Depends totally on how you define poverty.

I've seen it defined as < x% of average income, which is obviously not poverty, but inequality, and by definition is impossible to eradicate.

This has traditionally been the defense of governments, Conservative and Labour, since it was deemed important.

ie if the figures rise, then its because the means by which you calculate those figures is wrong, even though you were happy when they were lower.

If the figure falls, then you point out how its all to do with your policy and economic management.

So the conservatives will no doubt be stating its the wrong method, as they're expected to rise for the first time in 10 years, and that a new calculation is required, and miraculously, this new method will show a positive result (and people will magically be lifted out of poverty). 8% is hardly a disaster, given that's the only rise in 10 years.

Funny enough, they method of calculation was fine for the last five years or so, when the number was falling.

In truth, a rise of 200k from 2.3m to 2.5m, given the cuts and freezes, isn't actually a bad result for the Government. But we live in a world of spin....

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Its relative poverty.

Labour only really looked like they were making progress because they removed 'accommodation costs' from the calculation.

The reality is that successive governments going back to the 80s, have spent more time defining child poverty than actually addressing the issue of child poverty.

Which for me sums up politics. Address the public not the problem

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

As opposed to the usual 'if your not staving your not poor' nonsense. I think an income that's 60% less than the national average is as good a relative measure as you'll get. Plus, no one should be earning 60% below the national average salary and working.

The point probably is that they're arguing over a calculation changes that will likely as not add or subtract a few percentage points, rather than actually dealing with a problem that could affect as many as 2.5m children in the UK.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

No you can be poor, but that doesn't mean it's poverty.

Poverty is extreme, not someone who is fine day to day but doesn't tick the x amount of average income box, and that's why it's used. It's hyperbole.

Average doesn't even work nationally, at best it should be of the average income of the region.

Optimistic as ever

Have you noticed how they only show the above?
Do you seriously think there are no tea total, non smoking poor?