Oxfam's Dodgy Maths

Under Oxfam's dodgy maths, someone with 50p to his name is "richer" than bottom 2bn Spectator Blogs
SUBSCRIBER LOGIN
CLASSIFIEDS
EVENTS
27/1/15 6:08 pm
SHOP
CLUB
WINE CLUB
SUBSCRIBE
Safari Power Saver

Click to Start Flash Plug-in
Search
HOME
COFFEE HOUSE
BLOGGERS
MAGAZINE
COLUMNISTS
CULTURE HOUSE
PODCAST
HEALTH
MONEY
SPECTATOR LIFE
Under Oxfams dodgy maths, someone with 50p to

his name is richer than bottom 2bn
Ryan Bourne 19 January 2015 12:26
65 comments
Safari Power Saver

Click to Start Flash Plug-in
Global capitalism has eradicated poverty and generated prosperity in the
Kindle
developing world at an unprecedented rate. You might imagine that a global

anti-poverty charity, such as Oxfam, would celebrate this fact. But no today
Oxfam is making the headlines instead because it is worried about global
wealth inequality. In particular, that the wealthiest 1 per cent will soon own
more than the rest of the world population combined.
Oxfam has been pushing this sort of meme for a while. Last year, it made the
startling claim that the worlds 85 richest people own the same wealth as the
bottom 3.5 billion combined. It was shown at the time, not least by Reuters
Felix Salmon, that this statistic was bogus. And theres nothing new to see
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coeehouse/2015/01/beware-oxfams-dodgy-statistics-on-wealth-inequality/#comments
Page 1 of 11
today, just a slight re-hashing of this factoid.

Oxfams claim that the richest 1 per cent own 48 per cent of the worlds wealth
27/1/15 6:08 pm
MOST READ
(and will soon own more than half) rests on Credit Suisse data. This data is on
The Islamic world is rioting

and not for free speech
net wealth, which throws up all sorts of weird findings when you try to add it
Rod Liddle
up across large populations. Thats because net wealth is calculated by adding

up the value of assets and taking off debts.
To see this, look at the figure below from the Credit Suisse report. If we were
Greece lightning: six things

you need to know about
Syrizas victory
the top 50 per cent. North America on the other hand supposedly has around
8 per cent of the worlds poorest population because significant numbers of
Douglas Murray
people in the States are loaded up with debts of various kind, making their net
Watch: Natalie Bennett

demonstrates how Green
policies dont add up
people in the bottom 10 per cent the worlds poorest with most Chinese in
wealth negative!
Abbie Martin
I dont want to live under

Islamic blasphemy law.
That doesnt make me
racist
to split up the data into deciles, this methodology would suggest China has no
3
4
Sebastian Payne
Berlins nightmare is
coming to pass
James Forsyth
How Marine Le Pen is

winning Frances gay vote
Rachel Halliburton
Syrizas rule will be shortlived: the EU will never

give what it wants
Fredrik Erixon
Mohammed in pictures
Barnaby Rogerson
According to this methodology, the poorest 2 billion people in the world have
Should the Guardian

apologise to David
Cameron over orgasm
blunder?
a negative net wealth. Someone who has 50p but no assets or debts would be
Steerpike
above the bottom 30 per cent of the worlds population. It doesnt take an
bottom to an overall wealth share figure for the bottom 99 per cent will of
Labours weak welfare

