The concept of dereliction and destitution has never been formally defined. The social security system, often referred to as the “safety net,” is simply the amount the government pays without specifying what it should cover. Although Labour’s tax credits greatly increased the level of support, no minister has ever bothered to outline what a baseline should entail. In light of significant benefit cuts and freezes, coupled with rising rents and living costs, it’s difficult for the current government to justify expecting someone to survive on £85 a week for adults or £67 for those under 25. Lee Anderson’s claim that 30p is sufficient to cover daily food expenses only highlighted how out of touch a Tory deputy chair can be, as he dismissed the importance of food banks. While many ministers may be familiar with the cost of common grocery items, they believe that how individuals spend their measly £85 a week is a matter of personal choice.
In a united front, the medical royal colleges, along with healthcare and children’s organizations, have joined the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Trussell Trust in writing a letter to the Prime Minister, urging an “essentials guarantee” to ensure that universal credit provides enough support for basic survival. The letter emphasizes the devastating consequences of inadequate income, such as people being unable to afford food or skipping necessary medical appointments and medication. They reveal that nine out of ten people on universal credit lack at least one essential. Extensive research by Prof Michael Marmot confirms that the NHS cannot address the health issues caused by poverty alone; approximately 80% of factors influencing health lie outside the scope of the NHS. Poverty has a detrimental impact on mental health, as asserted by Andy Bell, head of the Centre for Mental Health. It’s important to recognize that mental health deterioration is primarily caused by hardship and debt, not just executive stress.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has outlined the “essentials” required for a bare minimum weekly budget of £120 for a single adult. This includes £37 for food, £35 for energy, £6 for clothing and shoes, £8 for communication (phone/internet), £16 for travel, and £13 for miscellaneous expenses like toiletries, bank charges, and cleaning materials. While this budget still entails hardship and a constant struggle to make ends meet, it does not plunge individuals into utter destitution, which is defined by the foundation as an income below £95 a week.
Implementing an essentials guarantee at a cost of £22 billion per year on universal credit may seem substantial, but even in challenging economic times, there are always choices. A new report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) highlights the detrimental effects of the current tax system. The report suggests that equalizing the taxation of income from capital and labor could generate £8 billion in revenue and address labor market distortions. Considering wealth taxes could also yield significant funds, according to the IFS Deaton review of inequality. By setting a threshold of £2 million, only the top 1% of adults would be affected, resulting in more than £80 billion in revenue after accounting for non-compliance and administrative costs. The report also criticizes VAT zero rates and exemptions, which cost £100 billion in lost revenue while burdening businesses with compliance obligations and failing to effectively redistribute income to lower-income households. It’s worth questioning why flying is taxed less than driving and why cutbacks in HMRC staffing have led to substantial uncollected revenue.
These examples demonstrate that there is money available and choices to be made. The response of the Prime Minister to the letter from various organizations calling for an essentials guarantee remains uncertain. However, it is likely that he will be more focused on demands for tax cuts from his party backbenchers than considering the plight of those struggling to afford basic necessities.
Labour, under Keir Starmer’s leadership, will not be promising increased benefits and Rachel Reeves is not advocating for tax hikes. Nonetheless, it is important to note that pre-election policy does not necessarily indicate future actions in office. It’s important to acknowledge that caution seems to permeate Labour’s approach to avoid potential public backlash. The proposed mansion tax of £2 million, which seems completely reasonable, was met with significant opposition and criticism in 2015.
According to Ipsos’ ongoing issues index, “poverty/inequality” ranks only eighth in terms of public concerns. Historically, the English, more so than the British, have exhibited a mean-spiritedness towards the concept of benefits. However, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s upcoming research suggests a different sentiment among swing voters in “red wall” constituencies. These voters expressed passion and anger over the hardships faced by themselves and those around them. This indicates that the top concern, “cost of living,” reflects a genuine concern for others and may not align with how the category of “poverty/inequality” is typically perceived.
The question remains whether we are on the cusp of a transformative moment in political ideology, where the immense struggles caused by debt, poverty, hunger, and children going without basic necessities finally break through the traditional English mindset that has consistently delivered Tory governments throughout the majority of our lives.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
