The new annual report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, UK Poverty 2026, makes disturbing reading. Poverty was suffered by 21% of the population in 2023-4, more than 14 million people: the rate of 20-22% had been steady throughout the previous decade. The average person in poverty had an income 29% below the poverty line of 60% of average income. But in its latest measurement, in 2023-4, the JRF found that 6.8 million people, almost half of those living in poverty, were in very deep poverty, with an average income an appalling 59% below the poverty line. This is the highest proportion of the population suffering very deep poverty on record, says JRF. They report that, around 3.8 million people experienced actual destitution in 2022, including around a million children. These figures have more than doubled since 2017.
‘The basic state of benefits continues to be around the threshold for destitution’ states the report.
How has this chronic state of so many of our citizens come to this, and what is the Government doing about it? JRF explain that before the pandemic benefits were being cut, deepening poverty. Then a decade of weak growth in real incomes was succeeded by the pandemic and next the cost of living crisis, driving up the numbers of people lacking essentials and having to rely on emergency charity such as Food Banks (surely no longer considered so much as an emergency as a sadly necessary extra provision today).
The Government’s Child Poverty Strategy is indeed likely to reduce child poverty by 400,000 over the current Parliament. Scrapping the Two Child Limit for benefits, a long-held Liberal Democrat policy, is at the centre of the strategy. Child poverty is indeed a chronic need, but the DWP forecasts that over 4 million children will still be in poverty in 2029-30.
Which are the families most likely to be in very deep poverty? While being in work vastly reduces the likelihood of being in poverty, in-work poverty has been rising. And the JRF states that ‘Economic growth on its own will not reduce poverty.’ Indeed, they point out that growing living standards and falling poverty could be spurs to growth.
Those most likely to be in poverty, they report, include large families with children, minority ethnic groups, Muslim households, disabled people, informal carers, people in workless households and social and private renters. Greater reliance on renting and higher costs of housing are drivers of poverty in the larger cities.
So, tackling the picture of deepening poverty which the JRF report shows cannot be easy. Yet our 2024 Manifesto suggested in brief the policy worked out among others including abolishing the two-child cap by our Fairer Society Working Group and passed by the 2023 Autumn Conference. This policy is designed to try to lessen deep poverty in Britain as well as poverty overall. The manifesto says, on page 51,
We will set a target of ending deep poverty within a decade, and establish an independent commission to recommend further annual increases in Universal Credit to ensure that support covers life’s essentials, such as food and bills.
As this Government emerges from the doldrums and reveals its caring heart, this surely is the time when our spokespeople and Leader should be recommending our policy of ending deep poverty – which, if they have two terms, the Government could indeed plan for. Some 6.8 million people desperately need help.
* Katharine Pindar is a long-standing member of the Cumberland Lib Dems
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
85 Comments
“… and establish an independent commission to recommend further annual increases in Universal Credit to ensure that support covers life’s essentials, such as food and bills.”
I used to volunteer at a food bank but began to feel that it was increasingly being used by the ‘wrong’ people, so stopped. By ‘wrong’ people, I mean people who had enough income to pay for the essentials of life, including food, but couldn’t avoid spending money on non-essentials so ended up using the food bank because they had run out of cash before the next payment was due. I had volunteered because I wanted to help those who didn’t have enough income to buy the food they needed, but the final straw for me was when a women explained that she had run out of money because she had just bought herself a newer phone and had just had to pay out £49 as part of her monthly contract. I can accept that a phone is now a basic essentials so run to participate in modern society, but not a newer phone when paying the monthly contract leaves you having to use a food bank!
So, yes, we do need to ensure that benefits cover basic living costs, but we also have to provide much more advice and education on how to manage and live within a budget.
@ Joan Summers. After finally retiring as an elected Lib Dem Councillor I became Chair of a Trussell Trust Foodbank in Scotland. It’s disappointing to read Joan’s comments and important to point out that the Trussell Trust operates a strong vetting procedure :
1. Referral System: People in crisis cannot usually walk into a Trussell Trust food bank and receive food directly. They must be referred by a “referring care professional,” such as a doctor, social worker, teacher, or Citizens Advice staff member.
2. Voucher Model: Referral partners assess the need and provide a food voucher, which is then redeemed for a parcel containing at least three days of emergency food.
3. Purpose of Vetting: The process ensures that support reaches those in need while also allowing the food bank to connect people with further advice and support to address the underlying causes of their crisis.
4. Limits: The system is designed for emergency use. While not strictly “three times only” in all cases, the referral system generally tracks usage to ensure it is not relied upon for long-term support.
Thanks David
I just volunteered at a local church which set up a food bank. I have no idea the processes used to vet those who turned up but I just felt that many of those pleading poverty were not their due to a particularly low level of income/benefits but due to them spending on things they wanted rather than things they needed, and then running out of money. I am reassured that those you were involved with were different.
I have a friend who chairs a Trussell Trust foodbank – my understanding is as reported above by David Raw
Thanks to Joan Summers and David Raw. I also understood the safeguards of the Food Bank system run by Trussell Trust which David explains, and which Nonconformist Radical says s/he too is familiar with. The sad fact is, though, as Joan’s story suggests, many people living in poverty in Britain may have come to rely on Food Bank provisions as a necessary part of their household economy, seeing no other way of providing necessities from a too-limited family income.
The tragedy is that Food Banks have become an essential part of the national economy here, when they should never have needed to be invented in this comparatively rich country. Earlier, we would have thought of such provisions being needed for refugees in war-torn areas, at least temporarily. But here we expect better, and find Universal Credit like the other benefit provisions too low to cover all the exigencies of modern living. However, our Lib Dem policy of building it up gradually to a Guaranteed Basic Income is intended to end deep poverty, and with it the absolute need of Food Bank provision.
This is a timely article. Over the last few days the Daily Express have published articles stating that more than 6 million working people would be better off on benefits (if they could get the Personal Independence Payment) and the UK will spend the most on benefits than any other G7 country by 2030/31 (actually 2.2% of GDP on health benefits). The Guardian is correct when it stated, ‘As the JRF points out, a more adequately resourced welfare state would act as a catalyst for growth by restoring economic agency to those who need it most. A reframing of the welfare debate is overdue. When will the penny drop at Westminster?’ (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/27/the-guardian-view-on-deepening-poverty-in-the-uk-a-catastrophic-tory-legacy-has-cut-millions-adrift )
I remember asking Ed Davey about fighting poverty in the UK at a Lib Dem Conference and he replied that the fight against poverty would be front and centre of the next general election manifesto. That manifesto would be the 2024 manifesto. I don’t recall the fight against poverty and our policies to increase Universal Credit being front and centre of our 2024 general election campaign. We can only hope that it will be prominent in our next general election campaign. But for this to happen we need to start making the case why Universal Credit needs to be higher to remove millions from poverty.
