Poverty in Oldham

[crankedup]

Moonhawk said:

crankedup said:

But this discussion is concerning relative poverty, because some posters in here cannot accept the definition does not mean it’s not applicable.

Ok - and i'm discussing why it's nonsense.

Poverty is defined as "the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor."

But you could be in 'relative poverty' based on the '60% below median' definition used in this country, yet have plenty of money, goods and means of support - if that '60% below median' is well above the absolute poverty limit

Explain how an arbitrary percentage below median earnings is in any way an appropriate measure of poverty. It's a perfectly good measure of relative wealth - but poverty?

No, for goodness sake stick to the terminology used that we are discussing and stop trying to move the goalposts. It’s all about ‘relative poverty’ . Understand this and then by all means ask questions, but stick to the reference point identified from the outset

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Moonhawk said:

Explain how an arbitrary percentage below median earnings is in any way an appropriate measure of poverty. It's a perfectly good measure of relative wealth - but poverty?

No, for goodness sake stick to the terminology used that we are discussing and stop trying to move the goalposts. It’s all about ‘relative poverty’ . Understand this and then by all means ask questions, but stick to the reference point identified from the outset

The reference point which you didn’t appear to understand the definition of?!

Still waiting for your explanation as to why this metric is meaningful or helpful...

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Charitable donations do attract tax relief, that is my statement made.

People making charitable donations retain less money than those who do not. So your point is somewhat irrelevant.

Well at least you now understand the tax remanificatuons and charitable donations, progress at last.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Well at least you now understand the tax remanificatuons and charitable donations, progress at last.

I’ve understood it all along. It’s just that your insinuations don’t make sense. Once again.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

But this discussion is concerning relative poverty, because some posters in here cannot accept the definition does not mean it’s not applicable.

And some other posters seem determined to misunderstand the metric and propose resolutions that would make matters worse not better...

Yet another empty vacaus statement from the ‘expert’.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Well at least you now understand the tax remanificatuons and charitable donations, progress at last.

I’ve understood it all along. It’s just that your insinuations don’t make sense. Once again.

Your failure to understand is not something new. Flailing arms, legs and verbal garbage is your signature to which I am accustomed to but unmoved by.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Has your favourite teddy bear gone missing. Take your silly mindless grudge elsewhere, just a suggestion.

Perhaps you should take your mindless prejudice elsewhere?

Very noticeable that you only ever use terms made in response to you and seem to be short
of your own reposte. Your going to have to up your game to remain in it.
Is it to early for one of these? Nah, I think you’ve earned it!

[Murph7355]

crankedup said:

Well at least you now understand the tax remanificatuons and charitable donations, progress at last.

And there's me thinking StephenH had popped his clogs - are these something to do with the beginnings of time?

"Relative Poverty" is a bullst political twisting of a very serious word ("poverty") that really doesn't apply in this country.

Anyone noting it seriously will have an agenda simply not supported by anything substantive, hence using the bullst term.

[Robertj21a]

Can someone wake the rest of us up once the kids have gone off to school.

Thanks.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

That may be the Governments definition, I haven’t looked that up so I could be incorrect. Look up the dictionary definition for a non biased definition.

Perhaps you should have looked it up yourself, before making your comments?!

No need, I am talking of relative poverty and understand what this means in terms of definition.

[crankedup]

Murph7355 said:

crankedup said:

Well at least you now understand the tax remanificatuons and charitable donations, progress at last.

And there's me thinking StephenH had popped his clogs - are these something to do with the beginnings of time?

"Relative Poverty" is a bullst political twisting of a very serious word ("poverty") that really doesn't apply in this country.

Anyone noting it seriously will have an agenda simply not supported by anything substantive, hence using the bullst term.

Disagree. It’s a very useful term that perfectly expresses a situation.

[crankedup]

Robertj21a said:

Can someone wake the rest of us up once the kids have gone off to school.

Thanks.

Ding-a-ling time to get up it’s safe now

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Disagree. It’s a very useful term that perfectly expresses a situation.

It is a nonsense definition that expresses an arbitrary situation and targets the wrong things, rather than genuinely addressing the needs of those at the bottom of the scale.

