34 comments on “A remarkable headline

  1. Isn’t it worse, they are surprised places defined as being full of poor people are full of poor people.

    The solution is obviously to redefine the borders of those areas..

  2. In four parliamentary constituencies – Bethnal Green and Bow, and Poplar and Limehouse in east London, and Ladywood and Hodge Hill in Birmingham – children are for the first time in recent years more likely than not to grow up poor.

    So we have a problem with inter-generational poverty. So it is not just that they are poor, it is that there is little they can do to get out of poverty. What might be the cause of that?

    Bethnal Green and Bow

    The 2011 census recorded a population of 125,351 people. The constituency has recently become one of the most ethnically diverse areas in the UK, 3.11% of the population were of mixed race, the largest non-mixed ethnic group was white at 41.9 per cent of the population (and of the total: 33.6% of British ethnicity), the second largest ethnic group was Bangladeshi which formed 33.4 per cent of the population, other Asians 6.59 per cent (comprises British Indians, British Pakistanis and other Asians), those of Black race constituted 4.9 per cent

    Finding the demographics of Poplar and Limehouse took my longer than the two seconds I was willing to spend so I have no idea.

    Ladywood

    At the time of the 2001 Population Census, 23,789 people were living in the Ladywood Ward. The population density was 3,330 people per km2 living within its 7.1 km² boundary, compared with 3,649 people per km2 for Birmingham. Nearly half of the population of Ladywood (49%) consisted of ethnic minorities compared with 29.6% for Birmingham in general. The largest ethnic minority groups were Afro-Caribbean at 13.18%, Indian at 11.65%, Pakistani at 10.64% and Mixed Race at 5.52%.

    Hodge Hill in Birmingham is unlike the others, up to a point:

    Ethnic minorities represent 13.9% (3,442) of the ward’s population as opposed to 29.6% for Birmingham in general.

    The rule seems to be that people who lack the ability to build a modern society in their own countries – dare I say in their own sh!tholes – are unlikely to do well in Britain and may well turn their own neighbourhoods into sh!tholes too. And it doesn’t help to be a Brummie either. So for both communities I would suggest, as a first step, not marrying your first cousins.

  3. Is it any surprise that each of the districts where things have got worse for the poor is (locally) governed by Labour?
    It could just be coincidence, but it is very unlikely (statistically significant at the 5% level).

  4. What Julia said.

    If you’re going to define poverty in relative terms then you can hardly complain when the poorest are in poverty.

  5. Children get classified as living in poverty if they don’t have Sky+ in their bedrooms and an older version of iphone before iphone7.

  6. ‘More than half of all children in the UK’s very poorest areas are now growing up in poverty as the impact of cuts to benefits continues to be felt by the least well-off families, according to a new study.’

    Good to know that only the least well-off families feel the impact.

  7. @Gamecock

    What’s truly shocking is that those that receive benefits are hardest hit when benefits are cut.

  8. Rewind to 2010 and over 60% of children were included on means-tested benefit claims, not including child benefit according to the welfare white paper of that year.
    It’s still over 50%
    In other words being sufficiently poor to qualify for benefits is the default position if you have children.
    What’s remarkable here is that the relatively poor areas are so few.

  9. “Missing the word ‘relative’ in between ‘in’ and ‘poverty’.”

    And ‘relative poverty’ is a synonym for inequality. And equality is good….

  10. JuliaM – “Missing the word ‘relative’ in between ‘in’ and ‘poverty’.”

    Some large chunk of this relative poverty being the sort of relative poverty you get if you keep marrying your relatives.

    There is a simple solution to this – sterilize the poor. We have to remember the Oxfam Rule – the important thing here is not how poor people are, but how unequal everyone is. So the way to make sure no children are born into poverty is to make sure no poor people have children. Oxfam would be delighted.

  11. @ SMFS
    “Some large chunk of this relative poverty being the sort of relative poverty you get if you keep marrying your relatives.”
    Like the Pharoahs?

