the uk is one of the world’s richest nations. we at …the uk is one of the world’s richest...

The UK is one of the world’s richest nations. We atthe UK Coalition Against Poverty believe it istherefore inexcusable that one in five people in theUK live in poverty.

Many people living in poverty experience social exclusionthroughout their lives, going without basic necessities like awarm coat and decent shoes, sufficient food for a balanceddiet and adequate heating and lighting for their home.

As part of our ongoing campaign to eradicate poverty in theUK we are looking to highlight different areas of deprivationshowing how people living in poverty can be perceived tohave no power, no value and no choices. We want to giveeveryone a sense of value, power to control their lives andgenuine choices.

This conference will probe these issues and through theparticipation of people experiencing poverty, practitioners,politicians and decision makers generally, seek meaningfulsolutions as a pathway to eradicating poverty in the UK.

U K C O A L I T I O N A G A I N S T P O V E R T Y

1-27 Bridport Street Liverpool L3 5QF • Tel: 0151 709 3008 • Fax: 0151 709 1225 • E-mail: [email protected] • Web: www.ukcap.org

povertyR E P O R T

More effectivecommunications

are needed to buildgreater support

amongst the generalpublic for effortsto reduce poverty

and inequality.

“

p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating

”

communicating

Contents


Summary 1

Background 3

Workshops 6

Findings

(i) In your own words:what poverty means to people 7

(ii) In school:talking with children 11

(iii) ‘Deprived areas’and other technical terms 12

(iv) Media 14

(v) Metaphors 17

(vi) Miracles 19

(vii) Campaigners 22

Notes 24

Further areas of research 25

Appendices 26

2


p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating

More effective communications are needed to build greater support amongst the general public for efforts to reduce poverty and inequality. Anti-poverty campaigners find itdifficult at times even to involve people who are living on low incomes,and who would personally benefit fromlower levels of poverty in the UK.

This report is a contribution to thedebate about how ideas, policies andproposals to tackle poverty could becommunicated more effectively. Unlike other pieces of research whichhave examined attitudes to povertyamongst the general public as a whole,this report focuses on people who havedirect experience of poverty themselves –how they themselves communicate about poverty, and their views about how service providers, politicians,campaigners and the mediacommunicated about poverty.

The report presents the findings from six workshops held between August andOctober 2007 to discuss how poverty istalked about. These workshops were heldin Nottingham, Cardiff, Derry, London,Washington and the Peak District. The report also summarises some of the learning from two recent projects,which have involved people with directexperience of poverty in contributing tothe design and evaluation of anti-povertypolicies. These were the ‘Get Heard’Project in 2005 and the WorkingTogether to Reduce Poverty andInequality Conference in 2007. Thepeople who contributed to this reportcame from a wide variety of backgrounds,reflecting the diversity of people who livein poverty in the UK today. The reportconcludes with some ideas for furtherareas of research, which could build onthe findings presented here.

Different people understand the word‘poverty’ in different ways. Participantsrelated poverty to not having enoughmoney, both in absolute terms of payingthe bills, but also relative to other people.But for people living on low incomes,poverty was also about the stress andfeelings of powerlessness, ‘being asecond class citizen’, or ‘not being able to give your children what everyone elsehas [which] means that they get bullied’.

A discussion about how poverty could be explained and talked about in schoolsbrought forward praise for the work thathas been done to explain and buildtolerance for different cultures andtraditions. As one participant put it,‘they understand more about children in Africa then about what it’s like forsome people here’. In contrast,participants reported high levels ofprejudice by many parents, children andteachers who did not have experience ofpoverty themselves. For children, thediversity awareness teaching couldperhaps be a model for communicatingmore effectively about poverty.

Sometimes images are more powerfulthan words in raising awareness andunderstanding of an issue such aspoverty. Participants were asked formetaphors of how poverty affectedthem, their families and their

communities, and responses variedwidely. These included ‘travellingthrough a desert, with maps and waterhaving been taken away’, or like being on a wheel: ‘People might be doing OK at the moment, but it only takes a turn of the wheel and things can change,people can drop down’ or ‘mining forprecious stones, but people only seeingthe rock … there’s gems everywhere’.

Summary

1

p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating


Participants discussed media coverage.In one exercise, they considered anarticle from the Daily Mirror aboutpoverty. The picture accompanying thestory had been chosen by the newspaperas a ‘typical parent and child sufferingpoverty’. The responses from theparticipants made it clear that many ofthem thought that it was anything but‘typical’. This highlights the difficultieswhich even sympathetic journalistswriting about poverty face.

The desire to be involved in the work ofending poverty, rather than being passiverecipients of efforts of others, was verywidely held. Participants felt thatspokespeople for anti-poverty campaignsshould include those who have directexperience of the problem, as they aremore likely to be able to explain thingsbetter and not accidentally put peopleoff. Campaigners were urged to ‘use realpeople – no two people are the same’.

Alongside campaigns which seek to build public support by shocking themwith negative images, participants feltthat two other sorts of messages wereimportant and should be used morefrequently. Positive messages were feltto be vital so that people would beinspired to get involved: ‘They shouldmake it clear that there is hope’. The groups also thought that challengingstereotypes would be an effective way of grabbing attention. ‘When I hear abouta campaign, it must feel possible for meto do my bit’.

Politicians won praise for the all too rare occasions when they spent timecommunicating directly with people whohave experience of poverty, rather thanusing jargon and blaming people forbeing in poverty. An example of thechallenge that politicians face in

persuading sceptical people that theyreally care about doing something aboutpoverty was summed up by the commentthat ‘I don’t want to tell them how tocommunicate better, because theyshouldn’t be thinking about that, theyshould be actually doing things’.

While there were a wide range of viewsabout the extent of poverty in the UKand what the most effective ways tocommunicate about it should be, therewas a surprising degree of agreementabout what a society without povertywould look like. To investigate this,participants were asked what would bedifferent if a miracle occurred. Theresponses fell into three main categories.In the ‘miracle society’, everyone wouldhave enough money, good health andmore time for the family and a strongersense of community. This is one areawhich could be a fruitful one for peopletrying to communicate about poverty,making the case and building awarenessthat a society free from poverty ispossible and doesn’t take a miracle.

I would like to thank the JosephRowntree Foundation for their support of this project, which forms part of theirwork on the Public Interest in PovertyIssues, and Anti Poverty Network Cymru,Northern Ireland Anti Poverty Alliance,European Anti Poverty Network: England,Wearside Women in Need, High Peak CVS and the British Black Anti PovertyNetwork for organising the workshops at which this subject was discussed.Above all, I would like to thank all theparticipants who took the time to sharetheir views and experiences and tookpart in the discussions.