attack leaves Tories to
chant tribal slogans in
Commons
course make the figure much smaller than a gross wealth figure. Oxfam
Isabel Hardman
advanced mathematician to work out that adding up lots of negatives at the
9
10
has then taken this bogus figure, looked at recent trends (which show the
SPECTATOR POLL
share of the top 1 per cent rising) and simply extrapolated into the future to
get their headline (which seems a huge assumption given the potential QE
unwinding).
Aggregating net wealth figures is largely meaningless and not the way most
Should voting be
compulsory?
people think about poverty, or indeed the rich. That Oxfam has been able to
claim front pages with a nonsensical report throws up all sorts of worrying
questions about journalistic standards. But the more perturbing fact is that
Oxfams latest meme will now be repeated ad nauseam by those who wont
examine the basis of the claim.
EMAIL SIGNUP
Ryan Bourne is Head of Public Policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs
Subscribe to the Evening Blend:
Tags: Credit Suisse, Felix Salmon, Oxfam, Poverty
email address
Subscribe
Page 2 of 11
27/1/15 6:08 pm
Subscribe
Exclusive offer: Just 73 for a years subscription to the print
Lunchtime Espresso:
magazine, plus full online and app access and a free bottle of
champagne. Join us now.
email address
Previous
Next
Parties stick in comfort

zones for another Monday
of campaigning
Isabel Hardman
Why are the MCB

complaining about
Pickless letter to
Mosques?
19 January 2015 9:19
James Forsyth
Subscribe
PODCAST
19 January 2015 13:05
65 Comments
Spectator Blogs
Login
Share Favorite
Sort by Best
Comedy meets politics,

Osborne's 13 tests for No.10
and the future of a university
education
Join the discussion

sir_graphus
8 days ago
In future, any charity I come across wasting my donations on political campaigning

will forfeit my support.
If I give a charity 10 to, say, help the homeless, I expect it to be spent on food,
clothing, shelter. I do not want it spent on a lobbyist to campaign for govt to allocate
10 of my taxes to the homeless.
I'm sure wearing a suit and trotting up to the House of Commons to appear earnest
and well meaning is much more fun.
31
Reply Share
eeore > sir_graphus
8 days ago
You sir, will be a very rich man.

3
Reply Share
AJ > sir_graphus
8 days ago
Any money for those trying to tackle the causes of poverty, rather than the
symptoms? Seems a more long-term approach to me.
2
Reply Share
Liberty > sir_graphus
7 days ago
They want the government to give 10 per head of ours to charity because
70% of it will go to charity administration, marketing and heads who pay
themselves like CEOs without the risks plus a gold plated public sector
pension.
1
starfish
Reply Share
8 days ago
unsurprisingly the BBC has lapped this up without question

They just love dodgy statistics that support lefty causes and lobby groups
34
Reply Share
Malcolm Knott > starfish
8 days ago
Yes, I noticed that the figure was mentioned on the Today programme, and in
the news headlines, for all the world as if it was an established fact.
5
Reply Share
janieblack > starfish
7 days ago
How is using 'net' wealth a dodgy use of stats? Oxfam is not claiming
Page 3 of 11
27/1/15 6:08 pm
How is using 'net' wealth a dodgy use of stats? Oxfam is not claiming
anything false and you should be taking this article with as much of a dose of
scepticism as the Oxfam data... And you know what is a bigger issue that
using 'net' wealth in this analysis? Labelling things like poverty as "lefty
causes".
3
Reply Share
Andrew Dixon > janieblack
7 days ago
I think he explained it pretty well, just because you are in debt doesn't
mean your poor and cant put food on the table, not that hard to
understand really.
5
Reply Share
Andrew Cole > janieblack
6 days ago
Because the 'lefty' slogan is that there is a 'cost of living crisis'.

