Quote Originally Posted by The Bedlington Terrier View Post
1995 the United Nations adopted two definitions of poverty.

Absolute poverty was defined as:
a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services.

Overall poverty takes various forms, including:
lack of income and productive resources to ensure sustainable livelihoods; hunger and malnutrition; ill health; limited or lack of access to education and other basic services; increased morbidity and mortality from illness; homelessness and inadequate housing; unsafe environments and social discrimination and exclusion. It is also characterised by lack of participation in decision making and in civil, social and cultural life. It occurs in all countries: as mass poverty in many developing countries, pockets of poverty amid wealth in developed countries, loss of livelihoods as a result of economic recession, sudden poverty as a result of disaster or conflict, the poverty of low-wage workers, and the utter destitution of people who fall outside family support systems, social institutions and safety nets.

Amber Rudd in her latest role has already gone nuts about the UN comments relating to the UK, but like the rest of her revolving door Tory Cabinet colleagues, Rudd doesn't live in the real world either.
Relative poverty in the UK is generally considered to be a household with less than 60% of the median household income, thus no matter how prosperous we are, however much our incomes grow, however affluent our society, there are ALWAYS going to be some people classed as living in poverty. Which, although making a mockery of the phrase 'living in poverty' and rendering it almost meaningless, is very convenient for grandstanding, virtue-signalling lefties, of whom I'm sure there are more in the UK than people actually living in poverty.