Why do poor people keep voting Labour..

[Grandad.Malky]

So proud of my nan, she always voted labour too but this year at 80+ she voted libdem for the first time:D!!

 

It’s not very good having the rug pulled from under your feet at her age, got to watch those hips.

[redrobbo]

So what exactly does that mean redrobbo? Can you give a few examples of 'relative poverty'?

 

Here goes...

 

I think you would agree that in todays society most people would expect to own various labour saving gadgets, e.g., a fridge, a vacuum cleaner, microwave, etc., and also expect to possess such things as a television, a mobile phone, etc.

 

So, anyone not possessing such items would, relative to the majorityof people, be classed as living in poverty.

 

As I don't possess a microwave, a t.v. or a wretched mobile phone, I could be classed as living in poverty! However, I could afford these items, but purely out of personal choice, choose not to. So, this description of relative poverty isn't all that helpful.

 

So we need to dig a little deeper into the meaning of relative poverty. Now, what if my circumstances were such that I couldn't afford these items that nearly everyone else takes for granted? I still wouldn't be living in relative poverty if for example I chose to spend my income instead on a foreign holiday.

 

But if my income was so low that I could only afford the basic necessities of food, clothes and a roof over my head, with nothing left for such things as a telly, a microwave and a mobile phone - then I would indeed be living in relative poverty compared to the norms of society.

 

Thus, for example, an asylum seeker is living in relative poverty compared to a single parent with children living on state benefits. That single parent with children living on state benefits is living in relative poverty compared to an elderly couple living on a state pension and a private pension who have paid off their mortgage and have no debts. They in turn would be living in relative poverty compared to a married couple each earning £50k a year, who can afford dining out regularly, each owning a car and taking an annual skiiing holiday and summer cruise. And, of course, that couple are living in relative poverty compared to say some bankers who earn millions in basic salary with top up perks and huge bonuses annually. Lastly, all of these and probably most of us in the country are definitely living in relative poverty compared to last weeks Euro winner of £84m!

 

It is therefore helpful to think of relative poverty as a comparison between different groups in society. But somewhere along this continuum, it is helpful to draw a base line, below which anyone should be regarded as living in poverty. That's where the goverment steps in and determines what shold be regarded as an adequate state pension for the elderly, and what are the minimum benefits that should be paid to people out of work or unable to work (due to disability or incapacity).

 

Government can also influence the ability of low income earners to rise above the officially accepted poverty line, for example by ensuring the low paid pay proportionately less of their income in taxes compared to higher income earners (including tax allowances and tax thresholds), and by instituting a legally binding minimum wage which all employers must pay to their workers.

 

Taking that last example, i.e., the legal minimum wage, the OP should remember that it was the Labour government that brought this into being, in an attempt to lift people out of poverty. Now, I fully accept that some folk would argue that the minimum wage may not in fact be a living wage, but wherever and however you set the minimum paid income, it is still likely as not to be the case that such earners are still living in relative poverty compared to other folk with higher incomes.

 

Hope that helps pininsho?

[llamatron]

It’s not very good having the rug pulled from under your feet at her age, got to watch those hips.

 

now there is a comment that means absolutely nothing:confused:

[Tony]

Apologies for the huge snip and misrepresentation of what you said, but I'd like to ask for opinions on a wider question

 

 

It is therefore helpful to think of relative poverty

 

Is it helpful to think of relative poverty?

[Cyclone]

Here goes...

 

I think you would agree that in todays society most people would expect to own various labour saving gadgets, e.g., a fridge, a vacuum cleaner, microwave, etc., and also expect to possess such things as a television, a mobile phone, etc.

 

So, anyone not possessing such items would, relative to the majorityof people, be classed as living in poverty.

A statement that is clearly false when you actually think about it. Poverty has a specific meaning, and not having a mobile phone is not part of that meaning.

 

As I don't possess a microwave, a t.v. or a wretched mobile phone, I could be classed as living in poverty! However, I could afford these items, but purely out of personal choice, choose not to. So, this description of relative poverty isn't all that helpful.

