Perhaps more - or less - income inequality is a good idea. That’s something that can be discussed. Perhaps more - or less - child poverty is a good idea. That’s something that can be discussed.

But if we forget how child poverty is defined then we’re going to end up begging the question, which is what is happening here:

Too often, the stories told on both sides of our politics drive towards the wrong questions and offer the wrong policy answers. For the left, that means asserting that inequality is always rising. This is not only wrong, but dangerous in spreading the idea it is normal, when it’s anything but.

For the right, it’s trumpeting record employment and the fact that inequality hasn’t risen recently. This doesn’t recognise that we’ve never had it so bad when it comes to living standards growth and that now it’s the poorest households faring worst.

The cure for poverty is higher incomes. The cure for inequality is more equal incomes. These are not, as is obvious, the same thing, even if it’s possible to have both at the same time, one or the other and even neither. It’s necessary to decide upon which is wanted and thus craft the policies to achieve that - those - goal(s).

OK, fair enough, but then we get this:

So where does this tour of 40 years of history leave us? With some clear tasks. Most immediately, putting an end to the shameful increases in child poverty.

But child poverty is defined as living in a household with less than 60% of median income. This is a measure of inequality, not poverty. The insistence is therefore begging that very question - what should we be concentrating upon, equality or higher incomes and less poverty?

Which is, of course, why poverty is defined as being a measure of inequality. Because given that the UK has abolished, many decades ago, actual poverty there’s got to be something to whine about, doesn’t there?