Blair playing a blinder

[Gemini]

Dear Everybody,

Tony Blair, with 'his' plan for schools is about to complete the metamorphosis into Margaret Thatcher. Just days from now the handbag will sprout from his sleeve, his hair will turn blond and bouffant and his neck will go all baggy. The mad staring eyes and most of the policies managed it a while back, but the finishing touches are just taking place. All around him people will start proclaiming that they never really liked him in the first place and only worked to keep him in office for 8 years because, well, just because.... Probably the real Thatcher will expire and there'll be a big party in Trafalgar Square, but don't expect Ken Livingstone to organise it...

[dccairns]

Nice one Gemini!

Now back to Porty's discarded gauntlet.

On 10 July, I listed some consequences of New Labour Policies, one of which was "the widening of the gap between rich and poor". You have conceded, have you not, that I am correct in this? I did not cite "an increase in poverty" as one of the disasters I lay at TB's door.

So, now answer my questions about Tony's latest wizard wheeze, i.e. education reforms. And while you're at it can you defend his failure to ban smoking in public places properly. This could be disastrous for Portobello as Gemini might emigrate to England when the full ban comes into force here next March.

[Porty]

Whereas NPI's report states :

Income

The most commonly used threshold of low income is 60% of median income. In 2002/03, before deducting housing costs, this equated to £194 per week for a couple with no children, £118 for a single person, £283 for a couple with two children and £207 for a lone parent with two children.

In 2002/03, 12.4 million people were living on incomes below this income threshold. This represents a drop of 1½ million since 1996/97.

The numbers of people on relative low incomes remained broadly unchanged during the 1990s after having doubled in the 1980s.

In 2002/03, there were 8 million people on incomes below the fixed threshold of 60% of 1996/97 median income. This represents a drop of 6 million since 1996/97.

Half of all people in social housing are on low incomes compared to one in six of those in other housing tenures. Can't find this graph on website

Child poverty

The number of children living in households below 60% of median income was 3.6 million in 2002/03.

This represents a drop of 0.8 million since 1996/97.

I did not cite "an increase in poeverty" as one of the disasters I lay at TB's door.

So, given the evidence presented above, do you accept that poverty has diminished under Blair?

[bellybabe]

In 2002/03, there were 8 million people on incomes below the fixed threshold of 60% of 1996/97 median income. This represents a drop of 6 million since 1996/97.

Erm...is this a typo or is this a blindingly stupid attempt to confuse the figures? Of course lots of people in 2002/3 were living above the median income of 1996/7 - income levels rise each year. Why would anyone be assessing 2002/3 income against median levels from six years earlier? (Other than to massage the figures, obviously...)

When my mother and I were living on £39.40 a week in 1992, that was more than the median income for 1942...so does that mean we weren't poor? It seems to be comparing people in 2002/3 with people in 1996/7, but based on the same year's average income. What do they do, roll a die to choose a year on which to base all assessments?

[Porty]

Its probably my typo. I copied from an Adobe document as cut and paste not possible. It wasn't deliberate on my behalf and i don't think the New Policy Institute are a) stupid or b) in the business of massage or delusion.

[Maria]

Its probably my typo. I copied from an Adobe document as cut and paste not possible. It wasn't deliberate on my behalf and i don't think the New Policy Institute are a) stupid or b) in the business of massage or delusion.

Will seek out the report tomorrow and report back.

Is this what you were consulting Porty? I took this from http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/key_facts.htm

Income
The most commonly used threshold of low income is 60% of median income.  In 2003/04, before deducting housing costs, this equated to ££200 per week for a couple with no children, £122 for a single person, £291 for a couple with two children and £214 for a lone parent with two children

In 2003/04, 12 million people in Great Britain were living in households below this income threshold.  This represents a drop of 2 million since 1996/97.  It is, however, still much higher than in the early 1980s.

The proportion of children and pensioners who live in low income households has been falling. In contrast, the proportion for working-age adults without dependent children has remained broadly unchanged.  A third of all people in low income households are now working-age adults without dependent children (3.7 million people).


Disabled adults are twice as likely to live in low income households as non-disabled adults, and the gap has grown over the last decade.


The level of Income Support for both pensioners and families with two or more children has gone up much faster than average earnings in recent years, but that for working-age adults without children has fallen considerably behind.


