Only in English could a slim chance and a fat chance mean the same thing, but a wise man and a wise guy be the opposite.

Only in English can the weather be hot as hell one day and cold as hell another.

Only in English can overlook and oversee be opposites, while quite a lot and quite a few are the same.

You’ve heard of a horseless carriage and a strapless gown, but have you ever seen a horseful carriage or a strapful gown?

Did you know that your house can burn up while it burns down or that you fill in a form by filling it out?

If the human race is a race, why is no one in a hurry to reach the finish line?

Can you tell me why when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible?

Why is it that when I wind up my watch, I start it, but when I wind up a story, I finish it?

Only in English!

Consider the Apostrophe:

It’s is not, it isn’t ain’t, and it’s it’s, not its, if you mean it is. If you don’t, it’s its. Then too, it’s hers, it isn’t her’s. It isn’t our’s either, it’s ours, and likewise yours and theirs.

If you think that the homographs of “-ough” wouldn’t confuse you, try wrestling with the following sentence:

A rough-coated, dough-faced, thoughtful ploughman strode through the streets of Scarborough; after falling into a slough, he coughed and hiccoughed.

Only in English!

Why do we park in the driveway but drive on the parkway?

If Olive oil is made from olives, what’s baby oil made from?

If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?

Why do we ship by truck and send cargo by ship?

Only in English!

Still set on learning English? Let’s see if this will change your mind.

Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.

There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.

The bandage was wound around the wound.

The farm was used to produce produce.

The dump was so full it had to refuse more refuse.

He could lead if he would get the lead out.

The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.

When shot at the dove dove into the bushes.

Still not convinced? Here are a few more dandies.

To help with the planting the farmer taught his sow to sow.

The buck does funny things when the does are nearby.

Upon seeing a tear in the painting I shed a tear.

The insurance was invalid for the invalid.

There is neither an apple nor a pine in pineapple, no egg in eggplant and no ham in hamburger.

Did you know that quicksand works slowly, that sweetmeats are candies, while sweetbreads, which really aren’t sweet at all, – are meats?

Only in English!

If you are still not deterred, consider the following: English as spoken in the United Kingdom is different from that spoken in the United states, India, Australia and Canada. While Americans can fruits and vegetables, the British put them in tins. As an Englishman said to me once, “in America they eat what they can and what they can’t they can”. In Canada I once heard a boy ask the grocer for “a tin of can milk”!

Since you are still determined to learn English I wish you good luck and Godspeed.

And now as I want to shut down my computer – I have to hit “start”.

Only in English!

Ever since I was younger, going to the United Kingdom was a dream I held on to. My grandmother is British, but she is always the one coming over to the Philippines – never the other way around. My time came, though, when I was offered to become an intern for two months in one of the offices there. I grabbed the chance right then and there.

Of course, you don’t just decide to fly to a country like the United Kingdom. You have to go through a process before going there. To make things easier for you, be sure to prepare all the documents you may need.

1. Make sure your passport is up to date. You don’t want to apply with an expired passport!
2. Prepare all the financial proof that you can show. This includes your Certificate of Employment, Income Tax Returns, bank statements, etc. Since I was a student then, I submitted my parents’ financial proof.
3. Reserve a two-way ticket. Before applying for a visa, I reserved a two-way ticket with an airline company already. I didn’t pay for it yet. I just asked them to give me a quote with all the flight details so I can submit it to the embassy.
4. Print the application form and fill it in with all honesty.
5. Once you’ve answered the form, attach all your documents and go to the embassy.
6. If you pass their requirements, you will receive your visa in two weeks’ time. Mine was mailed to me, but you can opt to pick it up yourself.

Now that your papers are done, it’s time that you prepare your things. One mistake I made is that I didn’t bring a lot of clothes. My parents told me not to bring too much since I can buy clothes there. And so I followed their advice. It was a surprise how expensive their clothing apparel are! I wouldn’t have spent so much there if I brought more clothes with me.
Aside from clothes, be sure to bring enough pocket money for your whole stay. If you feel uncomfortable having a huge amount in your wallet, deposit the account in your bank. Just make sure you can use their ATM card internationally. Note: If you’re going to do this, inform your bank prior your trip so they won’t block your transactions while you are abroad. It would be nice to have a credit card with you too for emergency purchases. I brought two, just in case.
All done! You’re ready to travel to the United Kingdom. Be sure to take a reliable camera with you because there are so many beautiful places for photography there.