How it is we are to deal with this and build up British military capacity vto play our part in the defence of Europe in the face of Putin on the one hand and the unreliability of the US on the other I don’t know. That includes making the independent nuclear deterant truely independent.
A way has to be found.
“We see that being in work vastly reduces the likelihood of being in poverty, but it is far from a guarantee. Part-time workers, self-employed workers and workers in the accommodation and, food services (hospitality) sector, and in the administration and support activities sector, all see comparatively high rates of poverty, while in-work poverty overall has been rising across time.” I would suggest that a significant proportion of those are not in receipt of Universal Credit which is one reason why raising Universal Credit is not a full answer to the problem.
@ Tristan Ward. You are right, Tristan, that to pay for enhanced benefits and also much greater defence spending is a continuing challenge for the government, and for our Liberal Democrat proposed answers. But I wouldn’t myself try to make the ‘independent nuclear deterrent ‘ truly independent, since God willing it will never need to be used, but the fact is I understand our overall defence capacity is inextricably linked with America’s, both in intelligence sharing and in the forces and hardware: a subject I won’t further pursue in this thread.
@ Peter Davies. Good points, Peter, and in raising the minimum wage the Government will one hopes have helped. The question always of its being actually paid out is then inevitably raised. Irregular employment gives people opportunities, but there is much opportunity also for unscrupulous employers to exploit them. There aren’t easy answers, but raising Universal Credit effectively should be a major contributor to reducing poverty.
Thanks to Michael BG for his considerable informed support being expressed here.
@ Katharine,
“As this Government emerges from the doldrums and reveals its caring heart…..” ???
You caused me to nearly choke on my morning coffee with that one , Katharine 🙂
You may think I’m being cynical but those in Starmer’s inner circle don’t have one. What they do have is an eye for their ultra low standing in the polls.
The problem is persuading the electorate to pay for higher social benefits. Many won’t be too well paid in their own jobs and will resent their taxes having to rise. Unless of course you say that it will come from wealth taxes, taxes on the higher paid, and possibly higher corporation taxes . The tax dodging multinationals need sorting out! If they insist that they are making low profits in the UK then Nationalise them at a value calculated on the basis of these supposed low profits.
Increasing wages for the lower paid has to be a better political option even though it might be argued that everyone will end up paying for them except in different ways. If you want a redistribution of wealth and incomes some will, at least relatively, have to go down as well as up.
Sky high rents are a huge problem. Govt needs to get serious about empty and underused properties. Social housing needs to be a priority. Second homes need to be targetted by much higher taxation. Rents should be regulated.
I suspect this is all far too socialist for Lib Dems though!
@ Peter Martin
“I suspect this is all far too socialist for Lib Dems though!”
I expect it’s far too socialist for the country. Besides, it where it has been tried before it hasn’t worked. Can anyone point to a successful happy and free socialist or communist country?
“Increasing wages for the lower paid has to be a better political option”
As Harold Wilson once said, “one man’s pay rise is another man’s price rise.”
@Katherine Pindar
” I understand our overall defence capacity is inextricably linked with America’s, ….”
Yes it is, which means the UK’s security depends on the commander in chief of the US – currently one Donald Trump. That is not a good position for the UK to be in if the UK is to play its proper part in European security. We need to disentangle as quickly as possible.
@ Tristan,
“Can anyone point to a successful happy and free socialist…. country?”
Yes. In the immediate period after WW2. I’ve left out the word ‘communist’ in your quote because we weren’t communist at the time. But we were largely socialist. The Utilities were all nationalised. The railways, the coal and many other industries were nationalised too. Half of BP was publicly owned and even some pubs in the Carlisle area , I believe.
Income taxes were highly redistributive. Rents were controlled. Housing generally was more affordable than it was before or has ever been since. There was a policy of full employment. Even I managed to find weekend work when I was still at school.
Inequality was lower than it had ever been in the prewar period and lower than it is now. We had good economic growth.
This is not to say everything was perfect. Changes started to be made in the mid 70s under the Callaghan Labour government and later under Thatcher and the Tories, then later under Blair and new Labour.
It can be argued that some changes were needed but we’ve ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
@Katherine. Minimum wage doesn’t do anything for the self-employed, gig workers and piece workers. Indeed, there are pleny of small businessfolk working 60 hours a week and making less than their employees on minimum wage make in 35. They generally find it impossible to prove a low income to receive Universal Credit.
@Peter Martin
The best we can come up with is 30 odd years of post war Britain that was voluntarily dismantled and covering a period when the term “sick man of Europe” was often applied to us (1960s to 1980s)? Not to mention all the usual stuff about unions, high inflation, IMF bale outs, industrial un-competitiveness etc etc.
Why, human nature being what it is, do you think such polices would work now when they didn’t work before?
My point is that where policies like those you have recommended have been tried, they usually disappear because they don’t really work, or where they remain, you end up with unhappy people.
Where are the happy free successful socialist/communist countries today?
Peter Martin,
I don’t think people were happy between 1945 and 1954 as rationing didn’t end until July 1954 according to Wikipedia. I think the period from 1960 until 1970 might a better candidate for when the UK was a successful happy and free socialist…. country
I think most Liberal Democrats would agree with you, ‘Sky high rents are a huge problem. Govt needs to get serious about empty … properties. Social housing needs to be a priority. Second homes need to be targetted by much higher taxation.’
‘Rents should be regulated.’ This is more problematic for liberals, but some would support more regulation. One issue is that if the home that is being rented was purchased with a mortgage the rent has to cover the mortgage repayments, repairs, upkeep and management costs (which I think are over 10% of the rent if using an estate agent).
I expect you are correct nationalising the UK parts of multinationals if they say they are making low levels of profits from them would be ‘far too socialist for Lib Dems’.
@Michael BG “‘Rents should be regulated.’ This is more problematic for liberals,”
Well. The Liberal opposition to “rent-seeking” (which is not always real estate rents, of course) is pretty well-founded. Mind you, while John Stuart Mill was certainly opposed to rentier economy, so were Adam Smith and Karl Marx, and if all three of them agreed on something a wise person might at least consider that they might have a point.