Eileen DevaneyNational Co-ordinatorUK Coalition Against Poverty

2


p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating

This report discusses the communicationof poverty in the UK from the perspectiveof people who are living on low incomes[1]. It investigates their views about theway poverty is discussed in day-to-daylife; how campaigners, journalists andothers currently speak and write aboutpoverty. It also suggests ways to makethe communication of issues relating topoverty in the UK more constructive bychanging language, images, framing andpresentation.

The UK Coalition Against Poverty(UKCAP) works to enable people whoexperience poverty in the UK to play anactive part in developing national policiesfor the eradication of poverty. Inpreparing this report, we have drawn onour work with anti-poverty groups andresearchers which touched directly orindirectly on the communication ofpoverty.

This report starts with a discussion ofother related initiatives which precededthe workshops and informed the debateabout communicating poverty. Then thereis a brief explanation of the format of theworkshops and the different findings ofthe workshops. Finally, there are somesuggestions for further areas of research,and appendices giving the programme ofthe workshops.

This research builds on the work carriedout earlier by the Joseph RowntreeFoundation/Ipsos-MORI, which explored

public attitudes to UK poverty and theirimplications for communicating poverty[2].This research found that there is afragmented understanding of theexperience of living in poverty; thatstatistics do not change attitudes; thatmany people do not see why peoplecannot get themselves out of poverty;that people associate the term ‘poverty’with Africa; and that many people feelthat only those who are seen to havecontributed to society are entitled tosupport when coping with poverty.

It found that people’s attitudes werelinked to their own experience of povertycombined with their broader view of therole of society, state and the individual. It explored ways of communicatingpoverty effectively in order to bring in

Communicating poverty:understanding attitudes andbuilding effective communicationBackground

3

People in poverty feel their life is a seriesof no entry signs

p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating


4

a greater number of people to aconstructive discussion about poverty. It highlighted the need for real life storiesto increase an awareness of theexistence and experience of poverty inthe UK, and the need to link these to anexplanation of the wider causesunderlying UK poverty, along withpossible solutions. It explored a numberof metaphors – such as ‘Life as a Game’ –to try to do this. Through the discussionsin the workshops, it is possible to get aninsight into how far people on lowincomes share these views on howpoverty is communicated now, and how it could be communicated in the future.

Other related initiativesThe 'Get Heard' project took place in2005. It involved 147 local workshops inwhich people with experience of povertydiscussed anti-poverty policies: what wasworking, what was not working and whatcould be done differently. From these, areport was submitted to the Departmentfor Work and Pensions and, subsequently,incorporated into the National Action Plan on Social Inclusion 2006–8. Although'Get Heard' was primarily concerned withpolicy, rather than how poverty wascommunicated, both the final report andthe notes from the individual workshopsoffer insights into attitudes about people'sunderstanding of poverty and how it isdiscussed. One particular theme, whichwas mentioned again and again, wasrespect: how successful policies andinitiatives treated people on low incomeswith respect. More negatively, it was noted that the official justification forsome policies made people feel that the government was more interested injudging them than in understanding theproblems they faced and offering help. The issue of respect is discussed furtherin the findings of this report.

In April 2007, the UK Coalition AgainstPoverty organised a one-day workshop inLiverpool for 40 people with experienceof poverty. The aim was to talk aboutwhat factors would help an anti-povertycampaign in the UK to be successful. At the workshop we discussed what wewanted politicians and the public to knowabout poverty, which the issues thecampaign should address, what thingsmight affect whether the campaign wassuccessful, and how people withexperience of poverty could play a part in the campaign. The findings, in so far as they relate to the communication ofpoverty, are discussed further in thefindings of this report.

In July 2007, the Social Policy Task Force – a working group of anti-povertyorganisations – organised a conferencecalled 'Working Together to ReducePoverty and Inequality' in conjunctionwith the Department for Work andPensions. This conference broughttogether people who have experience of poverty and civil servants working onanti-poverty policies. There were sixpolicy workshops covering: families,

The Get Heard Report


p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating

5

communities, education, support in work,benefits and work, and crime andpolicing. A further session was designedby the Department of Work and Pensions'communications team to encouragegroups to think about how to informothers about poverty in their area. The results of this session were thenpresented to delegates at the conference.Although this session took less than anhour, the groups came up with a widevariety of different presentation styles –from interviews to press releases topictures which told a story – which couldbe effectively used to communicateinformation about their areas and theirhopes for the future. These ideas arediscussed in more detail in the findings of report.

This conference was the first of its kindin the United Kingdom, and it highlightedthe fact that people who are oftenexcluded from the debate about povertyhave a lot to contribute, and frequentlywill know more from their ownexperiences than the policy experts.

In each discussion group there was amixture of people. Some had previousexperience of policy discussions aboutpoverty while others had never beforetaken part in any kind of discussiongroup, or even been asked for theiropinions. This mix helped to ensure that there were people in each groupwith the confidence to lead discussionswhilst avoiding the problem of the ‘usualsuspects’, where only people who haveprevious experience of interacting withdecision-makers have the opportunity totake part. It was a different sort of eventfrom a focus group or citizens’ jury typeof event, with participants and civilservants debating issues as equals, eachbringing different skills and knowledge tothe discussion.

All the participants were nominated by local anti-poverty groups. This helped to ensure that they had the necessarysupport to be able to take part, andprovided routes for follow-up work. One group, for example, made use of the creative exercise to lobby their localcouncil and get them to take action intheir local area. This kind of event couldusefully be repeated at a local or regional level to help inform localpriorities. One key finding was that when participants were able to preparefor the meeting at pre-meetings, theywere more effective in making the most of the opportunity to contribute.

Participants at the Warwick Conference


6

In order to build on this work, UKCAPorganised day-long workshops indifferent parts of the UK to lookspecifically at different aspects ofpeople's understanding of poverty, andtheir views about how it is talked about.These workshops were held inNottingham, Cardiff, Derry, London,Washington and the Peak Districtbetween August and October 2007.

As far as possible a wide range of peopleliving on low incomes was included butthe effort was not to be statisticallyrepresentative in the groups’ make-up.Rather, the emphasis was on facilitatingin-depth discussion within the group. A total of 56 people took part in theworkshops and more details about whotook part can be found in Appendix A.

Each workshop followed a similar format(see Appendix B). In groups of up to eightpeople, participants discussed questionsand scenarios designed to investigate theways that poverty is discussed anddescribed. A number of stimulantmaterials were used including newspapercuttings and campaign materials.

