Isnt that the point or am I being thick?

I think the point is that it might be easier to understand who's really in poverty if an income (after benefits) value was used rather than a percentage of the median. For example if your country suddenly was to become a haven for the rich it'd push the number of people in poverty up (as the median point would go up) without any decrease in what money or standard of living the people at the poverty point actually had.

Which is what 'relative' poverty is all about. Social misfunction goes hand in hand with widening inequality. Its accepted that it does, but I don't think it should be accepted. Governments talk in terms of skewing benefits and taxation one way or another to favor one class or another but thats because those are the only levers available to a government to pull.

The presence of the rich makes the poor self destructive in a myriad ways, surely there must be a more subtle, social and cultural ways of tackling that with P60s and UB40s?

we are talking about the gap between rich and poor not poverty, to come into the discussion and say that a few rich poeple will squew the results is mind blowingly stupid IMO

I think we started talking about the gap between rich and poor and moved on to absolute poverty. We're now discussing the difference between the two and which is the more useful measure. Do you see how conversations flow?

The gap between rich & poor is irrelevant IMO

Well it depends what you believe in …… doesn't it ?

If you believe in social justice, then the gap between rich & poor is all important and crucial. Because if a society has a huge gap between the rich and the poor, then it clearly suggests that some are helping themselves to more than their fair share of the nation's wealth, whilst others aren't receiving their fair share.

And poverty in Britain cannot be simply dismissed on the grounds of extreme poverty in third world countries. It is still scandalous that 19% of children living in the capital city of the 5th richest nation on earth, are experiencing "severe poverty".

Although of course there is nothing new in this. During the Victorian era when Britain was the wealthiest nation on earth, millions lived under the most appalling poverty. The Victorians weren't too hot on "social justice".

Can we pin this one on Thatcher? Well certainly the gap between rich and poor started to widen 30 years ago as a direct result of deliberate government policy. But the recent further widening of the gap is 100% the responsibility of New Labour, absolutely no one else is to blame for it.

Of course despite all of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fancy promises about irradiating poverty, none of this is in the least bit surprising. Because their entire and only strategy to reduce poverty, was through tax/benefit handouts, ie subsidising the poor. Complete and utter tosh imo.

Unfortunately, the real solution was far too unpalatable for Blair and Brown. And the clue to the real and lasting solution to poverty, can be seen in why the rich aren't "poor". The rich aren't poor because they have higher incomes. The only solution to poverty is full employment and decent wages. There is no other solution. And this is precisely how poverty has been successfully reduced in the past in Britain.

But as I say, the real solution is far too radical for a government which, as has already been pointed out, is "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich"

Churchill believed that in the same way the rich inherit their riches, the poor inherited their poverty. He believed poverty could be eradicated by simply preventing the poor from breeding.

I doubt whether Churchill actually said that. Although admittedly, politics was never his strong point – he didn't for example, seem very certain about which political party best represented his own particular views and beliefs, and very few people today describe themselves, or others, as "Churchillian", in the way people talk about Kensiyan, Thatcherite, etc. In fact, I don't know any.

He did write/make rather good speeches though.

But anyway, whether he said it or not makes no difference – it's still complete bollox either way. What the poor inherit is their society. And it is the society which creates poverty, as indeed it does the wealthy. Individuals do not create poverty, they never have, and never will. You can only irradiate poverty by irradiating the conditions which cause it – not the individuals.

The figures are hugely skewed. One faux-aristocratic ponce (CFH anyone) can individually widen the gap by a considerable margin.

Figures on what, you were talking about poverty figures were you? I think I understand how conversation works, I also understand how statistics work and I think your point is at best either misleading (or trying to mislead morons), blindingly obvious or at worst plain stupid

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's fancy promises about irradiating poverty,

What, they were going to nuke the poor? 😉

As it currently stands the issues of education and housing are paramount.

Too many of the best paid jobs are in London and the south east, Too London Centric,

People from former industrial towns and cities cannot afford the house prices in the south east, which really has been the killer for social mobility.

Where I live I'm getting bombarded with Valuation offers/someone wants to buy a house in my neighbourhood, simply down to parents wanting to get their kids into the local schools. We have some excellent schools(supposedly) in the area and this puts house prices up and prevents parents from lower income families from moving here, it also has a knock on effect of preventing "essential workers" from living here also, not to mention driving out those on lower incomes who have lived here long before all this started. Its become a middle class ghetto.

As Ernie says, its also about a decent wage. But employers love economic immigrants as they do just the opposite and drive wage costs down.

I'd accept blindingly obvious.

What, they were going to nuke the poor?

LOL ! What a **** I am ! 😀 You know, I felt there was something "slightly" wrong with the word, but couldn't quite figure out what it was – the spelling looked fine. In fact it was the wrong word altogether ! So I'm going to have to reluctantly agree with you El-bent…. "education" is paramount – well, when it comes to word poverty anyway ……