  12. “If you’re going to define poverty in relative terms then you can hardly complain when the poorest are in poverty.” If you are going to recruit new residents from abroad and not require that they assimilate (or in the case of the US Diversity Visa, encourage them not to assimilate), you can hardly complain about anything.

  13. @ Spike and SMFS
    You are both getting cause and effect the wrong way round.
    The new immigrants are living in these dumps because they are dirt poor when they arrive and anyone who has got any money moves out as soon as they can. There may be a ghetto effect but that is much smaller than the impact of the poorest immigrants ending up in the worst areas.**
    The connection between the areas which have got worse is not the highly variable percentage of ethnic minorities but the fact that they are all Labour-controlled areas. I said that it was statistically significant at the 5% level because that is the standard jargon – it is less than a *one in a million* chance that it is a coindidence.
    What that means is that almost* anyone who can afford to get out of the Labour-run sink estates will do so and they are filled up with those who cannot.
    *Criminal gangs who use the estates as cover are, naturally,an exception.
    **Lots of immigrants arrive with the clothes they stand up in and wash them in the sink.

  14. SMFS

    It is somewhat unfair to say that they are bound to remain poor. It is a possibility, but not guaranteed by any means. The criticism of poor uneducated migrants was made of the Irish, Italians and Poles when they migrated to the US. Made of various groups who ended up in the East End of London in the past too.

    That said, I find the argument that there are many poor people of Bangladeshi origin below the UK poverty line is an indictment of UK policy bizarre. The annual household income in Bangladesh is $601. That is poverty.

    Remittances from the UK to Bangladesh were estimated to be US$853 million in 2012 by the World Bank. So these poverty stricken UK residents were sending about $1900 per head (450,000 UK Bangladeshis) back to Bangladesh.

  15. John77 – No, I agree with your point that there is some self-selection going on here, as those able to move out of the poorest areas do so. But there is also self-selection going on based on the criteria by which entry is allowed. If “new immigrants…are dirt poor when they arrive” and presumably immediately in need of social services, can’t we ask why they are being let in? (Again, the US Diversity Visa screams, “Because it’s not your fault but ours.”)

    Your correlation with Labour would be persuasive, as leftie parties want a lot of people to pad caseloads of social workers, but not necessarily in their constituencies, and they are just as able to use a hypothetical rise out of poverty as a justification for funding and they are to use intractable poverty as a call for more funding.

  16. @ Spike
    Why are they being let in? Don’t blame me: ask the ECJ which says that family links to existing UK residents are a qualification. But, more significantly in this context, there is also the point that private sector rentals in those areas are far lower than anywhere I want to live (I should have been less choosy when I was in my twenties and single) so the poor who are not entitled to social security benefits will end up living near the sink estates.
    Thirdly the genuine refugees who are not – thanks to Gordon Bruin – allowed to get paid for work until the Home Office (which, to Theresa May’s credit *has* improved since 2010, before which a Labour Home secretary declared that it “was not fit forb purpose”, but has still some way to go) has processed their application get dumped in areas where the local authority has empty flats that no-one else wants. Thanks, again, to Gordon Bruin their benefits were *half* of those for UK citizens and Gideon chose not to correct this injustice as part of his con that he was applying “austerity”. So any refugees will be below 60% of benefit claimant – let alone median – income.
    My little sister lives in Glasgow and her local church caters for a lot of refugees who are/were dumped there – quite a lot of them continue to come back after the tower block, where they were housed because no native Glaswegians wanted to live there, was dynamited because “it was not possible to bring it up to modern standards”.

  17. @ Spike
    Can you wonder why I hate Gordon Brown?
    There are many other reasons but that is the worst. Proclaiming that X is the minimun that you need to live on and simultaneously telling refugees from genocide and/or threats of (further) rape that they must live on X/2 stinks.

