Buying in bulk's great if you can afford it.

Often you see the poverty line described as those on less than 60% of median income which in 2012/13 was £264 a week before housing costs and for all individuals and children. But where you live makes a huge difference - I was working in Manchester before Christmas and all the beers were 50p less than down here and renting differentials are massive - so it really does depend on where you live too.

I think the point I highlighted in red is a crucial one (sorry, having been on this site nearly half a decade I still can't figure out how to do that fancy quote thing you and White Horse do). In a developed nation, living essentials are generally seen to extend beyond those of the bare necessities to survive, and tend to prefigure a relatively acceptable standard of living. No one on 'the left' (which is as broad and heteregoeneous a church as 'the right' or the even more excruciating 'centre') that I am aware of is claiming we are 'faces with shanty towns and rickets': what many are legitimately raising as a cause for concern is that we live in the 5th most developed nation on the planet, with growth supposedly outstripping all of our similar economies, we are being bombarded with propaganda from our government telling us how many jobs are being created and how our standards of living are so much improved and blah blah blah. And yet. AND YET, we are seeing social ills on a fairly large scale which totally contradict that rhetoric.

Now what you or I define as poverty is clearly totally different. Relative poverty as defined by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a politically neutral organisation, not some far-left thinktank, suggests around 10 million people live in this situation in the UK, figures that have barely shifted in the past few years where growth has been supposedly good. Whatever you describe to define this as: relative poverty, low income households, poor plebs, whatever, it means that despite all of Osbourne's nonsense about growth, there are still millions who live in a position of financial insecurity that is incredibly uncomfortable, particularly if you're trying to raise a family.

And this is perpetuated by government policy. What we are seeing in society at the moment is the gradual erosion of the systems and institutions which benefit the poorest in society. Welfare is being cut, and will undoubtedly be savagely hit again regardless of who wins in May. As I have said, the majority of jobs being created are low paid, while the hardening of anti-union laws and emergence of zero-hours contracts (700 000 in the UK) means that, regardless on whether you see them as positive or negative, job security is incredibly low and far more dictated by the employer than the employee.

And at an even lower level, what you may see as a sub-level of society, it's even more terrifying. Asylum seekers, refugees and other people who are being deprived citizenship are being sexually abused, tortured and sent back to countries where many await death, because our government is depriving them of citizenship. Society has, in the main, decided to wash its hands of this issue which I find sickening, yet I can't help but see it as fundamentally connected to the inequality which causes the previous issues I've spoken about.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

My ideology isn't focused on the very top exclusively. It isn't even just situated in some idealised working class movement. I have just as much antipathy with most left wing movements (The Soviet Union, Cuba, pre-New Labour left) as I do with most Right-wingers.

I think the recent 'progressions' of third world countries which you list (access to drinking water, healthy livestock, even clean sanitation) are the benefits of an increase of globalised awareness, via technology and infrastructure improvements. But is the reason those people were in that position in the first place solved? No, of course not. Africa, South America or wherever there was/is absolute poverty are still corrupt to the core, still exploited by now transnational companies and puppet regimes, and thus millions, even billions, still live miserable lives and die young.

But those progressions do show that with modern capabilities, legitimate redistribution could far more realistically happen on a global scale, leaving 80, maybe 90% of the global population better off (including people in Britain!). So a few bankers or whatever have to compromise their own living standards, based on the exploitation of labour which reinforces the refinement of wealth, I can live with that.

Your point about refugees as well, yeah maybe you don't have so many people fleeing starvation because of Aid programmes. But you have just as many fleeing warzones and discriminatory tyrants. The West is still breeding conflict for self-gain. DR Congo is oil-rich, sold it's oil to the West and is now one of the fastest developing nations on the planet. Yet 50% of its people don't have access to drinking water. Strange. My overrall point though was we in this country treat asylum seekers woefully, and there really is no need to.

Edited by serial thriller (23 Mar 2015 12.36am)

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

I think what's needed is a 'poverty basket' to see what items you should be able to afford before being recognised as being below the poverty line...you know akin to the 'shopping basket' to determine how inflation is doing.

Clearly, cars, Tv's and mobiles shouldn't be in this basket as they're luxury items / discretionary spend if you will.

So what essentials would you all have in the 'poverty basket' that everyone should be able to afford?

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

But how much would you have to pay for the Colonel's secret recipe?