It’s an interesting definition of poverty

We’re told that the Iran war will cause more UK households to fall into poverty. We think that’s unlikely as the UK’s measure of poverty is a relative one, one based upon inequality, not actual poverty. Recessions reduce inequality as the rich depend more upon profits for their income, it’s profits that collapse in a recession. Benefits - a major source of income for the poor - tend to be uprated with inflation.

But who are we to disagree with NIESR, eh? But disagree we shall on this other point all the same:

That would add to the five million who are already estimated to survive on incomes below £1,500 per month, after accounting for housing costs. This puts them on less than 60pc of the median income in 2023-24, which is Niesr’s definition of poverty.

£18,000 a year - and that before housing costs, not after as here - puts you firmly into the top 30% of global incomes. That’s for two adults, one child in the household, yes this takes account of price differences across geography so, yes, includes that Britain is more expensive than many other places. And, again, that’s before, not after, housing costs.

Around 100,000 of the additional impoverished households will only have between £500 and £1,000 to spend each month.

£1,000 a month - as we say, that before, not after, housing costs - would put that two adult one child household in the top 40% of global incomes. And a single individual on £12,000 a year is on the edge of top 15% global incomes and even the £500 a month puts an individual in the top 30%.

This is not poverty here. This is inequality within the UK. Maybe inequality within the UK is something you want to worry about but it’s still not poverty. We think poverty is a real problem and one that we really should be working to solve. But we’ll only do so if we name it properly - inequality is not poverty.

Tim Worstall