Workshops


p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating

7

The first question asked people whatthey thought people mean when theyuse the word ‘poverty’. This tended tolead into a discussion of participants’own experience of poverty as well asinitial views on how others talk about it.People gave answers both about whatthey themselves associated withpoverty, and what they thought otherpeople would associate with it.

Most, but not all, participants believedthat poverty does exist in the UK, andthat it has a number of different butrelated negative effects on people’s lives.

Unsurprisingly, people related povertydirectly to not having enough money,with comments including: ‘[poverty isabout] not enough money to lead a fulllife’, ‘living day-to-day’, ‘not enough topay bills and put food on the table’, ‘lackof resources’ and ‘not having enough todo what most people do’. The lastcomment suggests that people measurepoverty in their own lives by the livingstandards of other people rather thanjust against an absolute measure ofhaving enough to pay essential livingcosts. For example, discovering that yourchild was invited to a birthday partyprovoked feelings of ‘panic about theextra five or ten pounds which just aren’tthere’, and ‘not being able to give yourchildren what everyone else has meansthat they get bullied’.

For most people, poverty was about morethan just money, a point which many inthe workshops wished to emphasise verystrongly. It was instead a cause of a ‘lack

of control over your life’, ‘spending mywhole life struggling with myself’, ‘fearand embarrassment’, ‘being a second-class citizen’, feeling ‘excluded’, andhaving ‘lowered expectations’. Some feltthese aspects were worse than the lackof money. ‘Being chased for bills with noallowance for personal situation’ wasanother example of the powerlessnesscaused by poverty. Even when people’ssituations improved, they felt that ‘itstays with you; you cannot just go andbuy something’. There was also a linkbetween poverty and health. As oneparticipant in Washington said: ‘It’s reallyhard to eat healthily when you’ve got todo your shopping weekly but get paidfortnightly, especially since I’m adiabetic’.

Findings

Being chased for bills is a constant worry

(i) In your own words:what poverty means to people

p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating


8

These psychological effects led to‘continual stress’, ‘mental isolation’ and ‘problems at work and in family life’,provoking feelings of ‘[not being able to]get out of it’ and ‘not trusting peoplewho want to help’. One participantreported that when her family moved to a new area, they felt like they were‘the ones who had lowered the tone’.Participants felt that older people, in particular, did not want to claimbenefits because it was ‘seen as a slur’.One example given was of someone who ‘would go to another village to claim their benefits’. Participants inWashington suggested that ‘some people just want to live like that’, andthat ‘after a while you get used to [being homeless]’.

Particular groups of people and areaswere associated with poverty, including‘single parents’, ‘stokes’[3], ‘asylumseekers’, ‘people on benefits’, ‘homelesspeople’, ‘children in certain clothes’,‘wains that aren’t sent to school’[4],‘council estates’, ‘people who grew up inthe village and can’t find anywhere tolive’. People decided whether or notothers were in poverty using criteriasuch as ‘how you speak’, ‘what you wear’and ‘what you eat’. The group in the PeakDistrict mentioned agency workers aspeople who were working but still inpoverty: ‘Employers take people on, havethem for six weeks and then get rid ofthem and get someone else’. Anothercomment was: ‘A lot of time, when you goto work, you’re worse off … you work 40hours a week for an extra five pounds’.One migrant worker who was presentexplained the importance of notassuming that all migrant workers hadthe same experience of poverty – thosewho were able to speak English and whowere better educated had many moreopportunities than those who did not.

Participants were aware that manypeople did not share their views thatpoverty existed and was a widespreadproblem in the UK. They identified twodifferent groups of people who, in theirexperience, tended to deny that therewas widespread poverty in the UK.

The first group consisted of people whowere living on low incomes but whoresisted the ‘stigma’ that they felt camewith admitting that they were in poverty.As one participant put it: ‘You arefrightened to say that you are poor’.These people would use phrases such as‘I suppose some people would say that Iam poor’ and ‘there’s always someoneworse off’. They themselves rejected thisdescription of poverty, often contrastingtheir position to the situation of peoplein Africa. Some older participantscontrasted the situation now to that of30 or more years ago. They said they feltthat while there was poverty then, thereis nothing like that now: ‘If you’re on thedole [now], you are not in seriouspoverty’.

The second group consisted ofparticipants who had grown up in Africaand then come to the UK and whothought that only recent immigrantswere living in poverty. They weresurprised when they met people who hadbeen born in Britain and who were livingin poverty. As one person who attendedan event organised by the JosephRowntree Foundation in York earlier thisyear put it: ‘It was really interestingcoming here because I had never metanyone who was born in this countrybefore who was poor’. In fact, many ofthe participants had only limitedknowledge of the experience of people onlow incomes outside their “own group”however they defined this, be it by age,region, ethnicity or other factors.


p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating

9

This is indicative of the fragmentednature of those working on anti-povertymeasures. Some participants felt thattackling poverty in the UK should be ahigher priority than internationaldevelopment: ‘We give too much to theThird World’.

Participants were also aware that manypeople believed that poverty did not existor, if it did, ‘it was your own fault’. Somefelt that this view was largely based onignorance – ‘you could get out of povertyin the past, it isn’t like that any more’ –while others felt that there were somepeople whose poverty was caused bytheir own laziness or other failings.Others reported that they found thatteachers and health visitors lowered theirexpectations when dealing with childrenfrom families with low incomes, onereporting a health visitor as saying ‘yourroute in life is mapped out at birthdepending on your postcode’.

Participants in Washington reported thatit seemed as though help was not goingto the people who needed it most: ‘Youget help if you are a drug addict or analcoholic, but not if you aren’t … It’s notright. Help should be for everyone, notjust for heroin addicts’.

Lastly, a majority of participants in everygroup felt that it shouldn’t have to be likethis with comments such as: ‘You can’tcontrol the circumstances of your birth;everyone has a right to their own placeon this planet’. Or: ‘It’s about how we asa society treat poor people; we don’thave to put them in ghettos’.

Life is mapped out at birth

p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating


10

Participants were asked to think about how they would talk about poverty if they had to go into a school to talk about it. This gave participantsan opportunity to say how they wouldcommunicate poverty in their ownwords. In their responses, participantsalso discussed some of the challengesand problems involved in trying toexplain the experience of poverty and build support for its eradication.

The initial reaction to the idea of talkingabout poverty in schools was verynegative from some groups. ‘You justwouldn’t’ was one comment. Severalpeople felt that it was ‘dangerous’ and,unless handled well, could lead to ‘poorchildren being picked on’. There wouldalso be a resistance among children andeven more so among their parents, whowere told that they were in poverty ifthey and their family didn’t recognise thissituation. Participants in the Peak Districtthought: ‘[Being poor is] not somethingthe kids would want to hear about. Theywant to hear about opportunities’.