More to the point, in the “post-war consensus” period to which Peter refers, rents were mostly held down by the existence of large stocks of council housing; certainly Right To Buy was popular among those able to take advantage of it, but the reduction in public housing stock has lead directly to the rising levels of private rent, and thus rent-seeking, and a knock-on increase in the housing benefit bill. (I note that the 2024 LD manifesto included a policy allowing local authorities to end RtB if they wished)
@ Tristan,
“sick man of Europe” was often applied to us (1960s to 1980s)? Not to mention all the usual stuff about unions, high inflation, IMF bale outs, industrial un-competitiveness etc etc.”
As a said it wasn’t perfect and mistakes were made. We were changing from a world power with an Empire to a medium sized European power -so there were inevitably difficulties and costs associated. The IMF needn’t have been called in – if the pound had been allowed to float.
There were many who didn’t like the socialist nature of our economy and were keen to run it down at every opportunity. Not with a view to improving it but with the intention of replacing it with a more privately owned capitalist economy. They succeeded. I’ll leave it to others to comment on how well this has worked out with our railways, gas supplies, electricity supplies, postal services etc.
We see the same now with our NHS. The intention of many is to run it down to pave the way for privatisation.
In our fairly well off area, the local food bank is desperate for donations, with increased demand and fewer donations. I wonder if we’re getting to the point were nearly everyone is feeling the pinch, so the foodbank palliative is no longer working.
@ Jenny, Food Banks are bailing out the water of a boat being sunk by other people.
@ Michael BG,
“One issue is that if the home that is being rented was purchased with a mortgage the rent has to cover the mortgage repayments”
What if it isn’t?
The objection to rentierism is that it rewards those with money and assets by allowing them to accumulate ever increasing amounts of money and assets. In other words the rich get richer without having to do anything to earn it. We’ve seen this happen steadily in recent times.
The payment of interest to those with money is just another form of rentierism – although I do accept that an allowance should be made for inflation and its real interest rates that matter.
Thomas Piketty’s inequality formula as detailed in “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”, r>g, makes the point that if the rate of return on capital, r, exceeds the economic growth rate g, then wealth grows faster than the overall economy. This leads to increased inequality, as returns on inherited or accumulated wealth exceed income from work
A high enough proportion of rental houses are mortgaged that it significantly affects market rents. To look at it another way, all landlords would look at the opportunity cost which is the money they could make on the capital if they sold the house to another (mortgaged) landlord or an owner occupier.
Thank you, all contributors to this interesting debate. Ah, Peter M., how good indeed were the Sixties, when you and I were young! – and as you and Michael maintain, it wasn’t deluded thinking. How to get back to that happier kind of time? Keep out the capitalists of the Conservatives and Reform as a continuing task. Resist the capitalist mind-set, and remember the useful words of Thomas Piketty which Peter M. quotes. Daniel Walker, you are surely right to want the reduction in public housing stock to be reversed, for the local authorities to be building affordable social housing.
Peter Davies, I think we shall need ever more small business folk, as first jobs for graduates decline, and hopefully the satisfaction of that kind of success will sometimes outweigh the long hours and limited financial return. But as for the poorest on bits of employment cobbled together, the commitment of government to up the minimum wage and provide better benefits, while cracking down on exploitation, should help create an environment of possibility. Jenny, at least this government is aiming to raise the standard of living for all.
@ Peter,
There is a key difference.
When (I’m guessing) you and I had a mortgage we paid it off, and the interest on the loan, for ultimately our own benefit. Young renters, who today are denied similar opportunities, are effectively paying it off for the benefit of a rentier.
@Peter Martin
” Thomas Piketty’s inequality formula … if the rate of return on capital, r, exceeds the economic growth rate g, then wealth grows faster than the overall economy. This leads to increased inequality, …”
That’s capitalism in a nutshell: find a gig that can out perform the general economy and you’ll be feted and can indulge in the trappings of success, which include telling everyone else to not be so lazy and do what you did… A bit like Usain Bolt telling people they too could run as fast as him, if only they trained…
@Jenny – I hope the community group run food banks have got all the local food shops/supermarkets cornered, and so are nightly collecting all stock that is due to go out of date.
The quantity and selection is very variable, it took us a while to get the distribution right and so when for example presented with a couple of dozen fresh turkeys on Christmas Eve we were able to get them all to communities with both facilities to cook them (community centre and volunteer cooks with ovens) and families who wouldn’t otherwise have much for Christmas. We’ve also have a chicken farm, who exchanges eggs for stale bread and salad, which is very handy when the supermarkets get it wrong and we fill an estate car with such items… we were tested last summer when for several weeks we had excessive quantities of soft fruit which caused us to seek out a local farm/cottage jam maker…
It is worth it when, a child gets an unexpected birthday cake, thanks to the sharp thinking of their foodbank team.
Peter Davies,
The JRF 2026 Poverty Report (https://www.jrf.org.uk/uk-poverty-2026-the-essential-guide-to-understanding-poverty-in-the-uk) does talk about who are in poverty. Over half (53%) of the households where no-one is in work are in poverty. Of those households with someone in full-time work 8% are living in poverty, but for those with people working part-time the figure is 22%. For those with people working part-time self-employed the figure is 28%. I couldn’t see one for full-time self-employed.
Tristan Ward,
The UK did negotiate a loan from the IMF, but it wasn’t taken up because the Treasury forecasts were wrong.
Daniel Walker,
Indeed, some Liberal Democrats oppose rentiers and suggest that a Land Value Tax would reduce profits from ‘rent-seeking’.
Peter Martin,
I suppose in the past people purchased or built homes for rent and set the rent at what they considered a fair rate of return, rather than wanting to get back the cost of the home as well.
Thank you for r>g. I will try to remember that the return on capital should be lower than economic growth.
Roland, that’s a revelation to me of how a community-run food bank can supply its locality, coping well with supermarket out-of-date produce and fluctuating levels of provision. Great to think of the superfluous turkeys on Christmas Eve being rapidly turned into Christmas dinners, and of your chicken farm supplying eggs in exchange for stale bread and salad! Where is this excellent example of how a food bank can be run located, and do you know whether this is exceptional service in what sounds like a small town environment?
Thank you for telling us about it. I had already heard of city food banks offering much more than food, providing other household supplies and also some level of non-religious social interaction. But to hear also of such community provision as yours (are there paid staff among the volunteers, and if so how paid? I wonder) does suggest food banks could possibly evolve generally as lasting and valuable community assets, rather than emergency providers regarded sometimes with shame and embarrassment by those obliged to rely on them. What do you think, David (Raw)?
We have a child obesity epidemic – no child starves the UK. Poor parental choices whether it be obesity or tooth decay. Grandparents grew up in grinding poverty , poverty the likes of which we do not see today, large families but nobody starved.
