Poverty, mobility, inequality? Can somebody please tell us what they are talking about?

Today, in a response to a report suggesting that social mobility was improving, Chris Grayling, the Conservative Shadow Welfare minister said: “The truth is that Britain today is a country where poverty is getting worse“.  

Discussions about poverty would be aided if people defined their terms and spoke in clearer English. However, first of all, despite my scepticism about today’s report, we should be clear that the report is nothing to do with whether poverty is getting worse. Rather, it is to do with whether the children of poor parents are less likely or more likely to be in poverty themselves. Even if the poor are getting poorer on average, we can still have a society where the poor are more able to escape poverty. Indeed, there might be a trade off.  

But, back to Chris Grayling. What did he mean by “poverty is getting worse”?  

Did he mean that there are more poor people?

Did he mean that there are the same number of poor people but the poor are poorer than before?

Did he mean that it is worse to be poor now than it used to be (perhaps because poor areas are more crime ridden)?

Did he mean that it is harder to escape poverty than it used to be?

Or, did he mean that there are more people who are below some arbitrary benchmark relative to (say) average earnings?  

I suspect he meant the last – unfortunately, it is not possible to find a fuller version of his remarks anywhere on the Conservative Party website. But, if he did mean this, then he should have said “society is becoming more unequal”. This has nothing to do with the report and nothing, necessarily, to do with poverty.

What ever the truth about poverty is, there seems every chance that it will get genuinely worse once the idiotic eco-policies begin to take effect. Rationing energy, or energy that costs a great deal more because of the methods chosen to supply it cannot help but influence future prospects for the economy. We will all be much the poorer. Still think of the upside, we are saving the planet, though I doubt the Chinese will take any notice.

Does Chris Grayling want us all to believe that poverty is a form of hypochondria, with government the permanent doctor? And without ineequalities, where are the economic and personal incentives to come from? We need a good basic, and regularly rising basic standard. Liberal capitalism delivers that. No other system ever has. We also need a successful top level, to encourage us all. Why doesn’t CG say so?

What ever the truth about poverty is, there seems every chance that it will get genuinely worse once the idiotic eco-policies begin to take effect. Rationing energy, or energy that costs a great deal more because of the methods chosen to supply it cannot help but influence future prospects for the economy. We will all be much the poorer. Still think of the upside, we are saving the planet, though I doubt the Chinese will take any notice.

Does Chris Grayling want us all to believe that poverty is a form of hypochondria, with government the permanent doctor? And without ineequalities, where are the economic and personal incentives to come from? We need a good basic, and regularly rising basic standard. Liberal capitalism delivers that. No other system ever has. We also need a successful top level, to encourage us all. Why doesn’t CG say so?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.