However, all groups went on to discussthe potential benefits of discussingpoverty in schools. Two themes emerged.First, that it is important to address theaspirations of those on low incomes earlyand for schools to ensure that children onlow incomes do not feel that they shouldaim low. Second, the attitudes of childrenon higher incomes – and, indeed, theattitudes of children on low incomes toeach other – was thought by many to benegative to children on low incomes andoften a cause of bullying. Discussion ofpoverty could be part of a solution to this.Parents spoke very highly of the effortsthat schools made to teach children

about other cultures and religions, andthe way that this helped children to findout about where their classmates werefrom and their cultures and to promotetolerance. They felt that this couldprovide a possible model for talking about poverty. It should, they felt, bepossible to tackle discrimination againstpoor people in the same way as theseinitiatives have tried to tackle racialdiscrimination: ‘They understand moreabout children in Africa then about what it’s like for some people here’.

Despite the concerns that participantshad, most felt that ‘children do want totalk about differences’, and that primaryschool children in particular would beopen to learning about poverty. The groupin London, however, felt it might be easierto talk about poverty with older children.

It was suggested that images might bemore effective than words and, ratherthan using the word poverty, it would bemore meaningful to talk about ‘mum nothaving much money’ and to draw uponchildren’s own experiences.

Others felt that it would be better not to make it about the children themselves,but instead use games[5] or ask questionsas a ‘wee alien’ who is visiting earth butknows nothing about the planet. Therewas agreement that any training neededto be tailored to the particular audience,given the wide variety of backgroundsthat children come from. One participant,who had experience of speaking inschools about life as a traveller, reportedthat primary school children were muchmore open-minded than older children.

(ii) In school: talking with children


p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating

11

Another idea was to integrate awarenessof poverty into teaching about socialskills, bullying and discrimination withthe aim of showing that people shouldn’ttreat others badly just because theydon’t have much money. One participantreported that in an exercise that she hadseen about poverty, children had saidthat the government should give parentsmore money. In this exercise none of thechildren thought people living in povertywere intrinsically bad, or that it was theirown fault that they were in poverty.Another reported that attitudes topoverty among better-off children were‘vile’ and an indication, possibly, ofparents who believe that poverty ispeople’s own fault and who pass on theseprejudices to their children.

Teaching children ‘good manners, how tobehave when with others’ was felt to bevery important for educational success.Also, participants felt that it wasimportant to ‘bring in the positives’ andto emphasise the common interestsbetween people in poverty and otherpeople.

All groups felt that it was essential toraise awareness about poverty amongteachers. They reported ‘childrenexperiencing intimidation and teachersturning a blind eye’, ‘throw-awaycomments by teachers which are reallyhurtful’, and the fact that ‘even the bestwilled are patronising … and blame theparents without understanding what it islike trying to bring up children whileliving in poverty’. Participants in thePeak District did point out that attitudesamong teachers were much better thanthey used to be.

There was a lot of feeling about the cost of education, from the stigmaassociated with free school meals to the cost of uniforms or school trips.Every group mentioned what oneparticipant called ‘the trainer issue’ (the need to buy branded trainers andother clothes to avoid bullying by otherchildren). Participants in Washingtonsuggested that it was important to teach children that: ‘Poverty doesn’tmean that you are different. Somechildren don’t have things which othershave; it doesn’t mean they are bad’.

All the groups emphasised that greatcare and skill was needed so the subjectwas discussed sensitively and did notincrease bullying or prejudice againstchildren from low-income households.The experience of introducing othersensitive subjects into a schoolenvironment was thought to have a lot to offer by way of example.

Parents are under pressure to keep up with thelatest trends

p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating


12

The next question examined theparticipants' thoughts about some of the terms commonly used bydecision-makers, academics, policyadvisers and anti-poverty workers about policies to tackle poverty. They were asked how they would explain to a group of young people that their area had a designated youth worker because it was a 'deprived area'. The groups discussed what they felt about this and other ’official‘ terms commonlyused in discussions of poverty.

In a related scenario, participants wereasked what advice they would give to aresearcher who was about to start aproject on some aspect of poverty intheir local area. In discussions about the language used in policy-making and ‘official’ circles to describe poverty,participants displayed a good level of awareness of the terms. They alsodescribed the need to use these sameterms to access resources. Mention was

made of a related ‘competition’ for areasto appear to be the most deprived which,in turn, can disguise poverty in moremixed-income areas and can lead tohidden poverty in areas – such as thePeak District – which do not apparentlymeet the required criteria.

There were mixed views about theterminology which professional anti-poverty workers use. One participant said that ‘deprived area’, along with‘marginalised’ and ‘hard to reach’ werethe terms which most annoyed her. There was considerable cynicism,particularly among participants in Wales,about the extent to which these areasbenefit from extra funding: ‘We are toldwe are the number two most deprivedarea, but the local council just treats itlike a cash cow. They don’t want us to get better’. In Nottingham oneparticipant felt that the term ‘deprived’implied that people in an area are ‘weak’and ‘can’t stand on their own feet’, andanother said that ‘deprived sounds like

(iii)‘Deprived areas’ and other technical terms

Poverty in rural areas is often hidden


p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating

13

you’ve allowed someone to takesomething off you’. ‘Vulnerable’ was a term which people didn’t like because‘it ignores the fact that they haven’tasked the young people what they wantor [what] think should be done’.

Others took the view that, as participantsin Derry put it, it was important to ‘tell it like it is’. In Washington participantsfelt that the term ‘deprived area’ was‘straight to the point, people know whatit means’. Participants in the PeakDistrict who ran a local football clubreported that being ‘deprived’ ‘helped us get equipment … it gives officialstatus’. However, all participants felt that ‘just because you come from adeprived area doesn’t mean that all thepeople should be thought of as deprived’.Instead, ‘you need to identify the needsof individuals, not just of groups’.

For example, some participants foundthat their area had missed out because it was not being classed as a ‘deprivedarea’. Or that the money, which should be going to an area, was instead beingspent on the salaries of professionalworkers who often did not even live inthe area. They also felt that this kind oflabelling would discourage companiesfrom coming to the area, thus makingjobs scarcer. ‘Why call me anything?’ was one comment which summarised this attitude.