@Craig Levene
“We have a child obesity epidemic – no child starves the UK.”
We may have a child obesity epidemic but that is not evidence that no child starves in the UK.
Can you provide evidence that no child starves in the UK please….
“Of those households with someone in full-time work 8% are living in poverty”. That really needs breaking down into household types It includes couples both working full time who are unlikely to be in poverty even if both are on minimum wage, single people working full time who are a bit more likely to be in poverty and couples with one person working full time. You would expect a much higher figure for those.
There does seem to a number of Lib Dems who question the notion of child poverty in the UK. Perhaps they could provide some numbers to show how a household with two working adults employed on minimum wages paying rents of £1000 pcm or so can raise a couple of children without being in a state of poverty?
The Lib Dem answer includes raising direct social benefits. That won’t work mainly for reasons previously given. Housing subsidies to landlords work only for them, because the payments end up being added to their income. They raise prices for those who do not qualify for housing benefit.
I still can’t see how “Lib Dems have the policies to fix it”. There are policies that could. Higher wages for the lower paid, rent controls, social housing, making full use of our existing housing stock, but they would be deemed, by LibDems, far too radical to be taken seriously.
Peter, I should be surprised if there are many Lib Dems who do question the extent of child poverty in the UK, and you rightly point out how it can arise. You are also right to question if our policies would indeed fix it. I believe they would contribute towards it, at any rate. We have had policies for years about fixing the broken safety net, with measures like dropping the two-child benefit cap in our policies long before this government got round to it, and before we worked out Guaranteed Basic Income as a last stop. And you are wrong about one thing – we absolutely do demand far more social housing being provided, because the housing costs today are so high. I am sure our party will go on trying to relieve poverty, as our own constitution demands we do.
If a child is starving in the UK, it’s through neglect. My parents and my grandparents grew up in grinding poverty—poverty we don’t see the likes of today. Heating in only one room, no running hot water, no inside toilet; we all walked to school, no food banks, no child benefit. None of us starved because our parents made the correct choices. It was my wife’s and my responsibility to ensure our three children eat healthily and have good dental hygiene, not the state’s.
@Craig Levene “If a child is starving in the UK, it’s through neglect”
According to the House of Commons Library in 2023/24 11% of the UK population lived in households experiencing food poverty, including 18% of children. 18%. Nearly one in five.
Now, that is “food insecurity” not starvation per se, but I would be surprised if, of the people receiving some of the 2.89 million emergency food parcels Trussell—which is not even the only food bank group—gave out, some were not literally starving children.
Even if said child is starving “through neglect” I, for one, don’t want them to starve due to having neglectful parents/guardians, so one would hope that someone would step in, whether family, friends, charity, or the state.
@ Craig,
Saying that no child is starving in the UK therefore there is no poverty, is what is known as a ‘strawman’ argument. I hope we can be reasonably sure that social services would step in, before actual starvation occurs, to at least feed any of the 1-in 5 children who, according to the reference Daniel gives are in a state of food poverty or food insecurity.
The fact that your parents and grandparents grew up in grinding poverty is no excuse or reason for the same thing to happen now. As a country we are orders of magnitude better off than we were then. GDP per person is £40k pa. This includes everyone: children, pensioners and others who are unable to contribute. It doesn’t need to be shared out absolutely equally to fix the problem of poverty. It does need to be shared out less unequally than it is.
I don’t believe that the public mood is against doing this. Where I would say the LibDem approach is at odds with this mood is an insistence on the unconditionality of social benefits. Most people would accept that everyone putting in a decent shift to support their families should be paid a genuine living wage. In other words there needs to be a new social contract between government and the people that guarantees everyone to be kept out of poverty providing they do what they can according to their physical and mental abilities.
If Lib Dems accepted this there would be a better chance of a genuine “fix”.
@david raw. Very enigmatic.
??? Who do you think are the people sinking the boat?
“I, for one, don’t want them to starve due to having neglectful parents/guardians”. This is the essence of the problem. There is no full solution but the most effective government interventions are those provided free in kind directly to children: Education, healthcare, food in schools, parks and play facilities, public transport etc.
@Michael BG
“The UK did negotiate a loan from the IMF, but it wasn’t taken up because the Treasury forecasts were wrong.”
Half the loan was drawn down. You may or may not be right about about public sector borrowing requirement figures provided by the Treasury, but if they were “grossly overstated” (as argued by Dennis Healy) that hardly fits the picture of a well run socialist country.
@ Katherine Pindar
“Resist the capitalist mind-set”
How does this square with “I think we shall need ever more small business folk” –
Business folk are, after all, entrepreneurs and capitalists, albeit in a small way. We particularly want the small business that want to grow into big ones, creating new products, jobs and wealth along the way.
Where I would say the LibDem approach is at odds with this mood is an insistence on the unconditionality of social benefits”
I’m not sure this is right. In my own local party there were many who accepted that the winter fuel payment should be means tested, and one of two who thought it it to be with drawn and the money reallocated to universal credit.
Peter Davies,
I suggest you download the report (see link above) and read from page 100 onwards. I have now read that 22% of those with someone who is full-time self-employed are living in poverty.
‘Among working-age adults in households where all adults were in work, the poverty rate was 9% (2.2 million). This approximately tripled to 28% (3.2 million) in households where at least one adult was not working, often due to unpaid caring responsibilities or disability’ (page 101). The report also states that 6% of those households where more than 30 hours are worked are living in poverty. It would be interesting to know the percentage for 37 to 40 hours and how many hours need to be worked so there are no households living in poverty.
There is a graph which shows that over 60% of households where someone is temporarily sick or injured live in poverty.
I like to look at the incomes at different poverty levels for different household types (page 182) and compare them to the Universal Credit rates. For a single adult the report states that £130 a week is the very deep poverty threshold and for a couple it is £225. Universal Credit rate for those over 24 are £92.34 a week for a single person and £144.95 for a couple.
Very well put, Daniel Walker – thank you. Peter Davies, you make a fair point as ever; breakfast clubs won’t lift children out of poverty, but they are a good contribution from this government.
Tristan Ward {it’s Katharine with an ‘a’ in the middle, by the way) – I was suggesting that the economic situation of these days means more people will perhaps need to start businesses to avoid the growing shortage of entry-level jobs (I gave a young friend aged 25 a copy of the Which? Guide to Starting a Business). Good luck to them all. As for the ‘capitalist mind set’, I was referring to belief in the market above all, economic rather than social liberalism, the pursuit of personal profit and minimal state activity. As Liberal Democrats we do believe in state support for businesses that benefit people and the environment we live in.
