Remember April 2015? The tail end of the coalition government seems a long time ago. The bien-pensants now have a majority Conservative government and Brexit to get in a tizzy about, but before we forget the era of Clegg and Cameron it is worth casting our minds back to the day before yesterday when 'austerity' was grinding the faces of the workers in the mud and handing all the money to the one per cent (allegedly).  

The Office for National Statistics recently published poverty and inequality figures for 2013/14 to 2014/15 which take us up to the end of the coalition story. Statistics for all but a month of the administration's five years in power are now available to us, and what a story they tell if you like stories where nothing much happens.

You must remember - for it was not that long ago - when the coalition was being blamed for spiralling inequality and ever-growing poverty. The government was making cuts to the public sector. The Trussell Trust was opening food banks. There had been riots in Tottenham. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicted that there would be a rise in both relative and absolute poverty (and the IFS is "independent" - whatever that means - and therefore infallible). What more evidence could you need that poverty and inequality were out of control?

Empirical evidence was, admittedly, in short supply in those fevered years but since it takes the Office for National Statistics a long time to get its data collated, it was always easy to suppose that a crisis was happening which would only be documented later. By 2015, The Observer was so convinced that poverty must be on the rise that it did not bother to wait for ONS figures to be released before using its front page to announce that they were 'expected to show [a] clear increase in child poverty, as charities blame bedroom tax and benefit cuts'. A few days later, there was bad news for The Observer and good news for children when the ONS revealed that, once again, rates of child poverty, adult poverty and inequality had all declined or stayed static.

The latest set of figures bringing us to the end of the coalition era were published a few days after the EU referendum and so struggled to get press coverage. Given the timing, the lack of interest is understandable and yet they would surely have received more attention had they confirmed the repeated assertions of so many pundits for so many years. Alas, they did not. As the graphs below show, every standard poverty measure is either lower than, or the same as, it was when the coalition took charge.

The same is true of the inequality. Supposedly rampant in the years of brutal austerity, it has actually been one of the most tediously static indicators in the British economy for well over a decade (as Ryan Bourne and I discussed in a recent IEA report).  

As for the Institute for Fiscal Studies' predictions which substituted for evidence in the early years of the coalition, they continue to be very wide of the mark. The absolute measure, which counts the number of people on incomes below 60 per cent of the median income of 2010/11, rose when the economy was doing badly, but has fallen since. The relative measure (which uses a poverty line of 60 per cent of the current median income) fell when things were going badly and has since risen (although the ONS says the rise is not statistically significant). Both are well below the rates forecast by the IFS.

The greater focus on the ONS's 'absolute' measure of poverty is a welcome development. Aside from having a terrible name - it is clearly a relative measure - it has the benefit of allowing us to compare inflation-adjusted incomes over time. It is based on the reasonable presumption that people who had an average income in 2010 were not in poverty in any meaningful sense. By using 2010 as our benchmark, it gives us a realistic poverty-reduction target to aim for. Such a target is missing with relative poverty because it is more of a measure of inequality and can persist forever regardless of how wealthy a society becomes.

'Absolute' poverty figures were destined to paint a bleak picture in the short term when the economy was doing badly, wages were flat and inflation was running at well over two per cent. It looks better now that average incomes have finally moved above their 2010 level (ie. they are now at an all-time high), but the use of two very different measures means that there will always be a stick with which to beat the government. If average incomes fall, absolute poverty will tend to rise. If average incomes rise, relative poverty will tend to rise. And so, in today's Guardian, Polly Toynbee has used the rise in relative child poverty to show that she was right all along.    

Writing about this a year ago, I said:

'If you think that inequality is more important than the material living conditions of the poor, you should pay attention to the relative poverty figures. If you want to know whether the poor are getting richer, watch the absolute figures. Pick your priorities, because some day these figures are going to move, and they will not necessarily move in the same direction.'

That day has now arrived. If the country is lucky, the left will spend the years ahead talking about relative poverty. If it is not, they will revert to the absolute measure.


Chris Snowdon is the IEA's Head of Lifestyle Economics.

