We know that it is getting worse – in Scotland, for example, two fifths of the increase in income during the last decade has gone to the richest 10% of the population).

We know that it is worse than most other European countries – the UK is up there with Greece, Bulgaria and Lithuania.

Many of us know that now the greatest inequality seems to be not between those in work and those out of work, but between those in work – between those who earn mountains and brag about it, and those who earn an hourly wage so low they remain below the poverty line.

And we know that, combined with decreasing social mobility, the UK’s inequality means people have no hope of ever climbing an increasingly steep and sparsely-runged ladder.

What is so amazing is the lack of appreciation of how interconnected the talons of inequality are with our various social and environmental problems.

In an unequal society, in which resources are owned, enjoyed and controlled by the few rather than being shared amongst more people, the (often not very subtle) message to those at the bottom of the hierarchy is that they have lost the competition. Worse, there is an implicit assumption that they deserve their lower status because they are somehow less able, less talented, less gifted.

This ignores the opportunities, privilege and support showered on those who already ‘have’ – the education, the social connections, the resources, the confidence, the exclusive access to jobs and so on. I often wonder why we don’t expect more from such people than ‘socially useless’ work in finance or wallowing in inherited wealth. What happened to ‘from those to whom much is given, much is expected’?

But there is a much more profound, longer term impact of inequality.

Firstly, it corrodes our social institutions that make us civilised and humane. The more distant we are from each other – the more we inhabit different worlds, live in different localities, send our children to different schools, shop in different establishments, experience different health care –, the less we recognise each other.

The less we recognise each other, the less we appreciate our connections with each other.

The less we appreciate our connection with each other, the less we empathise for each other.

The less we empathise with each other, the less we care for each other.

And the less we care for each other, the less willing we are to contribute to shared support systems.

Hence we should start recognising the growing tax evasion and the paring down and tightening up of our mechanisms of social protection as a function of our increasingly unequal society. These shifts will also make inequality far, far worse.

Secondly, inequality fuels materialism that leads to conspicuous consumption – people try to demonstrate their status outwardly through possessions that denote conformity to some social grouping. Materialistic pursuits crowd out our time and emotional energy for more valuable pursuits such as community involvement. It can also lead to debt. And such consumption is completely rubbish for the environment – in every sense of the word ‘rubbish’!

And finally, inequality generates angst and anxiety about one’s status. Evidence from around the world shows that living with stress, anxiety and a sense of alienation leads to socially destructive behaviours and premature death. Inequality really is a matter of life and death.

When looking aghast at the state of the world, we could do worse than remind ourselves that it is the inequality that underpins so many of our dire problems.

To many, all this sounds like a very attractive proposition.  Efficiency always sounds like a great idea.  We’ve all heard far too many stories of extravagance and waste and even outright fraud in the public sector.  No doubt most of us think we could do a better job of spending our money than our political masters.  And I’ve yet to meet anyone who enjoys paying tax.

To the libertarian, the welfare state is fundamentally immoral and inefficient.  Not only does it remove the incentive to work for some, but it also unfairly forces all workers to contribute to their support.  The libertarian capitalist argument says that everyone is responsible for their own wellbeing and, without the “something for nothing” approach of the welfare state, people will work harder to find and retain the best job they can.  Those who are unable to work will be recipients of the noblesse oblige of the rich, whose philanthropic instincts will be encouraged by the absence of a state-sponsored welfare system.

The approach starts to fall down when you consider some of the practicalities, though.  If a corporation wishes to start an industrial process with significant environmental impact then how wide does its negotiating circle have to go, especially if it expects to produce a high level of carbon emissions that may affect the whole world?  How strong are the relative bargaining positions of the wealthy business-owner and the unskilled worker she wishes to employ on very low wages, or the powerful corporation and the area of very high unemployment to which it relocates?  And what happens if the wealthy (and even the not-so-wealthy) don’t keep up their end of the implicit bargain with those who are unable to work?  After all, a safety net is never needed until someone actually falls down.

That’s not to say that we can’t learn some useful lessons from this kind of philosophy.  Above all, I think it helps us ask some serious questions about “corporate welfare” and corporate responsibility.  We often hear politicians arguing that people must take personal responsibility for their circumstances and do whatever is required to improve their lives.  Libertarians hold strongly to this view, but they also insist that corporations must stand on their own two feet as well.

