At what point is the income they are using on utilities etc disposable and at what point is it necessary? I have no doubt I use significantly more electricity and water than I need in order to survive, or even to exist comfortably. The differential is probably much larger in reality than it needs to be, as the individual needs for things like water are relatively similar. If you have chosen to live in a large house with leaky pipes and expensive heating bills are you then poorer than someone who has the same income as you but lives in a bedsit, has a five minute shower every day, and puts on an extra jumper? Or have you chosen to use disposable income on added utility costs? It's a stupid definition - people who have significantly greater wealth under that system would be classified as in poverty, while someone with a relatively low income, no major financial commitments (but significantly less long term financial security) is "comfortable".

While obviously circumstance can be a major factor, one of the biggest problems in terms of these campaigns to "eradicate poverty" is an almost total de-emphasising of personal responsibility. It's a consistent problem in this country I feel - poverty, debt, unemployment are always the fault of something else. Now on lots of occasions that might be the case, but equally on lots of occasions it is a case of people making a greater effort to sort things out for themselves. Problem is, by de-emphasising the personal responsibility there is significantly less motivation for people to do so - it's not their fault so why should they do anything to solve the problem?