The truth is there are a lot of people struggling to cope with the cost of
living. There always have been and always will be. The vast majority
though..you know the ones that Labour and Conservatives are trying
to get the vote from are simply struggling because of the 'cost of living
above your means crisis'.
Reply Share
ArthurSparknottle > starfish
8 days ago
Jacques Peretti has also been propagating the same nonsense in his two hour
'expose' of 'the problem' on BBC1. He seemed to focus on the lavish
extravagance of some UK based toffs who were buying Ferraris and quaffing
champagne.
2
Shinsei1967
Reply Share
8 days ago
It is a bonkers way of measuring wealth as, amongst other things, takes no account
of age or potential.
So a 28 year old Oxbridge-educated Goldman Sachs banker on a six figure salary
(that he spends on rent & high living) with a 50k student debt is comfortably in the
world's bottom decile, if not bottom 1%, when it comes to (net) wealth.
Whereas a 65 year old British woman, living in her 250k semi-detached house with a
state pension (a 250k asset in itself) is in the top 1% globally.
21
Reply Share
Benjamin Palmer > Shinsei1967
5 days ago
I gave Oxfam an email about this, as I'm someone who would fit that category
(well nearly) and here is their reply:
"We are confident that our statistics give a true picture of the state of
inequality in the world today. Don't just take our word for it, Christine
Lagarde, head of the IMF, has quoted Oxfam statistics on wealth inequality
and our last report on inequality, which included statistics calculated on this
basis, was endorsed by the Chief Economist of the Bank of England.
The bottom 50% includes 3.5 billion people around the world. This does
include the indebted graduate with high future earning potential, but this is
very much the exception rather than the rule. This group is overwhelming
populated by people with little or no assets to support their livelihoods.
I hope this makes our position clear. Thank you for your interest in Oxfam's
report. If you have any further queries please let me know I'll be happy to
help. "

Torybushhug
Reply Share
8 days ago
Bob Geldof has placed his real estate in a Virgin Islands trust, I cannot see how you
Page 4 of 11
27/1/15 6:08 pm
Bob Geldof has placed his real estate in a Virgin Islands trust, I cannot see how you
would ever stop this.
JK Rowling, Russell Brand and Stephen Fry employ the best tax advisors money can
buy, these people are globe trotters and can domicile themselves anywhere.
Tony Ben despite gifting much of his wealth to his kids when alive still died a multi
millionaire. If even he wont share what hope is there?
Worse than fat cat Bankers as the lefty charlatans disguise their greed.
15
Reply Share
AJ > Torybushhug
8 days ago
Sorry, this is just plain untrue. Russell Brand does not employ tax advisors
and JK Rowling is also known not to, to the extent that she pays more tax
than the rest of the super-rich combined. There are plenty of champagne
socialists to direct your fury towards, these are not two of them
2
Reply Share
Kingstonian > AJ
7 days ago
"JK Rowling is also known not to, to the extent that she pays more tax
than the rest of the super-rich combined." Really? Is that a fact? Or is
this another "fact" from the Oxfam stable of dodgy maths?
2
Reply Share
AJ > Kingstonian
7 days ago
She's been on record explicitly saying she does and she does so
because she believes in the welfare state and felt indebted to it
when it helped her at her lowest. Others have stated this to be
true. It would be extraordinarily brave or stupid to make a
public, principled stand knowing it to be untrue. I suppose it's
possible. But I think the burden of proof is on you if you want
to accuse her of that.
1
Reply Share
Andrew Cole > AJ
6 days ago
Russell Brand just accepts money to fund films enabling others to get
tax breaks. He's whiter than white..........oops that sounds a little bad.
Oh well.
Reply Share
AJ > Andrew Cole
6 days ago
That may be a fairer point, if we know he made that decision

and with that knowledge. Do we? Otherwise it seems a bit like
his supposedly supporting tax-dodging by paying rent to
someone who does that.

