FactCheck: is poverty history?
Updated on 09 June 2008
Gordon Brown has used successive PMQs to make some dubious poverty boasts. On the eve of the latest figures, FactCheck assesses Labour's record.
The claim: child poverty
"The choice is between a government who have taken a million children out of poverty and the Conservative party that trebled poverty."
Gordon Brown, PMQs, 7 May 2008
The analysis
Brown has claimed to have taken a million, or nearly a million, children out of poverty on several parliamentary occasions, such as here and here.
This has caused several raised FactCheck eyebrows; it's just not borne out by the figures published to date.
The Department of Work and Pensions's Households Below Average Income figures - the official stats on poverty across the population - were due out earlier this year, but publication has been delayed until this week.
Last year's figures show that in 2005-06 there were, according to the government's preferred measure (relative poverty before housing costs), 2.8 million children living below the poverty line.
That's down by 600,000 since Labour came to power, rather than a million. And it's a similar picture if the other set of numbers, those after housing costs are taken into account, are used instead.
These are also the first set of figures to see a rise in six years, up by 100,000 (before housing costs) on the year before.
This took the government even further away from its target of halving child poverty by 2010; the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated after this year's budget that the government would need to find another £2bn to £3bn to come close.
The claim: pensioner poverty
"We have taken a million pensioners out of poverty."
Gordon Brown, PMQs, 30 April 2008
The analysis
Along with children, the other group who have benefited the most from Labour's efforts to tackle poverty are pensioners.
In 1998-99 there were 2.8 million living in poverty before housing costs. By 2005-06, this had reduced to 2.2 million. So is this another case of a Brown-million being everyone else's 600,000?
Not if you look at the figures after housing costs are taken into account. These show that 2.9 million poverty-stricken pensioners in 1998-99 became 1.8 million in 2005-06.
This is also at a time when the number of pensioners has increased by half a million, although IFS research in 2006 suggested that around a quarter of the fall in poverty could be put down to the increase in younger and reasonably well-off adults reaching pensionable age.
The claim: deep poverty
"600,000 more people are in extreme poverty than when the Government came to power."
David Cameron, PMQs, 23 April 2008
The analysis
That more people are in severe poverty under Labour is a common Conservative rebuttal to Labour's poverty boasts: the Tories also claim 400,000 more families are in "severe poverty" under Labour.
This may seem contradictory compared with government claims to have slashed poverty, but in theory, it is perfectly possible. Those previously just below the poverty line could be brought up above it, while those right at the bottom could be left to sink ever further. A bit Draconian, but there we go.
So what has happened in practice?
The figure the Tories use is those living below 40 per cent of the median income (as opposed to 60 per cent - the official poverty line). There were 1.4 million such families in 1998-99; 1.8 million in 2006-06.
However, data on those living on these incomes is not included in the official statistics. The government reckons they may be "misleading", as some of those who report very low incomes appear to have high spending.
The published figures do include data on those living at below 50 per cent of the median income - of which there were 3.1 million families in 1998-99. After small increases and reciprocal decreases, the figure was the same in 2004-05, before nudging up to 3.3 million in 2005-06.
The picture is less bleak for children, however. The figure for those apparently living at below 40 per cent of the median income has stayed static: 700,000 each year since Labour came to power, while those at the 50 per cent threshold have dropped by 400,000, from 1.8 million to 1.4 million.
The claim: inequality
"Income inequality is rising"
Nick Clegg, PMQs, 23 April 2008
The analysis
A common Lib Dem counter-attack is that inequality has increased since Labour came to power. Again, this may sound instinctively contradictory to Brown's claims to have cut poverty.
But the Lib Dems are right - at least according to the most common measure of inequality, the Gini coefficient, which takes into account incomes across the whole population. The 2005-06 figures put this at its highest level since 2001-02, and higher than when Labour came to power.
This kind of increase is actually pretty common in a blossoming economy - which Britain has been for much of Labour's time in office. As incomes rise above the rate of inflation, those at the top get richer, but benefits rise at a lower rate, and so the income gap widens.
But just to complicate things even further, other measures of inequality which leave off the very richest and the very poorest - such as the 90:10 split, which compares the ninetieth and the tenth percentile - suggest that inequality has actually decreased under Labour.
And its tax and benefit reforms have favoured low-income households - according to the IFS, without these, the rise in inequality would have been much greater.
The sources
Households Below Average Income
IFS budget analysis
IFS: Poverty and Inequality in the UK 2007
Hansard
House of Commons, written answers for 6 March 2008: low incomes
Your view
You've read the article, now have your say. We want to know your experiences and your views. We also want to know if there are any claims you want given the FactCheck treatment.
Email news@channel4.com
FactCheck will correct significant errors in a timely manner. Readers should direct their enquiries to the editor at the email address above.
