The Guardian has reported that:
David Cameron is looking to revive plans to change the way that child poverty is measured, in advance of figures that are expected to show it has increased for the first time in a decade.
There is something troubling about this. Of course there is the very obvious fear that political manipulation is going on, bit it's more significant than that. What such a plan reveals is the belief that the idea can be sold that the statistic is in itself significant and an absolute measure and that changing it is value free.
Of course this is not an absolute measure. It is, like all stats, subjective. It cannot be argued otherwise. If someone wants to draw the line other than that at 60% then an argument could be made, I am sure. But that's not the point. The statistic is not collected out of curiosity, or to embarrass anyone (at least, per se). The statistic exists to monitor the scale of a perceived problem and to measure progress in tackling it over time. Change the statistical base and you do three things.
First you seek to change the perception of the problem.
Second, you seek to distort measurement over time by creating a discontinuity so that progress cannot be gauged.
Third, you seek to create a changed response.
The last is what's worrying here. I am not saying stats should not be changed. They can be and are improved and there's no harm in that. But if they are to remain useful to appraise the same problem that is still perceived to exist this change has to ensure that there is no changed response as a result. If the change in response is instead the motive - as I fear is the case here - then that has to be exposed.
The challenges of bringing up children in poverty is beyond David Cameron's imagination . I admit that to fair degree it is beyond mine. But honest candour about this should be matched with honest candour that the situation is real and the right response is not to define it away but to improve the outcomes for all affected. I am not at all sure that David Cameron is doing that. That's why I do not trust this move.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
This is a clear attempt by the Tory govt to define the problem of child poverty away and is an illustration of why the Tory govt is a lot worse than the ConDem govt which preceded it. Of course the ConDem govt was a very nasty right-wing administration and set a bar below which many of us believed no govt could sink. It turns out we were wrong.
That said, provided that the govt doesn’t abolish the Family Resources Survey (the underlying source of data for the current child poverty stats) then it would be possible for independent researchers to continue to calculate child poverty on the current definitions in future years, even if the govt chooses to abandon the measure. I am certainly happy to continue to do these calculations in future years if necessary.
Thanks Howard
Don’t count on the data not disappearing – although I know it has other uses
The tories are noted for fiddling figures. I believe they changed the way unemployment figures were calculated no fewer than 22 times in the 1980s.
I believe they did. Each change reducing the number declared as unemployed.
I also believe Labour didn’t reverse any of the fiddling and indeed made 8 further changes themselves, each of which also reduced the numbers.
A more complete statement might be that politiicans are noted for fiddling figures.
And, of course, it is not just politicans who change the way things are measured. After all, social reformer Seebohm Rowntree (son of Joseph Rowntree) concluded in the early 1950s that poverty had been all but eradicated in the UK, citing just 1.5% of the population as living in poverty.
Since the 1950s, whilst the casual observer might think that the UK standard of living has risen, the number put forward as living in poverty has increased with every change in the way it is measured.
Having been born in 1871 and having undertaken his first scientific study of poverty in 1899, I wonder what Seebohm would make of modern poverty.
As a quaker, as he was, I think he would be devastated by it
And the lies used to sustain rather than eradicate it
Because what you clearly show is that you think it an absolute, and I find that either naive or repulsive
Really? I re-read what I wrote and can’t find that I say what I think about poverty, in absolute or relative terms.
You expressed your view that changing the definition of poverty meant we could not judge progress. I pointed out that the definition of poverty had been changed on many occasions in the past and you are not calling for any comparisons with those older definitions.
The earlier definitions of poverty which I referred to and which you call naïve or repulsive are not mine. They were those of Seebohm Rowntree.
But if it is easier for you to twist what other people say than to engage in debate with them it says more about the paucity of your intellectual capacity than it does about others who ‘dare’ to not accept what you say as gospel.
I can read between lines
You write plenty between yours
None of us are taken in by your squeals of protest
A fella I was at school with went to work for what was the DSS after getting his degree, and, being the only one in the office with A-Level maths, was made responsible for the local office’s massaging of the district’s reporting of unemployment figures. This was under Callaghan’s government. The Tories are, of course, an order of magnitude more egregious in this respect than the Callaghan government. But they aren’t different in kind.
Suppression and distortion of data is the ambrosia of this Government-at present Duncan Smith is trying to keep pressured figures relating to a potential relationship between benefit sanctions and deaths. As Howard says, when you think it has sunk as low as it can, a trap door opens to reveal hidden depths -as I’ve said before,the Tories will be ‘touching magma’ at this rate. On the positive side there are signs that protest is growing.
A Ministry of Truth anyone!
Seriously, we can expect similar “revisions” across every policy area where the policies rolled out over the next few years (not to mention the impact of those adopted in the guise of the coalition government) are bound to have a detrimental impact. Expect environment, health (of all types), the NHS, housing and so on to go the same way.
I for one have never doubted that along with a well planned strategy for the destruction of social democracy and all the “gains” made by the majority of the population as a result of what’s often referred to as the post war settlement, the Tories have supporting plans for ensuring the control and/or destruction of any form of dissent and any information or source of information that may provide ammunition for arguing against their policies.
The Chinese government will be full of admiration, I’m sure.
🙂
We’ve become accustomed to incompetent governments suppressing statistics to hide their embarrassing failures: welcome to the New Order, with a malignant government endeavouring to bury evidence of a policy success.
I remember the last time this was raised in the Commons: the jeers and sneering laughter of men enriched and arrogant in victory. Make no mistake: child poverty is not a failure, it was and is a known consequence of a comprehensive and cohesive social and economic agenda to enrich the priveleged few, and farm a population they regard with contempt for rents.
Statistics are always abused by governments like this.
To be honest I understand the cynicism with this move but I think it is definitely necessary for the good of those genuinely in poverty.
Currently poverty is defined as a household on an income below 60% of median earnings. It does not take into account, quality of life, family size, expenditure against income.
The comedy of this current model is that during the last five years of recession poverty has been shown to be going down. Why?? Because the huge imbalance of income distribution in the UK. The bankers and multimillionaires have made less money over this period and therefore the Median UK earnings has lowered.
In reality we see more people than ever going to food banks and genuine poverty on the rise. It is definitely time to get a proper measure for pverty and ensure we give the support to those in need!!
I accept the risks in the current definition
But I suggest you may be seeking inappropriate reform
All indicators are that: indicators, and not facts. I doubt many of the variables that concern you could be built in to create an enhanced indictor
Please indicate how if you think that possible?
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation have been using this definition since at least 2012:
“When a person’s resources are not sufficient to meet their minimal needs ( including social participation )”.
To that end they’ve been commissioning efforts to establish a ‘basket of needs’ sometimes called a MIS that a person needs to live a decent life, and back fitted data to 2008.
Since they rejected the median income % definition my view is that the overall quality of their output has improved massively, their latest contribution being the one in the last month from Niemitz which is worth looking up.
So yes John, you’re right that the government use of the word is is unhelpful, but much of the rest of the economics world is working off a more meaningful definition.