Leo McKinstry
Reply Share
8 days ago
One of the equality lobby's most deceitful statistical exercises in the invention of the
concept of "relative poverty." According to this piece of sentimental manipulation,
anyone can be deemed to be living in "relative poverty" if their income is less than
60 per cent of the median, an entirely arbitrary threshold. On that basis, even some
multi-millionaires in Monaco must be living in "relative poverty" compared to the
multi-billionaires.
14
Reply Share
Airey Belvoir > Leo McKinstry
8 days ago
Indeed - a cunning way of ensuring that 'the poor will always be with us'. And
so will lots of highly paid charity jobs.
11
Reply Share
Page 5 of 11
Torybushhug
27/1/15 6:08 pm
8 days ago
This obsession with wealth is a tragic tale really. Last night CH4's 'The Nile' showed
for example these peasant farmers living by the banks of the Nile that had a real
joyful life. I've encountered this in rural Turkey where people had simple but very
satisfying lives, chatting away on the porch at night after tending their melons, a
single light bulb lighting their bungalow, happy as Larry, none of the complexity of
western living, none of our hang-ups s and relentless chattering in our attempt to
perfect the world to ensure everyone is as wealthy and long lived as possible.
9
Reply Share
AJ > Torybushhug
8 days ago
Very true. But Ryan Bourne fails to understand this and fails to understand
that relentless competition between one another to acquire more 'stuff' and
status leaves us all deeply unhappy. All the iphones in the world aren't going
to make him understand that how people think and feel is actually quite
important. In any case, a huge amount of tech development has come
through Govn. grants, something he should be more honest about.
3
Reply Share
eeore > Torybushhug
8 days ago
Did they have watch that recorded their blood pressure and displayed the
current daily average on their smart-glasses?
Then they have no idea what happiness is.
1
Reply Share
Dodgy Geezer > Torybushhug
6 days ago
... none of the complexity of western living...

They have:
1) a light bulb, brought to them by a complex web of engineering
development and power generation and transmission technology,
2) specific hybrid melon seeds, brought to them by a deeply complex
understanding of genetics and bio-chemistry,
3) a market for their produce, brought to them by a global communications
and logistics network of staggering complexity,
4) payment for their produce, brought to them by futures investors and
commodity brokers transferring funds in complex ways....
...and I'll bet they are wearing Chinese-made clothes, watching
American/Korean made films/TV, and obtaining grants from European
agricultural improvement funds.
Apart from that, yes, they are living a carefree happy non-complex life...

Pappu Italvi
Reply Share
8 days ago
Now thugs at Oxfam will enjoy touring across the world with grants raised through
charity in name of spreading this manufactured report
7
Reply Share
AJ > Pappu Italvi
8 days ago
What does this even mean? A manufactured report? 'thugs at Oxfam'? come
on.
Reply Share
eeore > Pappu Italvi
8 days ago
Spies need a cover you know....
Reply Share
Page 6 of 11
27/1/15 6:08 pm

Marcus
8 days ago
Agreed. It's worrying journalism; yet predictable.

Even if it was true..... There are millions being brought out of poverty every year. So
that's millions more people to buy iphones and toasters. Which means if you make
toasters and iphones you will be richer year on year. So the gap between rich and
poor will grow uear in year. So this trend will hopefully go on forever and it indicates
nothing more than there are less people trapped in poverty each year.
7
Reply Share
AJ > Marcus
8 days ago
Yes, and that should be celebrated, but this is happening in spite of widening
inequality not because of it. In developed nations we're going backwards and
it's not because global inequality is falling, it's because it's rising in our own
countries as recognised by the IMF and OECD. People like Ryan Bourne see
the world in terms of iphones and toasters rather than people and what
genuinely matters to them. That is why he and others like him are losing the
debate on inequality. They are drab men with drab ideas that people have
seen enough of and don't like much.
1
Reply Share
Marcus > AJ
8 days ago
You don't get it AJ.

