The Swamp logo

Poverty as a Political Issue

Study definitions before decide on a political policy

By Peter RosePublished 4 years ago 5 min read
Like

Poverty as a political issue.

Study definition before judging political policy

Poverty is a social problem that brings great suffering to so many, but the politics of poverty often get in the way of solutions. The comparisons made in the following essay are from Britain but will probably be applicable in any developed nation which has politicians wishing to make political gains, by voicing claims about poverty.

In Britain we have just (12 December 2019) held an election. The socialist parties lost but part of their campaign did throw up an interesting issue. They kept claiming that it was disgraceful that 14 MILLION British people live in poverty and 4 MILLION children are brought up in poverty.

What their election campaign speeches did not say; was what they define as poverty. If the dictionary definition of poverty is applied and if it was true that 14 million had to live in such conditions; then it would be a disgrace.

Most people will agree with a dictionary definition of poverty which is---- having little or no money, goods or means of supporting life

But the BBC and politicians seeking to win votes by claiming the centre right did not care about the poor, use a definition that is is very different. They claim “poverty is defined relative to the standards of living in a society at a specific time.” Since they do not state the level of relativity; it is anyone's guess as to whether they mean those on half the average are defined as in poverty, or do they mean those with 80% of the average income? So this is a very unhelpful definition, it is a political, as opposed to real world, definition. This would also mean the standard of material support any family has, while being declared to be “in poverty” will vary from region to region, and from city to rural communities. The average level of income will be greater in the most affluent regions of a city than they are in a rural backwater. If the local average is higher then the income level, that is classed as in poverty; is also higher.

Not once did any TV presenter, ask the politicians to define poverty in the UK. It must be a good bet it is not the same definition as that which is used in, for example, Valenzuela, Nigeria or Zimbabwe. There are thought to be 65 million people in Britain at the moment, no one can measure those here illegally so let us work with the figure of 70 million; so 20% roughly 1 in every 5 people are in poverty. A pensioner existing on state pension will have a low income, yet few would consider themselves to be in poverty. Yet they must be included in this 14 million.

Walk around your nearest town, you may see signs of homelessness and this is a disgrace to our nation, you may see people begging, but will 1 in every 5 people show they are in poverty? Look down any street and ask if every 5th home is in darkness with starving inhabitants, going without electricity or food? How many of the 20% who are claimed to be in poverty in Britain, have mobile technology and fashionable clothes?

This variable definition is a political tool with no direct understandability to most people. It means 2 things, the more wealthy the middle classes get, the more material possession you can have and still be “in poverty” so it is an ever movable line. If you gave 90% of the population £1 million and the other 10% £900,000 then that 10% will be in poverty, by this definition.

The other thing this definition gives is actually credence to the socialists claim they will eradicate poverty. If you reduce the average wealth of the nation, then the level at which anyone is classed as “in poverty” gets lowered. Take away the wealth from the most affluent 60% of the population and the average goes down so far that those now “in poverty” will no longer be poor relative to those who have lost wealth, so there will be no poor but only due to this definition. Make everyone destitute and you have -by this definition- eradicated poverty.

All a huge confidence trick, a use of words to deceive everyone.

In reality we have, in Britain, a welfare state that should ensure no person starves or is without support of life. The system has many faults, it is over bureaucratic, which makes it very hard to understand and respond to, especially for those unfortunate enough to suffer from mental illness or who get easily confused by official languages, the very people it should be helping the most. It is also hugely expensive to operate due to the colossal number of staff involved. It is open to abuse by the clever and knowledgable while failing to help those with genuine need for unconditional help. But it does not fail 14,000,000 people.

The rate of change in socio-economic structures is accelerating, the history of the industrial revolution shows that an industry, such as coal mining, would last generations before the inevitable decline but modern technology prospers and declines inside the span of a single life. It is a reasonable assumption that being without paid employment will happen to more people, at least for a period of time during their lifetime, than at any time in history, this means some form of support, by the state, becomes essential. It is also true that despite industrial fragmentation of heavy industry and of labour intensive manufacturing, there are more people employed now than at any time in British history. As one form of employment collapses, within a few years others take over.

Will this continue in the age of artificial intelligence and complete automation? automation that can be adapted to new demands? The one factor in favour of human workers is their adaptability but robotic devices that can be easily adapted to changed tasks will alter this. This may change the employment opportunities for future generations, making the support structures even more necessary, until totally new occupations are invented, or populations are reduced and definitions of work changed. The future, especially in the medium and long term is going to be a huge challenge but using poverty as a political tool, especially with so much deceit, is going to make the problem harder to solve.

controversies
Like

About the Creator

Peter Rose

Collections of "my" vocal essays with additions, are available as printed books ASIN 197680615 and 1980878536 also some fictional works and some e books available at Amazon;-

amazon.com/author/healthandfunpeterrose

.

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.