Child poverty

The number of children living in low income households was 3½ million in 2003/04.  This represents a drop of ¾ million since 1996/97.

[Porty]

Marya,

Yes I was quoting that publication having been directed there by xxxx. However, as you have also found the bit that BB took issue with is no longer there. So maybe they spotted the questionable relevance of the data (it ought to have been adjusted) and removed it. Even so the evidence is overwhelming. How did you manage to export the text?

I notice the link ends in the word "Facts".

[Porty]

I now can't find the report on the NPI website or at least I can't find the bit that infuriated BB. Here is what the press release said about poverty.

Poverty and Social Exclusion 2004

Press Release From The Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Poverty falls for families and pensioners, but increases among adults without children

The monitoring shows that, on the most recent statistics, 12.4 million people (22 per cent of the population) were living in households with net incomes below the 'poverty line' (defined as 60 per cent of median household income after deducting housing costs). This figure for 2002/3 compares with 14 million people who lived in low-income households in 1996/7.

The number of children living in poor households fell over the same period from 4.3 million to 3.6 million. Allowing for tax credit changes introduced in April 2003, this suggests that the Government may well reach its short-term target of reducing child poverty by a quarter at the end of this year. The figures also show a reduction of 500,000 in the number of pensioners in poor households, which fell to 2.2 million in 2002/3.

However, the number of working-age adults without dependent children living in households below the poverty line showed an increase of 300,000 from 3.6 million in 1996/7 to 3.9 million in 2003/3. These figures are supported by the fact that Income Support for childless adults below retirement age has only risen in line with prices for the past decade, and fallen increasingly far behind earnings. By contrast, Income Support has increased by a third in real terms for couples with two children since 1998, and a quarter for couples with one child.

So overall 1.6 Million people have moved above the poverty line, with only one group showing a decline. With a realistic chance of reducing child poverty by 25%

As we are all aware, up until the day before yesterday, dc was "still looking" for evidence to refute the data on poverty. Her search has gone on for some months. I for one, would like to move on.

I did not cite "an increase in poeverty" as one of the disasters I lay at TB's door.

Your statement appears to confirm that you accept there has not been an increase in poverty under Blair. I have patiently waited for you to put forward contrary data. So, given the evidence presented above, do you have the grace to accept that poverty has diminished under Blair?

[Dadaist]

Interesting figures there.

[Gemini]

I now can't find the report on the NPI website or at least I can't find the bit that infuriated BB. Here is what the press release said about poverty.

Poverty and Social Exclusion 2004

Press Release From The Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Poverty falls for families and pensioners, but increases among adults without children

The monitoring shows that, on the most recent statistics, 12.4 million people (22 per cent of the population) were living in households with net incomes below the 'poverty line' (defined as 60 per cent of median household income after deducting housing costs). This figure for 2002/3 compares with 14 million people who lived in low-income households in 1996/7.

The number of children living in poor households fell over the same period from 4.3 million to 3.6 million. Allowing for tax credit changes introduced in April 2003, this suggests that the Government may well reach its short-term target of reducing child poverty by a quarter at the end of this year. The figures also show a reduction of 500,000 in the number of pensioners in poor households, which fell to 2.2 million in 2002/3.

However, the number of working-age adults without dependent children living in households below the poverty line showed an increase of 300,000 from 3.6 million in 1996/7 to 3.9 million in 2003/3. These figures are supported by the fact that Income Support for childless adults below retirement age has only risen in line with prices for the past decade, and fallen increasingly far behind earnings. By contrast, Income Support has increased by a third in real terms for couples with two children since 1998, and a quarter for couples with one child.

So overall 1.6 Million people have moved above the poverty line, with only one group showing a decline. With a realistic chance of reducing child poverty by 25%

As we are all aware, up until the day before yesterday, dc was "still looking" for evidence to refute the data on poverty. Her search has gone on for some months. I for one, would like to move on.

I did not cite "an increase in poeverty" as one of the disasters I lay at TB's door.

Your statement appears to confirm that you accept there has not been an increase in poverty under Blair. I have patiently waited for you to put forward contrary data. So, given the evidence presented above, do you have the grace to accept that poverty has diminished under Blair?

I think you are missing the big picture here Porty!
In a country that is the 3rd richest in the world - there should be NO POVERTY!