@ Tristan @ Michael
The IMF sterling crisis is well documented. The downwards pressure on the value of the pound had been building for several years previously starting when Edward Heath was PM and Anthony Barber was chancellor who ran loose monetary and fiscal policies in a bid to promote growth.
So this had to have been a failure of the Tory Govt.
The pound was allowed to freely float from June 1972 onwards at a time when many currencies, including the US dollar, were moving away from both fixed relationships with other currencies and gold.
The point about allowing currencies to float is that they should be allowed to do just that. Vary without governments intervening except, perhaps, to smooth out any sudden movements. It’s fair to say that neither Dennis Healey nor Jim Callaghan had fully appreciated this and started to panic when the value of the pound fell below $2.
This was a failure of the Labour government.
Some 9 years later the Tories handled a Sterling crisis far better. They simply allowed the £ to fall to an all time low of $1.08. Life went on. Hardly anyone remembers that now but they do remember IMF being called in and the 1976 fall of the £ to below $2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_sterling_crisis
.
Peter; I didn’t say there isn’t any poverty, I stated that some parents make poor choices & and the poverty we have today cannot be compared to when my parents & grandparents were growing up. No child should be starving with a social security safety net & the support that’s available. If some on here think it’s a bit harsh , maybe they should question the closing of over 300 surestart centres during the coalition government. The West has a child obesity epidemic – not through poverty but poor parenting.
@Peter Martin
“So this had to have been a failure of the Tory Govt.”
Agreed. But the original question in this bit of the thread was “Can anyone point to a happy, wealthy and free socialist/communist country?”
Someone suggested Britain between (say) 1945 to 1975. (*) Therefore if Britain was socialist during the period that Tory government must have been governing in line with socialist principles, or the presence of the Tory government meant Britain wasn’t socialist/communist after all.
None of this is to decry the undoubted achievements of Labour from 1945 especially the welfare state and (imperfect) adoption of Keynesian economics (although that was imperfectly understood) but both of those achievements owed much to liberalism. Nor should the Barber boom escape criticism either for being a cynical manipulation of Keynesian economics for electoral gain. Credit to Gordan Brown and Blair for making the Bank of England independent (Lib Dem policy at the time of course) and ignoring the likes of Tony Benn.
(*) Nobody has suggested anywhere else.
@Katharine Pindar
“As Liberal Democrats we do believe in state support for businesses that benefit people and the environment we live in.”
Do we? I suspect many of us might find a statement like ” Liberal Democrats will consider state support for businesses that benefit people and the environment we live in when that is the best way of achieving those ends” much more palatable. It certainly fits what Liberals and Liberal Democrats have actually done when in power.
Free markets, free trade and profit have always been part of liberalism, and a liberalism that disregards them will be less creative, less wealthy and less free, as well as being less likely to achieve power which is actually what we are here to do as members of political parties.
The same applies (in mirror image) to a liberalism (“neoliberalism”?) that minimises social liberalism. The risks of that are ever more apparent.
“As for the ‘capitalist mind set’, I was referring to belief in the market above all…….”
May I respectfully suggest you say “neoliberalism” rather than “the capitalist mindset” given that properly controlled capitalism is and always has been part of the liberal mindset? It’s worth remembering that the Liberal party’s greatest political success included the Manchester Liberals advocacy of free trade for example.
“it’s Katharine with an ‘a’ in the middle”
My apologies. I get careless that way and need to do better.
@ Tristan,
“….. if Britain was socialist during the {postwar} period that Tory government must have been governing in line with socialist principles”
The Tory right was saying exactly this. There was some minor undoing of Labour’s creations after the 45-51 period but none of the Tory PMs got really serious about it until Mrs Thatcher arrived at number 10.
We on the left are advocating that we do try to get back more towards a system that worked reasonable well for all then and to try to rescue our baby (from the discarded bathwater}. I don’t know if this has worked well elsewhere. We’ve seen elements of what I would described as a true ‘social democracy’ in other countries too. I tend to avoid that term now. It has come to mean something more akin to right of centre conservatism.
“Credit to Gordan Brown and Blair for making the Bank of England independent”
Except it isn’t! Some like to pretend it is. Like they decided to buy up £700 bn of bonds all on their own! The bank has been given the responsibility to maintain inflation at 2% which is impossible unless they also have control over fiscal policy. If govt runs a too tight fiscal policy they have to run a too loose monetary policy and vice versa.
It’s always better that there is just one pilot on a plane who has all the controls. It’s less likely to crash.
Tristan Ward,
As Peter Martin states, the problems faced by the Labour Government after the 1974 general elections started with Barber’s dash for growth budget of 1972, which increased inflation and put pressure on the value of the pound. Plus I would add the Yom Kippur War that triggered the 1973 oil crisis causing even more inflation not just in the UK.
Peter refers to party policy. Even I have doubts about unconditionally. I would like the conditions to be as they were in the mid-1970s.
The one or two party members who thought the winter fuel allowance should be abolished and the money reallocated to Universal Credit were hopefully ignorant that pensioners can’t claim Universal Credit.
‘Free markets, free trade and profit have always been part of liberalism,’
Liberalism does not support free markets, it supports well-regulated markets. I am not sure how support for joining a trading group – the EU that imposes tariffs on those outside the group can be seen as support for free trade. I remember there was an article in the Liberal History Journal about the debate in the Liberal Party between free traders and those who supported joining the Common Market. Those supporting joining the Common Market won.
Peter Martin,
As you say “It’s always better that there is just one pilot on a plane who has all the controls. It’s less likely to crash”.
Except when you realize and accept that most of the passengers are not on the plane because they want to go all the way to where the pilot wants to go, but are stuck on the plane because it is the only plane available for them. Consequently a compromise has to be reached where the plane goes to various places in turn, so that most passengers will be reasonably happy with its overall course.
Unthinking acceptance of the first choice leads to years of what is effectively authoritarian dictatorship punctuated by occasional complete changes of direction. Acceptance that there is massive diversity in society leads to an understanding of the need for compromise, which as we all well know is called balance in the preamble to the constitution of …
… wait for it …
The Liberal Democrats!!!
@ Craig,
The link between poverty and childhood obesity is well established. It could be this link is the result of poorer parents not being able to afford healthier food, or outings involving exercise for their children. It could also be that those parents know less about healthy lifestyles and that they themselves eat less healthily and exercise less.
It could be that the food industry is adept at hiding fats and sugars in unhealthy products. High fat items are described as low sugar and vice versa.
Those on the political right will probably be of the opinion that raising the incomes of poorer people will enable them to afford more unhealthy food and become even more obese.
