It's certainly been a while...
As with all routines I've found it increasingly difficult to get back into writing the longer I've been absent. Alternative time-sinks abound (board gaming, work, sleep), and as the topics I was interested in got more complex, the ability to write anything coherent, and useful, in less than 10,000 words got less and less.
I therefore had to extend a thank-you to Mr Buckeridge for providing the inspiration for this post. In making this a response to an existing question it provided a clear purpose, and a limit to scope. Both excellent assists in getting back on the metaphorical, and virtual, horse.
So.. without further ado. Here if my 'sense-check' on the following;
---
--
Health Warning(s)
First off, as a caveat, the above isn't / wasn't a link to an article or anything - it's just a picture. There are therefore no sources for the figures quoted, it's entirely possible therefore that using different methodologies to what I'm going to use, you could come up with a different view.
Secondly, I'm not setting out (I'm typing this before having done any of the research) to prove any of the above "true" (or "false"). I'm going to try and come up with the best view I could on the 8 metrics above, and compare that to the above.
To give them the benefit of the doubt I'm going to count "9 years of Tory governments" to include 5 years of the Coalition government (2010-2015). We've only actually had a "Tory" government since Cameron won the 2015 election with an outright majority.
I've sourced what I can in the footnotes. This is a for-interest exercise so no this isn't vigorously peer-reviewed data collection - but its more than I got from the Pileus picture so stop complaining!
Framing the Issue
To borrow a Denny-ism; there is some surprisingly clever framing going on in this image, meaning there are several questions to address.
As I see it, the 'argument' Pileus are presenting can be broken down as follows;
- Here are some metrics which show things are worse now then they have been previously.
- These metrics are a reasonable basis for informing a voting decision.
- The reason for that deterioration is because of a Tory government.
- A different government would perform better on these metrics.
- Voters should therefore make a choice to support a different Party at the next election.
In terms of approach, point 1 seems to be broadly a 'fact check' piece, the rest are more open to judgemental / qualitative review, but I'll see what I can come up with.
1. Metric Accuracy
Child Poverty +50%
TL:DR: Inaccurate. Source: Social Metrics Commission
Upfront the first thing to note here is that 'poverty' is a complex concept to try and measure. Different governments, media groups and charities around the world have all come up with different metrics and definitions; some more, and some less measurable.
Many metrics try to equate poverty with low income (often resulting in a so-called 'poverty line' where a household or individual income below this indicates 'being in poverty'), yet this overlooks cost of living. (This is particularly relevant when comparing internationally, $1000/month goes a lot further in India, where the average salary is $168/month and the cost-of-living index is 31, then it does in Bermuda, where the average monthly income is nearly $9,000. (Footnote 1). You could be in severe poverty in Bermuda, yet still be earning significantly more in dollar terms than even a moderately well-off family in India).
The UN and World Bank definitions try to get round this by defining poverty as an inability to afford the basic needs of life - food, clothing etc. (Though of course this has it's own problems when it comes to deciding what a 'basic need' is. Does an iphone count? Does an internet connection? Does a foreign holiday? (No, yes, no I'd probably suggest)).
The second challenge is around absolute vs relative metrics. Relative poverty says your 'in poverty' if you fall below some % of the median (or mean) level of income or quality of life. Absolute metrics set a level and say if you're below it, your in poverty.
In practice both metrics have their place and tell you different things; relative metrics talk to wealth inequality and (arguably) a sense of social 'justice' (it's not "fair" some people have far more than others). Absolute metrics are better for showing progress, particularly over time, and to giving an insight into the living standards of individuals in quantifiable terms.
Relative metrics in particular can be useful, but also misleading, consider these two scenarios:
10 people make up a community, earning some spread of income. 3 of them are earn less than 60% of the median amount (a possible relative method of calculating poverty). Everyone gains a 10% bump in their real earnings; meaning everyone is better off. But because the median has also increased there is no change in the number of people below the 60% of median amount. You can keep doing this until the lowest earners are now earning even more than the top earner did originally, but your stat will still say they are in poverty. (All 10 of them could even have started out with a £1m+ income, but 3 of them are still in "relative" poverty).
Alternatively, imagine that for whatever reason the highest earner in that group of 10 people (before the increases) decides to leave. The group now comprises of 9 people, all of whom have the exact same income as before, (and if you wanted to get detailed, the group as a whole as less resources). However, the median income has also dropped (since you've taken the top income out, the mid-point is now slightly lower), which might mean one of your original 3 'in poverty' people is now above the 60% of median line. Hurrah! You've reduced poverty by getting rid of the high income households; no-one is better off in absolute terms, but you've reduced the relative gap from top to bottom.