But a small, example - an ealderly lady - fast approaching 80, was sent her annual letter from the Pensions Dept. advising her, that her pension
would be going up 25p per week! Wooppee! However, a couple of days later, the same lady was advised that becuase of something or other?
the 25p would be reduced from 25p to 15p per week.
Now when you compare that to rises that Politicians pay themselves + their expenseS + No Council Tax on second homes +++++
IMHO, this pretty much puts this Labour Government to
SHAME
Tommy Sheridan highlighted, a week or so ago, the appalling stats. (you can look for them if you wish). between Rich and Poor in Scotland.

[Porty]

I think you are missing the big picture here Porty!
In a country that is the 3rd richest in the world - there should be NO POVERTY!

Really? Do you accept that in order to achieve no poverty, we shall have to reduce the poverty we already have?

[Gemini]

I think you are missing the big picture here Porty!
In a country that is the 3rd richest in the world - there should be NO POVERTY!

Really? Do you accept that in order to achieve no poverty, we shall have to reduce the poverty we already have?

I accept your statement, but cannot envisage our Government ever acheiving this! They are too busy cosying up to the Corporations,
who are calling the shots, and dictating policy.

[Porty]

I think you are missing the big picture here Porty!
In a country that is the 3rd richest in the world - there should be NO POVERTY!

Really? Do you accept that in order to achieve no poverty, we shall have to reduce the poverty we already have?

I accept your statement, but cannot envisage our Government ever acheiving this! They are too busy cosying up to the Corporations,
who are calling the shots, and dictating policy.

Thanks for your acceptance it is appreciated.

I agree, I can't envisage it either. Any government that included zero poverty as a target in its manifesto would be bonkers, delusional ,chasing an unachieveable goal and guaranteed to fail.

I know you are angry that there is still huge levels of poverty and you find it unacceptable. I do too, poverty is an endemic problem that has been prevalent for thousands of years.

Gemini, can I ask you a question?

Given the evidence presented above do you acccept that the number of people living below the recognised poverty standard has reduced under Blair?

[Gemini]

Really? Do you accept that in order to achieve no poverty, we shall have to reduce the poverty we already have?

I accept your statement, but cannot envisage our Government ever acheiving this! They are too busy cosying up to the Corporations,
who are calling the shots, and dictating policy.

Thanks for your acceptance it is appreciated.

I agree, I can't envisage it either. Any government that included zero poverty as a target in its manifesto would be bonkers, delusional ,chasing an unachieveable goal and guaranteed to fail.

I know you are angry that there is still huge levels of poverty and you find it unacceptable. I do too, poverty is an endemic problem that has been prevalent for thousands of years.

Gemini, can I ask you a question?

Given the evidence presented above do you acccept that the number of people living below the recognised poverty standard has reduced under Blair?

By the stats (that you are so fond off) it appears that this is the case.
Unless I can find evidence to the contrary - I will have to reluctantly accept your findings.

[Porty]

Very gracious of you. I can only begin to imagine how much that must have hurt.

Thank you.

[Cynthia]

- statistics can be found to prove anything - it depends on the way you collect the stats, the questions you ask, etc etc - see this article from Socialist Worker (at least its title tells you the politics behind the paper whereas mainstream papers take a political approach - of their owners and shareholders and the readership they aim at - but don't declare it)
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/articl ... cle_id=652
Article: Title - Lying with figures - Statistical shift abolishes povertyby Goretti Horgan 14 February 2004 | issue 1888

From the above article
"For some time, the UK has had one of the worst rates of child poverty in the industrialised world, with 3.8 million children-one in three-living in poverty. But research over recent years has shown that a layer of children-probably one and a half million-live in very deep poverty.

One in three poor children do not have three meals a day, miss out on toys, school trips and out-of-school activities and even lack adequate clothing, particularly shoes and winter coats. They never get a holiday, can never have friends round to stay, even to tea, don't get to go to the cinema or local leisure centres.