In Britain recently, not only have we seen major companies receive massive government subsidies, but also the ongoing effects of a system that effectively allows them to abdicate their responsibility, in order to pay their own way. Our “corporate welfare state” distorts the market drastically and, as the libertarian model predicts, this leads to inefficiency, excessive state intervention and worse outcomes for low-paid workers.

For example, I pay taxes that go into a central pot, some of which goes back out to other workers as child or working tax credits – a complicated arrangement that sees workers on low pay, who pay tax, claiming credits from the government to top up their income.  While this has been a fairly effective way of lifting children out of poverty, it doesn’t seem like the simplest solution. Given that the tax credit system is one of the most notoriously unreliable bureaucracies we have, wouldn’t it also be easier – and much more efficient –to cut out the middle-man by increasing the basic tax allowance to the living wage, and, as a result, not have those people paying tax in the first place?  It just doesn’t seem fair to have low earners paying taxes before they’ve made enough to feed their families. The losses to the Exchequer could even be offset by a slight increase in the tax rate for those earning above the new threshold, if that was deemed necessary.

People working in poverty reduction often talk about the importance of increasing government-sponsored childcare so that people, especially women, with children can enter (or re-enter) the workforce more easily.  But why should this – a direct cost of employing someone with a family – come out of the taxes of other workers who are already financially stretched? Why not reduce everyone’s taxes by the amount the country spends on such initiatives, and instead demand that employers come up with decent childcare provision themselves?  Better yet, we could insist that companies just pay their workers at a level that lets those workers choose the childcare provider that bests suits their needs, whether that’s a nursery close to home or paying grandma appropriately for the caring work she takes on.

And why in the world should anyone who has a full-time job need to claim any kind of benefits just to survive? Shouldn’t we be asking why wages are so low in some jobs that people can’t afford a decent life without a state subsidy? Government ministers insist that welfare reform is vital if people are to escape a “culture of dependency” and if they are to “make work pay”. But if a company is only profitable because other people’s taxes are enabling it to keep wages low, who is really “dependent” and who is really responsible for work not paying?

All these questions would be answered if the welfare state was, indeed, only providing ordinary people with a measure of protection from the vagaries of a sometimes cruel economic system. But some benefits given to ordinary people ultimately “subsidise” the low wages of many jobs.  In the end, that’s welfare for companies at the expense of everyone else.  I don’t think many of us believe that’s a healthy way for our economy to operate.

My taxes (and yours) should go towards insuring the nation against an economic downturn that forces many of us out of work, or against the existence of people who are simply unable to work.  My taxes (and yours) shouldn’t go to fund systems that, whether by accident or design, keep other people at or near the poverty line.  I’m happy enough to contribute to the welfare of people who are struggling to make ends meet on their own. I’m not at all comfortable paying for profitable corporations to keep them that way.

Kenny McBride works for Oxfam’s UK Poverty Programme in Scotland.  He wouldn’t know who to vote for in an American election.

Chill winds are sweeping Britain’s economy with a general expectation that poverty will increase in the coming years, and that poverty reduction targets will be missed. Alarm bells rang loudly after hints that the Government is considering changing the way it measures poverty. They wouldn’t just do this because unmet targets are embarrassing. Difficult times mean that politics in Britain has primarily become an exercise in allocating pain, not spreading butter. It may be tempting to just try to protect those with access to power, a voice, or those likely to vote because they still believe the status quo can work for them.

But this would be like applying sticking plasters to a breaking dam. Ignoring the 13.5 million people suffering below the poverty line wouldn’t just be immoral, it would be nonsensical. For two reasons, economic weakness has made tackling poverty more important, not less. Firstly, the solutions to Britain’s economic malaise require the inclusion of people on low incomes. Secondly, poverty in Britain is caused by a dysfunctional economy, and in this financial crisis, this underlying dysfunction is dragging down the living standards for growing numbers of people.

Why is solving poverty more important than ever?

If Britain is going to rebalance its economy to take advantage of new global opportunities in the way that the Government and business organisations like the CBI want, then our people and their skills will become more important determinants of growth. Some economists argue that because middle classes have become more educated, they are likely to provide fewer productivity gains in future. This means that improving poor peoples’ economic inclusion is even more important – a stable, decent standard of living is a precondition for realising potential.