Bill Gates will become richer and richer as year on year more people
can afford his products. So the gap between his wealth and those
who've just moved out of poverty and brought his product. And you
and me will continue to increase. ..and it's a good thing.
1
Reply Share
AJ > Marcus
7 days ago
I think/hope I do get it. I think i just respectfully disagree. I

absolutely understand your point. I would argue that year on
year more people cannot afford more of Bill Gates products
because we are seeing stagnant wages. We can argue of course
as to the causes of this. I think rising inequality is both a cause
and a symptom of this. The only way people are affording
more products is by increasing their debt at the moment. This
is not a good thing. The argument is not whether the size of
the pie can increase and we all do better. The argument is
whether inequality limits the size of the pie AS WELL as
allowing those at the top to get a larger and larger share. Ryan
is swimming against the tide of evidence and opinion on this.
2
Reply Share
Andrew Cole > Marcus
6 days ago
I disagree. Bill Gates (used as an example) along with Apple,

Samsung, DFS, and Murdoch etc get richer and richer year on
year NOT because more people can afford their products. It is
because more and more people must have those products even
though they can't really afford them and then moan about the
cost of living.
Reply Share
Marcus > Andrew Cole
4 days ago
Erm no. People in the third world need smartphones every bit
as much as you do.
Reply Share
3 days ago
Need? Can you answer me why? People in the UK don't 'need'

half the crap they are buying....on credit...then complaining
Page 7 of 11
27/1/15 6:08 pm
half the crap they are buying....on credit...then complaining

about the cost of living.
Reply Share
Marcus > Andrew Cole
3 days ago
Do you need one?
Reply Share
2 days ago
Nope. My Phone rings and texts and doesn't get used that
much at all. I use a laptop for the internet. I have no need to
have my head buried in a phone when I am out and about.
So no I don't 'need' one. I don't really need any mobile phone.
Just like I didn't need one when I first got one in the early
noughties.
If I weren't married now I would have gone without even my
cheapy a long time ago.
How did people cope before the advent of mobile phones and
'smartphones'.

Michael990
Reply Share
8 days ago
"journalistic standards". Well, they died, if they ever really existed, with the advent
of the press release. Took a few years but now, as long as there's a press release to
reprint, the 'journalists' are content. The internet age has helped enormously of
course, because it's all now a simple cut 'n paste job.
5
Reply Share
English_Independence_Movement
8 days ago
The Left don't hate poverty, they hate inequality: they'd be quite happy if we all led
short miserable lives living in mud huts without health care, just so long as no one
person had a single penny more than any other.
3
Reply Share
astraea > English_Independence_Movement
7 days ago
It's not about inequality - that would be boring. It's about inequity, aka
justice.

davidhill
Reply Share
8 days ago
I don't know about dodgy statistics but Credit Suisse's 'Global Wealth Report' states
the same as the Oxfam's figures if you read it.
But it has to be said that this subject is the most dangerous growing situation for
future humanity as eventually the reaction and fire will be ignited by the majority
'have nots'. Even billionaires are aware of this according to a recent BBC programme
on inequality, but where apparently greed blinds them to the growing and presently
hidden discontent around the world. You can forget about terrorism, obscene
inequality will be the eventual tipping point to light the fuse of world violence and
human uprising. Don't rely on the Army to suppress this anger and people conflict
either, as most of the foot soldiers come from the 90% of the world's population who
are the impoverished ones as the 1% take from them year-on-year. For history has
shown with all backlashes that eventually the ordinary soldier sides on the people's
side and not the government or those who have created the situation. The French
and Russian Revolution are prime examples here where vast inequality caused such
events to take place.
http://worldinnovationfoundati...
Page 8 of 11
27/1/15 6:08 pm
5
Reply Share
Dodgy Geezer > davidhill
6 days ago
The ordinary soldier sides with the group which can afford to pay him.
Reply Share
davidhill > Dodgy Geezer
6 days ago
No, basic common values kick in and especially if they affect their
family directly. There are greater considerations than just money in
this life I am afraid to say. Sorry to say if you are a former squaddie.
1
Paul Fletcher-Tomeni
Reply Share
7 days ago
Extraordinary that there is an apparently serious attempt to debunk Oxfam's main