So. With all that out of the way, what data can we find out the subject?
FullFact.org (Footnote 2) references a comprehensive study by the Social Metrics Commission which started publishing estimates from 2018. They use a much wider ranging definition of poverty then most, that covers things like income, housing and mortgage costs, child care and disability costs and so on. They also use a relative measure (as mentioned above), which they have set at 54% of median. Effectively if you have slightly more than half of the "stuff" of the average household your defined as being in poverty.
I'd judge this a fairly broad / comprehensive definition of poverty, and is therefore more likely to be over (rather than under) counting. The range of factors considered also means its more likely to pick up trends in secondary metrics (i.e. anything other than income) which might have deteriorated over the last 10 years.
Despite this their data shows no marked increase in child poverty over the last 9 years.
Conclusion: INACCURATE
Food-bank Use: +1,000%
TL:DR: Probably Accurate, but Misleading. Food Bank usage is correlated with Food Bank availability, not strong evidence of an actual increase in food poverty. Source: Trussel Trust stats and research papers mainly.
Food banks are a relatively recent addition to the social support network; St Mary's Food Bank in the US, established in 1967, is credited (by wiki admittedly), as the world's first. Unlike traditional welfare systems that provide benefits in the form of cash, Food Banks provide 'welfare in kind' by directly distributing food to those in need. (Personally I actually think this is a far better approach to welfare, as I've discussed elsewhere).
The problem is assessing the use of Food-Banks however is to separate out what's a change in the underlying needs of the population, from what's a growth in awareness and access to Food Banks specifically. Put another way, are more people using Food Banks because it's now an option they are aware of, or are more people using Food Banks because more people are struggling to provide food for themselves and their family.
Data and research in general is also rather sketchy. The Trussel Trust (the organisation behind about a 2/3rds of the UK's Food Banks), has commissioned a study by Oxford University (footnote 3)), but the sample is only 400 households, and focuses more on the characteristics of households using food banks rather than trends over time - it does help with some of the conjecture at the end though; particularly the insight that nearly all households using Food Banks are in extreme financial vulnerability.
That said, we can try and do some estimation. Before the financial crisis it seems Food Banks were virtually non-existent in the UK (The Trussel Trust notes it ran 2 in 2004), using their growth as a model, and assuming a current stock of around 2,000 (okay that's from the Guardian, but it's surprisingly difficult to find standardised stats), we get something like this;
| Year | Trussel | Total |
| 2004 | 2 | 3 |
| 2007 | 22 | 33 |
| 2011 | 100 | 150 |
| 2012 | 300 | 450 |
| 2014 | 660 | 1000 |
| 2019 | 1200 | 2000 |
What we can draw from this is that the number of Food Banks in the country has increased by potentially as much as 13x over the 2010-2019 period (+1300%). This certainly gives weight to the 'greater accessibility' argument.
Helpfully, the Trussel Trust does also publish stats on the number of food parcels it has given out, which is closer to a 'usage' metric (yes I know this is only 65% ish of all Food Banks but it seems a reasonably proxy for percentage behaviour). But this only goes back to 2013. On that basis we've seen growth from 913k parcels in 2013 to 1.6m in 2019, or growth of 75%. (Footnote 4). Unfortunately the Trust doesn't publish data back to 2010, which is what we need to assess the +1000% claim. However, we could do some counterfactual. If the 1000% is correct, then the 1.6m food parcels handed out in 2019 equates to 160k parcels in 2010.
Assuming the 100 branches number from above, that's 1,600 food parcels per food bank per year; about the same level we see in the 2017 figures, and below a 2012/3 peak of c. 2000. This coincides with the Trussel Trusts own growth figures that suggest a peak in 2012, with the number of new Food Banks being opened per week slowing from a peak in late 2012.
Taken all together than I think we can say a couple of things;
- The +1000% Food Bank usage, measured as food parcels handed our per year, may well be true.
- However, this has coincided with a 1300% increase in the number of Food Banks, meaning much greater awareness and recognition.
- Food Bank usage is correlated with extreme income poverty, which at a macro scale has not increased materially (as per the Poverty levels graph above). For me this gives more weight to the "availability" driver rather than the "greater demand" driver.
However, I have a problem with the framing. The implication seems to be that because of the Tory policies over the last 9 years the number of people in severe food poverty has increased by 1000%. This isn't born out by the analysis above, that greater usage has come from greater accessibility.
