The problem with strange definitions of things is that events can make that thing - as defined by that strange definition - move in opposition to reality.
Take poverty currently. We have no doubt that current economic events mean that many people will have less - they will be poorer. And yet given the official definition of poverty we’re really very certain indeed that poverty will be declining.
UK household incomes are set for the biggest annual fall since at least the mid-1970s this year,
Not that we’re happy about this, but we’re happy to accept that the statement is true.
However, campaigners say urgent further steps are required to prevent a dramatic rise in poverty this year
But that’s not how poverty is defined. Poverty is not defined as the absolute level of income. The reason it isn’t is that by any historic or global standard the UK doesn’t have any poverty by any absolute standard of income. Just the Jobseeker’s Allowance, alone, puts an income in the top one third of global incomes (this is before any housing benefit, other benefits or allowances, certainly before free health care, free education and so on. And yes, adjusted for the fact that prices differ across geography). Given that admitting that would rather kill off the constant insistence for tax and redistribution - we’ve already solved poverty that is - the definition has been changed.
Poverty is now defined as relative poverty. Less than 60% of median household income, adjusted for household size and can be either before or after housing costs. It’s a measure of inequality, not some absolute standard of living that can, or cannot, be achieved.
By this standard poverty isn’t going to increase as a result of current economic events. There will, in fact, be compression of income differences. Benefits provide a floor to low end incomes in a manner that doesn’t happen for the rest of the income distribution. Inequality will decrease - as it always does in a recession as well.
We have a definition of poverty now which decreases in bad economic times and increases in the good. Which is really a very strange definition of poverty to be using, isn’t it?
Perhaps we should stop doing so?