Comments (0)

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.

As in all IEA publications, the views expressed in this blog are those of the authors and not those of the Institute (which has no corporate view), its managing trustees, Academic Advisory Council or senior staff.

Previous blog posts


Benjamin Powell
21 July 2016

The rapid economic growth of East Asian economies after World War II led many to mistakenly believe that government industrial planning policies were the key to their success. Nothing could be...
Ryan Bourne
20 July 2016
1 comment

It really could happen. Republican candidate Donald Trump might win the presidency of the United States on an overtly protectionist, anti-trade ticket. In a recent speech he slammed...
Mark Littlewood
19 July 2016

This wasn’t a lazy half-hearted reshuffle, Theresa May was imposing her own stamp on government. Rather than going for continuity, she was ruthless in personnel changes. Initially, it started...
Simon Barnett
18 July 2016

Let's talk about our economy. Our ≈£2.66 trillion GDP is comprised of slightly less than £2.1 trillion of services. It would be fair to describe the UK as a post-industrial...
Peter Ainsworth
15 July 2016
1 comment

The “Australian-style” points system that the Leave campaign was advocating during the EU referendum debate might provide more control over immigration than the EU’s open borders....
Kristian Niemietz
14 July 2016

If the so-called ‘EFTA/EEA option’ – leaving the EU, but staying in the single market, or in close vicinity to it – had been on the ballot paper, it would probably have...
Ryan Bourne
13 July 2016
1 comment

The statement was, at best, ambiguous. Its political consequences more profound. George Osborne said he will not hit his target for a budget surplus by 2020. Was this just a judgement that Brexit...
Ryan Bourne
12 July 2016

Predictably, those who demand more government spending both when the economy is doing well and badly are calling for increases to see off any potential post-Brexit slowdown. “Infrastructure...
Len Shackleton
11 July 2016

Last week’s decision by the House of Commons Education Committee not to endorse the appointment of Amanda Spielman as Ofsted Head raises important questions. Teaching unions have pointed to Ms...
Jonathan Portes
8 July 2016

Before the referendum, it appeared that a Brexit vote would mean that the UK faced a clear choice on immigration policy.  If we wanted as far as possible to retain access to the Single Market,...
Ryan Bourne
7 July 2016

"Businesses and markets hate uncertainty”. How many times have we heard that recently? In the aftermath of the referendum result, when the value of the pound fell and the FTSE 100 and 250...
Eduardo Belgrano
6 July 2016
1 comment

So Brexit it is. And if you believe many of the pundits opposing it, it would seem the UK has just voted to leave civilisation itself, and that all kind of maladies will now befall Britons. To put it...
Andrew Lilico
5 July 2016

In the run-up to the EU referendum, a number of the most high-profile companies, institutes and departments went out on a limb to claim that the economics profession was almost completely united in...
Philip Booth
4 July 2016
1 comment

This article is based on a presentation by Prof Booth at the Benedictus Forum, June 2016.   I have been asked to talk about whether government policy should affect the curriculum. The short...
Kristian Niemietz
1 July 2016

The US TV series ‘Breaking Bad’ is about a middle-aged high school teacher, Walter White, who is diagnosed with lung cancer, and who is unable to afford the treatment his doctor...
Ryan Bourne
30 June 2016

The consequences of the Brexit vote have been brutal for the political establishment. And rightly so given the shock result we saw last week. It highlighted a chasm between the accepted wisdom of...
Sophie Sandor
29 June 2016
1 comment

Scotland’s First Minister is now trying to take Scotland out of the UK because more Scottish people voted to remain in the EU than they did to leave – but there is something very wrong...
Daniel Ben-Ami
29 June 2016

Anyone who has what might be called an instinct for freedom is likely to baulk at being dictated to by experts. A fundamental liberal principle is that individuals should have the autonomy to make...
Richard Teather
28 June 2016

The opinion polls were wrong again; Brexit has won (and as a Lancastrian I was delighted to see the North stay solid for out).  But now the hard work begins of building alternative structures,...