Poverty is by definition relative. So why the excitement?
This relative/absolute poverty play is a word game out of which Cameron sees votes.
The left defined the terms of relative poverty (which they call just 'poverty' implying that it is infact absolute poverty) as earning below 60% of the median wage.
The left defined the terms of relative poverty (which they call just 'poverty' implying that it is infact absolute poverty) as earning below 60% of the median wage.
If David Cameron agreed with the definition, then Tories that worry if Cameron is selling out to socialism would have something more to go on. So far he hasn't done that, and he isn't likely to.
Absolute poverty is not defined by him either. It used to be thought of as going hungry, not having a roof over one's head. Today it's more like whether your kids can afford mobile telephony. Cameron though has not stated what he thinks absolute poverty is.
Now he has exonerated himself from doing so. By saying that he believes relative poverty is the standard of poverty for politics to work on and not absolute, he only needs to define relative poverty.
I am confident he won't ever do that in monetary terms. In his speech today he defined poverty in social not monetary or numerate terms. He's playing a brilliant PR game, confusing a flattered Polly Toynbee into proposing a minimum wage increase in effect to around £9/10 an hour. Which would clearly be a disaster and cause largescale unemployment.
Absolute poverty is not defined by him either. It used to be thought of as going hungry, not having a roof over one's head. Today it's more like whether your kids can afford mobile telephony. Cameron though has not stated what he thinks absolute poverty is.
Now he has exonerated himself from doing so. By saying that he believes relative poverty is the standard of poverty for politics to work on and not absolute, he only needs to define relative poverty.
I am confident he won't ever do that in monetary terms. In his speech today he defined poverty in social not monetary or numerate terms. He's playing a brilliant PR game, confusing a flattered Polly Toynbee into proposing a minimum wage increase in effect to around £9/10 an hour. Which would clearly be a disaster and cause largescale unemployment.
He's got the socialists running all over the place, as he seizes their ground from under their noses. They are the ones now who define the human condition in money. Cameron the Conservative is defining humanity in social terms, saying that shortage of money is not a cause of poverty, but the result. He's reversed the roles. His opponents are covered in confusion.
Comments