Welcome to the linguistic inflation of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has a report out talking about destitution in the UK. This rather surprises us as Barbara Castle proclaimed destitution entirely conquered in the UK all the way back in 1959. Presumably they’re talking about something else then and yes, indeed they are.

The definition of destitute is:

Box 1: Definition of destitution

People are destitute if:

EITHER:

(a) They have lacked two or more of the following six essential items over the past month, because they cannot afford them:

• shelter (they have slept rough for one or more nights)

• food (they have had fewer than two meals a day for two or more days)

• heating their home (they have been unable to heat their home for five or more days)

• lighting their home (they have been unable to light their home for five or more days)

• clothing and footwear (appropriate for the weather)

• basic toiletries (such as soap, shampoo, toothpaste and a toothbrush).

To check that the reason for going without these essential items was that they could not afford them,

We: asked respondents if this was the reason; checked that their income was below the standard relative poverty line (that is, 60% of median income – after housing costs – for the relevant household size); and checked that they had no or negligible savings.

OR:

(b) Their income is so extremely low that they are unable to purchase these essentials for themselves

We’d not try to argue that any of those things is a desirable state of affairs. But there are certain holes in the argument. The most obvious is to ask why they cannot be afforded - that is, where is the household budget going if not on those things? No, this is not to argue that the poor spend their incomes upon trivia rather than essentials. It is though to point out that budget allocations are not, for all people, optimal by these standards being given.

We have a much larger problem with this definition. Note that second definition. If someone is given these things then they are still destitute. Think through that for a moment.

As a society we insist that no one should be denied medical treatment on the basis of income. OK. We supply it - rightly or not - through the NHS. But if our list of absences that cause destitution included medical care, which a complete one should probably do, we’d thus say that people are destitute despite the existence of the NHS. Because they couldn’t afford to buy it even as they get given it. The same would be true of education (the state school system, to the extent that provides an education), libraries, even, to be ridiculous, free opera. Or, say, free shelter leaves you still destitute because you cannot afford to pay for it out of your income. Possibly even the free food and maybe toiletries from food banks leaves you still destitute.

The definition insists that either you have these things, or can pay for them that is. When what is actually desired is people having them - the definition specifically excludes people gaining them without paying for them. Charitable sourcing, that is, leaves people still in destitution as defined. Which isn’t, we insist, a useful definition of anything. It is solving that matters, not the method.

What is actually happening here is what has been happening with the definition of poverty itself over the past few decades. Linguistic inflation that is. It used to be that poverty was as Barbara Castle knew it. Now that has been conquered it has been redefined as less than 60% of median household income. Because what use campaigns against actual poverty if it no longer exists? What justification for the expropriation of the capitalist class if it is that very capitalism and markets that have abolished actual poverty? Quick, redefine so that the campaigns can continue, the justification still be advanced.

Which is what is happening here with the word destitution. Given that, in any classical sense, it no longer exists in the UK it is necessary to redefine it in order to give a justification for continuing to campaign against the system that abolished it.

Finally, a little perspective upon matters poverty. The global median household income is around - roughly you understand - £5,500 a year. That’s before housing costs. That’s also PPP adjusted, meaning that we have already taken account of the manner in which prices vary across geography. The JRF’s number is after housing costs and includes those on £5,500 a year as being destitute. It’s fair to suggest that housing costs in the UK will be £5,000 or thereabouts a year for a household, even in the best subsidised social of council housing.

So, the JRF is claiming that a household on twice global median income (housing paid plus that £5,500 a year) is in destitution. Twice global median income plus the value of the NHS, state schools, all state provided goods and services in fact, plus anything that might come their way from charitable enterprises. This isn’t even a useful definition of poverty let alone destitution.

Actually, we’d call it a perversion of the language more than anything else. But then that’s how politics works….