 

So we need to dig a little deeper into the meaning of relative poverty. Now, what if my circumstances were such that I couldn't afford these items that nearly everyone else takes for granted? I still wouldn't be living in relative poverty if for example I chose to spend my income instead on a foreign holiday.

 

But if my income was so low that I could only afford the basic necessities of food, clothes and a roof over my head, with nothing left for such things as a telly, a microwave and a mobile phone - then I would indeed be living in relative poverty compared to the norms of society.

It's still not a good definition as people drop the 'relative' bit and talk about children in the UK living in poverty, when in reality they have a roof, clothes and food. Maybe we'd be better off to just talk about them being poor.

 

Thus, for example, an asylum seeker is living in relative poverty compared to a single parent with children living on state benefits. That single parent with children living on state benefits is living in relative poverty compared to an elderly couple living on a state pension and a private pension who have paid off their mortgage and have no debts. They in turn would be living in relative poverty compared to a married couple each earning £50k a year, who can afford dining out regularly, each owning a car and taking an annual skiiing holiday and summer cruise. And, of course, that couple are living in relative poverty compared to say some bankers who earn millions in basic salary with top up perks and huge bonuses annually. Lastly, all of these and probably most of us in the country are definitely living in relative poverty compared to last weeks Euro winner of £84m!

Which just demonstrates why the term is of no use at all.

 

It is therefore helpful to think of relative poverty as a comparison between different groups in society. But somewhere along this continuum, it is helpful to draw a base line, below which anyone should be regarded as living in poverty. That's where the goverment steps in and determines what shold be regarded as an adequate state pension for the elderly, and what are the minimum benefits that should be paid to people out of work or unable to work (due to disability or incapacity).

Real poverty already has a clear definition, it doesn't need anyone to draw a line to define it.

 

Government can also influence the ability of low income earners to rise above the officially accepted poverty line, for example by ensuring the low paid pay proportionately less of their income in taxes compared to higher income earners (including tax allowances and tax thresholds), and by instituting a legally binding minimum wage which all employers must pay to their workers.

 

Taking that last example, i.e., the legal minimum wage, the OP should remember that it was the Labour government that brought this into being, in an attempt to lift people out of poverty. Now, I fully accept that some folk would argue that the minimum wage may not in fact be a living wage, but wherever and however you set the minimum paid income, it is still likely as not to be the case that such earners are still living in relative poverty compared to other folk with higher incomes.

 

Hope that helps pininsho?

The labour government also introduced the huge bureaucracy of tax credits. Take with one hand and give back with the other! The minimum wage is a genuine achievement, but it's over shadowed by the stealth taxes we all have to pay and massive government we all have to pay for which Labour also introduced.

[Grandad.Malky]

now there is a comment that means absolutely nothing:confused:

 

“rug pulled from under your feet” was a metaphor for the betrayal she must feel as a lifelong Labour voter that changed to Lib only to see a Con alliance ………….. shes not on her own and those “floating” voters will have their day.

[llamatron]

“rug pulled from under your feet” was a metaphor for the betrayal she must feel as a lifelong Labour voter that changed to Lib only to see a Con alliance ………….. shes not on her own and those “floating” voters will have their day.

 

Wrong again, she seemed quite happy with it!

[Grandad.Malky]

Wrong again, she seemed quite happy with it!

 

Voted Labour all her live and happy with a Con government :o you have done a good job on her haven’t you.

[llamatron]

Voted Labour all her live and happy with a Con government :o you have done a good job on her haven’t you.

 

I never spoke to her about politics until after the election-again wrong. That would be a labour favourite "I ""convinced"" my grandkids that the tories are evil and Im proud of it"

[Panthera]

answer to the ops question, because historicaly labour have helped the working class voter, the conservatives have helped line the pockets of the wealthy and upper class and the lib dems try to please both sets and end up doing nothing, so labour are sadly the best of a bad bunch