[Kizzy]

Have attitudes to people in poverty changed over a lifetime? Bob Holman put this to Guardian readers a year ago. He referred to a report on urban poverty written in 1943 by eight members of the hygiene committee of the Women’s Group on Public Welfare. Our Towns: A Close-Up was commissioned to investigate complaints from people in rural England about families evacuated from inner cities. Children were reported as dirty, inadequately clothed and badly behaved, and their parents were blamed as lazy and incompetent. Politicians and media reports supported this analysis.

The authors visited poor neighbourhoods and put a spotlight on the conditions that made life tough for the people who lived there. Instead of fuelling the growing hostility, they challenged public attitudes. They showed how resilient and resourceful families had to be to survive circumstances that most people would find overwhelming. The report was debated in parliament and influenced the Beveridge reforms that shaped the postwar welfare state.


Today the infrastructure of welfare support is under attack. Social security is deemed too costly; the principles of mutual support and solidarity are being replaced by selfish individualism. People in poverty are labelled shirkers and feel ashamed to claim the welfare support they need. Negative attitudes are reinforced by sensationalist media and opportunistic politicians, and the nasty and divisive public rhetoric that has emerged demonises those living in poverty in ways that are reminiscent of the early 1940s. It was this comparison that led Holman to call for a modern-day Our Towns.


Is this true? Have we lost empathy for individualism, has the media and 'poverty porn' skewed the view of the poor?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...y-uk-bad-1940s

Here is a recent document 'Our Lives: Challenging attitudes to poverty in 2015.' It gives a really enlightening overview of how poverty and reforms are are affecting lives in the UK.

http://www.ryantunnardbrown.com/wp-c...-20-march1.pdf

[MTVN]

I don't mean to be flippant or display the exact attitude the article talks about, but to me that headline is quite misleading and is based on a dubious premise. The Guardian risks being guilty of the same sensationalism it derides the rest of the media for, and risks falling into the same logic as the Daily Mail and the Sun in using a few examples to try and make a broad conclusion and come up with an eye catching headline.

[Kizzy]

Or... It could just be the truth? It's not sensationalist headline, it's a one sentence explanation of the findings of a research document that compares an attitudinal shift from the 40s and the present day.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Or... It could just be the truth? It's not sensationalist headline, it's a one sentence explanation of the findings of a research document that compares an attitudinal shift from the 40s and the present day.

Well I don't think it's helpful to make such a statement, even if they changed it just slightly to "attitudes to poverty are as bad as in the 1940s" it would be a more appropriate reflection of the study findings. Otherwise it's quite problematic to say that 'attitudes' are the same and therefore poverty is and I'm not sure how much value there is in trying to make such comparisons.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Well I don't think it's helpful to make such a statement, even if they changed it just slightly to "attitudes to poverty are as bad as in the 1940s" it would be a more appropriate reflection of the study findings. Otherwise it's quite problematic to say that 'attitudes' are the same and therefore poverty is and I'm not sure how much value there is in trying to make such comparisons.

It's not helpful to make programmes entitled 'skint' 'on benefits and proud' or 'benefits street' however we disagree with the semantics of the titles there is a debate to be had if we can see past these.

[arista]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Well I don't think it's helpful to make such a statement, even if they changed it just slightly to "attitudes to poverty are as bad as in the 1940s" it would be a more appropriate reflection of the study findings. Otherwise it's quite problematic to say that 'attitudes' are the same and therefore poverty is and I'm not sure how much value there is in trying to make such comparisons.

Yes we are nothing like the 1940's
that was still suffering the effects of WW2.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It's not helpful to make programmes entitled 'skint' 'on benefits and proud' or 'benefits street' however we disagree with the semantics of the titles there is a debate to be had if we can see past these.

so its ok to sensationalize about the rich and the pro socialist / anti capitalist stories....but its wrong if its attacking socialism? those double standards don't fly.

the new labour movement failed absolutely everyone, especially the poor, passing 1000s of self defeating laws that made the gap between rich and poor bigger than for 200 years.

corporates and fakes like bono beckham phil Collins jimmy carr etc telling us working clases to give to charity, if they pay taxes properly thered be no need for charities for children in need.