findings. I understand that capitalism works when there is competition and
consumption. Both these prerequisites fade with huge concentrations of wealth.
Dealing with this problem is pro-capitalist. It therefore appears that both the
Spectator and a number of its readers are ( inadvertently, surely!) ANTI-capitalist.
Problem is that you have become so accustomed to associating attacks on wealth
concentration with the Red Peril, you are failing to see the very great threat to the
dynamism of capitalism. Please, please, more thought and stop shooting from the
hip!
2
Reply Share
AJ > Paul Fletcher-Tomeni
7 days ago
100% agree. This is not an attack on capitalism as being portrayed, but

extreme inequality is. The likes of Ryan Bourne are so wedded to dogma
about the awfulness of Govn. and the sanctity of markets they've refused to
genuinely look at what is going right and wrong and what the pragmatic ways
to resolve problems are. Very sad, they're going to regret this.
Reply Share
SelfSucientOne
8 days ago
Money is an agent of debt where too much debt brings on poverty. And there are two
types of debt, personal and private. Individuals can control their private debt but
governments have taken away our ability to control the public debt. It is the public
debt that enriches the "powerful" and burdens the middle class. It is this debt that
we the people have lost control of, we are indeed indentured servants.
2
AJ
Reply Share
8 days ago
Oh and the attack on charities is pitiful. Tell me how supporting inequality reduction
is party political when all parties have talked of its importance.
1
AJ
Reply Share
8 days ago
It is not a dodgy statistic in that it is not untrue and the data that Credit Suisse uses,
while far from perfect, is reasonable. Ryan is right re those in debt etc. but that
doesn't get away from the fact that a small number of people have a huge amount of
wealth compared to others, including those in debt. And that this is wealth without
the burden of debt repayment. If anyone here thinks wealth does not equate to
power and influence they are completely stark raving bonkers. If anyone thinks that
everyone who is wealthy is as cuddly as Warren Buffett or as reasonable as Bill
Gates, again, you are sadly deluded.
1
Reply Share
Andrew Cole
6 days ago
I don't donate to any of these sort of charities. Their 'paid' representatives rock up at
my door, a different charity each day, sometimes 2 a day, Can I interest you
in.....Nope..door closes. They all have chief execs pulling a very hefty wage. They all
Page 9 of 11
27/1/15 6:08 pm
in.....Nope..door closes. They all have chief execs pulling a very hefty wage. They all
scaremonger and use propaganda.
Reply Share
Dodgy Geezer
6 days ago
...You might imagine that a global anti-poverty charity, such as Oxfam, would
celebrate this fact....
Actually, no. The clue is in the NAME.
Oxfam was a global anti-FAMINE charity. The problem for Oxfam is that its
proposed cure (giving money to build wells) was a staggeringly useless way to
address famine, and global high-technology, driven by global capitalism, has simply
solved the problem completely over the last 30 years.
So now Oxfam is looking frantically for another reason for existing, and trying to reposition itself as a 'poverty' charity. As Jesus pointed out, "The poor will ALWAYS be
with us" - so Oxfam is trying to obtain a lifeline based on relative wealth. Essentially,
it's morphed into a communist organisation.
In much the same way, the police are anxious for the illegal drug industry to keep
going, and the military and security apparatus have been advising murderous
foreign policy activity for years in order to keep their industry alive...
Reply Share
Christine Mackay
6 days ago
I Chair a small charity trying to feed and educate the children in one Orphanage in
Burundi, one of the poorest countries in the world (www.orphanageofhearts.org).
We directly oversee that they get our donations and we don't have any paid staff to
ensure they get it all. According to these stats the relative pittance we are able to give
them takes them out of the 1%, making them richer on paper than some of our
donors. I will have to remember that when asking for support! Totally ridiculous.
Reply Share
Load more comments
WHAT'S THIS?
ALSO ON SPECTATOR BLOGS
UK politicians squabble over whose

point the Greek elections prove
Oftseds campaign against Christian

schools: now Gove is gone, the
90 comments a day ago
126 comments 2 days ago
Blindsideflanker Labour saved the
la catholic state Any adult who asks a
Union? You are having a laugh, it was