Few people thought the government would totally end child poverty, but in reaching for the stars there was some hope they might hit the top of the tree. Now they are reaching lower down, the fear is they will settle for even less. In addition there are now three criteria, not one, by which Labour wants its goal of abolishing child poverty by 2020 to be measured. The change in the way that relative income is to be defined could mean 800,000 children no longer being defined as poor. Abracadabra-poverty abolished! "

Carla

[Gemini]

- statistics can be found to prove anything - it depends on the way you collect the stats, the questions you ask, etc etc - see this article from Socialist Worker (at least its title tells you the politics behind the paper whereas mainstream papers take a political approach - of their owners and shareholders and the readership they aim at - but don't declare it)
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/articl ... cle_id=652
Article: Title - Lying with figures - Statistical shift abolishes povertyby Goretti Horgan 14 February 2004 | issue 1888

From the above article
"For some time, the UK has had one of the worst rates of child poverty in the industrialised world, with 3.8 million children-one in three-living in poverty. But research over recent years has shown that a layer of children-probably one and a half million-live in very deep poverty.


You were saying Porty.......

One in three poor children do not have three meals a day, miss out on toys, school trips and out-of-school activities and even lack adequate clothing, particularly shoes and winter coats. They never get a holiday, can never have friends round to stay, even to tea, don't get to go to the cinema or local leisure centres.

Few people thought the government would totally end child poverty, but in reaching for the stars there was some hope they might hit the top of the tree. Now they are reaching lower down, the fear is they will settle for even less. In addition there are now three criteria, not one, by which Labour wants its goal of abolishing child poverty by 2020 to be measured. The change in the way that relative income is to be defined could mean 800,000 children no longer being defined as poor. Abracadabra-poverty abolished! "

Carla

You were saying Porty?

[Dadaist]

There's a difference in saying that poverty has gone down under Blair and that it has gone down because of Blair. In order to prove that, you'd need a time machine and a way of creating :

(a) a non-Blair at the helm under the same economic conditions
(b) Blair at the helm under different economic conditions

You would also have to find a way of discrediting Brown. Saying that poverty has gone down under Blair is not as useful as saying that poverty has gone down as a result of New Labour policies, which Porty has not proven.

Somewhere between Porty's figures and Carla's figures lies the truth, but irrespective of whether or not living conditions have changed for the 700,000 kids in the UK who we are tittle-tattling about, whether or not some of your tax has actually gone to good things like the NHS or the working tax credit, some of it has also gone into depriving an unknown statistic of adults and children of their lives in foreign lands, using high explosive, as a direct result of Blair's policy, not just "under" him.

[Porty]

Carla, the New Policy Institute report was not a questionaire. Nor was it totally pro Labour, far from it. From memory there are 40 indicators used to measure poverty and social exclusion. 10 indicators showed an improvement and 7 worsened. The 10 improvements dwarfed the ones that worsened.

The New Policy Institute in an independent, revered and respected source. So is the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. You are quoting from the Socialist Worker. It has all the gravitas and credibility of The Dandy.

[Dadaist]

It has all the gravitas and credibility of The Dandy.

And also causes no harm, whereas a piece of paper with Blair's handwriting on it can be a death-warrant for thousands.

[Porty]

There's a difference in saying that poverty has gone down under Blair and that it has gone down because of Blair. In order to prove that, you'd need a time machine and a way of creating :

(a) a non-Blair at the helm under the same economic conditions
(b) Blair at the helm under different economic conditions

I did not claim to have proven that poverty has reduced because of Blair. I merely published data that confirms it has reduced during his tender as PM. If you want to split hairs then Dc will have to withdraw her allegation that Blair is responsible for the gap widening. She can change it to happened when he was in charge.

I would contend that he must have had something to with both.

The criteria you have stipulated are laughable. You seem to be suggesting that Blair just got handed a set of economic conditions and has no influence over them. Earier in the thread Gemini trumpahntly announced that we are the third richest country in the World. Whether that is largely down to Brown or Blair or a bit of both it is an outstanding perforamce under Blairs watch. The buck stops with him , the responsibility is his.

[Dadaist]

Ain't suggesting anything. Laugh away, I could care less. Looking back on it, economic stability and bits of arab limbs scattered hither. Yeah, let's talk economics.

[Porty]

Dada, you are being a septic.

Dc's inital volley placed the blame or in her words "disaster" of the widening of the poverty Gap, fairly and squarely at Blair's door. She was quite clear, it was because of Blair. He was the guilty party. No-one else was named in the indictment.

The War in Iraq?

