“1.6 Million Children in the UK Live in Severe Poverty”. Erm. Really?

Today there has been an alarming headline that 1.6 million children in the UK live in ‘severe poverty’.   Examples of the reportage can be seen at the BBC and Guardian.  Every now and again a news stat sets off a little alarm bell in my head.  This was one of those times – according to the Office of National Statistics there are somewhere around 12.1 million children in the UK (2000 census, I suspect little variation since then).   So according to today’s reports approximately 13% of children in the UK must live in ‘severe poverty’.   That little alarm in my mind was making a coughing noise which only thinly disguised the words ‘bull-shit’.   I usually go off on one when pointing out the rotten state the UK was left in after 13 years of Labour but even with blue-tinted specs on I would never claim that they left us with 13% of all kids living in ‘severe poverty’.    This figure needed some sniffing.

The original report is from Save the Children.  It can be downloaded here.  It’s pretty hard to find how they technically defined ‘severe poverty’ for their ‘research’. After a bit of digging it turns out they define it as those living in households with incomes of less than 50% of the UK median income (disregarding housing costs).   A median single income in the UK is circa. £20k. I have no idea how they then use their methodology to ‘disregard’ housing costs – but the top and bottom is that a couple with two kids who, after housing costs are paid, have an income of £12.5k a year are classed as in ‘severe poverty’.

When you look at the methodology the metric they use is not about poverty – it’s a about income distribution.  Without wishing to belittle the quest for more equitable income distribution- I can’t help but think that such loose use of language cheapens the words ‘severe poverty’ and so insults those millions in the world (including in the UK) who, very literally, do not know where their next meal is coming from.    We could have a very important national debate about income disparity and this data could be used to support the case of those who believe the gap is too wide – however to hijack the language ‘severe poverty’ is a distraction from all that is valid in that debate.

Now don’t get me wrong: that couple with those two kids on that income are going to have a horrible time.  The report does do a good job of highlighting the very real issues they face.   I am also under no illusion that genuine severe poverty exists in this country – the kind were parents go and beg on the street to feed their children – I see some of this here in Birmingham.   Some stories that happen right now in my City would make you weep – but to say ‘severe poverty’ is anything other than at the very margins of our society is a fantasy.  To suggest, as the words they have chosen do, that 13% of all children live in squalid, desperate circumstances is ludicrous.  By overstating it, all Save the Children have done is muddle two debates and distract some focus from tackling those very real cases that do blight our society.



Filed under Center right, Centre Right, Economy, Politics, UK, UK Politics, Uncategorized

7 responses to ““1.6 Million Children in the UK Live in Severe Poverty”. Erm. Really?

  1. I think there is a technical issue here around how the word “poverty” is to be understood.

    Many NGOs use the “relative poverty” approach, which defines the term in relation to income levels within the specific society. In this context, Save the Children’s conclusions appear to be statistically sound.

    Your critique appears to depend on an “absolute poverty” approach, which tends to define poverty in terms of extreme hunger. This latter approach, while understandable, and having some popular appeal, is problematic at a number of levels. In particular, the absolute poverty model makes statistical definition much harder, leading to less informed and targetted policy solutions.

    • T A ORMSBY

      If they keep moving the goal posts the figures will never change.
      Not everybody can be above average. It would help though if the poverty trap could be reduced. I would allow everyone to recieve benifit if they wished if in return they paid tax at a higher rate in the pound (via an alternitive tax code).

  2. Al, I do appreciate that this is another example of ‘relative poverty’ measurement – and I do appreciate that other NGOs (and indeed some UK Government agencies). I am raging against that measure being hung to the word ‘poverty’ and cheapening the word. Also, using the measure they should use the ‘relative’ qualifier – instead Save the Children used the even worse sounding ‘Severe’. The metric used is problematic beyond words -theoretically in a sufficiently wealthy society (which we are not) you would have people who earn the equivalent of 50k a year, have a detached house, performance car etc defined as in ‘Severe Poverty’. It is a politically loaded term . Logically to tackle relative poverty is less of a demand to alleviate suffering and more of a demand to close the income gap.

    It is as much of a fudge of loading English for the purpose of influencing a political debate as, for instance, when people approach a debate on inheritance tax by branding them ‘death taxes’. Hyperbole.

  3. Hugh

    You’ve missed the main reason to be dubious about the figure and the charity’s dire warnings that the cuts will only make things worse: the same report last year found 1.7m living in severe poverty at the onset of recession in 2008, at which time it predicted the recession would increase severe poverty by a further 100,000 children. So the headline should read: “Recession pulls 100,000 children out of poverty.”
    Here’s the BBC report at that time: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8479364.stm

  4. Pingback: Who Hi-jacked the Word ‘Poverty’? |

  5. Dave Taylor

    Which ever ‘term’ you use you can’t escape the real issue here – child poverty exists and will get worse with all of the cuts being imposed on the poorest members of our society. Once again the wealthiest members of society get off Scott free while the burden of balancing the deficit falls on the shoulders of the poorest members of our society – those that work long hours in poorly paid jobs to make ends meet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s