The store has revealed that its huge advertising campaign has helped to boost sales, especially within bed linen and cashmere sweaters. Other popular sales were within the technology department with Kindles and iPads being major favourites amongst buyers. They were able to take in over £133 million in the week before December 17th (2011) beating all of its previous sale records. The affluence continued with the sales rising by 9.3% to a mammoth £596 million all the way up to the end of the year.

The Christmas advert had featured The Smiths’ song, actually covered by Amelia Warner. With a young boy waiting impatiently for Christmas, just so that he can give his present to his parents, the emotional advert was watched over four million times on Youtube alone. With rave reviews by critics and primetime slots, this advert was naturally going to be a sure-fire hit for the retail giant. However it wasn’t all positive feedback. Many Smiths fans were outraged as they accused Johhny Marr and Morrissey of selling out in order to sell their music to consumer goods. Negative tweets included ‘I find it hard to believe you agreed to let the song be used by a company that sells tat to middle class ******s. Very sad.’, with 48-year-old Johnny Marr replying : ‘Writing Please Please one Friday in 84 is one of the best memories of my life. This ad has not sullied that memory one bit.’

Either way, whether it was the cashmere sweater that you were attracted to or the handy gadgets, The Smiths have had a large part to play in the homes of many families this Christmas. And that surely is something that is simply priceless. 

Pluralism is one of the most prominent aspects in British life. Looking back at the history of Britain, there are at least six invaders who came to Britain from about 3000 BC to the 12th century. They are The Iberian tribe, The Celts, The Romans, The Anglo Saxons, The Vikings, and The Normans. Each of those invaders carried their own culture to Britain. Therefore, the variation of British culture has been very diverse since the early Britain.

In the modern Britain, immigrants keep coming to Britain from all over the world. Starting in the 16th-17th century when craftsmen from Germany fled for prosecution and settled in London, followed by the Huguenots coming from France. The Irish came to Britain in the 18th-19th century because of the potato famine, followed by the Jews from Eastern Europe. And in the 20th century, there are Arabians and other people from all over the world came and settled in Britain. Of course, all of those immigrants carried their culture to Britain, contributing the pluralism in this country.

Modern Britain can be commonly referred to as ‘a multi-cultural society’. The phrase indicates a general policy of respect for all ethnic cultures, equal opportunity for all, and the non-existence of all forms of discrimination based on race, religion, ethnic or national origin. Britain is a comfortable place to come into contact with cultures and faiths other than our own. The contact is mostly in the name of community cohesion and does not often get further than just enjoying each others’ cultures to maintain the inter-group harmony. We are not expected to abandon either our faith or our traditions. It is probably because Britain has a long history of receiving immigrants. There has not been any major case showing the majority living in Britain intended to eradicate other minority faiths, customs, or beliefs. We can say that the society is able to achieve a balance within the cultures and lifestyles of all the ethnic groups there. Generally, all groups respect the shared values of the society as a whole. Britain can be defined as a genuinely pluralist society, because Britain is both socially cohesive and culturally diverse.

In the religious aspect, for example, members of religious minorities are legally given the freedom to construct, own and manage their religious buildings. They can register the buildings and claim exemption from obligation for the payment of local rates or taxes. Moreover, they are allowed to celebrate their religious festivals. In addition, schools in Britain generally provide the students with Christian religious education. However, any non-Christian parent can request separate religious education for their children in accordance with their own faith, and the Local Education Authority must comply as long as the cost of the tuition is not directed toward the authority.

Pluralism is one of the most prominent aspects in British life. Looking back at the history of Britain, there are at least six invaders who came to Britain from about 3000 BC to the 12th century. They are The Iberian tribe, The Celts, The Romans, The Anglo Saxons, The Vikings, and The Normans. Each of those invaders carried their own culture to Britain. Therefore, the variation of British culture has been very diverse since the early Britain.