In terms of responsibilty you choose to lay the blame at Blair's door. You say it is because of him. I have no argument with that. in fact I totally concur. Blair is to blame, it was his decsiion and it is his responsibility. But, you want him to take personal responsibilty for the evil and give him no credit for the good.

Carla has played the "statistics can prove anything" card. Which, is a favourite manipulation tool that all political parties use to defraud their followers.Even so, she is accepting that there has been a drop in poverty but arguing that the magnitude of the drop in poverty is smaller than the NPI have identified. She is inadvertentlly supporting my position.

Carla, I invite you to challenge the source of my facts, challenge their integrity, challenge their independence, challenge their analysis , challenge their methodology. Your attempt to cast asperision on a widely respected body needs backing up.

[Porty]

It has all the gravitas and credibility of The Dandy.

And also causes no harm.

It poisons minds. The Daily Mail ropes dopes at one end of the spectrum and Socialst Worker ropes dopes at the other end of the spectrum . Both publications are vile rags and should not be valued as sources in any meaningful debate. They lack a key ingredient; independence.


(edited by Porty)

[foxy]

Dada, you are being a septic.

Septic tank?

[Cynthia]

Septic tanks continued.....I love your avatar by the way Foxy - where did you get it - I want one - I think Porty would think this would suit me too...

Porty you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want - or rather the sources I read....that was the point that I was making

and on a linked theme - does anyone remember Thatcher talking about the numbers of unemployed going down when in fact it was the numbers being counted as unemployed that were actually going down - see the end of my posting which I repeat again - for the sake of Porty - from article in Socialist Worker, which I freely admit is biased towards ordinary people and not the rich ie a socialist paper :"In addition there are now three criteria, not one, by which Labour wants its goal of abolishing child poverty by 2020 to be measured. The change in the way that relative income is to be defined could mean 800,000 children no longer being defined as poor. "Abracadabra-poverty abolished! "

Carla

[Porty]

Porty you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want - or rather the sources I read....

Its not the text I believe in so much, its the source that I trust. If you want to challenge that source
please use more credible and more quantifiable criteria than your beliefs.

:"In addition there are now three criteria, not one, by which Labour wants its goal of abolishing child poverty by 2020 to be measured. The change in the way that relative income is to be defined could mean 800,000 children no longer being defined as poor. "Abracadabra-poverty abolished! "

Carla, please stop the obfuscation.

NOWHERE have i presented Labour's position on poverty. I have cited an independent report that uses not 3 criteria but 40 to measure poverty and social exclusion. 1.6 million people have moved above the poverty line. NPI chose the measurement standard not Labour and the standard they chose is recognised as the yardstick.

I am pretty sure that Labour would hand-pick sound bites from that report, I am not in that business

If you have been following this debate then you will know that a source was identified that confirmed Dc's contention that the poverty gap has widened. i conceded that point. The source was the same report from the NPI. You cannot have it both ways.

[Porty]

Dada, you are being a septic.

Septic tank?

Ham shank, call it what you wish. It is not like him normally but on this matter he is def being one. IMHO

[foxy]

Dada, you are being a septic.

Septic tank?

Ham shank, call it what you wish. It is not like him normally but on this matter he is def being one. IMHO

Oops that'll teach me to be sarcastic...I genuinely thought it was a typo with a missing "K"

[Porty]

I would never call him a skeptic, that would be going way too far.He would nail me for the spelling for a start.

[foxy]

.....I love your avatar by the way Foxy - where did you get it - I want one

Hi Carla...got it here

[Dadaist]

It has all the gravitas and credibility of The Dandy.

And also causes no harm.

It poisons minds. The Daily Mail ropes dopes at one end of the spectrum and Socialst Worker ropes dopes at the other end of the spectrum . Both publications are vile rags and should not be valued as sources in any meaningful debate. They lack a key ingredient; independence.


(edited by Porty)

This could have been the start of an interesting topic had you not decided to lower your own argument to below the level of these publications with personal insults.

[Porty]

This could have been the start of an interesting topic had you not decided to lower your own argument to below the level of these publications with personal insults.

It still could be, once you get over it. Whch I'm guessing you already have. So stop the charade.
In any case it was an observation on your argument, not you personally.

[Dadaist]

No, when you address someone as "being a" then you've crossed the line into personal insult territory.

You also used a nasty word which one of the other mods had to edit out.

You are now accusing me of a "charade".

[Porty]

I am.