It was felt that terms such as‘underprivileged’, ‘socially excluded’ or ‘socially oppressed’ were lessstigmatising, and that more positivelanguage such as ‘communities ofinterest’, or the habit of talking about the potential of a community, should beencouraged. If the term deprived is usedthen participants felt strongly it shouldbe clarified of what an area is deprived.While there was an initial negativereaction to many of the technical termsused in discussions of poverty, all groupscame to the conclusion that any term orphrase could be corrupted or changed for the worst after a while.

When asked to describe in their ownwords what they understood by thesetechnical terms, every participant usedthe word ‘need’: for instance, ‘it’s aboutwhat our area needs’ or ‘we should givepeople what they need’. There was also a strong preference for letting localpeople decide on priorities: ‘They should be saying, ‘how can we help?’’Since ‘need’ and ‘help’ are words whichpeople use themselves when talkingabout services for their area it would be a good idea to use these words whenprofessionals are talking about theseissues.

p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating


14

To look at what participants felt abouthow poverty is communicated in themedia, they were asked what they would say if a journalist came to theirhouse and asked them to say what‘poverty’ meant. Then they were given stories from a range of differentnewspapers about poverty and asked for their responses to them.

There was quite good understanding aboutthe difficulties that journalists face inwriting about poverty: the supposed needfor ‘sensationalist’ headlines, the fact thateditors could influence the way that astory is slanted. Advertisers were alsomentioned and thought to have a role toplay in, directly or indirectly, influencingcontent of the media. Some participantsthought they may even be influential inpreventing stories which explain that, forexample, poverty is the fault of employersnot paying their staff high enough wages.

Participants felt that journalists wereoften ignorant about the reality of theirlives and about poverty. There was alsosome distrust. ‘If a journalist came to mydoor, I would punch him in the face’, wasone (tongue-in-cheek) comment. They feltthat journalists make people fit theirpreconceived ideas about a story, ratherthan actually trying to find out whatthings are like in an area. There was anacknowledgement that, while the way thatpeople on low incomes were treated was‘often unfair, it did sometimes make forgood telly’.

Their advice to journalists included ‘theneed to build up trust’. They also pointedout that people won’t just tell them theirlife story straightaway because povertycan be a very difficult subject to talkabout, especially given the fear of beingjudged by others. Instead of always lookingfor sensationalist headlines, it was feltthat journalists should try more ‘quirky’headlines – such as ‘I want to work!’ or‘Could you live on this?’ – and should workon stories which challenge people’sattitudes. For example, when talking about‘scroungers’ benefit fraud and taxavoidance should both be mentioned.Some participants said that they tune outof programmes like the news, but areinterested in stories about things like alocal community coming together andachieving things.

The group in Derry also suggested theneed to talk about inequality. They felt thatthe media should run stories about peoplewho are too rich, as well as those who aretoo poor. ‘Who are the real scroungers?’was suggested as a possible title.

(iv)Media

Participants at the UKCAP media training day


p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating

15

Another idea was to have a series inwhich someone who was comfortably offwas deprived of the things they took forgranted so that they (and viewers) foundout what it was like to have to live likethat. A possible image could be aphotograph taken while the person wastrying to cope without the things theyneeded and had previously taken forgranted. In this way the viewers wouldsee what it is like to be living in povertyand would reflect on how they mightcope in such a situation. The group feltthis would be an effective way of helpingmore people better understand the realproblems that constantly arise whenliving in poverty.

At the conference held in WarwickUniversity in July, one group chose to putacross their message in the form of aninterview between an interviewer and anasylum-seeker. The interviewer wasinitially hostile, but was won over by thesimple and effective answers given, andby the images which he had chosen toput across his case. This highlights thevalue of giving people the chance toproduce their own images to representthemselves, rather than having theseimages chosen by others.

A range of newspaper extracts were usedin this exercise taken from the Daily Mail,Daily Mirror, News of the World and theDaily Express as well as BBC online.Participant reactions to many of the printmedia stories particularly those of theDaily Mail and Daily Express wereuniformly negative, along the lines of ‘ifyou open up that picture, I bet he iswearing a Nazi uniform’. People felt thatmany of the stories were aimed atreinforcing the prejudices of people whoalready held negative views about peopleon low incomes.

The extract from the Daily Mirror aboutchild poverty prompted a wider variety ofreactions. Some people said: ’Yes, I'vefelt like that’. Others felt that peoplewould not want to read it because itlooked too depressing, ‘it’s just overkill’.Some participants thought it good thatthe extract gave information aboutpoverty while others felt that thephotograph (which was used as astereotype) suggested that all familiesliving in poverty conformed to the imageof an unhappy lone parent: ‘why do theynot show the whole family?’ They feltthat people would just turn the page andnot want to read the rest of the story.The group in London felt that the womanin the photograph did not look as thoughshe was living in poverty. The differentreactions illustrate the very differentsorts of images of living in poverty thatpeople have.

Some participants felt that the imagewould be much more effective if it madepeople think about how anyone can beaffected by poverty, whether or not theyare a lone parent. They also felt that thepiece would be much more effective if itwas less unrelentingly negative. Thephrase ‘no hope’ suggested that therewas nothing that could be done, andhence no point in people engaging with it.Even a simple change to the headline toread ‘No Money, No Hope?’ would give adifferent tone to the piece, particularly ifit also included some ideas for tacklingchild poverty. The phrase ‘child poverty: amoral disgrace’ made one participantangry, because it sounded as though shewas being judged as a parent.

Those who had criticised the photochosen to accompany the Daily Mirrorarticle reacted more favourably to theimage used to illustrate the BBC piece.They felt it conveyed the message that

p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating


16

poverty could affect anyone andchallenged the stereotypes of the‘deserving’ and the ‘undeserving’ poor.The article was, however, felt to be‘impersonal’ and ‘full of statistics’.

Some participants who reactednegatively to the other articles praisedthe article in the Morning Star, whichthey felt was more ‘respectful’.Participants in Derry felt that this article‘didn’t sensationalise things but just gavepeople the facts’, and that it was verynoticeable that ‘all the quotes were onthe side of the poor’, unlike in any of theother pieces.

Participants in Washington were the onlyones to see the story in the News of theWorld, headlined ‘4 million scroungers’.Their initial reaction was that ‘there is alot of truth in that … people admit thatthey are on benefits because they don’twant to take any job’, and they couldquickly think of examples to support thestory: ‘The man on full mobilityincapacity benefit can walk … others whoreally need it get less’. On the other

hand, participants thought the story wastoo simplistic and too quick to blame,offering comments including: ‘What aboutthe likes of us who can’t get privatecare? It’s not ‘dole dished out fornothing’. And: ‘how long have I beentrying to get a job … It’s not possible’.Participants also felt that this focusdistorted the reality for many people onlow incomes, the majority they felt whohave difficulty accessing their benefitsand the many who do not claim all towhich they are entitled.