I’d hope not many on this blog though. Let’s tackle all the other factors before we accept that one. I’m old enough to remember that there used to be “Play Streets”. Areas in towns and cities where children could play safe from traffic.
I can’t remember the last time I saw youngsters playing football in the streets. We used to do that all the time. We need to get youngsters to be more active by giving them a safe place to play and making it illegal to put up signs saying “no ball games”.
Tristan Ward. Thanks, Tristan, for your generous comment at 10.07 this morning, and I have no objection to your proposed more nuanced definition of our backing for state support in the right circumstances. But I think I will avoid using ‘neo-liberalism’ rather than ‘capitalist mindset’, because I want to address ordinary people who may not have an advanced understanding of the variations of liberalism. (Or for that matter may accept that Liberal Democrats are firmly in the ‘centre ground’, without enquiring whether we have a rightist or a leftist slant!) As suggested by our poll ratings, we are not yet having a sufficient appeal to the majority of the British people, despite being clear in our values and approach.
“The West has a child obesity epidemic – not through poverty but poor parenting.”
This claim fails on basic logic. If poor parenting caused today’s child obesity epidemic, with 15% of 2-15 year olds classed as obese, how do we explain the obesity of the 35% of adults aged 64-74, who were children in the 1950s-60s when childhood obesity was rare?
The real culprit is structural change. Our food environment has been transformed by an industry optimised for profit, not health, flooding markets with ultra-processed, calorie-dense products engineered for overconsumption.
Yes, parents matter. But blaming individual families ignores the fact that middle-class parents have vastly better access to affordable, nutritious food and face fewer daily stresses that make healthy eating harder. When obesity rates soar across entire populations and age groups, the problem isn’t millions of families simultaneously and mysteriously failing. It’s the system they’re all navigating.
“If poor parenting caused today’s child obesity epidemic, with 15% of 2-15 year olds classed as obese, how do we explain the obesity of the 35% of adults aged 64-74, who were children in the 1950s-60s when childhood obesity was rare?”
Many of them are now orphans.
As anyone in that age bracket will tell you Andrew how difficult it is to keep weight off.
I can assure you in thinking back to my school years – we were all stick thin – unlike today.
Blaming lack of financial support is no excuse, I’ve yet to meet a teenager who hasn’t a £200/300 smart phone.
If my children couldn’t partake in sports because of obesity then that’s myself and my wife’s fault – same as tooth decay. Too many parents make poor choices.
Fat children really aren’t the main problem we’re trying to fix. The deepest poverty is worsening in our country. There are still about 14 million people living in poverty here as there were when the UN Rapporteur on poverty Philip Alston reported on how it was here, back in 2018. It would be good if we Lib Dems can find some further measures to alleviate poverty, and encourage this Labour Government to develop them.
In all this talk of poverty, we need to remember that what we are discussing is relative poverty. In other words, even if the incomes of everyone in the country were increased tenfold, poverty rates would remain exactly the same. This means that this definition is not about whether people can meet their basic needs but about whether people have sufficient income to enjoy things that are common for the general population.
It is also worth remembering that most of us will go through periods in our lives when we struggle to afford the lifestyles we wish to enjoy. (We struggled when we had our children and I stopped working, so we were down to one income but higher bills.) This is not the same as being in poverty.
– Joan Summers
“In all this talk of poverty, we need to remember that what we are discussing is relative poverty.”
If you read the report you’ll find we are also discussing the rise in destitution – defined in terms of lack of access to essentials such as food, shelter, and clothing. 3.8 million people, including around one million children experienced destitution in 2022. This is nearly two-and-a-half times the number of people in 2017, and nearly triple the number of children. Absolute poverty is a significant and growing problem in the UK.
– Craig Levene
“I can assure you in thinking back to my school years – we were all stick thin – unlike today.” And, unlike today, obesity was also uncommon in your grandparents generation. I wouldn’t claim that change in the food industry is the sole factor but when obesity levels have risen recently and rapidly across all ages the explanation must involve structural causes.
“…I’ve yet to meet a teenager who hasn’t a £200/300 smart phone. If my children couldn’t partake in sports etc…..”
These are the kinds of comments I often hear in my local pub! Many of them come from individuals who are decent enough in many ways. They’d be horrified if I was cruel to my dog but don’t seem to express any concern for the living conditions of poorer children. They’ve often expressed an intention to vote for Nigel Farage. I usually change the subject football at the first opportunity!
The working classes have always been considered feckless by those who consider themselves their social betters. So somehow they are even more feckless now than they used to be! At least they kept their offspring slim in previous generations. I doubt the price of phones and their associated contracts is really the cause of childhood poverty.
Maybe its those 80+ inch TV sets ?
George Orwell’s Road to Wigan Pier is worth a read. Orwell described how the middle class perceives the unemployed as lazy rather than victims of an economic system. He argued the working class is forced into a “passive role,” and their apparent lack of ambition is actually a result of a sullen acceptance that they’ll ever see any real improvement.
So whenever they did have some money they would sometimes spend it unwisely. This naturally led to an increase in the contempt of the workers from the more affluent classes.
Joan Summers,
I have pointed out the level of income where a household is in very deep poverty and the level of Universal Credit. I think anyone trying to live on just Universal Credit will find it difficult to manage and will from time to time will not be able to meet their basic needs. And especially if the household is subject to the benefit cap.
Peter ; What living conditions are comparable to what my parents and grandparents had to endure – none. That’s exactly correct, too many of those you allege to be suffering poverty make poor choices. Safety nets and support have never been as generous as they are now.
There is other reasons argument is more at home around a discussion at the table of Abigail’s party. Thankfully that nonsense don’t cut it with most people
Thanks to Andrew Melmoth for those excellent replies to the doubters. And I have the testimony of a family I know well as to the difficulty Michael BG cites of trying to live on Universal Credit. The smallest new cost – replacing ancient washing machine or having major car repairs to a car extensively ferrying children to college and jobs – couldn’t be managed with just that basic income.
Peter Martin: why not say to the Reform voters in the pub at some point, Peter, “Are you really going to vote for the party led by a man who is a friend of President Trump and welcome at Mar-el-Lago? Do they really think he is on their side, not the side of the rich and powerful?” Now, having heard Gordon Brown’s powerful demand for Keir Starmer to clean up our government’s associations and actions regarding such people, I think our party should support Sir Keir in that if he survives – and demand that his government then concentrates on the opposite, raising up the poorest.