[Kazanne]

I don't think anyone is in real poverty here are they? I mean REAL poverty.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I don't think anyone is in real poverty here are they? I mean REAL poverty.

Yes thats in India


Bang On Right Kaz

[Kizzy]

Is there such a thing as social deprivation? Yes there is and that's what creates poverty.
We are not in India, we are a rich fully developed nation with a long history of democracy.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Is there such a thing as social deprivation? Yes there is and that's what creates poverty.
We are not in India, we are a rich fully developed nation with a long history of democracy.

Don't you think though Kizzy that because we are a rich fully developed nation that we are greedy and expect too much?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I don't think anyone is in real poverty here are they? I mean REAL poverty.

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Don't you think though Kizzy that because we are a rich fully developed nation that we are greedy and expect too much?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Is there such a thing as social deprivation? Yes there is and that's what creates poverty.
We are not in India, we are a rich fully developed nation with a long history of democracy.

Yes Kizzy
There always has been
even under New Labour
and Labour

[Helen 28]

Poverty that existed in the 1940's simply doesn't exist at all now.

I remember some labour mp saying not having broadband was one of the measures of being in poverty - I mean what utter tosh.

If anybody is now in REAL poverty then it's self inflicted.

[joeysteele]

Yes ,real poverty exists in the UK,if people bothered to find those that are in it, they would get a real eye opener, sadly they are ignored or brushed aside socially.

Obviously it is nowhere near the scale it was in the 40s.
Which for most that were, must have been a really horrible time to be poor,unless you had some good neighbours and people around you.
When also looking out for each other was more the norm.

This is the example of change in attitude now in this day and age,staring us in the face,in the 40s no one could deny there were people in real poverty.
Here and now people actually think no one is because they don't know of anyone in it or see them and likely never look for them too.

Waiting for the media to find them and plead their cause,well we would wait for all eternity for that to come about.

It is easy to take the hardline view and judge and condemn,I have had to fight for a good few in real poverty, a house with just enough furniture, no 'luxuries' as to things like TVs,Hifi's.
Everything either given and by the time bills are paid,still a minus as to what is needed every week.
Food bought being the absolute cheapest possible and not a lot of it either,devastating to see and heartbreaking too, these such people are cast aside in the UK.

The UK in the 21st century doesn't want to admit it has anyone in real poverty,so denies there likely is.
Because everyone knows it would be a shocking condemnation of all govt's past and present to still have real poverty in the UK.
So it is best to just sweep it all under the carpet.
Probably to some a carpet is even seen as a luxury item too.

They are there, they can be found if people look hard enough and what an education it is when anyone sadly comes across its existence too.
The hardline view seems to generally win all the time however,even when it is wildly wrong.

This is however for me the political parties to blame for this, all of them, it is something every single one of them should hang their heads in shame at, since Labour and Conservatives have failed to address even the smallest amount of real poverty in the UK, despite them all knowing it does exist.
The whole lot of them should be condemned for their inaction on this and for allowing especially over the last 40 years at least,to just leave it hoping it goes away.

[arista]

"Obviously it is nowhere near the scale it was in the 40s."


Bang On Right Joey

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Yes ,real poverty exists in the UK,if people bothered to find those that are in it, they would get a real eye opener, sadly they are ignored or brushed aside socially.

Obviously it is nowhere near the scale it was in the 40s.
Which for most that were, must have been a really horrible time to be poor,unless you had some good neighbours and people around you.
When also looking out for each other was more the norm.

This is the example of change in attitude now in this day and age,staring us in the face,in the 40s no one could deny there were people in real poverty.
Here and now people actually think no one is because they don't know of anyone in it or see them and likely never look for them too.

Waiting for the media to find them and plead their cause,well we would wait for all eternity for that to come about.

It is easy to take the hardline view and judge and condemn,I have had to fight for a good few in real poverty, a house with just enough furniture, no 'luxuries' as to things like TVs,Hifi's.
Everything either given and by the time bills are paid,still a minus as to what is needed every week, and food bought being the absolute cheapest possible and not a lot of it either,devastating to see and heartbreaking to this such people are cast aside in the UK.

