Charles Dickens wrote in Oliver Twist that “very sage, very deep” British leaders “established the rule that all poor people should have the alternative … of being starved by a gradual process in the [poor]house, or by a quick one out of it.” If one were to believe a recent UN report on poverty, the fate of the poor remains Dickensian.

Orrather, Hobbesian, as UN Special Rapporteur PhilipAlston quoted the philosopher’s ubiquitous description of life as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” inhis preliminarystatement on British poverty.

Yet Alstonmisrepresented the extent and depths of poverty and misdiagnosed its causes,while dismissing the most proven antidote to child poverty.

Confusing poverty with inequality and anecdotes withdata

The UK follows muchof Europe in e inequality, which it definesas poverty; specifically, anyone making less than 60 percent of the e is considered “poor.” In fact, Alston derided the notion the very notionof “so called ‘absolute poverty.’”

Butthe emphasis on relative equality leads to strange results. Alston reprimanded theUK while praising Mauritania formaking “significant progress in alleviating poverty,” although 42percent of the latter nation lives on lessthan £1,000 a year.

Alstonbelittled the May government’s contention “that there is no extreme poverty inthe UK, and nothing like the levels of destitution seen in other countries.” Hethen proceeded to quote a number of personal stories shared with him at foodbanks.

But theplural of anecdote is not data and, as Nobel-winning economist Paul Samuelsonwrote in Newsweek in 1967, “Anecdotesdo not constitute social science.”

Whatreally mattersis the average family’s ability to afford necessities, and the verifiable facts paint a much different picture.

A mere six percentof people said they find it “quiteor very difficult to get by financially” – less than half the numberwho reported being hard-pressed in 2012 – according to the Office of NationalStatistics (ONS). As median household es have exceeded their pre-recessionhighs, the percentage of people satisfied with their household e has spikedsince 2002.

Furthermore,Alston “ignores keyevidence from the ONS which shows es actually increased for thelowest e quintile over the period 2008 to 2017,” writes RichardNorrie at the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs.

Given realproblems in places like sub-Saharan Africa – where Alston’s office typicallyfocuses – why was he in the UK at all?

Associating austerity and Brexit with poverty

Alston saidhe made his office’s fourth visit to a developed Western country in partbecause he wanted his study to help Brits “better understand the implicationsof an austerity approach,” which emphasizes cutting social spending.

“Poverty is a political choice” Alston said.“Austerity could easily have spared the poor … but the political choice wasmade to fund tax cuts for the wealthy instead.”

But tax cuts are not an “expenditure.” (They merely allowpeople to keep more of the money they earned.) The bemoaned “austerity”was neverterribly austere, and Chancellor Philip Hammond’s most recent budgetboosted spending by £32 billion over last year.

Furthermore, hefelt Brexit – the UK’s exit from a supranational government – created anopportune time for the UN to intervene. His statement warns that “fears and insecurity” fueledthe Brexit vote. Leaving the EU will contract the economy by as much aseight percent, and “the poor will be substantially less well off than theyalready are.”

In reality, the UK’s economy outperformed expectations. Economicgrowth hit a two-yearhigh this year. The greatest threat to the market is uncertainty which is caused,in large part, by the doubtful future facing the Brexit-light deal offered byTheresa May.

The governmentrightly assessedthe “extraordinary political nature” of the report as “wholly inappropriate.”

Dismissing the poverty cure

Alston chided theUK government for highlighting the fact that unemployment has reached a 40-year low,because “being in employment does not e poverty.”

However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) – far from a ConservativeParty institution – noted in a study last year that “the rate of persistent poverty forchildren in households that have had someone in work in each of the last fouryears is just 5% … On the other hand, children in households that have had noone in work for at least three of the last four years account for slightly over40%.”

Put another way, employment is themost effective way to reduce child poverty, Alston’s purported concern.

The onlypersistently depressing metric in the panoply of data offered by the ONS is thestubborn percentage of young Britons classified as NEETs:those in their prime working years who are Notin Education, Employment or Training.

The message theymost need is not another political jeremiad blaming their problems onpoliticians who are too stingy with other people’s money. Young people at riskneed to hear that unlocking their potential could change their lives, munities, and possibly the world for the better.

The Catholicmystic Catherine of Siena once adviseda young man, “If you are what you ought to be, you will set fire to all Italy.” Thetalents latent in every human heart can illumine every nation in the world.

If only Alston haddelivered such a hope-filled message to children of God who find themselvessidelined in their own lives.

illustration of Oliver Twist. Public domain.)