Posts tagged Poverty
If compassion is no longer about how much money governments spend, Labour stops winning elections
Tim Montgomerie:
In wanting to change the measure of poverty IDS, the CSJ, Jill Kirby, Neil O’Brien etc etc aren’t tinkering at the edges of some obscure statistical issue. They are invading intellectual territory of the utmost importance. They are saying that the war on poverty can’t be won by a bigger and bigger welfare state. They are saying - among other things - that poverty has to be fought by early intervention, drug rehabilitation, support for the two parent family and a recognition of the superiority of paid work over benefit dependence. They aren’t just trying to change the terms of the poverty debate but the whole terms of political debate. Labour present themselves as the nice party because they are the high-spending party. But what if the nice party isn’t the party that is always ready to increase benefits but is the party that strengthens the family, improves education and cuts unemployment?
I definitely agree with the need a broader - not just financial - definition of poverty.
Economic crisis mustn't eclipse battle against poverty
Bill Gates, speaking at the London School of Economics:
There are many things going on in terms of the eurozone crisis and budget cutbacks that would make it easy to turn inward and reduce financing. The answer is to remind people not only about the needs of the very poorest but also that we are making incredible progress in … the daily battle that is poverty.
Whilst I was never a fan of Bill Gates in his role with Microsoft, I continue to be hugely impressed with his work with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I hope that he will be listened too and that, even though things are tight financially for us, we won’t lose sight of the fact that our experience doesn’t come close to the experience and living conditions of countless others in much poorer parts of the world.
Life isn’t just – but self-belief works
This is well worth a read. And an interesting take on redistribution of wealth.
For Times Such As These: The Radical Christian Witness Of The New Monastics
Very thought-provoking.
10 things you need to know about global poverty
I shared the first of these on dignity yesterday. The above link is to the whole series of 10 lessons the Acumen Fund has learnt about working with global poverty over their last 10 years. Check it out.
Dignity is more important to the human spirit than wealth
We created Acumen Fund to find the enterprises, leaders and ideas that would create more dignity and more choice, unleashing more of the human energy behind all lasting solutions – that of the people who face poverty and yearn to solve their own problems.
This is from a blog post by Jacqueline Novogratz, founder of the Acumen Fund, reflecting upon their ten year anniversary.
I thoroughly enjoyed Jacqueline’s book ‘The Blue Sweater’ documenting her work and I am a big fan of the work the Acumen Fund is doing.
If you’re looking for a great organisation working with those in poverty to support, the Acumen Fund is well worth checking out.
► Add your comments on Google+
If you don’t yet have Google+, use this link to subscribe.
Learning from economists about the best ways to break cycles of poverty
Nicholas D Kristof for the New York Times:
Now we reach a central question for our age: How can we most effectively break cycles of poverty? For decades, we had answers that were mostly anecdotal or hot air. But, increasingly, we are now seeing economists provide answers that are rigorously field-tested, akin to the way drugs are tested in randomized controlled trials, yielding results that are particularly credible and persuasive.
…
Randomized trials are the hottest thing in the fight against poverty, and two excellent new books have just come out by leaders in the field. One is “Poor Economics,” by Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, and the other is “More Than Good Intentions,” by Dean Karlan and Jacob Appel.
For years, we’ve seen a sterile debate about whether humanitarian aid works. (Sometimes yes, sometimes no.) These terrific books move the debate to the crucial question: What kind of aid works best?
The whole article is well worth a read. And I’ll definitely be taking a look at the referenced books too.
David Cameron: No party has a monopoly on caring
David Cameron writing at ConservativeHome:
We also believe in compassion. No party has a monopoly on caring, but I think as Conservatives we should be particularly proud of some of the commitments we have stuck to this past year. We are protecting the NHS from cuts because we know that for so many people it is literally a lifeline. And we have also protected our aid budget because, likewise, for so many people it is a lifeline too. And this party should be proud that because of the decisions we have taken in government, in four years’ time we will not have just paid down the deficit – this country will also have vaccinated more of the world’s poorest children than there are people in the whole of England.
I know that the Tory haters will be in uproar about statements like this but, if nothing else, I think Cameron is absolutely right that no party has a monopoly on caring. Linked with this, it’s scary how many people seem to seriously think that all Tories hate the poor. The arrogance of some people to view an entire political grouping of people in such a prejudiced and blinkered way is shocking.
Do the Tories always get it right of issues of poverty and social justice? No. Of course not. Are there some on the far right who couldn’t give a damn about the poor and only think about themselves? Sure. Just like there are on the left too. But I have no doubt that at the heart of the Tory party is a core of people who believe in compassion and want to create a country that brings opportunity to everyone. (Just to be clear, I believe the same is true at the core of all the leading political parties too.)
What if our political debate started from this place? A place where we believe the best about the majority of peoples motivations rather than tainting the majority on the basis of a few on the fringes? What if instead of hating, we chose to embrace the reality that in most instances our politicians from all parties are sincerely wanting to make the United Kingdom a better place? They - and we - might disagree on both the methods and indeed the desired outcome, but if we could at least recognise the shared motivations, maybe, just maybe, there could be a much great civility to our debate.
The Centre for Social Justice gives the Coalition government a mixed report on poverty
Gavin Poole, Director of the Centre for Social Justice, writing at ConservativeHome:
12 months after the Coalition’s formation, the CSJ publishes the first of its annual report cards. It reveals that the Government’s first year efforts on poverty have been frustratingly mixed. Brave welfare reform and an encouraging new direction for drug and alcohol policy have been undermined by poor implementation of bold education plans – especially Free Schools – and compromise-driven inaction in tackling our devastating culture of family breakdown.
It’s more important to make the poor richer than the rich poorer
I totally understand our obsession with bashing the bankers. After all, these troubling economic times are all their fault. (That’s not totally true of course, but they’re the easy target.) We want them to feel some pain for all the trouble they’ve caused. We want them to suffer.
But I wonder if in the midst of all this that we’ve lost sight of the point. The point isn’t to make ourselves feel a bit better by seeing the bankers have lower bonuses and the like. (This, incidentally, will actually cost the UK economy around £5 billion in lost taxes over the life of this parliament.) The point, surely, is to keep focussing on eradicating poverty and buildings systems and structures that truly enable the poor to become richer.
How many of us who are banging on about the big, bad, bankers actually even give a damn about the poor? I’m not saying that some of the anger isn’t justified; I’m simply challenging us to keep our eye on the people who truly need our attention and support.
Simply put, it is far more important to find ways to make the poor richer than it is to focus trying to make the rich poorer. Isn’t there some cross-over? Don’t they affect each other? Sure, even if to what extent is up for debate. But, frankly, that’s too complex to explore in this post. My point here is to challenge our motivations. Are we more fired up by bashing bankers (and rich people) or by standing up for the poor and oppressed?
I for one would far rather be remembered for championing the poor rather than bashing the bankers.