The UK in the 21st century doesn't want to admit it has anyone in real poverty,so denies there likely is.
because everyone knows it would be a shocking condemnation of all govt's past and present to still have real poverty in the UK.
So it is just sweep it all under the carpet.
Probably to some a carpet is even seen as a luxury item too.

They are there, they can be found if people look hard enough and what an education it is when anyone sadly comes across its existence too.
The hardline view seems to generally win all the time however,even when it is wildly wrong.

This is however for me the political parties to blame for this, all of them it is something every single one of them should hang thei heads in shame at, since Labour and Conservatives have failed to address even the smallest amount of real poverty in the UK despite them all knowing it does exist.
The whole lot of them should be condemned for their inaction on this and for allowing especially over the last 40 years at least,to just leave it hoping it goes away.

I most certainly 100% agree with that and the paper suggests it's the age of individualism that we live in that is to blame, we don't have the same attitudes to family let alone strangers that are less fortunate.
The fact that subsequent governments and the loss of industry and community has created pockets of extreme socioeconomic deprivation.
It's the attitudinal shift that's the focus of the study, that cannot be denied. It's argued that absolute poverty exists in the same context it was in the 40s in the UK and yet the evidence is there, if some choose not to acknowledge it.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I most certainly 100% agree with that and the paper suggests it's the age of individualism that we live in that is to blame, we don't have the same attitudes to family let alone strangers that are less fortunate.
The fact that subsequent governments and the loss of industry and community has created pockets of extreme socioeconomic deprivation.
It's the attitudinal shift that's the focus of the study, that cannot be denied. It's argued that absolute poverty exists in the same context it was in the 40s in the UK and yet the evidence is there, if some choose not to acknowledge it.

all child benefit should be paid in vouchers that can only be spent on childrens food and clothes etc this would limit the amount that's wasted and would make people who breed for money think twice and actually plan for a family like working people

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by the truth

all child benefit should be paid in vouchers that can only be spent on childrens food and clothes etc this would limit the amount that's wasted and would make people who breed for money think twice and actually plan for a family like working people

I totally agree with this. I grew up in the fifties and my dad died when I was 8. We were a large family and whilst we never starved, we were often hungry. However what help my mother recieved was nearly always in vouchers.
There were vouchers for free milk, vitamins and orange juice and free school dinners.
My mum had a small widows pension and she went out cleaning to earn the rest. We often went without things, but as I say, we didn't starve and we got nowhere near the benefits that people get today.

[Nedusa]

I think if you want to carry out a proper comparison of poverty now and in the 1940's you need to compare living standards. If you look back at life for working class and below in those times and compare with today you would be shocked at how little we had back then.

With sometimes huge families they would be housed in small substandard housing sometimes with no bathrooms and outside toilets . To have all the children in shoes would be an achievement in itself.

Ill health , malnutrition were commonplace as was rickets and scurvy, polio and TB.

Holidays were few and far between and pawnbrokers were a way of life.

Working conditions were awful with low pay and terrible conditions leaving people in some industries with chronic conditions like miners lung and asbestosis .

Yet compared to today's world the lower working classes are certainly not in the same situation . Most people have bathrooms and inside toilets , all children are fed some might say considering the access to cheap junk food, rather too well fed. In fact considering the levels of childhood obesity access to food is certainly not a problem.

Also the general health and well being of children has improved vastly with innoculations for most children's diseases and screening program's to assess children's health generally.

We collectively take more holidays home and abroad have far more leisure time and children are not allowed to be exploited for work with legislation regulating the hours Children can work.

So I think because food banks have pricked the public's conscience due to their use as a political tool, we should not be fooled into thinking that as a Nation we have regressed to the poverty levels of the 1940's when clearly we haven't .

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by the truth

all child benefit should be paid in vouchers that can only be spent on childrens food and clothes etc this would limit the amount that's wasted and would make people who breed for money think twice and actually plan for a family like working people

Err... Working people get child benefit...

Also, what exactly is "children's food"? Is it different from normal food?? I've been feeding my kids regular food! Will they be OK?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I most certainly 100% agree with that and the paper suggests it's the age of individualism that we live in that is to blame, we don't have the same attitudes to family let alone strangers that are less fortunate.
The fact that subsequent governments and the loss of industry and community has created pockets of extreme socioeconomic deprivation.
It's the attitudinal shift that's the focus of the study, that cannot be denied. It's argued that absolute poverty exists in the same context it was in the 40s in the UK and yet the evidence is there, if some choose not to acknowledge it.

