I think it's a bit rich for Labour to have a go at Osborne for "missing his targets", ie not eliminating the deficit.

They spent the first couple of years shouting "too far, too fast" at loud volume and insisting he move to "Plan B". Which he then effectively did. Just, for obvious political reasons, pretending it was still "plan A".

They should make more of the fact that he's basically done what Darling / Balls said should be done. It's right-wing hawks who should be moaning about him missing his targets.

But I guess that doesn't win as many votes.

Johnny come on, you are usually better than that. Relative poverty is a very serious issue, and not just some stick dreamt up by lefties to beat Tories with. It is really a measure of wealth inequality, based on whether your income is less than 60% of the average, thus meaning your share of wealth in relation to the national pie leaves you living without access to what would be considered an acceptable standard of living by most of us.

One of the interesting things about the economic statistics is to look at where jobs are being created. 80% have been in London since 2010, where rents are highest, cost of living highest, etc. This is, unsurprisingly, where income levels have fallen most dramatically too since 2010, and how exactly are you meant to pay your rent, travel and bills in one of the most expensive cities on the planet when you're most probably in a job which pays £6.50 an hour? Answer:you ain't going to, thus you are either forced to move you and your family away from an area despite the fact that you have a full time job, or you become reliant on a food bank to pay for food and the welfare state to top you up. That is detrimental to the wider economy, and while you can call it what you want, I think poverty is probably the most appropriate word for it.

Edited by serial thriller (20 Mar 2015 2.55pm)

Depends on your definition of Poverty...I guess those in the Sudan would love to be as impoverished as those wailing about it here.

Its a bit like the who the bigger club argument...until there is an accepted definition of the term which negates flat screen tv's and iPhones there'll be no real movement on the issue.

But it is astonishing. I mean on a purely economic basis, what is the benefit of having a workforce that has so little disposable income? If you live on your own in London, work on the minimum wage, and rent, about 2/3rds of your expenditure is on housing, which invariably means you're going to have to compromise on things like food, clothing and leisure. No wonder social problems like obesity and depression are soaring, and it is a reality which so many youngsters have to face nowadays.

I actually think defining it as poverty is important because, like absolute poverty, it is so intrinsically based around economic inequality, and given that we have entered what will apparently be the most economically unequal century in human history it is no surprise that poverty is rising with it. If the Tories are to boast about job creation, I feel like they should at least have the guts to admit that the vast majority of these jobs are totally undignified and unedifying. I call it statistic chasing: they know it sounds good to create jobs, so they cut corners in order to do so, thus compromising on the standard of living and the poorest's relative social position.

Surely that's an oxymoron

I'm not saying inequality isn't a problem. And I'm not saying that we should all live on a bowl of rice and a day so we can "compete" in a globalised world.

I'm just pointing out that when people (lefties) start banging on about "poverty" being "astonishing" (I knew the words "food bank" wouldn't be far behind) that it's useful to know exactly what we're talking about.