I, on the other hand, have been to and lived in places where there is actual poverty. I'm not seeing any shanty towns in the UK (and I've been to Leeds, Birmingham, Liverpool AND Newcastle!)
The problem is the way that poverty is defined: "This is based on a low pay rate of 60 percent of full-time median earnings". The problem with this is that by this definition, some people will ALWAYS be poor.
As a thought exercise, imagine this scenario: some economic miracle occurs and the minimum income is £1,000,000 per annum (with current purchasing power). And I think we can all agree that if you're earning a million pounds a year in today's money, you'll be OK, right?
However, some people are doing exceptionally well, what with billionaires and stuff, and so the median income is £10,000,000 per annum. This means that using the definition that we currently use, anybody who earns less than £6,000,000 a year in today's money is a hard-done-by basket case who deserves lashings of money from those better off.
Does that make sense to you? Because it doesn't make any sense at all to me.
I'm sure that there are individual cases for poverty and other help needed to be made. But this kind of blanket, uncritical stupidity makes it harder to justify the cases that actually need it, because there is so much lazy justification of something that isn't a problem.