Self-Indulgent Non-workers & The Myth Of Starving Britain

28th December 2013

An interesting article, please discuss:

This week, a charity called Church Action On Poverty launched a poster campaign that says ‘Britain Isn’t Eating’, mocking the Tories’ famous 1979 election campaign poster ‘Britain Isn’t Working’ that helped Margaret Thatcher to victory.

This time, the charity claims, the long queues are not for the dole office, but for food banks. ‘Thousands are going hungry because of benefits changes,’ it protests.

I thought of those posters when I read the story of Katie McGill, a 28-year-old unemployed single mum.

In an interview this week, Katie claimed her benefits payments soon won’t leave her enough to buy food and basic necessities for her two children.

Another victim of ‘cruel Tory cuts’? Hardly.

This Christmas, Katie gave her two children Mya-Renee, three, and Calvin, eight, two new bikes, TVs, DVDs and numerous computer games — all paid for after she took out eight payday loans that have left her £3,000 in debt.


The result? The repayments mean she’ll have no money left over from her welfare cheques to feed her children. Another candidate for the food banks, then.

Now, I realise that not all families in need have been as foolish as Katie — and that there are thousands who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, and who, with the cost of living soaring, are in genuine need. But I also suspect that there are a lot of self-indulgent and irresponsible fools like Katie.

Part of the problem is that the very definition of ‘poverty’ in the UK has become so blurred that it’s hard to know who’s genuinely in desperate need — and who’s just not as well-off as they’d like to be. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, for instance, there are 3.5 million children living in poverty in Britain — more than one in four of all children.

Common sense alone tells you such statistics simply cannot be true — until you read their small print which defines ‘poverty’ as being families who ‘lack resources to obtain the type of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged and approved, in the societies to which they belong’.

In other words, if families can’t afford takeaways, go on foreign holidays, wear designer trainers and have satellite TV like their better-off neighbours then they’re ‘living in poverty’.

Try telling that to a starving child in Africa, or an orphan fleeing war-torn Syria with just the rags on their back.

Yes, those in crisis deserve our help and support — especially at this time of year. But cynically misleading campaigns about Britain’s starving masses help no one.

As it's revealed Britain’s on track to become the strongest economy in Europe, thanks to austerity measures which have seen us avoid the catastrophe brought about in other nations by unfettered State spending, it’s worth remembering that a strong economy — and the jobs it provides — remains the best means of lifting families out of poverty.

Or, in the words of one veteran campaigner: ‘Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism take more people out of poverty than aid.’

His name? Bono. Funny how you never read that on charity billboards.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2530216/PLATELLS-PEOPLE-A-self-indulgent-mother-myth-starving-Britain.html#ixzz2omdoMXl2

So, what is poverty, really?