Your reporting of the Tory welfare cuts was interesting and astute (Tory welfare cuts will plunge 500,000 children into poverty, News, June 28).
However, your criticism of Tory plans to redefine child poverty was blemished by a flawed definition (Scotland's first poverty adviser: The Tories' plans to redefine child poverty are 'wicked', News, Jun 28). You reported that the "current definition of poverty is whether a child lives in a household which has an income less than 60% of the minimum wage". Minimum should have read median, and income is more appropriate than wage as many people have substantial income which is not wage-related.
Poverty can be defined and measured in several ways. Relative income poverty compares each household's income, adjusted for family size, to median income. The median is the middle income: half of households have more than the median and half have less. "Less than 60% of the median income" is one standard definition of poverty.
Prime Minister David Cameron has stated: "Today, because of the way it is measured, we are in the absurd situation where if we increase the state pension, child poverty actually goes up." It might: but then again, it might not. It certainly will if mean income (as opposed to median) is your standard measure.
Methinks Mr Cameron, like many before him, confuses median and mean (average). Is it difficult to imagine that austerity promoters, like Mr Cameron and his ilk, may misconstrue the import of the word "mean"?
Any change in definition will not decrease a whit the level of suffering of our impoverished citizens. It is a politician's duty to minimise this suffering, not to play with semantics, like David Cameron in his attempt to ingratiate himself with fat cats and judgemental voters.
If Naomi Eisenstadt, Scotland's first poverty adviser, is willing to challenge Westminster, she deserves our support.
David Muir
Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article