At the Warwick conference, one groupprepared a press release highlighting theproblems faced by a community in NorthWales. It subverted the technicallanguage often used by experts to talkpoverty and called for ‘tough action to betaken against the ”causes of anti-socialcommunity regeneration”’. After theconference, this press release was usedby local community campaigners to helpforce the local authority into takingaction to clear up the area.

Participants discuss headlines at UKCAP media training


p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating

17

A number of exercises explored the new ways that participants might choose to describe poverty. In oneexercise, participants were asked todescribe a metaphor for their experienceor understanding of poverty. They werethen asked the ‘miracle question’ – if amiracle occurred overnight, what wouldchange as a result.

Participants used a wide variety ofmetaphors to communicate theirexperience of poverty, with a commontheme being feelings of being trapped or otherwise disempowered. InNottingham, the experience of povertywas described as being ‘like wrapped inred and white tape’, with ‘just one cutbeing needed so that I can free myself’.(This made reference to the images usedin the foot and mouth campaign when thefields were closed off.) Another said thatit was like ‘travelling through a desert,with maps and water having been takenaway’, [6] while another described it as like‘Manchester United without the strikers’.In Washington, one participant describedthe experience of poverty as being like‘playing Russian roulette’.

Another metaphor used by someparticipants in Derry was that of being ona wheel: ‘People might be doing OK at themoment, but it only takes a turn of thewheel and things can change, people candrop down.’ A similar metaphor was of ‘acolony of ants, where some get killed sothat others survive’; this was felt to applyparticularly to young people in Londonbecause of high levels of gun crime. Oneparticipant in the Peak District felt thather life was like ‘being in the Waltons,battling along, doing my best and havinggood days and bad days, but [all] in the

middle of the Great Depression inAmerica’.

Lack of communication was anothertheme. One project worker described the fragmented services and initiatives at a community level as like being in‘different moon craters’, where peoplearen’t talking to each other or sharingexperiences or reaching out to others. ‘We all live in the same building, butnobody knows each other and there is no communication’ was another example given.

In Washington, participants used themetaphor of ‘mining for precious stones,but people only seeing the rock … there’sgems everywhere’. They felt that theirarea and the people in it were judgedunfairly, and that people from outside the area didn’t make the effort tounderstand. Similarly, the group in thePeak District suggested that they waypotential was obscured by poverty couldbe described using the image of ‘a pond,with lots of bright stars being reflected,but obscured by the mud’. Anotherexample was a jar of sweets, all different,with professionals dipping into the jar and trying particular kinds of sweets butnot trying others because they think theyknow which ones taste, without askinganyone or thinking to try the others.

The UK delegation to the 2007 EuropeanPeople Experiencing Poverty Conferencebrought a three-dimensional symbolicobject. They chose a model which depicteda person at one end of a room. The door toprosperity was at the other end, not quiteshut. Between the person and the door area series of barriers, labelled as‘discrimination’ and ‘poor health’ and so on.

(v) Metaphors

p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating


18

One of the groups at the WarwickConference picked up the theme of ‘open spaces’, contrasting ‘good openspaces’ (where children are able to goout and play, for example), with ‘emptyspaces’ (where areas are fenced off orpeople are denied access). They alsolinked anti-poverty messages withenvironmental messages, with themessage ‘an empty fridge is bad for the planet’ (bad for environmentalsustainability and also bad for the familywhich can’t afford to fill the fridge).

While participants used a wide variety of metaphors to describe poverty, mostimages evoked the ideas of isolation and frustration. The presence ofdescriptions of hidden potential and the more positive aspects of life areinteresting.

Participants spoke of the barriers that leave them isolated and frustrated


p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating

19

When asked to talk about what wouldchange if a miracle happened and they werelifted out of poverty overnight, a notableconsensus emerged. In comparison to therange of ways used to describe povertyoutlined earlier, the absence of povertyseemed to present itself in broadly similarterms to most participants.

First, participants emphasised that anabsence of poverty meant financial securityfor all. ‘Everyone to have enough money’,‘everyone to be equal’, ‘wipe out debteverywhere and stop it from starting again’,‘less class differences[7]’ were sentimentswhich were widely shared. Another commonresponse was ‘I’d win the lottery’, thoughparticipants then went on to talk about howthey would use this money ‘to build a newyouth centre’ or to ‘fund local projectswithout red tape’. ‘If I won the lottery, Iwouldn’t leave Splott’, was one comment,suggesting that winning the lottery wasseen as a means to give them to power toimprove local communities, rather than forpersonal enrichment. Individual financialsecurity was also important: ‘I’d go out andbuy something rather than having to planahead and save up all the time’. ‘I wanted towrite all my life. Money came miraculouslyto pay for the publishing and someone didthe cover for free’, was an example of a‘miracle’ which had actually happened toone participant in the Peak District. Oneattitude to work from a participant inWashington was that ‘I’d like to have mydream job, and really enjoy going to work,and only have to work part time because itpays well enough’.

Second was physical and mental well-being,with comments including: ‘good health, Ithink that is most important’, ‘more smiling’,’little acts of kindness’, ‘better health andless stress’, ‘no more mental ill-health’,

‘health is wealth’. Participants whomentioned this also brought up their desireto be in control of their own lives: ‘being ableto see beyond the next bill or crisis’, ‘walkstraighter, taller, looking at one another’,‘believe that things will get better’. This waslinked to their hopes for their families: ‘abreathing space for my kids’, ‘see my kidswhenever I wanted’. One participantexpanded on this, saying they would achieve:‘A better lifestyle, something for my children,a bigger garden for them to play in, pay backwhat I owe my mother and give her a betterlife’. Other examples included: ‘I’d buy myhusband a one-way ticket to New Zealand’,‘my wife’s gone’ and ‘I’d be a size 10’.

Third was a greater sense of communityrather than individualism. ‘Embrace others’good fortune’, ‘less competition and greed’,‘less ignorance, more respect, morelistening, less intolerance’ were commonsuggestions. This was also linked into theneed for personal well-being: ‘People shouldbe proud of who they are and theircommunity.’ There were also particularpolicy areas raised, revealing quite modestaspirations such as ‘another 5,000 pitchesfor travellers’ and ‘industry to help peopledo meaningful work’.

Based on these three strands, there is aclear outline of what we could term the‘miracle society’ in which the participantswould aspire to live. This society would bebased on the principles of greater equality,respect and dignity for all; good health; andmuch greater importance placed on bothfamily and community. It is possible that aneffective way of talking about poverty mightbe to focus on what its absence would looklike. It would seem that there might be agreater consensus about what a society freefrom poverty would look like than there isabout what poverty actually is.

