Poll: The official I voted/election results thread

[robgmun]

I think that around 10 years ago there was a shift into thinking those that had done well from there selves had somehow be tax dodgers or part of the rich gang. Generally the feeling of aspiration in this country to try and climb your way up the ladder and make things better for yourself and family changed to a mood of jealousy of anyone with any sort of money what so ever. With that in mind the voices of the left had free reign to shout whilst most of those just doing OK kept quiet whilst this change was taking place.

I think this goes back way further, in this country any kind of aspiration is frowned upon and jealousy kicks in from those around you very fast if you start to do well. And this goes back to School, if you do well in class you're bullied by the meathead thickos in class because they know that you'll go on to to better things but the best they can hope for is a McJob or the Dole

 

[robgmun]

You have jumped into an ongoing discussion and misunderstood what people are saying, we're not talking about "relative" poverty but about "absolute" poverty, the poster we're arguing with believes "absolute" poverty is rife in the UK affecting thousands lol.

Indeed, although the government should have scheme to help those in need, people need to wake up to the fact that even those in relative poverty UK are looked on as living like Kings to those in 3rd World countries.

 

[joeyjojo]

You have jumped into an ongoing discussion and misunderstood what people are saying, we're not talking about "relative" poverty but about "absolute" poverty, the poster we're arguing with believes "absolute" poverty is rife in the UK affecting thousands lol.

I see what's going on, probably the average food bank user isn't in absolute poverty if they're scraping by, skipping meals, using payday lenders to cover the rent, etc. But as written it's a pretty fine line to draw - I would argue that being so poor as to skip meals puts you closer to absolute than relative poverty (according to the earlier definitions).

Also, who's to say there aren't thousands in absolute poverty in the UK? I would suggest many beggars are in absolute poverty, since they have little access to any of the things in the definition (food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information). There are probably several thousand in London alone.

Anyway the better question is why all the dismissal of using relative poverty in the UK? The earlier definition ("Relative poverty is the condition in which people lack the minimum amount of income needed in order to maintain the average standard of living in the society in which they live.") is misleading.

The current definition used by the Gov is "a household income of less than 60% of contemporary median household income". In 2011/12 the median household income was £23,200, so relative poverty for that year was households earning less than £13,920.

So estebanrey is way off - relative poverty isn't just "worse than average", it's earning substantially less than even the middle (median) earners, who themselves are earning less than the average (mean) because of the massive income inequality in the UK.

Being in relative poverty in the UK might be better than many places, but it can still be a miserable existence.

 

[RDM]

Anyway the better question is why all the dismissal of using relative poverty in the UK? The earlier definition ("Relative poverty is the condition in which people lack the minimum amount of income needed in order to maintain the average standard of living in the society in which they live.") is misleading.

The current definition used by the Gov is "a household income of less than 60% of contemporary median household income". In 2011/12 the median household income was £23,200, so relative poverty for that year was households earning less than £13,920.

Because as a measure it is fairly meaningless. After the financial crisis Scotland saw a drop in relative poverty. This drop was because of a fall in average wages so more people were worse off yet less people were living in poverty.

Personally I feel a better measure would be to set a minimum standard of living that we deem acceptable in the UK and make sure everyone meets at least that rather than worrying if they have a certain percentage of a certain arbitrary figure.

 

[Glaucus]

Personally I feel a better measure would be to set a minimum standard of living that we deem acceptable in the UK and make sure everyone meets at least that rather than worrying if they have a certain percentage of a certain arbitrary figure.

Absolutely, it's impossible to get rid of relative poverty by it's very definition. It is utterly meaningless.

 

[Sankari]

Indeed, although the government should have scheme to help those in need, people need to wake up to the fact that even those in relative poverty UK are looked on as living like Kings to those in 3rd World countries.

Not much consolation when you're dying from malnutrition in a 1st World country.

 

[StriderX]

Not much consolation when you're dying from malnutrition in a 1st World country.

Well if you die in a country where lots of untainted food is chucked into bins... its not the countries fault (at that point im mean), sometimes i wonder how people even get born with how useless they are.

 

[Tunney]

It's the old people wot won it.

 

[scorza]

...

It's the old people wot won it.

Interesting, so those who are most likely to be working and therefore have the biggest interest in the performance of the economy were more likely to vote Labour, while those most likely to be suffering from dementia or be the victims of con artists voted Conservative.

