It could change but, as I write, the Tory leadership hopefuls seem to be conducting a race to the bottom. If they think doing less, not more, for people in hardship will win them votes, what do they think of their party’s members? Clean Slate and Quids in! are strictly apolitical but on poverty we will tell whoever is in power: When what you’re doing is not working, we’ll call it out. Tax cuts that benefit richer people to tackle the cost-of-living crisis? Come off it!

Through the pandemic, Clean Slate did some pretty good stuff to help people on low incomes to improve their financial wellbeing. People had switched broadband and insurance. They’d shopped around for cheaper supermarkets and uncovered deals for essentials. They’d identified unclaimed benefits, grants and support, and were on the maximum welfare entitlement. But after a while we realised that even once we’d helped people take a 360º look at their finances, it wasn’t enough. They started to think differently about keeping a tight grip on the purse strings but still their heads were not above the poverty line. Many worked out that only employment would now cut it but at least they could start this slowly – as a better-off calculator had shown.

So, if work is the only way out, is it a fair race? Clean Slate has always been about levelling the playing field. We’ve focused on those with histories of mental ill-health, homelessness, English as a second language or just long-term worklessness. Last month we staged a Twitter takeover, hijacking Neville Southall’s feed (with his support) to raise awareness of holiday hunger. We profiled the need and promoted the help available to struggling parents. Now I’m wondering if they’re at the back of the jobseeker pack too?

Policy-makers, and their masters, whether ministers or prime ministers, just don’t see the needs of people on low incomes

My colleague, Sarah Reid, reports this month on how the DWP is under fire from parents attempting to return to work. Forcing parents to pay childcare costs upfront while issuing Universal Credit in arrears is inconsistent and self-defeating. Even if fees can be reclaimed, the policy is tone deaf to the needs of jobseekers. With families facing a postcode lottery of available and affordable childcare, a one-size-fits-all policy is bound to fail. 

Holiday hunger programmes are equally inconsistent across the UK. The government can point to the £200 million pledged to programmes each year but local authorities independently decide how to allocate funding. Clean Slate’s experience with struggling families is that they don’t know what’s out there. It’s no surprise when no two areas do things the same – national media cannot do much to help.

It’s hard enough to keep up with all that’s offer even when a national scheme is in place. Healthy Start Vouchers suffered low take-up despite offering new parents up to £450 per year – much needed in the face of a cost-of-living crisis. In March, professionals were predicting even lower take-up as the scheme went online. The government should have learnt from Universal Credit that assuming people can make a smooth transition to digital schemes is naïve.

I doubt all politicians employ nannies and au pairs but too many of them sure as hell don’t know what it takes to run a household on a limited budget, manage a family, and find and hold down a job

Policy-makers, and their masters, whether ministers or prime ministers, just don’t see the needs of people on low incomes. I actually believe they don’t see them at all. It’s a kind of unconscious bias that many of us are aware of in the context of recruiting. (Interestingly, the civil service is dropping the issue from its training schedules.) In policy, it’s the worst kind of discrimination. I doubt all politicians employ nannies and au pairs but too many of them sure as hell don’t know what it takes to run a household on a limited budget, manage a family, and find and hold down a job. (And I don’t mean for a couple of weeks. I mean when you know that it’s forever.)

They don’t know how it feels to constantly miss out on support because no-one tells you it’s there. They don’t understand people not taking up free school meals or why working families struggling to make ends meet need them too. And I bet they’re scratching their heads, or casting blame, when parents don’t make use of free childcare. They are blind and deaf to people’s needs. And also to the unintended consequences of policies painted with broad brush strokes. 

I don’t believe concepts like ‘trickle down economics’ will help people in hardship. Prosperity no longer gets shared downwards

Interestingly, the Bank of England could be breaking this mould, as they’re currently recruiting a Citizens Panel to help inform policy. I hope they understand about levelling playing fields, to ensure low-income households can participate equally. Will the Bank do all it can to ensure hard-pressed families are fully represented?

This is an ever more complicated world and I don’t believe concepts like ‘trickle down economics’ will help people in hardship. Prosperity no longer gets shared downwards. The wealthy know too well how to stash it away or invest it to soak money up the chain through rental properties. But nor do I believe handouts work either, especially when people see no end to their hardship. (One-off hardship payments to UC claimants won’t last till the winter bills come in, while an increase to welfare might.) Only stakeholder-informed and consistently applied policy will cut it.