In the modern Britain, immigrants keep coming to Britain from all over the world. Starting in the 16th-17th century when craftsmen from Germany fled for prosecution and settled in London, followed by the Huguenots coming from France. The Irish came to Britain in the 18th-19th century because of the potato famine, followed by the Jews from Eastern Europe. And in the 20th century, there are Arabians and other people from all over the world came and settled in Britain. Of course, all of those immigrants carried their culture to Britain, contributing the pluralism in this country.

Modern Britain can be commonly referred to as ‘a multi-cultural society’. The phrase indicates a general policy of respect for all ethnic cultures, equal opportunity for all, and the non-existence of all forms of discrimination based on race, religion, ethnic or national origin. Britain is a comfortable place to come into contact with cultures and faiths other than our own. The contact is mostly in the name of community cohesion and does not often get further than just enjoying each others’ cultures to maintain the inter-group harmony. We are not expected to abandon either our faith or our traditions. It is probably because Britain has a long history of receiving immigrants. There has not been any major case showing the majority living in Britain intended to eradicate other minority faiths, customs, or beliefs. We can say that the society is able to achieve a balance within the cultures and lifestyles of all the ethnic groups there. Generally, all groups respect the shared values of the society as a whole. Britain can be defined as a genuinely pluralist society, because Britain is both socially cohesive and culturally diverse.

In the religious aspect, for example, members of religious minorities are legally given the freedom to construct, own and manage their religious buildings. They can register the buildings and claim exemption from obligation for the payment of local rates or taxes. Moreover, they are allowed to celebrate their religious festivals. In addition, schools in Britain generally provide the students with Christian religious education. However, any non-Christian parent can request separate religious education for their children in accordance with their own faith, and the Local Education Authority must comply as long as the cost of the tuition is not directed toward the authority.

Official language: English

Land area: 8,867 sq mi/22,966 sq km

Population: 315,000

Dominant religion: Christianity

Capital: Belmopan

Current leader: Prime Minister Dean Barrow

Belize is a small country in Central America, lying on the southeast coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. It is bordered by the Caribbean Sea to the east, Guatemala to the south and west and Mexico to the north. With a population of only 315,000, it is the most thinly populated on country in Central America.

 Belize is a very ethnically diverse country. About the half of the people are of mixed European and Native American ancestry, about a quarter are Creoles (people of African and European ancestry) and most of the rest are Maya Indians and people of mixed African and Native American ancestry. Most of the people are poor and unemployment is high. The country has a shortage of technicians and professionals, especially doctors, because most Belizeans who learn these occupations relocate to other English-speaking countries for better opportunities.

 Sugar cane, bananas, grapefruit, and oranges are the country’s chief crops and processed sugar is the main export. Its industries include sugar refining, lumbering, clothes and cement.

 The Spaniards arrived in the 1520’s and made the area part of Guatemala. But Spain did very little to exercise control over the area and soon lost it to the British and in 1862 the United Kingdom named it the Colony of British Honduras. In 1964 it became a self-governing territory and was renamed Belize and it became independent in 1981.

“Mr Clegg blamed French and German “intransigence” and pressure from Euro sceptic Conservatives for putting Mr Cameron in “a very difficult position”. He told the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme: “I’m bitterly disappointed by the outcome of last week’s summit, precisely because I think now there is a danger that the UK will be isolated and marginalised within the European Union.”

But ultimately i believe without a doubt you cannot blame Mr Cameron on his decision with Nicolas Sarkozy’s inability to allow Britain a small compromise in return for our acquiescence of their treaty change (and it is theirtreaty change, as we’re not in the Euro), is tantamount to humiliation. The vast majority of the people in Britain are already highly Euro-sceptic – humiliating us in this way at a time of much suspicion over the EU is a move which will be potentially setting off a chain reaction leading to a referendumand Britain’s overall withdrawal from the Union.

