OUTRAGE has become a reliable commodity on social media. Some people and some companies don’t care whether the attention they get is positive or negative, because all engagement is useful to them. Clickbait drives views which, in turn, boosts ad revenues. And there’s no more effective clickbait than outrage.

At this time of year, it seems to get worse. Media outlets search for parents who they deem to be too selfish or stingy at Christmas. They sit them down for an interview and then send their story out into the digital universe so everybody can tell them what terrible people they are.

Over the last few days there has been a deluge of such stories. There was one about a mum of eight who provoked outrage when she admitted she was flying to Spain for a holiday without her children after Christmas because she says she needs a break.

There was another about a mum who provoked outrage when she admitted she is spending £8k on herself for Christmas but not getting her children any presents.

And then – yes, you guessed it – another mum who provoked outrage for saying she was going to spend £10,000 on her two teenage children this Christmas. During an interview with This Morning, the Glasgow woman said: “I’m going to have a massive blowout. I’m going to spend, spend, spend. They completely deserve it, they’re really, really good children. They rarely ever ask for things.”

All of these stories were described as having “sparked a debate” on social media. Which is a polite way of saying that subjects of them were torn to shreds. I say that not to defend them, but to point out how routine these stories are. They work to a formula that has been proven time and time again to work.

It goes without saying that spending thousands of pounds on yourself while refusing to buy your kids a single Christmas present is an act of utter selfishness.

And, where the £10k for “good” kids is concerned, I hate this whole concept of naughty/nice at Christmas. I hate that we, as a society, tell children that if they’re “good” then Santa will bring them presents but if they are “bad” he will not.

And, while I’m getting things off my chest, I hate those daft wee shelf elves that have become Santa’s representatives on Earth and are tasked with monitoring the aforementioned “good” and “bad” behaviour. I hate it all because of the message it sends to children from low-income households. When they don’t wake up to a groaning pile of expensive stuff on Christmas Day, but their pals do, that’s nothing to do with how “good” they’ve been. It’s poverty, not a naughty list, that does that.

Which brings me to the architects of the shameful levels of child poverty we see across the UK.

While everybody is getting in a tizz over the individual behaviour of a few clickbait parents, the real villains aren’t even bothering to hide in the shadows.

This week, Jacob Rees-Mogg was outraged. Not about any of the above, of course. He won’t have seen those Twitter “debates’ because you can’t get a decent internet connection in the 18th century.

Maybe that’s why he wasn’t outraged about the reports that his colleague Tobias Ellwood attended a Christmas party with 27 other people. And he wasn’t outraged by his boss saying that a No-Deal Brexit was “the most likely outcome” from the trade deal negotiations with the EU. No, it was none of those things that outraged Jacob Rees-Mogg. It was poverty charity Unicef that made the Commons Leader see red.

He attacked the charity for its decision to grant £25,000 to feed children in south London.

READ MORE: Labour MP sends the perfect Christmas present to Jacob Rees-Mogg

For the first time in its 70-year history, the charity said it would provide funding to feed 1800 UK children over Christmas.

The donation was raised by Labour MP Zarah Sultana, who spoke about the “grotesque inequality” that necessitates it. Addressing Mr Rees-Mogg she said: “While children go hungry, a wealthy few enjoy obscene riches, from Tory donors handed billions in dodgy contracts to people like the Leader of the House, who is reportedly in line to receive an £800,000 dividend payout this year.

“So will he give Government time to discuss the need to make him and his super-rich chums pay their fair share so that we can end the grotesque inequality that scars our society?”

Mr Rees-Mogg, replied: “It’s a real scandal that Unicef should be playing politics in this way when it is meant to be looking after people in the poorest and most deprived countries in the world, where people are starving, where there are famines and there are civil wars – and they make cheap political points of this kind, giving, I think, £25,000 to one council.’’

A multi-millionaire MP having the audacity to criticise a charity for stepping in to help alleviate the suffering that his government has caused should make us all angry. That’s where our real outrage should be directed. Not at the click-bait stories that serve as a distraction.