[Johnnytheboy]

Three pages and the real answer was in the original BBC story:

BBC said:

The Government says levels of absolute poverty have fallen and that the best route out of poverty is through employment.

[sidicks]

Johnnytheboy said:

Three pages and the real answer was in the original BBC story:

BBC said:

The Government says levels of absolute poverty have fallen and that the best route out of poverty is through employment.

Indeed. This is what matters.

[Rovinghawk]

crankedup said:

Disagree. It’s a very useful term that perfectly expresses a situation.

Relative poverty is only having a 32" flatscreen TV, iPhone 5s and non-Heinz ketchup on one's Aldi fish fingers.

Relative to the world rather than some of the UK population I don't think they're doing so badly.

[Moonhawk]

crankedup said:

No, for goodness sake stick to the terminology used that we are discussing and stop trying to move the goalposts. It’s all about ‘relative poverty’ . Understand this and then by all means ask questions, but stick to the reference point identified from the outset

A page back, you advocated using a different definition than the one used in the OP - and you have the cheek to accuse me of not sticking to the reference point identified in the outset and trying to move the goalposts?

Again - I am discussing 'relative poverty', you just don't like what it is I am discussing about it because it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas.

[Dog Star]

jjlynn27 said:

Grim. 21st century.



Not sure what the solution is.

That's just bks! (in my opinion). Do we measure "poverty" here differently than elsewhere in the EU? Lets take what is to me an obvious example - I work in Gibraltar a lot and just over the border is La Linea; it's in a seriously deprived state, you run a proper risk of mugging, 50+ % unemployment, 74% youth unemployment. It's a dump. I've never seen anywhere in the UK in that state.

I also don't like these articles that appear constantly saying that "XYZville has so-and-so wrong with it". I'm not from Oldham, I go to/through it often enough though. Fair enough, parts of Oldham are horrible, there are (like anywhere) awful rough council estates, and older areas that are just sthole ghettos (self inflicted by the population in them and not helped by socialist social engineering experiments). However the vast majority of the outlying suburbs and areas are as nice as you'd find anywhere with a lot of lovely properties, every bit as nice as you'd find in (for example) leafy Surrey. I'm not happy with this doing down of places - does it make people feel better or something? I had similar of some prat in Harrogate recently because I live near Rochdale - ps off you nob, I live in a damned sight nicer area than you do in a damn sight nicer house.

[Murph7355]

crankedup said:

Disagree. It’s a very useful term that perfectly expresses a situation.

It's a deliberately emotive and misleading phrase to get people all upset and angry about their lot in life. It's divisive and meaningless.

Worse still, it ensures that our politicians are focussing on the wrong thing. They are wasting their time and our money tackling something that in the overall scheme of things is not a material issue (or not as material an issue as many other things in our society). In a global economy the only likely result of "well intended" (I'm not sure they are) moves on that topic will be that everyone ends up poorer. But hey, as long as relative poverty drops, happy days.

Wandering off topic a little it reminded me of a story I heard on the radio over the weekend about loads more midwives being brought on board so that expectant mums can have the same midwife allocated throughout the duration of their pregnancy. The idea being (with not a small amount of logic) that it should help problems be spotted and lower miscarriage/birth issues. All great, and all worthy. But...

Is infant mortality the biggest issue we face in our health care system right now? Personally I do not believe it is. Not by a very, very long way. But who's going to call this out as poor prioritisation of resources when you consider the heart strings that are being plucked at? Nobody.

Same thing goes on "relative poverty". It's cynically designed to get at the heart strings. Great. Meanwhile real problems and real root causes will go untouched.

[Murph7355]

Dog Star said:

That's just bks! (in my opinion). Do we measure "poverty" here differently than elsewhere in the EU? Lets take what is to me an obvious example - I work in Gibraltar a lot and just over the border is La Linea; it's in a seriously deprived state, you run a proper risk of mugging, 50+ % unemployment, 74% youth unemployment. It's a dump. I've never seen anywhere in the UK in that state. ...

La Linea isn't in "Northern Europe" though

amongst the many issues with that chart pointed out earlier, it's very selective in what it's comparing with where. If you included all EU member states the UK wouldn't have a single orange dot on it. But that wouldn't be a good message for the EU.