I endured the LK interview. It is staggering the level of self deception she has - it is very clear to me she doesn't read any news or commentary first hand.
Anyway, it sent me into understanding this 'child poverty' claim and I learnt a bit more about what she is actually claiming to have done. And it makes it understandable as to why people say things like "oh more nail appointments" or "lip fillers".
Others probably already knew this but I wasn't totally clear so maybe there are others who didn't so let's go with it! The measure of poverty they are using is relative low income: i.e. children living in households with income below 60% of the (equivalised) national median income in that year — often after housing costs.
That means when they say “31% of children live in poverty,” they are not actually refering to some absolute “bare-minimum subsistence” threshold despite the fat they use that sort of language - think of all the comments about mould and hunger they make. They lead you to think there are millions of children in squalor, but the reality is that the comparison is against a very high standard of living in the UK. So basically however far our living standards increase overall, there will be still people in 'poverty' because there will always be people in the below 60% of the median income, because maths.
I just find that misleading and a slight of hand - but also explains the real life observations people make about who is actually receiving these additional benefits.