Frances Ryan’s thought-provoking article left me deeply saddened by the attitudes revealed in the recent YouGov poll (Britons have become so mean that many of us think poor people don’t deserve leisure time, 8 August). In her piece, she poses the question, “How did we get here?” The answer lies in decades of perpetuating the myth that wealth and success solely result from individual effort and skill, while poverty and failure stem from personal shortcomings.
With the exception of a few fleeting moments during Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell’s leadership, no political party has had the audacity to acknowledge that the majority of wealth and success come from a combination of good fortune and the exploitation of others’ resources and labor over centuries.
The present distribution of wealth and success is a direct consequence of political decisions and a relentless determination by those benefiting from the system to retain their advantages. Although a select few individuals may rise from poverty to affluence through extraordinary talent, most are constrained by the realities of an economic system that has consistently diminished the share of national wealth allocated to the working class.
I’m uncertain about the framing of the YouGov poll questions. However, I’m intrigued to know how people would respond to inquiries such as, “If you lost your job and income due to illness or accident, would you expect to give up your TV, socializing, hobbies, and festive celebrations?” I fear that there is a prevailing belief in one’s entitlement to certain things, while denying others the same privileges.
Jane Mardell
Little Bealings, Suffolk
Frances Ryan’s enlightening article on the YouGov poll makes a compelling case for the value of leisure. However, caution should be exercised when interpreting the poll results. The survey aimed to highlight divisions in public opinion regarding what individuals from different income groups (the wealthiest, those earning an average salary or above, individuals on minimum income, and those receiving out-of-work benefits) should be able to afford. Unsurprisingly, the survey found these divisions. When people are presented with choices in a survey, they tend to make decisions even if those choices are not entirely accurate. In reality, the majority of people on “out-of-work benefits” fluctuate between these benefits and earning the minimum wage or above.
Furthermore, YouGov asked participants to judge what people “should be able to afford” based on their income category, rather than considering them as part of UK society. Over the past five decades, we have developed an approach to measuring poverty that distinguishes between “necessary” items (those everyone should be able to afford and should not have to go without) and “desirable” ones (which are not “necessary”). National poverty and social exclusion surveys conducted in 1983, 1990, 1999, and 2012 have consistently shown that while there is almost unanimous support for core basic items like sufficient and healthy food, adequate clothing, and a warm, dry home, views on what constitutes the necessities of life also encompass leisure items and social activities. These perceptions change over time as society evolves.
This approach has been widely adopted in numerous countries, including both high- and low-income nations. It has revealed a widespread consensus on a minimum standard of living that enables individuals to participate fully in society, regardless of their income group or benefit status.
The YouGov survey primarily reflects the goals and attitudes of YouGov itself rather than providing insight into long-term trends in public opinion regarding the minimum acceptable standard of living.
Joanna Mack, Co-editor, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice; David Gordon, Professor of Social Justice, University of Bristol; Shailen Nandy, Professor of International Social Policy, Cardiff University; Christina Pantazis, Professor of Criminology, University of Bristol
If you have an opinion on any article you have read in The Guardian today, we encourage you to email us your letter for consideration in our letters section.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