If anything, you could probably make a case that by integrating Food Banks into the welfare system (for example by having social workers make referrals to Food Banks), then government policy may have prompted food bank usage as an effective part of the social welfare network. (This is straying into a more detailed policy analysis then I want, but it's worth keeping in mind). The clincher for me though is the lack of evidence of widespread (let alone +1000%) increase in overall poverty, which, as per the Oxford study, is correlated with food bank usage. If more people were in poverty (and this was because of government policy) then I think you could make the Tory = food poverty = Food Bank link. That link absent, then I'd judge this as deployment of a fact (food bank usage) in aid of a misleading premise (Tory created poverty).
Conclusion: PROBABLY ACCURATE but MISLEADING
Homelessness +170%
TL:DR: Inaccurate, homelessness did increase between 2010 and 2018 but by a much smaller amount. Recent reforms may have lead to an overall drop in homelessness over the period. Source: Shelter England Housing Database
After a lot of faffing on this one I finally found a surprisingly good set of data, courtesy of Shelter (footnote 5). Hat's off to them, this is clearly based on ONS data, but also brings on other data sources and is a really easy to use tool; though it only covers England. However, since that accounts for most of the population, I've mapped out, quarterly, the total number of households that fit any of the following definitions;
- Families with children accepted as homeless and in priority need.
- Households accepted as homeless and in priority need.
- Household found to be eligible, homeless but not in priority need.
Result:
Now, there's obviously something a bit weird happening from Q2-2018. I think this is to do with legislative changes brought in by the Tory's that expanded the number of households that local councils had a duty of care towards; part of a number of reforms under both the Labour, Coalition and Tory governments to push prevention of homelessness in the first place over relief of homelessness once it's happened.
If these figures genuinely reflect the impact of those changes in helping keep people in a home, then that's pretty impressive. However, the good statistician in me winces at that kind of step change without a more thorough investigation.
I've therefore cut my comparison from Q2-2010 (when the Coalition took office), to Q1-2018 (before that precipitous drop). On that basis the figures are 20,595 households in 2010, to 25,719 in 2018, or an increase of 25%. About 5% of that can be correlated with population growth, so that leaves an increase of 20%.
This is certainly a poorer track record than Labour managed to deliver between 2005-2010 (I couldn't get data before then), when we saw major reductions in the number of homeless households. However, without a much bigger investigation I'm not sure you could separate out the policy impacts from the economic environment. What does seem to be true is that the Tory government has overseen a continuation of legislation aimed at building a higher duty of care to prevent homelessness, and that homelessness has clearly not increased by 170%.
Conclusion: INACCURATE, if 2018 reforms are sustainable EXTREMELY INACCURATE
NHS Waiting Lists +70%
TL:DR: Accurate, but not all the context. The NHS is serving record numbers of people, and there is evidence that waiting times have, on average, increased under the Tory's watch, though are still low by historic standards. Source: NHS Monthly Diagnostics Data
Although it's not clear exactly which "Waiting Lists" this is referring too, I've taken it to mean "waiting times for diagnostic tests and procedures" since there's data easily available for that on a consistent, time-series basis (footnote 6).
In May-2010 the "Total Waiting List" figure was 536,262, which increases to 1,059,830 by May-19, so an increase of 97%.
However, the number of people on a 'waiting list' probably speaks more to demand rather than anything else - this is born out by the total volume of activity. Comparing the 2010 to 2019 we find that 1.2m tests and procedures were carried out in 2010 vs 2.0m in May-19; an increase of 66%.
The NHS helpfully also publishes the % of people having to wait more than 6 weeks (same data set). On that basis the figures are 0.7% in May-2010, and 4.1% in May-19. This is actually a much worse performance; an increase of 585%! (Though for completeness, early 2010 was abnormally low, and 2-3% seems the more 'normal' level post the Blair reforms got it down from 50%+ !).
The NHS also publishes a "Median" stat, which I think the median waiting time in days (though the stats release isn't particularly clear). On this basis, the May-2010 figure was 1.8 days, and the 2019 figure 2.1%, an increase of 16%.
Conclusion therefore seems to be that; the NHS is having to serve more people than ever (the July-19 figure is the highest on record), that is increasing the number of people on waiting lists, and, on average, though to a lesser extent, increasing the number of people experiencing long waits.
Historic comparisons are difficult - the data goes back to 2006, and although 2006-2010 is a comparable uplift in activity (c. 66%), it's starting from a wildly different base in terms of waiting times and lists (50%+ of people waiting more than 6 weeks). Undoubtedly the Labour reforms and spending increases in the early 2000's did drive a real improvement in outcomes, and the Tory's have seen some slippage, arguably as a result of increasing volumes.
Overall then;
Conclusion: ACCURATE, but not all of the context.