EU membership has an obsession within the political class. Many so called highly intelligent individuals in the political arena including prime ministers past and present, such as Tony Blair, have painted a picture of Britain’s relevance on the global stage in the 21st century anchored in our European Union membership. Long overdue it is now the time to eradicate that idea and look to the future closer at home with our own people at heart. These very individuals should stop fantasising as Britain never has and never will have any genuine influence in Europe, and should stop pretending that it does. Britain is an economic and cultural powerhouse with an independent streak; it was never going to be easy working closely in a federalist project lead by unelected elitists. Yes the European market is of great importance and benefit to Britain, but everything else is a waste of time and money. We are more than capable of setting our own laws, ambitions and future plans; with the £50 million pound Britain pays out to the EU every single day that would be more than a good starting point not forgetting retaking sovereignty as now 70% of the laws governing Britain are made in Brussels.

Whether the UK stays or leaves the European Union and it collapses, Britain will still feel the devastating aftermath of the potential financial disaster. But in the long run it is much better to think out side of the box, stand the storm and see the light at the end of the tunnel. It may be very painful now, due to the aftermath of Friday’s very events especially after being in the EU now for decades (which one must remember we joined to become part of an open market free to trade, NOT to be integrated into the United States of Europe). But with the calapse of Britains relationship and influence with the EU now is the time to starting planning out the UK’s future with this great opportunity before us for something much more useful (Like Nigel Farage said it is much better to trade with the globe rather than an individual union, after all the EU would still trade with us – These are basic business and economics). 

As told by Luke Bozier:  
“Britain has historically been a small nation with global ambitions. The British Empire was the world’s most successful and broad; albeit with some serious failings and questionable ethics. In order to understand where we are going now, in the post-EU age, we should look to the past for inspiration. We must open ourselves to the whole world again, whilst remaining open and connected to Europe too. The economies of the future aren’t in Europe; China, India, Brazil, and Africa are the places where economic growth lies both now and until GDP and living standards equalise with the highly developed Western countries. If Britain wants to continue as a prosperous, growing economy in the 21st century, it needs to integrate itself with those growing economies.

Europe’s economies are mature and sluggish, Britain and Europe are equally uncomfortable with each other, the UK desperately needs to improve its economic standing both now and in the medium and long terms. There are vibrant and growing economies far beyond Europe’s borders. We are one of the few countries in the world with such globally valuable networks, assets and both soft & hard power. It is glaringly obvious that now is the time to leave the European project to those countries who want it that badly, and for Britain to go global. Britain’s future is as a small super hub, floating around between the large trading blocs which will eventually transform the world from 200 or so nation states into maybe five or six supranational quasi-nations.

This is attractive for a number of reasons. If we are plugged into the world’s large economic zones, we will be buffeted when one zone slows, and we stand to benefit when other zones grow. If the Eurozone is in recession but the ASEAN bloc is growing, we benefit. If NAFTA is slow and Europe is growing, we still benefit. If South America is blooming, and China slows, we’re better covered than if we just put all our eggs into the European basket. It would require structural changes in the British economy – we must retain our global leadership in the services economy, but we must also support more high-value, clever manufacturing which we are good at and which produces things that growing economies want and need.”

So how do we go about from turning this potential vision painted above to a destined reality? It’s going to be a long gradual process, not something that will happen in a matter of months but it has potentially started on Friday in Brussels. The next obvious step is an in/out referendum on the European Union, which will undoubtedly portray the majority of the  British citizens views on this  by returning an ‘out’ vote. Then we withdraw from the Union and work on replacing it with a free trade agreement with the EU. Then we begin negotiating entry into the existing large free-trade zones around the world. We should reduce as many barriers to movement of people, goods and services with similar, highly-developed countries like the USA, Canada and Australia as soon as politically possible. Pulling away from the E.U would mean the UK would regain control of our borders leading to control of immigration. From this the wages being dragged down will rise again and jobs will once again become available to there rightful labourers. Investing in training, apprenticeships and the building of companies producing highly valued goods to be exported is the future of Britain – Industry is the key to prosperity.

The European project is maturing in the scary direction of real federalism. That might be the best way forward for them, (France and Germany in particular as countries such as Spain, Greece and Italy will only suffer more) but it’s not where Britain is going. Like the past the future of Britain is global. It’s time to stop obsessing about the long painful relationship and lack of benifits we currently have with the union, and start looking out and forward to a more global future.