(vi)Miracles

p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating


20

To examine responses to how poverty is discussed in the political sphere, two speeches were read out. The firstwas by Gordon Brown on child poverty.The second was by David Cameron onthe need for society, as well as thestate, to play a bigger role in tacklingpoverty. Participants were asked firstfor their responses to the speeches and were then asked about how theythought politicians, such as their ownrepresentatives, talk about poverty.

Participants tended to take quite a dimview of all politicians[8]. ‘When I hear apolitician talking, I tend to switch off’,was one comment. The consensus wasthat politicians spend too much timetalking and there were no actions to backup their words. One participant even said:‘I don’t want to tell them how tocommunicate better, because theyshouldn’t be thinking about that, theyshould be actually doing things’. For all ofthat, they had clear views about thepositives and negatives of the languageused in two speeches that they heard.

The positives about both speeches werequite similar. They were described bythose who liked them as ‘inclusive’,‘talking about lost potential’, ‘positive’,‘talking about how to contributesomething to the community’, ‘moremature’, ‘everyone’s responsibility toimprove society’, ‘all doing it together’,‘more realistic’, ‘working together’ and‘including instead of excluding’.

Criticisms included references to ‘myparty’, which was felt to be self-centredand exclusive, and some people reactednegatively to talk about how everyonecould fulfil their potential. Participantsfelt that mention should have been madeof ‘how kids can grow up to be greatparents, rather than just talking aboutbecoming composers’, they said ‘it wasabout the waste for society, but notabout the impact of poverty on children’,and that ‘it was about children as futurecitizens and workers, not about howpoverty means that they don’t get thechildhood that they deserve’. Otherreasons for disliking the speechesincluded the views that it was ‘confusing’,‘unclear’, and had ‘too many big words’and too much jargon. There was asuggestion that the speakers needed totalk about ‘the responsibility of thegovernment and the community to dosomething about poverty, rather thantalk about ‘social responsibility’.

When asked how they would likepoliticians to talk about poverty,participants suggested that they should‘use specific examples, rather thantalking in general’ and should ‘highlightsuccesses’. They would also like to hearmore about ‘support for the community’.Participants generally felt that localpoliticians had more opportunity to beindependent and talk about some ofthese issues. Participants wantedpoliticians to stand up for people inpoverty and to challenge misconceptions.

(vii) Politicians


p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating

21

They felt that politicians could also do alot more to work with small groups thatare doing good work in the community.

Participants would also like politicians tospend more time talking to and listeningto people who are socially excluded, ‘talkto the people who don’t go to communityevents or parent-teacher evenings’. Theirsuggestions included home visits to theelderly and visiting School Councils.Several participants reported thatpoliticians did not communicate or followup after consultations or meetings, andthis was given as a reason why peoplegave up trying to get involved or takepart in these sorts of events: ‘It doesn’tfeel worth jumping through all thehoops’. One participant in Washingtoncompared talking to politicians as ‘likeChinese Whispers, we say one thing, theyhear another’. A strong call was made formore feedback following consultations.

Lastly, participants felt that politiciansought to say things that ‘we all know aretrue, but no one talks about, like abouthow benefits are not enough to live on’.

p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating


22

Another scenario asked people how theythought that anti-poverty charities shouldcampaign to build both awareness aboutpoverty and public support for tackling it.They were asked for examples of recentcampaigns which they had noticed andthought were particularly good or bad.

When asked about campaigns by charitieswhich they thought were effective, notnecessarily those focused on poverty,responses included the NSPCC, the campaignagainst water charges in Northern Ireland,the ‘help my mate go to school’ campaignorganised by Barnardo’s, campaigns run byOxfam about global poverty such as buyinggoats for Christmas, Cathy Come Home,Comic Relief, the RSPCA’s current campaign,and drink driving awareness campaigns.Participants gave the example of howstorylines in soap operas helped to raiseawareness of issues, and that this could be agood way of raising awareness about whatpoverty is really like.

Participants at the workshop in Liverpoolduring April emphasised the need forcampaigns to avoid jargon and to be‘accessible and relevant and connecting with people’s own experiences’. They also felt that campaigns should include events all round the country and not give theimpression (as many campaigns do) of justbeing London-centred. People who had beeninvolved in previous anti-poverty campaignsaimed at building understanding aboutpoverty also mentioned that they felt that they had been required to exposethemselves and their lives to others, whichthey had found a difficult experience.

They also felt that spokespeople for anti-poverty campaigns should include peoplewho themselves have experience of poverty.They said that using local knowledge andexperience would help to make sure thatcampaigns took account of local situationsand didn’t accidentally put people off: ‘Usereal people – no two people are the same’.

(viii) Campaigners

Campaigning workshop, April 2007, Liverpool


p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating

23

Participants also felt that two sorts of messages were important. Positivemessages were felt to be vital so thatpeople would be inspired to get involved:‘They should make it clear that there is hope’. The groups also thought thatchallenging stereotypes would be aneffective way of grabbing attention.‘When I hear about a campaign, it mustfeel possible for me to do my bit’ was one comment. Campaigns which raisedawareness only ran the risk of makingpeople think ‘and now what? What can I do about it?’ Participants weresupportive of using celebrities asprominent supporters of campaigns tograb people’s attention, but there weresome reservations about the credibilityof using very wealthy people to speakout about poverty [9].


24

1. The term ‘people on low incomes’ or ‘participants’ (when mentioningthose involved in workshops) will beused throughout this paper ratherthan alternatives such as ‘peopleexperiencing poverty’ or ‘poorpeople’, which have a moresubjective meaning. The exceptionto this is when quoting from theworkshops, when we use the wordsparticipants themselves used.

2. Thompson, J and Castell, S, (2007)Understanding attitudes to poverty in the UK: getting thepublic’s attention,www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/details.asp?pubID=86

3. In Derry, ‘stokes’ is a derogatoryname widely used about people inpoverty and originating from apopular surname among travellers.

4. ‘Wains’ is used mainly by people inparts of Northern Ireland to referto children.

5. Such as the poverty-awarenesstoolkit being developed by theNorthern Ireland Anti-PovertyNetwork.

6. Polly Toynbee and David Cameronhave also used the metaphor oftravelling through a desert todescribe society. Toynbee used the analogy in 2003 in her bookHard Work: Life in Low Paid Britain.Cameron used it in an interview withthe Daily Telegraph: ‘Greg Clark Ithink was absolutely right to use theimage of the caravan moving acrossthe desert. That is a great metaphorfor how we should think of poverty.’(Daily Telegraph, 2 December 2006http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/migrationtemp/1535774/The-full-transcript-of-Cameron%27s-interview.html)

7. Interestingly, this was the onlycontext in which class was raised.

8. With the exception of oneparticipant in Nottingham, who wasextremely enthusiastic about allBritish politicians and in particularthe Prime Minister and his ideas forpromoting ‘Britishness.’