Instead, increasing numbers of people are being subjected to the kinds of pressures and vulnerabilities that have existed at the bottom for years. The share of national income that goes to workers has not only declined inexorably during recent decades, but has kept falling during recession. This problem is affecting the majority of people in Britain as well as those below the poverty line. People are increasingly realising that while they’re working for the economy, the economy isn’t working for them.

This isn’t really new, it’s just worse than ever. UK economy has become supremely ineffective at including people. The proceeds of growth are not allocated where they are due. So as the numbers of those struggling with unemployment, underemployment and in-work poverty all rise, the gap between an “underclass” of the workless and millions more people in work will become more blurred. Now is the time to make common cause, to commit to tackling the underlying drivers of poverty, because it is more obvious than ever that doing so will benefit the majority. This is why a plan to come together to deal with the fallout of the economic crisis is an essential part of a bright, attainable vision of the future.

What needs to happen?

Firstly elites need to change the way they talk and think about poverty, being clear that it’s a problem for everyone. For most people, although extreme deprivation persists, poverty is decreasingly a question of ‘them’ and ‘us’.

Secondly, Britain needs big changes that work for the majority. Policymakers must make sure new forms of growth include society from the bottom up, and commit to reversing the rise of economic inequality that is making the financial crisis more painful for millions. And economic policy must focus on increasing the quality as well as the quantity of work. Work is now a debasing experience for millions of people: it offers low pay, few chances of progression, and little security. This is why, if you are a British child in poverty, the chances are, at least one of your parents is working. A work ethic can’t thrive when work is becoming an increasingly ineffective way to support a family.

Thirdly, policymakers need to inject urgency into making policy across the board pro-poor. There are plenty of low-cost and no-cost ideas out there that need a hearing. For example improving the Welfare Reform Bill should be an urgent priority, a Robin Hood Tax to protect services and safety-nets for the poorest should be another. Strong signals from the top that reducing poverty is a priority will give bureaucrats and junior ministers the courage to innovate.

Finally, leaner years require a more equitable distribution of the crop. A majority of people seem to think two things about the deficit: it is real and needs to be dealt with (56 per cent in a November YouGov poll), and that it’s not being closed fairly enough (57 per cent). In Westminster, closing the deficit can seem like the crucible of the political contest. But people outside the bubble know it’s not a game. For some communities it’s a question of life or death. To policy elites deficit reduction looks like a myriad of ‘difficult decisions’, each one subject to intense lobbying by those who can afford a voice. But the important question is do we get through this together or split apart? Does society share the burden, ensuring a decent standard of living for everyone – or do various interests fight over the scraps in a contest that can only condemn the vast majority to a poorer future? It’s the decision over the kind of society we want our children to grow up in.

Ben Morgan is Oxfam Advocacy and Policy Officer on poverty in the UK.

Please share (and @FairPayNetwork if on Twitter)!

The Fair Pay Network is a national coalition dedicated to leading the fight against low-paid work and in-work poverty, of which Oxfam is part of.

The Welfare Reform Bill starts ‘Report Stage’ in the house of Lords today – a five-day debate, where the House decides whether to change the legislation by voting on amendments proposed by individual Peers.  The Welfare Reform Bill contains a radical set of reforms that will affect the lives of millions in the UK. The implications of even the most minor errors in design are practically unimaginable. So today Peers are trying to fine-tune the government’s reforms, to ensure mistakes are nipped in the bud.

Today’s debate, from about 3pm, will cover a number of vital issues. However, one particularly critical decision will be over whether the new Universal Credit will be paid monthly, or fortnightly as Baroness Lister of Burtersett and a group of other Peers from across the aisle has proposed.

Not such a big deal? Well, for millions of people on low incomes, particularly women, it will be.

The government is rolling a range of benefits into a single ‘Universal Credit’ (UC), which they plan to pay once a month. Lots of these old benefits are currently paid weekly or fortnightly, often on a fairly flexible basis. For example, tax credits may be paid every week, or every four weeks, according to what is most convenient for a claimant (although they don’t get the final say). Housing Benefit can be paid at intervals of a week, two weeks, four weeks, or monthly, depending on the frequency with which rental payments are due. Child benefit, which is especially important to causes like increasing gender equality, reducing domestic violence, and ending child poverty, is paid weekly. Even Jobseekers’ Allowance is paid fortnightly. A shift to monthly payments for all these benefits is a big change, so it is worth weighing carefully.