Official language: Mandarin (Northern Chinese)

Land area: 3,691,943 sq mi/9,562,088

Population: 1,355,350,000

Dominant Religions: Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism

Capital: Beijing

Current leader: President Hu Jintao

China is a large country in eastern Asia. It is the world’s largest country in population and the third largest in land area. Only Russia and Canada cover greater landmass. It is one of the world’s oldest countries, with a history dating back as much as 10,000 years.

 China borders more countries than any other country in the world. It is bordered by Mongolia to the north; Russia, North Korea and the Yellow Sea to the northeast; the East China Sea and Taiwan Strait to the east; the South China Sea to the southeast; Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, India and Bhutan to the south; Nepal and India to the southwest; and Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan to the west. The mighty Himalayas form its entire borders with Pakistan, India, Nepal and Bhutan. 

 More than 90 percent of China’s people live in the eastern half of the country. Western China has far fewer people and resources. Most of the country’s minority groups live in the western half. Most Chinese along the coastal areas are urban dwellers and Shanghai, Beijing, Chongqing, Guangzhou and Shenzhen are among the world’s largest urban areas, having a combined population of nearly 80 million.

 There are more than 50 ethnic groups living in China. Han Chinese make up 92 percent of the population while the rest of the population consists of Kazakhs, Mongols, Tibetans, Uygurs, Zhuang and others.

 China’s economy, one of the world’s largest, is mostly manufacturing-based. It produces more steel than any other country. Its factories also turn out products such as aircraft, automobiles, cement, fertilizer, military equipment, ships and trucks. In recent years many companies, especially clothing and apparel corporations, have been using China as their main manufacturing due mostly to the cheap labor.

 Since the early 1990’s China economy has been growing at near-unprecedented speed but many have complained about the distribution of the country’s wealth. Most of the economic growth has been confined to the coastal areas, especially cities such as Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou and Shenzhen. As a result, while citizens of these cities enjoy standards of living nearly on par with industrialized heavyweights such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan much of the population further inland, especially in rural areas, continue to live in Third World conditions.

 Throughout much of its history China has been one of the world’s most powerful and advanced countries. The Qin dynasty, which ruled the country until 206 B.C., created the world’s first paper currency. It also created the Great Wall, the humongous fortification that stretches about 5,500 to keep out invaders.

 However, during the 1200’s, the Mongols swept through and ruled the country from 1279 to 1368. It was during Mongol rule that Europeans became more interested in China. Italian explorer Marco Polo brought back glowing accounts of his journey there.

 Increased contact with foreigners began bringing western influence and humiliation to China. After the First Anglo-Chinese War in 1842 it lost Hong Kong to the United Kingdom. It lost Korea and Taiwan to Japan in the Sino-Japanese War of 1895. An violent attempt by some Chinese to stop the spread of western influence during the Boxer Rebellion resulted in an military invasion by eight countries. Shanghai all but became foreign-occupied.

 More suffering awaited. In the 1920’s, the Nationalists, led by Chiang Kai-shek, began turning on its Communist allies, led by Mao Zedong, igniting a war and in 1931 Japan invaded and occupied Manchuria. In 1937, even as the Nationalists and Communists continued to fight for control of the country, Japan launched a full-scale invasion of China and within a year had occupied nearly all of eastern China. In 1941 China joined the Allies – the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union – during World War II.

 Soon after the war ended, the Nationalist and Communists began a large-scale civil war which ended with Communist victory in 1949. The Nationalists fled to Taiwan and set up a government-in-exile, continuing to claim itself the legitimate ruler of China. During the 1950’s and 60’s Mao Zedong attempted to move China ahead with programs such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, both which turned to be disastrous. During that period an estimated 30 million Chinese died through overwork and starvation.

Most western countries continued to recognize the Nationalists in Taiwan as the legitimate government of China but in the 1970’s they began switching diplomatic recognition to the Beijing.

 In the late-1980’s more Chinese began demanding democracy and in 1989, the military brutally crushed a demonstration at Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, killing thousands of protestors in what is now known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre. While most of the west harshly condemned the crackdown it was not enough to stop increased relations with China.

