lead to being relatively less advantaged.
And do you then argue that it's not the govt's responsibility to help those kids?
Correct. It is no part of the government’s job to try to make everyone in the country equally advantaged.
More than one million homes granted planning permission since 2015 have remained unbuilt
Yes, but this is because getting permission is such a long and risky process that developers need to keep permitted developments to ensure they still have a pipeline in case they can’t get any more permissions.
If they didn’t need to get permissions but could just build whatever developments they liked they would build more faster.
Illegal discharges foul and pollute clean water
Not clean water that is being delivered to homes.
Wow
DeleteWhat an apologist for the failings of the free market and capitalist greed
What an apologist for the failings of the free market and capitalist greed
DeleteTo steal a phrase, the free market is the worst way to run an economy -- except for all the other ways which have been tried from time to time.
so what?
DeleteYou're simply in denial that there are any failings in a market system
These are real and have a direct and negative impact on many peoples' lives that they can do little about as individuals
You're simply in denial that there are any failings in a market system
DeleteOf course there are failing in a market system.
It's just that the failings in every other system are worse.
Just look at any communist country to see how much worse things could be if you don't have a market system.
If you can point to any country which doesn't use a market system, which has demonstrably better results than a market system, then I'll gladly consider giving that system a try here.
But you have to prove it works before you try it here -- we're not changing our system just on the theory that another system might work better. It has to be proved to work in a real country first! Someone else can be the guinea pigs!
ReplyDelete"It's only in markets where the supply is restricted by regulation, eg housebuilding, where you see these market failures."
So the financial crash was caused by regulation not by pure market greed?
So the financial crash was caused by regulation not by pure market greed?
DeleteThe financial crash wasn't a market failure. It was a liquidity crisis caused by a bubble bursting in an environment which had become massively and opaquely over-exposed to downside risk. .
"The financial crash wasn't a market failure. It was a liquidity crisis caused by a bubble bursting in an environment which had become massively and opaquely over-exposed to downside risk. "
DeleteSo greed then
So greed then
DeleteNo, it was caused by a confluence of bad incentives (encouragement to lend to sub-prime borrowers without proper credit checks, incorrect assumptions made when credit-rating complex collateralised debt instruments, moral hazard due to believing that banks would always be bailed out (that turned out to be true), etc etc).
As I said greed
Deletethe people and companies involved were out for all they could get regardless of the risk
The market failed to prevent this pure and simple
the people and companies involved were out for all they could get regardless of the risk
DeleteEveryone is always out for all they can get. That is how the world works and there is no point in pretending it isn't; economics is about working with human nature, not working against it or trying to reform it.
Adam Smith: 'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages'
"Everyone is always out for all they can get."
DeleteNo "everyone" isn't
There are some of us who don't put our own self interest first and who are happy to do things that will benefit others at a cost to ourselves.
I can only feel sorry for people like yourself who are - as a self-declaration - only interested in what they can get for themselves and presumably are happy to puh others aside/down as a consequence
There are some of us who don't put our own self interest first and who are happy to do things that will benefit others at a cost to ourselves.
DeleteBut others of us have rent to pay.
You cannot govern a society of you pretend that everyone is totally altruistic, because that simply isn’t true and your society will be taken advantage of. People respond to incentives: that’s the whole point of economics.
To govern you must accept people as they really are, sinful and flawed and selfish, and base your policies on that truth.
Good luck. Your society will be dog-eat-dog until there ae only hyenas left (
DeleteYour society will be dog-eat-dog until there ae only hyenas left
DeleteNo, it won’t. Because as Adam Smith showed, of everyone acts in their own best interests in a free market, everyone benefits.
Whereas as the USSR showed, if you try to build a perfect, fair society, you will create Hell on Earth.
You really should get your head out of the sand from time to time.
DeleteSmith's theory - and that's all it is - is one thing the reality of a market economy today (which doesn't actually equateto Smith's very restrictive assumptions) is very different
Tell those sleeping rough, the families in crap temporary accommodation
, those forced to use food banks, those who can't afford to heat their home ... That they're really the beneficiaries of a free market
Clueless and deluded
The alternative to a free market is NOT the USSR