POVERTY HUSTLING….

Another day and another instance of poverty hustling from the well off given max publicity on the BBC.

Nearly a third of the population of Britain is living on an “inadequate” income, according to research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF). In 2014-15, it said that 19 million people were living on less than the Minimum Income Standard (MIS). It said the problem was that household costs have been rising, while incomes have stagnated.

Now the Rowntree Foundation specialises in this kind of specious clap trap, continually whining about just how awful life is and how dreadful the inequality is that afflicts our Nation.  I was amused at this new “measure” of what constitutes “inadequate” income – yes, the sexy new MIS.

The MIS is set by experts at Loughborough University, and is based on what members of the public think is a reasonable income to live on.

“Experts” at a University and based on what “the public think” – utterly risible and yet allowed to generate BBC headlines.  It’s a toss up between the Resolution Foundation and the Rowntree Foundation as to which can get the most mileage for their left wing agenda from the BBC.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to POVERTY HUSTLING….

  1. Jerry Owen says:

    Not dissimilar to collating ‘hate speech’ crimes.. judged by what some think is a crime, not based on hard cold quantifiable statistics.
    Rowntree should stick to making chocolate!

       23 likes

    • Scroblene says:

      Are they counting the ones who are in prison?

      A reasonable if low income is always perfectly adequate if people learned to take their own responsibilities seriously, learned to cook properly, and get off their larded arses.

         16 likes

  2. JimS says:

    There are many ways to measure poverty.

    One of the measures used in the UK relates poverty to median household income. That means that if the rich get richer more of us become ‘poor’. If the rich get poorer then fewer of us will be in ‘poverty’. The reality is that nothing material has changed for most of the population.

    Imagine turning up to claim the weekly benefit and being greeted by a beaming clerk, “Congratulations Mr. Khan, you are no longer poor! Garry Lineker’s crisp and BBC contracts have just been cancelled, lowering the median income, so no more benefits for you!”

       19 likes

  3. johnnythefish says:

    If people want to understand the true meaning of poverty in this country they need to read The Road to Wigan Pier.

    They would then realise how far this country has come – thanks to the prosperity capitalism brings – to the point where John Prescott famously asked an unemployed bloke in his early thirties with a nice council house, good furnishings, widescreen telly and well-turned out kids: ‘When was the last time you worked?’ ‘I’ve never worked’, came the reply.

    Sadly, the BBC-aided Joseph Rowntree Foundation and their socialist marchers-in-step need to exaggerate and even fabricate divisions in society, otherwise socialism without its lifeblood of envy, resentment and entitlement, would die.

       18 likes

    • Cranmer says:

      Ironically Seebohm Rowntree, after whom the Rowntree Foundation is named, made his name by defining the level of absolute, not relative poverty. He set it as the minimum required to maintain a subsistence level of food, clothing and shelter. Or, as a Kenyan gentleman once said to me, ‘in Kenya, if you can survive, you are not poor.’

         17 likes

  4. Edward says:

    This is another one of those reports that ignores the detail of the demographics and stops the presses because it is “headline news”.

    The clue is in the detail:
    “It said the problem was that household costs have been rising, while incomes have stagnated.”

    Not true! That is a lie!

    There are always going to be statistics that will show what you want them to show, but in this case household costs have, at least, stayed the same. If you trace back 4 years (just before the slump in crude oil value), you will find that “household costs” are lower now than then. It is all dependent on comparisons and the extent of the ratio.

       10 likes

  5. Amounderness Lad says:

    First we had socialist demands for the Minimum Wage. Once they had succeeded with achieving that instead of demanding it be increased massively they repackaged it as demands for the Living Wage to hide the increase. Once again the same thing is being repackaged in a shiny new version labelled the Minimum Income Standard which, once again, is intended to hide what they really mean which is a demand for yet another massive increase. Anybody want to suggest what the next label will be used to cover up their next set of demands for the next massive increase? One thing is certain, the bBBC will never point out, as they always insist on doing with any think tank which is even slightly right of centre, is that the Joseph Rowntree Trust is a committed Left Wing Think Tank with a decidedly Left Wing Agenda.

       5 likes

  6. Wild Bill says:

    ” They are often excluded and marginalised from participating in activities (economic, social and cultural) that are the norm for other people and their access to fundamental rights may be restricted.”

    Which means people in ‘poverty’ can’t afford to go on nice holidays abroad like the rest of society.

    I am sick of hearing all this crap, I know several people who have never worked, or had a good job and left it on purpose to get on the benefits bandwagon, I have no sympathy at all if benefits are cut.

       6 likes

  7. richard D says:

    According to David Vance’s quote above, “It (i.e. the Joseph Rowntree Foundation) said the problem was that household costs have been rising, while incomes have stagnated.”.

    Funny that, since the Telegraph, just a couple of days ago, was reporting ONS figures which showed that wages have risen faster than household costs since mid-2014 – the same sort of period the Joseph Rowntree Foundation must be referring to.

    Who to believe ….. a group which uses a purely fictitious measure of something (which cannot, of course, be verified in any way as having a true statistical significance) versus the stats which have been vetted three ways from Sunday by all and sundry ?

       7 likes

  8. nofanofpoliticians says:

    Someone should call out the phrase “inadequate income” for what it is.

    We all have inadequate income in the context of our dreams and aspirations, but if adequate income means having enough income to fund Iphones and associated contracts, Sky Sports etc, multiple tatoos, fags drink &drugs, multiple children beyond what is affordable then it all becomes a matter of choice.

    We all have to make choices, that is what life is about, but the phrase “inadequate income” has become mixed up with what is deemed to be a human right (none of which the above actually is) and the culture of entitlement which the country at large seems to suffer from.

       6 likes

  9. Fred Bloggs says:

    I had a run in with the Rowntree foundation 30 years ago; bunch of lefties then, see no reason why they would have changed.

       2 likes