 In the 1990’s China instituted economic reforms, leading to rapid economic growth.

Functionalists maintain that poverty persists because only a few can achieve success. Accordingly, functionalists argue that the less able are left behind and fill the bottom ranks of the hierarchy and thus fail to recognize that opportunities exist in order that the poor can achieve social mobility. The `vicious circle’ theory of poverty supports this notion, suggesting that the poor are trapped in the situation with little chance of escaping. Hence, poverty breeds poverty over time, and transmits its effects from one generation to another.

The concept of `culture of poverty’ was developed by Lewis (1959) based on his study of the urban poor in Mexico and Puerto Rico. Lewis maintains that the culture of poverty is a `design for living’ which is transmitted from one generation to the next. As a design for living, it takes the force of culture since it directs behaviour and becomes guides to action which are internalized by the poor and are passed from one generation to another and thus acting as mechanism which maintain poverty. The major weakness of this concept is that blame is placed on the poor, ignoring structural factors which breed poverty.

Attacking the culture of poverty as an explanation, some theories claim that situational constraints are more powerful than cultural patterns in directing the behaviour of the poor. For instance, the fact that the poor have inadequate diets can lead to low energy levels which can in turn hinder progress at work or in school, something which can be interpreted, wrongly, by employers and teachers as evidence of mere disinterest, lack of motivation and laziness. Once situational constraints )e.g., low income, unemployment) are removed, there is a chance to escape poverty.

In contrast to functionalists, Marxists argue that poverty continues because it is in the interests of the ruling class which requires a submissive workforce at all times. Marxists claim that poverty is rooted in the very structure of society: poverty allows the ruling class to maintain the capitalist system and to maximize their profits. Since, from a Marxist perspective, the state in capitalist society reflects the interests of the ruling class, government measures can be expected to do little except reduce the harsher effects of poverty. Thus, Kincaid argues that it is not to be expected that any government is going to take effective steps to abolish the low wage sector. Poverty like wealth, according to Kincaid, is an inevitable consequences of a capitalist system.

Milliband (1974), another Marxist, argues for the link between poverty and lack of access to power, maintaining that in terms of power, the poor are the weakest group competing for the scarce and valued resources in society. He also argues that the poor are part of the working class but are largely excluded from the organizations which can defend the interests of the working class – there are no organizations with the power of trade unions to represent the interests of the unemployed, the aged, the chronically ill, single parent families or ethnic minorities. As the poor lack income, they do not have the resources to form powerful groups and sustain pressure. The interests of the working class may also conflict with those of the poor, particularly as non-poor working class members usually do not identify with the interests of poor working class.

To Townsend, who is more of a Weberian than a Marxist in his approach, argues that the class relations are not a sufficient explanation of poverty because these do not entirely explain how life styles develop and certain types of social behaviour become expected. Thus, to Townsend, poverty is both rooted in class relations and related to the cultural patterns of a society.

Theories that place the blame for poverty with the poor themselves remain influential even today. Typically, Spencer, a Victorian English sociologist, argued that the poor were poor because they were weak, lazy and idle. From this point of view, neither society not the social groups to which individuals belonged were accountable, and society should not therefore be responsible for providing for the needs of the poor. Thus, Spencer thought that the state should interfere as little as possible in the lives of the poor and maintained that the welfare system would breed laziness and ultimately social suffering and economic decline. Spencer’s view has some resonance with the thinking about poverty today, with welfare claimants being seen as `scroungers’.

While Marsland does not attribute poverty to personal inadequacy, he nevertheless argues that low income results from the generosity of the welfare state. He criticizes `universal welfare provision’, claiming that this has created a `culture of dependency’, resulting in the abdicating of individuals from self-reliance and social responsibility. Instead of having a universal welfare provision, he maintains that benefits should be given only to those in genuine need and are unable to help themselves (the sick and the disabled).

Jordan takes a different view, claiming that poverty does not result from an overgenerous welfare system but instead is caused by a system which is too mean. He thus advocates a universal welfare provision which brings everyone up to an acceptable level.

