To answer Polly Toynbee’s question - 40%

Polly asks us all:

A question for those desperate to cut benefits to fund defence: who exactly are you willing to impoverish?

The answer is to change the definition of poverty.

As all should know poverty in Britain today is not defined by a lack of something - soap, a bathtub to keep the coal in - nor the acquisition of something - pellagra, beri-beri. It is living in a household on less than 60% of median household income suitably adjusted for household size (and before or after housing costs to taste). It is a measure of inequality, not of poverty.

For those relishing Kemi Badenoch’s £23bn cuts pledge, Curtice reminds us of the effect of George Osborne’s £15bn cuts in 2015. His two-child limit plunged 450,000 children into poverty and his overall benefit cap added many more.

Those “plunged” into such poverty were those now living in households below 60% of median household income rather than above it. This is a measure of inequality, not poverty.

Now, we disagree with the entire idea of measuring in this manner. Relative poverty is not, we think, of any importance whatsoever. Actual poverty, not having a stale crust to weep over, is indeed appalling. It’s also something solved by economic growth as we’ve shown over the past century or two. But, everyone’s insistent that relative matters.

So, instead of defining poverty as under 60%, change that definition - to 40%. Yes, we can indeed do this. In the usual international statistics - World Bank, OECD sort of level of international and official - it is possible to use 40, 50 or 60% of median as that definition of poverty. So, let us exercise that choice available to us about our benchmark.

There are many fewer households on less than 40% of median, making sure all households are up to 40% of median is very much cheaper than the insistence of getting all to 60%. We thereby slash the welfare bill and do indeed free up money to allow us to Beat the Frenchies - that first and only important job of the British state. Further, far from plunging hundreds of thousands into poverty we will be lifting millions from it. For there really are very few on less than 40% of median with or without the welfare system.

So, let’s do that then. Free up the necessary money by being realistic about the poverty promise made by the State and other people’s money. Poverty is less than 40% of median and we’ll make sure you don’t fall below that. We will have massively reduced British poverty by doing so.

Works for us. After all, who wouldn’t like to really solve this problem of British poverty?

Tim Worstall