 

[StriderX]

Interesting, so those who are most likely to be working and therefore have the biggest interest in the performance of the economy were more likely to vote Labour, while those most likely to be suffering from dementia or be the victims of con artists voted Conservative.

All the more reason to ban 65+ year old's from the vote.

 

[Mr Jack]

It's the old people wot won it.

I assume this is based on polling data? The same polling data that turned out to be woefully inaccurate at predicting the overall result. While I expect the shift in support holds up over the age bands, I rather suspect the true picture has the conservatives ahead with more than the 65+ age group.

 

[Mr Jack]

Under the coalition, the UK's Gini co-efficient of inequality has risen to 0.404, higher than either the US and a good way above the rest of the EU.

 

[ReltonBFD]

Under the coalition, the UK's Gini co-efficient of inequality has risen to 0.404, higher than either the US and a good way above the rest of the EU.

What a load of cr4p

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Interesting, so those who are most likely to be working and therefore have the biggest interest in the performance of the economy were more likely to vote Labour, while those most likely to be suffering from dementia or be the victims of con artists voted Conservative.

People with the accumulated wisdom of a lifetime are less likely to vote for pie in the sky economics.

 

[PermaBanned]

People with the accumulated wisdom of a lifetime are less likely to vote for pie in the sky economics.

Then why are they the highest proportion of UKIP voters?

 

[StriderX]

People with the accumulated wisdom of a lifetime are less likely to vote for pie in the sky economics.

Or you know have pensions and nothing else to do anyway?

The average voter is still an idiot, regardless of age.

 

[Mr Jack]

What a load of cr4p

What specifically is a load of faeces?

 

[Tunney]

I assume this is based on polling data? The same polling data that turned out to be woefully inaccurate at predicting the overall result. While I expect the shift in support holds up over the age bands, I rather suspect the true picture has the conservatives ahead with more than the 65+ age group.

It comes from an analysis of why the poll data was wrong. The conclusion seems to be that pensioners are much more likely to vote and they vote Conservative.

 

[Mr Jack]

It comes from an analysis of why the poll data was wrong. The conclusion seems to be that pensioners are much more likely to vote and they vote Conservative.

Thanks for the source

Yup, it's based on polling data. And it's not from an analysis of why the data was wrong, read the opening paragraph....

As my colleague Adam Ludlow has noted, telephone polls have consistently shown the Conservatives ahead of Labour since the turn of the year. But in the past week or so, ComRes polls have reverted to the dead heat we were showing last year. What has changed?​

and the last...

If – and it is a very big “if” – Labour can get out the youth vote and other first-time voters in anywhere approaching the numbers currently suggested, Ed Miliband may well make it into 10 Downing Street. It would be an historic achievement.​

This was not written after the election!

 

[joeyjojo]

Because as a measure it is fairly meaningless. After the financial crisis Scotland saw a drop in relative poverty. This drop was because of a fall in average wages so more people were worse off yet less people were living in poverty.

Personally I feel a better measure would be to set a minimum standard of living that we deem acceptable in the UK and make sure everyone meets at least that rather than worrying if they have a certain percentage of a certain arbitrary figure.

It's not "fairly meaningless" though, it's exactly what it says it is - households earning some (small) % of the median. The assumption is that the median household is "doing all right", but a household earning 60% of that probably has a lot less disposable income and lower quality of life.

Another way to think of it is how would you determine a "minimum standard of living"? One way would be to find a "minimum" rent price, minimum food bills, minimum transport costs, etc. etc. and add them all up.

Take housing, the average rent last year was £815 a month. The "minimum standard" might be a smaller house, costing £490 a month, or 60% of the mean (could do the same for mortgage payments). Then take food bills, average £44.20 a week, so maybe our minimum standard would be £26.52 a week (60% of mean). Transport, average £65.70 a week, let's make the minimum spend £40 a week, etc. etc.

Fiddle the numbers a bit if you think poverty should involve spending differently than the above but I bet it would still be pretty close to the 60% of median figure.

Well if you die in a country where lots of untainted food is chucked into bins... its not the countries fault (at that point im mean), sometimes i wonder how people even get born with how useless they are.

What's this supposed to mean? You mean die from starvation? You might be interested to know that taking thrown out food from bins is stealing, people have been taken to court for it before. (Alternative link, apparently this particular couple had only £8/week to spend after rent, bills, and loan repayments.)

Under the coalition, the UK's Gini co-efficient of inequality has risen to 0.404, higher than either the US and a good way above the rest of the EU.

Very troubling. Will be very interesting to see how it changes over the course of this parliament.