Thus, different scholars vary in their perspectives on poverty, including its solutions. One of the problem inherent in discussion on poverty is that of measurement: there is no general measure of poverty. Sociologists have argued that poverty could be (1) relative, (2) absolute and (3) subjective: each position entails different policy approach to poverty alleviation.

According to Townsend, people are living in relative poverty when `their resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs, and activities’. The relative approach to alleviate poverty suggests entailing a redistribution of resources in order to change the relative position of the rich and poor and thereby, the creation of a more equal society. Here, it i widely assumed that one effect of the welfare state is to redistribute resources from the rich to the poor such as through taxation and welfare payments. Rowntree (1901) suggests that people are living in absolute poverty when they are not having enough covering necessities like food, housing, clothing, fuel and other things required to maintain physical efficiency. The implications of the absolute approach for policy is that, if society can provide an income sufficient to meet subsistence needs the poverty can be eliminated. Subjective poverty refers to the subjective attitudes of people with regard to poverty, i.e., whether they feel themselves to be poor or not (Haralambos, 1980).

The Beveridge Report formed the blueprint for the welfare state legislation introduced in the late 1940s. It detailed the deficiencies of existing social services and outlined a plan to attack the 5 giants of idleness, ignorance, disease, squalor and want. The `attack’ was to be based on a free national health service, family allowances, social insurance, social assistance and government policies to maintain full employment, and the intention was to cover all contingencies from the `cradle to the grave’.

Since the implementation of the Beveridge Report, it might be argued that, at the very least, the welfare state makes a major contribution to improving the relative position of those who are poor (low paid workers, the elderly, one-parent families, disabled and the sick, unemployed, the majority of whom are women and ethnic minorities), if not to reducing poverty. For instance, child allowances are given to families, pensions to old people and sick benefits to employees when they are ill. Some forms of taxes are progressive in that they lead to the better-off paying a greater proportion of their income to the government than the lower income groups.

However, there are many instances that the government still favour the rich and put more burden on the poor (Elliot et al, The Guardian, 9 Feb 1994). A good example is the income tax that people have to pay. Although direct taxes paid vary according to level of earnings, the rich and the better-paid generally benefit more from taxation than the poor, because of allowable expenses they enjoy. Indirect taxation (taxes levied on purchase of goods) tends to be `regressive’, with the poor having to pay more taxes such as VAT and duties on alcohol and tobacco, than the richer ones. In fact, Atkinson showed that the rich benefit more than the poor from taxation policies of the government. Le Grand shows that while the lower income groups receive greater benefits than the richer ones from direct public expenditure on housing, he shows that the higher income groups benefit much more than the poor from indirect expenditure through public subsidy. Le Grand makes the same claims that transport policy favours the better-off: richer ones make a great deal use of heavily subsidized transport services thus benefiting more than the poor members of society.

In addition, because of gender and racial/ethnic segregation of the labour market, women and ethnic minorities are mostly found in the bottom of occupational hierarchies, mostly doing part-time, lowest paid and dead-end jobs thereby giving them little chance for promotion or generally an opportunity to climb up the social ladder. Their incomes are hardly enough for their family’s needs such as rent, electricity, gas and taxes. Many employers justify the low pay and dead-end jobs they give to women and ethnic minorities by claiming that they are not properly qualified. However, Daniel (1966) found that qualifications did not help ethnic minorities in getting a job. In short, some people can remain unemployed (and therefore poor) because of racial and/or gender discrimination and less so because of lack of qualifications.

In other cases, poverty can be the result of not being able to have access to the welfare benefit scheme. Some people may not be aware of the benefits they are entitled to from the welfare state. Others who may be aware of such entitlements may still fail to claim, possibly as a result of the growing inaccessibility of the system. The introduction of complicated bureaucratic procedures which have to be followed by claimants is a good example. In these cases, the poor are caught in a trap – they remain poor partly because they do not have appropriate and sufficient access to public resources designed to alleviate their situation. Even when the poor are able to claim benefits, they still have to pay taxes, thus the money they desperately need is clawed back by the state.

In conclusion, it can be said that the welfare state has to some extent helped the poorer sections of the society. However, because of contradictions in policies or contradictions between policy and practice, the welfare state has not been totally effective in reducing poverty in Britain.

SdR(c)93