Taking a short break from endlessly repeating that the UK “is isolated” and that Nick Clegg “is unhappy”, the BBC was flogging that old favourite “child poverty” chestnut this morning. It brought on former Labour health secretary Alan Milburn  (Once a BBC hero) to pronounce on the alleged “rise” in what they call “child poverty”. What struck me was that although Milburn and the BBC are now forced to concede that it is “relative poverty” they are talking about (60% of median wage after housing costs) – they both agreed that poverty is rising even though median wages are falling. No explanation was given for this oddity. Nor is there any admission that “relative poverty” is a leftist invention engineered to ensure perpetual whingeing and a desire as Milburn put it “for higher wages.”  


I know we have covered this before but since the government and the BBC keep banging on about “eradicating child poverty” in the UK, when we all know that there is NO child poverty in the UK, it seems appropriate to question why the BBC nevers allow a discussion on the precise nature of “relative poverty” which is a leftist scam. I caught a discussion on the Today programme early this morning on this and whilst the BBC interviewer did explain that in fact what we were discussing is relative poverty, there was no voice to point out the stunning stupidity of the concept in the first place! Gordon Brown may be moving to enshrine the removal of “child poverty”by 2020 in law, this is in fact fantasy politics. My point is that so often the BBC chooses to accept what are left-wing shibboleths as in relative child poverty and then debates around them, rather than allowing debate on their validity in the first place. That’s how nonsense such as child poverty becomes part of the political agenda and stays part of it. That’s how the child poverty industry prospers.