Proof of the grave financial difficulty into which millions of households have been plunged by the high cost of living continues to mount. In a newly released survey, almost half of teachers in deprived parts of England reported that their schools regularly provide food to pupils and their families. Recent increases in rough sleeping in cities including London, and the huge number of people who rely on food banks – the Trussell Trust gave out more food parcels in 2022 than ever before – are further examples of extreme economic distress.
Evidence of public concern about such widespread hardship is also accumulating. New research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) and Stop the Squeeze (a coalition of pressure groups) shows that voters believe both Conservative and Labour politicians are out of touch with the severity of the situation – although Labour was regarded by Stop the Squeeze’s sample as better placed to tackle it.
Both the government, and Sir Keir Starmer’s opposition, recognise high living costs as a key electoral issue, and a problem that causes most harm to the poorest people. In recognition of this, benefits were increased this year in line with inflation. But momentum is building behind a campaign to persuade them to go further. A scheme proposed by the JRF, in partnership with the Trussell Trust, would enshrine claimants’ legal entitlement to the “essentials” of life, including food and electricity, with the basic level of benefits set by an independent body. Currently, the JRF estimates that the standard allowance would need to be £120 for a single person, an increase of £35 on the present rate of £85.
Launched in February, the “essentials guarantee” has won the support of more than 20 health bodies, including the British Medical Association and Royal College of Nursing. The Liberal Democrats, in a pre-manifesto issued in advance of their upcoming conference, agree that the level of universal credit should be decided independently, not by ministers. Supporters of the guarantee hope that parliament’s work and pensions committee will also throw its weight behind the proposal in a report on benefits due out soon.
Such a policy could be popular. Research shows that most people believe benefit claimants should be able to afford haircuts, celebrations and internet connections as well as food and utility bills. The public is not, by and large, out to punish benefit claimants. While Labour appears highly unlikely to commit to such a dramatic overhaul in advance of a general election, given its extremely fiscally cautious stance, these proposals from the charity sector rightly recognise that the drastic predicament that so many now face demands an ambitious response.
Poverty causes illness, along with myriad other social ailments such as addiction, homelessness and pupil absenteeism. Any government that takes public health and wellbeing seriously must recognise this. The austerity policies pursued by the Conservatives since 2010 have massively increased inequality and especially deep poverty among working-age people, particularly lone parents and large families. A rise in the local housing allowance (frozen since 2020) and the removal of the two-child benefit cap are arguably more urgent priorities than the radical novelty of an essentials guarantee enshrined in law. But given Labour’s timidity, it is a relief to see bold, longer-term ideas being pushed forward in civil society.
