[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.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by 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.

Nothing 'flippant' at all in your comments Matt - the article and headline is a load of B.S.

What is regarded as 'poverty' today is NOWHERE near the REAL poverty of the 40's, 50's, AND 60's.

I KNOW - I lived through part of the 50's in REAL POVERTY.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Nothing 'flippant' at all in your comments Matt - the article and headline is a load of B.S.

What is regarded as 'poverty' today is NOWHERE near the REAL poverty of the 40's, 50's, AND 60's.

I KNOW - I lived through part of the 50's in REAL POVERTY.

Aye, the 70's were hard as well Kirk.
I can remember my mother trying to batter a tin of peas one Sunday, we had nothing else in the house to eat....mind you we had the excitement of watching the peas escaping from the batter in the hot fat.
She worked full time but never enough money to go around

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Aye, the 70's were hard as well Kirk.
I can remember my mother trying to batter a tin of peas one Sunday, we had nothing else in the house to eat....mind you we had the excitement of watching the peas escaping from the batter in the hot fat.
She worked full time but never enough money to go around

I love yer Smudgie. You have to laugh - Do you know that until I was in my late teens (and in charge of my own destiny ) I thought 'Scallops' were a slice of potato coated in batter and deep fried, because THAT is what my old man told us they were when he made them that way for us as a 'luxurious treat' when we were kids.

Remember 'bread pobs' - bits of stale bread soaked in gravy?

And my mother had three jobs and the old man was a coal miner.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I love yer Smudgie. You have to laugh - Do you know that until I was in my late teens (and in charge of my own destiny ) I thought 'Scallops' were a slice of potato coated in batter and deep fried, because THAT is what my old man told us they were when he made them that way for us as a 'luxurious treat' when we were kids.

Remember 'bread pobs' - bits of stale bread soaked in gravy?

And my mother had three jobs and the old man was a coal miner.

Haha At the Scallop potatoes.
The batter made them bigger and more filling..wise parents back in the day.
I hated them as I am not a potato fan.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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 but back in the 1940's Every Worked Hard

We never had Dossers
REFUSING TO WORK
like today

A Top TIBB Female Mod can fill us on
that

Even if it JUST sweeping leaves
its better than Doing FECK All
with the greatest respect.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes but back in the 1940's Every Worked Hard

We never had Dossers
REFUSING TO WORK
like today

A Top TIBB Female Mod can fill us on
that

Even if it JUST sweeping leaves
its better than Doing FECK All
with the greatest respect.

Neem is in her forties not born in the forties

[arista]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Neem is in her forties not born in the forties

ITS NOT NEEM
she is young northern mod

[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.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by 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.

Wow...I was a bit shocked that you think like that to be honest.

[DemolitionRed]

I've not read all the responses as its been a long day so forgive me if I repeat something someone's already said.

I think modern poverty is very different to the poverty of old. Back then survival for the poor was their only purpose in life. So long as they could put bread on the table and have a suit to pawn to get them through to pay day, they just buckled down and got on with life.

Today we are driven by our aspirations and those aspirations go much further than putting bread on the table and a roof over our heads. We all engage with it, we are surrounded by it; our life is full of material things we think we need.

If you're poor in the modern world you can still have a wide screen tv. Modern poverty can come and go because a lot of people, including the hard working ones, can't manage to sustain comfortability for long. With minimum salaries that haven't kept up with inflation, zero contract hours that give unpredictable earnings and a position of never being able to save because whatever they earn is swallowed up by the cost of living; there are many people in Britain that are okay today but may not be okay tomorrow.

Poverty is subjective. I would consider someone living on baked beans and fears turning the heating up poor. I would consider someone who doesn't own property, has no savings and becomes unemployed poor and I would consider a homeless person to be extremely poor.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I've not read all the responses as its been a long day so forgive me if I repeat something someone's already said.

I think modern poverty is very different to the poverty of old. Back then survival for the poor was their only purpose in life. So long as they could put bread on the table and have a suit to pawn to get them through to pay day, they just buckled down and got on with life.

Today we are driven by our aspirations and those aspirations go much further than putting bread on the table and a roof over our heads. We all engage with it, we are surrounded by it; our life is full of material things we think we need.

If you're poor in the modern world you can still have a wide screen tv. Modern poverty can come and go because a lot of people, including the hard working ones, can't manage to sustain comfortability for long. With minimum salaries that haven't kept up with inflation, zero contract hours that give unpredictable earnings and a position of never being able to save because whatever they earn is swallowed up by the cost of living; there are many people in Britain that are okay today but may not be okay tomorrow.

Poverty is subjective. I would consider someone living on baked beans and fears turning the heating up poor. I would consider someone who doesn't own property, has no savings and becomes unemployed poor and I would consider a homeless person to be extremely poor.

Wow, amazing post, well said and even if I was looking to, which I am not,I could not be able to find a thing to disagree on as to it.

Your last paragraph totally spot on and a really fair presentation of the issue.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I've not read all the responses as its been a long day so forgive me if I repeat something someone's already said.

I think modern poverty is very different to the poverty of old. Back then survival for the poor was their only purpose in life. So long as they could put bread on the table and have a suit to pawn to get them through to pay day, they just buckled down and got on with life.

Today we are driven by our aspirations and those aspirations go much further than putting bread on the table and a roof over our heads. We all engage with it, we are surrounded by it; our life is full of material things we think we need.

If you're poor in the modern world you can still have a wide screen tv. Modern poverty can come and go because a lot of people, including the hard working ones, can't manage to sustain comfortability for long. With minimum salaries that haven't kept up with inflation, zero contract hours that give unpredictable earnings and a position of never being able to save because whatever they earn is swallowed up by the cost of living; there are many people in Britain that are okay today but may not be okay tomorrow.

Poverty is subjective. I would consider someone living on baked beans and fears turning the heating up poor. I would consider someone who doesn't own property, has no savings and becomes unemployed poor and I would consider a homeless person to be extremely poor.

Superbly written.