Yesterday we ran a piece on the level of people living in poverty under Margaret Thatcher in response to a claim by Guido Fawkes which claimed the poor had "got richer under Thatcher". I dealt with a lot of this yesterday; but here is another graph showing a bit more straightforwardly the growth in relative poverty during the Thatcher years.
Yesterday we ran a piece on the number of people living in poverty under Margaret Thatcher in response to a claim by Guido Fawkes which claimed the poor had “got richer under Thatcher”.
I dealt with a lot of this yesterday; but here is another graph showing a bit more straightforwardly the growth in relative poverty during the Thatcher years.
Source: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/
Percentages are perhaps more helpful, however, because, as Tim Nichols of the Child Poverty Action Group put it, the numbers can be affected by changes in the size of different population groups (there were more pensioners, but fewer children at the end of Thatcher’s time in office). Percentages may therefore make more sense.
For relative poverty, in percentages and after housing costs, the changes from 1979 to 1991 were as follows:
- Whole population: 13%, increased to 24% – an increase by (not of) 85%
- Children: – 14%, increased to 31% – an increase by 121%
- Pensioners: 29%, increased to 36% – an increase by 24%
HT Tim Nichols of the Child Poverty Action Group.
14 Responses to “Thatcherism saw child poverty grow by 121 per cent”
SadButMadLad
Looking at the source, you can also use a different table to say different things. The table on the next page has figures for the number of individuals falling below various thresholds of 1998/99 median income *held constant in real terms*.
For 1979, there were 18.8m and in 1991/92 16.2m for people below the 60% median level after housing costs. So using the same source of data, I can say quite truthfully that under Thatcher the poor were better off.
It’s amazing how you can use figures to push a point. Especially if you don’t explain your workings and try and bamboozle readers with fancy ways of using percentages.
And what is this poverty really. They still had access to education, health care, a roof over their heads. They probably also had a cooker, a fridge, food, clothing, and access to some form of entertainment. Not quite what many would class as poverty.
Cole
Yawn. Not that again.
QWERT
completely pathetic use of statistics here – “relative” poverty so really just a measure of inequality rather than actual incomes of poor households and The child poverty percentage rate will also overestimate the truth.
micklikeariot
James Bloodworth dabbles in stats and falls flat on his face again. You’re getting a rep. Can I give you some advice, and I hope you don’t find this patronising. Don’t have a political opinion or ideology and attempt to fit stats to it. Read stats and scrutinise them and see if conclusions can be drawn. You may not like the conclusions, but you must do it that way round. And if the answer is “I cannot draw a reliable conclusion from these stats” then put your keyboard away and don’t write an article about it.