Craig,
It looks like we both have some differences with current LibDem policy on poverty. If you don’t like the term ‘poverty’ how about ‘economic inequality’? You can see evidence of this in the extent of homelessness in the big cities. I’m not sure if cardboard boxes are more comfortable now than they were in your parents and grandparents time. You can’t get much more unequal that someone sleeping rough in back entrance to a luxury block of flats.
LibDems would like to reduce inequality primarily by unconditional social benefits being increased. That would be perhaps work if the electorate was in support of the idea. I think we might both agree that this is unlikely any time soon.
I’d like to reduce inequality primarily through a system of guaranteed jobs and decent living wages. What’s your suggestion? Or are you happy with the status quo?
@Andrew Melmoth
“..but when obesity levels have risen recently and rapidly across all ages the explanation must involve structural causes”
Yes, human physiology has not changed so that obesity has increased. What has changed is that people are more able to afford to buy and consume excess amounts of food or to buy and consume more expensive, but more fattening, food options, than was the case for previous generations.
Joan Summers,
I think one of the causes of obesity might be the increase in car ownership and their use and the reduction in walking and cycling. When I was a boy most factory workers arrived for work either on foot or on a bicycle. My mother always walked to work.
Craig Levene,
‘Safety nets and support have never been as generous as they are now.’
I wish that was true for those of working-age, it isn’t.
In a House of Commons Briefing (https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9872/CBP-9872.pdf ) there is a graph which shows unemployment benefit and pensions were just over 20% of average earnings in 1971, and in 2022 pensions were just below 20% and unemployment benefit were about 10% of average earnings.
Currently the benefit level for pensioners is 227.10 a week for a single person and £346.60 for a couple, while working-age people the amounts are £92.34 a week for a single person and £144.95 for a couple.
In 2010 we accepted that pensioners had suffered because their income had not increased in line with earnings. For those of working-age their benefits have not even kept pace with inflation with benefits only increased by 1% for three years 2013, 2014 and 2015 and then frozen for four years – 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.
@Michael. I’m sure you are correct about the link between car use and obesity. (It’s one of many reasons why we really need to be discouraging car use). But doesn’t that back up the point that obesity is often related to lifestyle choices and so not the responsibility of the state?
Regarding the link between benefits and wages, I think it’s more complex: This Parliamentary briefing (https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/LLN-2019-0057/LLN-2019-0057.pdf) has a graph on page 2 that shows real earnings have risen since 1970 by approximately 50% for men and 150% for women. Put ‘your’ graph and ‘my’ graph together and that implies benefits are today a lower proportion of higher in-work standards of living. Also you won’t get a fair comparison by just looking at basic benefit level because today there are so many additional targeted benefits that didn’t exist in 1970 (PIP, disability and carer elements in UC, Motability, concessionary travel passes, etc.). Put all that together and it’s not at all clear whether the aggregate impact of all those things is to raise or lower the standard of living for people on benefits/pensions.
@ Katharine,
It’s a difficult one re Keir Starmer.
He was one of a triumvate, Peter Mandelson and Morgan McSweeney being the other two, who seized control of the Labour Party by deception. This also involved some £700k of undeclared finance , for which they were fined just over £14k by the Electoral Commission. This is all described in Paul Holden’s excellent book “The Fraud”. The role of PM and MM is now only starting to get anything like the attention it should have had due to Starmer’s ill advised decision to give PM a plum job in the US as a pay-off.
On the other hand he might be the best chance, but probably still not a good chance, of defeating Farage.
So I’m torn!
I do from time to time try to make the points you recommend but it isn’t easy! It also depends on the person. Some are too far gone. 🙂
Simon Robinson,
In the first paragraph of that House of Lords briefing it states, ‘Despite the stronger performance of women’s earnings over the period 1938 to 2018, they had still only reached 80% of men’s average earnings in 2018, having increased from approximately 50% in 1938’. I have no idea how the changes reported effect the median average as the paper does not produce figures or a graph for the increase in real earnings for both combined. However, for a reduction in real terms income of 50% for those of working-age to make no difference to their purchasing power the average real earnings will need to have doubled from 1970. As men’s earnings have only increased by 50% this is unlikely to have happened.
PIP and disability benefits are not out of work benefits so shouldn’t be included. I am not aware of any concessionary travel passes for those of working-age not in work, but they are available for pensioners and so make the situation worse if included.
Michael BG’s quotation of the House of Commons Briefing did seem to show that working-age benefits had drastically shrunk in relation to average earnings by 2022, unlike pensions. It does seem to me in general we are living at a time of vast inequality, at least in Britain and America, where rich and powerful men continue to grow their wealth, and the unscrupulous will, like the man with the same initials as you, Peter, cling to their coat-tails to have a share. Meantime the poor can go to their earlier end, with scraps from the rich men’s table, unless governments will intervene to raise them. And all that is offered is indeed the equivalent of scraps, yet resented by the Populists who claim falsely to represent the masses. Surely at least the masks must slip in Britain, and Reform’s true face will be revealed in time.
” all that is offered is indeed the equivalent of scraps…..
Yes. Agreed.
……yet resented by the Populists who claim falsely to represent the masses.”
I detect an element of elitism in this comment. Those of all political persuasions should listen and discuss the issues with “the masses”. If you’re serious about reducing inequality and reducing poverty there’s no point proposing solutions which are unlikely to win democratic support.
The only political program which has, in this respect, a track record of significant support from “the masses” is also known as socialism.
That’s always going to be a problem for Lib Dems.
No .Peter, there’s no elitism in my comment, because Liberal Democrats don’t claim to represent ‘the masses’ What makes us different from Socialists is that in our Liberalism we intend to try to serve everybody, without distinction of class or creed or ethnicity – not ‘the workers’ or ‘the upper classes’.or for that matter, ‘the middle classes’. We want to try to give everyone a chance to have power over their own lives and fulfil their talents as much as they can, within their own families and communities. so long as they respect the rights of others to do the same.
Peter Martin,
‘The only political program which has, in this respect, a track record of significant support from “the masses” is also known as socialism.’
The masses didn’t support socialism they supported the Labour Party.
Many of us were involved in politics before we could vote. In the past the masses were involved in politics even while lots of them didn’t have the vote.
In the nineteenth century the masses supported the Chartists and later the Liberal Party, even when many of them couldn’t vote.
Well said Katharine. Labour have a slogan “For the many, not the few”. It’s a populist slogan that works because people assume society will be divided in a way that makes them part of the many. At some point though we all find we are part of the few. “For all the different fews” doesn’t have the same ring but we are the only party that could claim it.
@ Katharine,
“…..in our Liberalism we intend to try to serve everybody…..”