I don't choose not to acknowledge it Kizzy,I just have never seen families starving to death here,people are not intergrating as they used to I agree,but I think a lot of that is down to technology,and peoples lack of interest,I really think SOME people do not manage their money properly,or waste it on things that they really could live without.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by the truth

all child benefit should be paid in vouchers that can only be spent on childrens food and clothes etc this would limit the amount that's wasted and would make people who breed for money think twice and actually plan for a family like working people

I don't agree with the vouchers route for anything at all I'm afraid.

For me, that would not be a good road to start going down at all and all entitlements should be paid in cash or into a bank account in my view, so that all people have the advantages of shopping around for the best bargains, in shops, markets,supermarkets and stores.just like everyone else can.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Err... Working people get child benefit...

Also, what exactly is "children's food"? Is it different from normal food?? I've been feeding my kids regular food! Will they be OK?

Exactly.
We are supposed be progressing in the 21st century not going backwards.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I don't choose not to acknowledge it Kizzy,I just have never seen families starving to death here,people are not intergrating as they used to I agree,but I think a lot of that is down to technology,and peoples lack of interest,I really think SOME people do not manage their money properly,or waste it on things that they really could live without.

Yes, but Kazanne, sorry there is a 'but' my friend,because I really hate disagreeing wth you at any time.
While doing so however you open up some very strong,valid and important facts as to dealing with money,that are not being addressed by any in power, past or present.

I have come across some horrific sights, a Mother left on her own, the Father gone for ages, she has what I would have termed a pittance to live on, no luxuries, just an old radio.

A lot of these people.like her, never have anyone checking up on them to see how they are, they are left to struggle day after day, week after week.
I thought one was bad enough, when I searched further and found a good number living this way,I was sickened.

These are the minorites that should be splashed all over the front pages to shame all govts; and those who seek power to govern, not the odd one or 2 with 10 children or the odd one that claimed x amount of benefits they shouldn't have.
These would not be news however ,and also the only bit of pride they may have left is their sadly 'isolation' from the rest of society.

Now you do make a fair point, some people are not good with money,it is not that they buy things they shouldn't,with respect that is another overpopularised genralisation, however people do get into difficulties I agree with that wholehearedly.

The problem is again, no officialdom is set up help for them to get 'confidential' advice, places like the CAB are bursting at the seams with loads of issues to deal with,so many slip through and are simple lost in the 'system',as politicians call it.

Universal credit from your govt;(had to get that in),will have housing benefit paid direct to the claimant, not the landlord.
That is going to cause massive problems I can see, in the future,for as you rightly said, some who maybe are poor in dealing with everyday things.

People with dementia for instance will be getting housing benefit paid direct to them,they then have to ensure they have to pay the landlord.
This govt; shows no responsibility at all as to such people.
The pressures will in some cases then fall on carers,or family who are then made to feel responsible for dealing with same.

I,taking on board your point as to some not managing money, well,then I would actually see that payments for all their essentials like Rent, council tax, water, electricity and gas were paid direct from their benefits.so what they had afterwards was what they knew was theirs to live on.
Sadly it seems this govt;particularly is putting the onus on those who receive 'entitlements' to have to struggle on and cope with all that themselves.
With less and less help being in place.

I agree some people are poor with money,that is a great point, leaving them to get on with things is not an answer however and also the answer is not to give them more, which was already paid direct to the source it was meant for however.
For me, it should be to extend that means, to those who would like it, or need it, to cover the other payments I mentioned above too.

What needs to be set in place are people to help claimants with their money,someone who has a good wage for decades, who then comes out of work,suddenly finds themself on a pittance.
really hard to adjust with the same bills and outgoings to have to do.

For those in absolute poverty,it is soul destroying, however they have come to know no different.
For govts; the good thing is likely these people will not have long lives,it is however still a disgrace,in my view, in the 21st century in the 5th or 6th largest economy in the World, that we have anyone in 'real' poverty at all.
Sadder still is that the vast majority of UK citizens neither think or believe it exists simply because they haven't seen it.