9. David Beckham was specificallymentioned.

Notes


p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating

25

• Comparing the attitudes to poverty offront-line workers (especially teachers)and parents.

• Poverty awareness training forteachers and primary school children.

• As services become more community-led, ways of making the language usedevolve in order to avoid alienation andstigmatisation.

• Trying to find images which meetpeople’s very different ideas of whatpoverty looks like.

• Further examples of different kinds ofstories which the media could tellabout poverty, which would interest amass audience and challenge negativeattitudes about poverty.

• The use of ‘grassroots’ reporters toconvey information about poverty,possibly making use of newopportunities such as web 2.0 (socialnetworking) technologies and so on.

• Looking at which images would bestconvey the message that people inpoverty aren’t ‘others’ who can safelybe ignored, and considering how‘shock’ stories about poverty cancontain a message about what can bedone about the problem.

• Use of metaphors which people ‘get’and which help to explain the reality of poverty – images, analogies withsport, travel etc.

• Investigating the extent to which there is a common understanding ofwhat the ‘miracle society’ looks like,i.e. a society free from poverty andpossible implications in terms ofcommunication of UK poverty.

• Dialogue between politicians andpeople experiencing poverty about theway that politicians talk about poverty.

Further areas of researchThe findings from this report will be of interest to those working on anti-povertypolicies, delivering services which are used by those living in poverty, or involved incommunicating messages about poverty It is necessarily the case that many of theconclusions reached are tentative, and that there were ideas and issues raisedwhich would repay further research. The following list of such areas for further workis not exhaustive, but includes some of the themes which participants themselvesfelt would benefit from being investigated more fully.


26

Appendix A: Participants

A total of 68 people took part in the sixworkshops; 21 were men and 47 were women;18 were black or minority ethnic and 50 werewhite British or Irish. All participants wereover the age of 18; 10 were over the age of60, and 17 were under the age of 30.

Appendix B: Workshop details and programme outline

Coffee on arrival

10.45 Local contact: welcome andhousekeeping. Introduces Teresa.

11.00 Purpose and aims for the day,background and context. Clear outputsrequired from the day (what isexpected from everyone).Value of contributions. Introduction of other facilitators.

11.20 Process for the day, some guidelines to help progress, Introductions in groups. Note onhaving an enjoyable day.(Introductions – name andorganisation/group plus how manyforms of transport did you take to getto this meeting?)

11.25 In groups:First exercise: What do youthink people mean when theytalk about poverty in the UK? A quick ten words chosen to describeyour thoughts.

A quick review of this exercise for thefull group: lets everyone know how theexercises work and what thefacilitators are looking for.

11.40 Into school taskIf you were going into a school to tellprimary or secondary school children

about being ‘poor’ how would yousuggest going about it? Whatexpressions would you use? Whatwould be the top three messages you’d want those children to leavewith? If the children thought they were poor, what words do you thinkthey would use to describe their lives?

Standby exercise 1:The youth workerA friend of mine who works with young people recently asked them why their youth club got so muchfunding and why they had been given a youth worker to help them? They had no idea. She told them that it wasbecause the government had decidedthat they were living in a deprived area and were therefore deprived.They were shocked. What doesdeprived mean to you? How would you tell those young people whatdeprived means? Are there betterways of describing their situation?

or

Standby exercise 2: The researcherA colleague of Teresa’s needs to dosome research in an area regarded as deprived and wants the localcommunity to participate in theresearch but he would like to attractpeople to the project without sounding disrespectful and patronising.What language might he use for hisexplanatory leaflet and in hisconversation?

12.15 Quick check with the whole group.Outline of what achieved so far. Check the enjoyment level. Value of content. Willingness of groups to continue. Any changes required?

Appendices


p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating

27

12.30 LUNCH – sharing and networking (very relaxed)

13.15 Move everyone into new groups. Quick introductions again and the extra question: ’What is the phrase that politicians, newspapers, TV newsreaders use that really annoys you?’

Newspaper exerciseIf a journalist from a national papercame to your door and asked you totell them what poverty meant, whatwould you say? How would you preferyour story to be portrayed in thepaper? What photographs would orwouldn’t be suitable?

Show some photographs used by papers and ask the group forcomments – what they think isappropriate or not for the media to use.

14.00 Miracle questionIf a miracle happened overnight and your lives changed dramatically forthe better – in the morning what wouldbe different? What would be differentabout you, your family and friends,your community, day-to-day activities?How would others see you?

14.30 Poverty issues exerciseMany organisations work on povertyissues. Their role is to get publicsupport and the issues they areinterested in onto the government’sagenda. If you were doing this workwhat would you include in yourcampaign? (Cup of tea during thisexercise.)

15.00 The politician questionTeresa and Dan read out two speechesby current politicians (not saying who they are until aftercomments have been made). Whatdoes the group think of the wordsbeing used and their meaning?

How would you prefer to hear your MPtalking about these issues on behalf ofyour constituency? What language andimage should he/she include to make itreal and respectful?

The metaphor exerciseWhat is the metaphor for your lifeand/or your community? Mine is like acowboy and a horse training farm. Ifyour life and your community were inthe desert for example or in anyenvironment of your choice – e.g. acircus, a band, on the moon, a pond –what would your lives look like? Howwould you be living your lives, whatwould be the most important thingshappening? How would you be living?What would life be like day-to-day?What would the problems be, whatwould the good things be?

Once you have fleshed out the picture,are you able to relate it back to yourreal lives? Are the problems similar orvery different? Are the opportunitiessimilar or different? What are the mainthings that have come up in theexercise that you think are interesting?

15.30 Review of the day’s work. Evaluationinformation from participants.Summary: what will happen to thiswork now and why participation hasbeen so valuable.

16.00 Big thank you and goodbyes.


28

Notes

p vertyrep rt

c mmunicating


UK Coalition Against Poverty1-27 Bridport StreetLiverpool L3 5QF

Tel: 0151 709 3008Fax: 0151 709 1225E-mail: [email protected]: www.ukcap.org

Published 10/08

Print&Design/INDIGO/0161 877 7938/www.indigo-litho.co.uk

the uk is one of the world’s richest nations. we at …the uk is one of the world’s richest...

Documents