Can you be all things to all people? If we want to reduce inequality in society some are going to end up with relatively less if others end up with relatively more. There’s no escaping the arithmetic. The ones who expect they might lose out aren’t going to thank us for our efforts!
@ Michael BG,
It’s a valid point that the Labour Party is not socialist. It wasn’t always like this. The post war Labour govt being the obvious example. Not that they were perfect of course!
The working classes don’t always support the Labour Party or socialism. The same can be said about leftish parties in other countries but this doesn’t alter the fact that if you want more equality you can’t rely on supposed ‘free markets’ to achieve the objective.
It has to involve governments intervening to redress an imbalance. Most would call that socialism.
Peter Martin,
When considering who the masses supported if we consider general election results we find that the Labour Party never achieved over 50% of the vote unlike the Conservatives. They came close in 1945 and 1951. If we say that a party needs 47% of the vote to have the support of the masses since the First World War then the following should be considered as having mass support:
Lloyd George’s coalition government 1918;
Ramsay MacDonald’s coalition government 1931;
Stanley Baldwin’s coalition government 1935;
Labour as above, plus 1966;
Conservatives 1955, 1959.
The Labour Government of 1945-50 was the most socialist government of the UK, but if we take Clause Four as the definition of socialism then it failed to achieve socialism.
‘It has to involve governments intervening to redress an imbalance. Most would call that socialism.’
Then most would be wrong.
Liberalism involves governments intervening to redress an imbalance and before that Whiggism. Whiggism reduced the power of the monarch and Liberalism in the nineteenth century reduced the power of the landed-class. One of the tenets of Liberalism is equality before the law. Keynesianism and the post-war liberal consensus did the most for economic equality in history.
@ Michael BG,
We can argue about what socialism actually means all day long. But we can’t define the term to suit ourselves. Your definition is shared by the ultra left, for whom nothing short of a Leninist style revolution would be classed as socialism. If most people think a redistribution of wealth is socialism, who are we to say they are wrong?
The 19th century Liberal party was the party of the emerging capitalist class. They clashed with the aristocracy over the ownership of land and wanted a constitutional limit to the power of the monarchy. This was because the capitalists, naturally, didn’t want to pay rent to the aristocrats. This was the origin of the anthem “The Land”.
It wasn’t to benefit their workers. That’s all part of history now. The clash of interests was fairly quickly resolved -often by marriage. Wealthy industrialists who had money but not much land married the gentry who had land but not as much money.
@ Peter Davies. Thanks, Peter, that’s a great little comment! But as you say, for us to define ourselves in slogans would be a problem, given our breadth. For doorstep brevity, when a voter asks what we stand for, our Social Liberal Forum Council, is working on that. The thinking is that we should have what one member has named the ‘Elevator pitch’, the equivalent of what one might say if responding to a query about us while sharing a lift, to be followed by a slightly longer explanation. Everyone who has been out canvassing probably has their own answer – feel free to share it!
@ Peter Martin. Your argument about the apparent impossibility of reducing inequality depends on your word, ‘relatively’, I think, Peter. Boiled down, ‘Some people will have to be poorer for others to get richer’ is a proposition without evidence. However, the discrepancy in their circumstances may remain, but with the much-desired growth in the economy, poverty can be cut, and we must be aiming for that.
I’m enjoying the further informative discussion between you and Michael BG, but I do think Michael produced the perfect ‘bon mot’ when he wrote, ‘The masses didn’t support Socialism, they supported the Labour Party.’ So much meaning in so few words – well done, Michael! (and well done Peter for accepting it).
Hi Katharine,
The inclusion of word relative in my previous comment could, strictly speaking, be regarded as superfluous. If everyone has an increase of 10% in their purchasing power then, even though it can be argued they’ll be better off, the levels of inequality will remain exactly as they were before.
So arithmetic does dictate that the changes do have to be relative for inequality to be reduced.
You’ll be familiar with the words of your anthem: The Land. If you think the ownership is unfair then it can only be made less unequal by some ending up owning less. I’d nationalise the lot! You’d have to find a new anthem if that were ever to happen 🙂
Your argument is in line with a rising tide lifts all boats argument. However, we should know from our own experience that it doesn’t. GDP has risen by a factor of 3 or so since the mid 70s but here we are still talking about ‘deep poverty’ rises in 2026.
Peter. I agree that everyone having a similar increase in income wouldn’t reduce the levels of inequality. But taking away from the richest wouldn’t automatically raise up the poorest. What do we want them to share? Happily, they can have a bit more of a share of land by the building of new towns, as is our policy. And the rise in the minimum wage, this government’s policy, would help, as you wished, and our policy of steadily increasing Universal Credit would also do so. But more radical steps, such as rent controls, and the Richard Murphy idea of the small percentage tax on the very richest, should indeed probably be considered. We won’t ‘nationalise the lot!’ indeed, but both parties should consider further steps to try to reduce inequality, as well as how to end deepest poverty and destitution. Thanks to many thoughtful contributors to this thread.
@ Katharine,
“What do we want them to share? ”
Well according to the words of your anthem, it sounds like you at least want everyone to share the land.
“Clear the way for liberty, the land must all be free”.
Mind you, I know you sing the anthem but I do have my doubts that you really mean it!
Liberals have made a few changes to the original wording over the years. Maybe you can suggest a few more to bring it in line to what you really are saying? 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Land_(song)
Peter Martin,
I thought every member of the Labour Party before Clause Four was changed accepted it as a definition of socialism. Perhaps it should have been defined as the common ownership of the means of production and natural monopolies. Socialism in the UK means supporting nationalisation of more than natural monopolies. This is why Corbyn was seen as a Socialist and Blair wasn’t.
A total equality of wealth and income would be Communism. Social Democracy wants social justice.
Equality has always been as aspect of Liberalism. Redistribution has been a liberal policy at least since 1894 when death duties were introduced. In the People’s Budget a land tax was introduced. The song ‘The Land’ was originally a Georgist song. Georgists called for a Land Value Tax. The song calls for the land for the people not for a capitalist class.
Liberalism worked for the benefit of workers. Many workers received the vote in 1867 and 1885 as well as in 1918.
Hi, Peter, thanks for providing words for a good sing this morning! I believe in Land Value Taxation, but I wouldn’t dream of trying to change the words of our best song. Why not visit our Spring Conference in York next month and stay for Glee Club? You would hear hours of raucous singing, and a lot of witty words, good-natured mockery, and self-deprecating humour. I love it!
The drivers of deep poverty need to be identified and tackled. Preventing it is likely to be more cost effective than treating it once established. Personal education must be a major part of any serious attempt to reduce it.