Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Moby

https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/monitoring-poverty-and-social-exclusion-2016?gclid=CKT5kqT4utQCFQ48GwodbNYCTA

hallmark

Moby wrote: »

https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/monitoring-poverty-and-social-exclusion-2016?gclid=CKT5kqT4utQCFQ48GwodbNYCTA

Shocking. How despicable of Labour to have caused that by spending all the money. How callous of them to have joked about doing it.

Thanks goodness the Tories have spent 7 years fixing it as best they can. Imagine how much worse it would have been if Labour had stayed in power.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

sometimes i wish i went into tech rather then finance.

If it was just for the interest of working with software then its never too late, if its for the potential money you are (or were) already doing fine in finance.

GreatApe

hallmark wrote: »

Shocking. How despicable of Labour to have caused that by spending all the money. How callous of them to have joked about doing it.

Thanks goodness the Tories have spent 7 years fixing it as best they can. Imagine how much worse it would have been if Labour had stayed in power.

im losing the will to read after not even one page

The number of private renters in poverty has doubled over the last decade. There are now as many private renters in poverty as social renters. Rent accounts for at least a third of income for more than 70% of private renters in poverty.

Why would they write that up like that? Surely they know that the private rental sector has roughly doubled over the decade so you would expect the number of private renters in poverty to roughly double as well. It is not that people are getting poorer but that there are more people.

The number of households accepted as homeless and the number of households in temporary accommodation have both increased for five years in a row. Evictions by landlords are near a ten‑year high.

:eek:
of course evictions by landlords are near a ten year high, becuase the number of rented homes is at a 10 year high

The number of people in poverty in a working family is 55%

That does not even make sense
Do they mean 55% of working families are in poverty? I dont believe it

1.4 million children are in long-term workless households, down 280,000 in four years GREAT. Excluding lone parent families with a child under five, 55% of these children have a disabled adult in their household.

GPs signing off the work sky or unable?




arrrrgg I cant go on, the report is a load of kak

Moby

GreatApe wrote: »

im losing the will to read after not even one page



Why would they write that up like that? Surely they know that the private rental sector has roughly doubled over the decade so you would expect the number of private renters in poverty to roughly double as well. It is not that people are getting poorer but that there are more people.



:eek:
of course evictions by landlords are near a ten year high, becuase the number of rented homes is at a 10 year high



That does not even make sense
Do they mean 55% of working families are in poverty? I dont believe it



GPs signing off the work sky or unable?




arrrrgg I cant go on, the report is a load of kak

Completely predictable response. The Joseph Rowntree Trust is a well respected source on such issues. Best go and troll elsewhere.

hallmark

Accusing somebody of trolling because you can't counter their arguments is unimpressive.

antrobus

GreatApe wrote: »

..That does not even make sense
Do they mean 55% of working families are in poverty? I dont believe it...

No, they mean that 55% of those in poverty are in working families as opposed to the 45% who are in workless families. 7.4 million out of 13.5 million is 54.8%.

GreatApe wrote: »

...arrrrgg I cant go on, the report is a load of kak

I would disagree. The JRF actually do research, although that doesn't necessarily mean their conclusions are right. They are however on record as stating that "Additional spending on benefits without addressing the root causes of high housing costs, poor education and low pay has failed to reduce poverty."

chucknorris

antrobus wrote: »

No, they mean that 55% of those in poverty are in working families as opposed to the 45% who are in workless families. 7.4 million out of 13.5 million is 54.8%.



I would disagree. The JRF actually do research, although that doesn't necessarily mean their conclusions are right. They are however on record as stating that "Additional spending on benefits without addressing the root causes of high housing costs, poor education and low pay has failed to reduce poverty."

Was a definition of poor given? I did look for it, but maybe I overlooked it.

economic

antrobus wrote: »

No, they mean that 55% of those in poverty are in working families as opposed to the 45% who are in workless families. 7.4 million out of 13.5 million is 54.8%.



I would disagree. The JRF actually do research, although that doesn't necessarily mean their conclusions are right. They are however on record as stating that "Additional spending on benefits without addressing the root causes of high housing costs, poor education and low pay has failed to reduce poverty."

genetics and the parents you are born to are also factors - much more so then housing costs, education etc. your destiny is pretty much sealed from the day you are concieved.

ukcarper

chucknorris wrote: »

Was a definition of poor given? I did look for it, but maybe I overlooked it.

The definition of relative poverty appears to be any Family on less than 60% of median houshold income which doesn't seen a very good measure to me.