  18. Economic migrants only please – work permits stamped NRTPF.
    Bringing in refugees from thousands of miles away is bad news – if someone wants to support them ( Y Cooper, B Geldof, L Allen ), then sponsor them yourself, but they still only get a work permit stamped NRTPF same as everyone else who comes in.

  19. @ Bongo
    Some right-wingers support some refugees to stay near enough to home that they can go back when ISIS goes (OK – I just give a little support to a couple who are supporting refugees in Jordan but my point is that the initial right-wing response – my sister and brother-in-law help those who cannot go home because they face genocide and are dumped in Glasgow). DtP thinks that Glasgow is a source of refugees …
    If you had *any* idea of the benefits to the UK from the German Jews who fled Hitler in the 1930s ….

  20. john77 – “If you had *any* idea of the benefits to the UK from the German Jews who fled Hitler in the 1930s ….”

    Benefits like …. Eric Hobsbawm and Ralph Milliband? Who spent the rest of their lives paying us back by working for a Soviet invasion?

    Some benefit

  21. john77 – “You are both getting cause and effect the wrong way round. The new immigrants are living in these dumps because they are dirt poor when they arrive and anyone who has got any money moves out as soon as they can.”

    Many Bangladeshi have been in the UK since the 1950s. They are not new arrivals. Yet the south Asian Muslim community is manifestly incompetent.

    “The connection between the areas which have got worse is not the highly variable percentage of ethnic minorities but the fact that they are all Labour-controlled areas.”

    Baltimore has a leftist government. So does Portland. So does Norway. One of those places is a sh1thole, the other two are actually quite nice. You think perhaps it maybe something other than a leftist government?

    ken – “It is somewhat unfair to say that they are bound to remain poor. It is a possibility, but not guaranteed by any means.”

    I agree. But if three generations are not enough for them to move out of the middle ages and into the modern world, how much longer should we wait? We have tried and tried and tried. And failed.

    “So these poverty stricken UK residents were sending about $1900 per head (450,000 UK Bangladeshis) back to Bangladesh.”

    So they don’t like their relatives that much then as that must be a fraction of what they earn. On or off the books.

  22. @john77 – did the Jews who fled Hitler in the 1930s have the right to work in the UK and USA when they arrived, I’m presuming they did. And very little if anything in the right to benefits. And no universal health care cover.
    I’m guessing there was standard migration at the time too – German scientists who were not Jews who wanted to work in the UK anyway. Did Jews take the same route in? Too many questions, but I’m guessing it’s not the same as picking people up from refugee camps thousands of miles away.

  23. @john77: we’ve seen the benefits of taking in ‘refugees’ from war torn countries, thanks. Little girls shredded at pop concerts.

  24. @ Bongo
    I don’t think there was any of that “right to work” nonsense in the 1930s.
    Not many non-Jewish Germans came to the UK – there was a significant handful who went to the USA, particularly Social Democrats and Evangelical Christians who felt unwelcome in Nazi Germany.
    Actually it IS equivalent to picking up people from refugee camps.

  25. @ SMFS
    I did say “new Immigrants”
    Relatively few Bangladeshis have been in the Uk since the 1950s. In 1961 only 31,000 UK residents had been born in Pakistan which at the time included Bangladesh and that number included a significant number of British children of army officers or members of the Indian Civil Service. Accoring to https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/immigrationpatternsofnonukbornpopulationsinenglandandwalesin2011/2013-12-17 only 1%of the Bangladeshi-born population arrived before 1961.

  26. @ SMFS
    There are about a score of districts where “child poverty” has increased – all of them have Labour (or SNP) local government while the ethnic mix varies considerably. The probability that you would find this if the political colour of the local government was irrelevant is less than one in a million. Think about it.

  27. @ Gamecock
    Unless he is Charles, who became Duke of Cornwall at the age of 3, thereby inheriting vast wealth, or Sir Ranulph Twistleton- Wykrham-Fiennes who inherited the Baronetcy and some wealth upon birth or ….

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.