Crime +30%
TL:DR: Vaguely accurate for 'police reported' crime, but not at all clear that this applies to 'total' crime. Source: ONS
There's a big problem in stats around crime; are you talking reported crime or total crime. For clarity; Total crime = reported crime + unreported crime.
Almost by definition statistics can only include reported crime, but that can cause some paradoxical outcomes; more police and more confidence in the police can result in increasing levels of reported crime (people are more willing to come forward), whilst an inefficent or corrupt police force tends to receive less reports from victims, and therefore reports less crime in their areas.
The ONS, in addition to publishing purely police-reported crime (though I could only find that going back to 2013, so it doesn't really help with this question), also publish the results from the Crime Survey: England & Wales. This helps supplement and enhance the police data by giving access to data on crimes that might go unreported to the police, it also, helpfully, goes back a lot further (footnote 7):
This seems to indicate that whilst 2018 vs 2017 specifically appears to be an increase, overall crime is down comared to 2010, and significantly down since the late 90's.
I also looked at the police reported stats (footnote 8); we only have this back to 2013, but it does provide some useful additional insight.
First off, if you just take the rolled up "total reported offences" number for July 2013 (the earliest available data point) and compare to Dec-2018, you get about a 50% increase. I suspect it's some variation on this where the Pileus stat comes from.
However, there are a few issues with this, firstly, a new category of crime has been added into the data by 2018; "Stalking and Harrassment" - this accounts for c. 110k of the c. 500k reported increase. Other big increases are "public order offences" (65k increase) , "violence- without injury" (100k increase) "Fraud and computer misuse" (50k increase). The problem is I can see all four of these categories fitting into the 'unreported' crime bucket the further back in time you go (or simply not existing in the case of computer misuse). Compared to the CSEW survey data, this seems to suggest not that crime overall is increasing, but that more of it is being reported.
Conclusion: VAGUELY ACCURATE for "Reported Crime" PROBABLY INACCURATE for "Total Crime"
Local Government Funding -50%
TL:DR: Accurate as a single figure in relation to central government grant, but part of a wider package of reforms and funding changes. Source: Local Government Association , Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Local councils and authorieis are funded from a range of sources, the main ones being central government grants, council tax (which is set locally), business rates, and the fees and charges they leverage for the provisions of services (for example parking fees and fines). Thankfully a bit of digging turned up a report from the Local Government Association (footnote 9) on the topic.
They start by setting out the reduction in 'core' government funding that has taken place since 2010; this is projected to amount to c. £16bn in cuts by 2020, or a 60% reduction. Although this is graphical rather than tabular in the report making an exact count difficult, I'd eyeball 50% as the 2010-2019 reduction as about right.
It does therefore seem correct to say the core funding of local governments by central government has been cut by 50%.
However, this has at least partially been offset by increasing the amount of business rates local councils get to keep; up to 50%, and planned to be 75% by 2020 (worth c. £2.4bn) in addition more recent grant announcements include c. £10bn for adult social care, and smaller grants for rural fundng, and councils in a negative revenue position (footnote 10). It also looks like the 2% cap on annual council tax increases is being raised to 3%, worth about a quarter of a billion a year assuming councils adopt it.
Conclusion: ACCURATE, but part of a package of changes and reforms
Police Numbers -20%
TL:DR:
I'm going to lean on FullFact again here, who have a convenient graph;
As this shows, yes there has been a decline in police numbers since 2010, equivalent to about 20,000 officers, or 14%ish.
However, as FullFact goes on to point out, this is a national picture of a local service, and the reductions have not been uniform across the piece. Some forces have seen increases, others have seen decreases (at least in 2018, though I'd imagine in any given year you still have a shifting pattern of ups and downs).
"Front-line" police seems to have followed a similar trend - down c. 16%, but with the caveat that there's no definition of what constitues 'front line' and some forces seem to take a very different approach to others, giving 'teeth to tail' ratios anywhere between 71% and 94%.
FOOTNOTES
1. https://www.worlddata.info/cost-of-living.php
2. https://fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/
3. https://www.trusselltrust.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/06/UO_exec_summary_final_02_04_online.pdf
4. https://www.trusselltrust.org/news-and-blog/latest-stats/end-year-stats/#fy-2018-2019
5. https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/housing_databank
6. https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/diagnostics-waiting-times-and-activity/monthly-diagnostics-waiting-times-and-activity/monthly-diagnostics-data-2019-20/
7. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingjune2018
8. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/crimeinenglandandwalesquarterlydatatables
9. https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/5.40_01_Finance%20publication_WEB_0.pdf
10. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/final-local-government-finance-settlement-2019-to-2020-written-statement
TL:DR;
No comments:
Post a Comment