Labour who unpicked the Union with
child questions concerning adult sexual

matters.....is an evil b###### and
How will the Greek elections change

the political debate in the UK?
Do these allegations explain why

Ukips Amjad Bashir defected to
chudsmania This is where Isabel just
Adrian Drummond Seems like
doesnt get it. 'When the political

conversation moves on to Europe,
Cameron's been a bit too quick to

welcome him. More bad judgement
Subscribe
Add Disqus to your site
Privacy
Page 10 of 11
27/1/15 6:08 pm
About Us
The Spectator
Apollo Magazine
Supplements
Advertising
Extras
Journalists
Subscribe Now
About
Brand Britain
Media Pack
Archive
Contact Us
Renew
Buy
Spectator Life
Classifieds
Shop
Privacy Policy
Terms of use
FAQs
Spectator Australia
Advertise
Independent schools
Thatcher Tribute
Classifies Rates
App Specifications
Bookshop
Events
The Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP

All articles and content Copyright 2014 The Spectator (1828) Ltd | All rights reserved
Powered by WordPress & interconnect/it
Switch to :
Mobile site
Desktop site
Page 11 of 11

Oxfam&#39;s Dodgy Maths

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oxfam&#39;s Dodgy Maths

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Under Oxfam's dodgy maths, someone with 50p to his name is "richer" than bottom 2bn Spectator Blogs

Safari Power Saver

Under Oxfams dodgy maths, someone with 50p to

Safari Power Saver

Global capitalism has eradicated poverty and generated prosperity in the

developing world at an unprecedented rate. You might imagine that a global

today, just a slight re-hashing of this factoid.

The Islamic world is rioting

up across large populations. Thats because net wealth is calculated by adding

Greece lightning: six things

Watch: Natalie Bennett

I dont want to live under

How Marine Le Pen is

Syrizas rule will be shortlived: the EU will never

Should the Guardian

Labours weak welfare

advanced mathematician to work out that adding up lots of negatives at the

Ryan Bourne is Head of Public Policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs

Subscribe to the Evening Blend:

Tags: Credit Suisse, Felix Salmon, Oxfam, Poverty

Exclusive offer: Just 73 for a years subscription to the print

Parties stick in comfort

Why are the MCB

19 January 2015 9:19

19 January 2015 13:05

Comedy meets politics,

Join the discussion

In future, any charity I come across wasting my donations on political campaigning

eeore > sir_graphus

You sir, will be a very rich man.

Liberty > sir_graphus

unsurprisingly the BBC has lapped this up without question

Malcolm Knott > starfish

janieblack > starfish

Andrew Dixon > janieblack

Andrew Cole > janieblack

Because the 'lefty' slogan is that there is a 'cost of living crisis'.

ArthurSparknottle > starfish

Benjamin Palmer > Shinsei1967

Andrew Cole > AJ

AJ > Andrew Cole

That may be a fairer point, if we know he made that decision

Airey Belvoir > Leo McKinstry

eeore > Torybushhug

Dodgy Geezer > Torybushhug

... none of the complexity of western living...

AJ > Pappu Italvi

eeore > Pappu Italvi

Spies need a cover you know....

Agreed. It's worrying journalism; yet predictable.

You don't get it AJ.

I think/hope I do get it. I think i just respectfully disagree. I

Andrew Cole > Marcus

I disagree. Bill Gates (used as an example) along with Apple,

Marcus > Andrew Cole

Andrew Cole > Marcus

Need? Can you answer me why? People in the UK don't 'need'

half the crap they are buying....on credit...then complaining

Marcus > Andrew Cole

Do you need one?

Andrew Cole > Marcus

astraea > English_Independence_Movement

Dodgy Geezer > davidhill

davidhill > Dodgy Geezer

Oxfam's Dodgy Maths

Oxfam's Dodgy Maths