Read on Twitter
Work in progress. Decided to chart 'absolute' child poverty on the current official definition back to 1961 to illustrate why it is not absolute and why you shouldn't use it for comparisons over extended periods. Over 90% of GB kids were poor on this measure in 1961. (Log scale.)
Main point though is that the trend is generally downwards except during recessions, as you might expect given the fixed real terms income threshold. So when ministers demand praise for modest falls in 'absolute' poverty, they are bullshitting.
The next time a minister responds to a question about rising relative child poverty by gesturing towards falls in 'absolute' child poverty, journalists should point out that falling 'absolute' poverty is normal. It's what happens if you don't do anything (like cut benefits).
As for relative child poverty, it's up by half a million since 2010/11 before housing costs, 600,000 after housing costs. In percentage terms, by two and three percentage points respectively. 'Absolute' up slightly in numbers, down slightly in % terms.