The problem with paying Universal Credit on a monthly basis

The government’s argument for paying UC monthly is pretty straightforward: it reflects the frequency at which wages are paid, and therefore prepares people for that experience, making it less of an upheaval.

That sounds pretty sensible; after all we’re all paid monthly to work, why can’t benefits be paid the same way? But we aren’t all paid on a monthly basis. Three quarters of people employed in Britain are paid monthly, something Department of Work and Pensions recently acknowledged. Predictably, lower paid, lower skilled jobs are less likely to be paid monthly. Actually, only around half of jobs paid under £10,000 a year are paid monthly. Sadly, more vulnerable benefit claimants are more likely to graduate into these jobs first.

The government does recognise the change will come at a cost. In its white paper ‘Universal Credit: welfare that works’ (Cm 7957 November 2010), it conceded that:

We understand that many people on low incomes will be used to managing fortnightly payments of benefits and will ensure that, whatever the period of payment, there will be appropriate budgeting support to ensure recipients are supported effectively.

More vulnerable claimants are certainly less well equipped to budget on a monthly basis. DfES research shows that numeracy skills are painfully low amongst some groups. Five million people have ‘poor’ numeracy skills, while 1.7 million people have ‘very poor’ numeracy skills. Providing support to deal with monthly payments will cost more money. Those with lower skills are more likely to enter unskilled work that pays more frequently, so the upheaval will have been unnecessary.

Particular groups are clearly more vulnerable. Organisations such as Mind, the National Autistic Society and the Disabilities Benefits Consortium have all expressed real concern about a plan to pay UC on a monthly basis is a recipe for debt. Put together with the current plan (also in the Bill) to abolish crisis support through the Social Fund, a strict system of monthly payments is more likely to drive vulnerable claimants towards lenders and loan sharks.

Oxfam would add women to this lengthy list. Our experience and research in the UK shows that women tend to take responsibility for budgeting for essential living expenses and the needs of children, which all tend to be spent on a weekly basis. In couples, and particularly in abusive relationships, women sometimes rely on the weekly payments like child benefit as their sole source of independent income. One worry is that if benefits are paid monthly to a couple rather than individuals within the couple, less money will reach women and children, or be spent on essential expenses. In any case, when the money for essentials is already tight and tough to manage, monthly payments would seem to just make things harder.

A compromise: simplicity without debt

In short, for many claimants, monthly payments will probably work fine. But for those who with little experience of work, vulnerable claimants, claimants with very low numeracy skills, or claimants who face severe financial pressures because of inequality within the household, weekly or fortnightly payments are essential for effective budgeting. The only alternative for many will be yet more crushing private debt. As Baroness Lister argued last week in the Independent, a strict imposition monthly payment threatens ‘pay-day loan peril’.

Ideally, claimants should simply be able to choose how often they receive Universal Credit. This would certainly contribute to the government’s admirable aim of making the system more tailored to the needs of individuals. However, if Ministers are set on fixing a universal frequency for payments, given that many of the most essential benefits are paid weekly, paying UC on a fortnightly basis would seem like a reasonable compromise.

UPDATE

The result is in, we lost this one I’m afraid. It was extremely close: 224 for to 227 against – less than a handful of votes short. It was heartening to see such a strong support for this amendment. Yet the fact it was so close is just mortifying – one wonders whether one could have swung it with just four more emails! On a positive note the 224 who voted ‘aye’ on amendment one deserve huge congratulations and thanks, and the speeches in favour were really strong. Click here to read the short debate, and check of who voted.

Clearly this is really disappointing, there’s no other way to put it. On a positive note though, the government does acknowledge that a system which precludes choice and presumes in favour of monthly payments will require special protections and tailored help for at least some individuals. Though such a system seems unlikley to reach the millions who are likely to struggle with monthly payments, there is clearly now a job to be done to help ensure proposals are as effective as possible. Additionlly, because a big part of our concerns around this issue stem from the attending context of current proposals mentioned in my post to retract crisis support offered through the Social Fund, securing a better solution on that could really help.

We are living in financially difficult times and everyone is feeling the pinch and having to tighten the purse strings. Now, following the announcement of rises in the price of gas and electricity by fuel giants over the summer, there are millions of people out there anxiously holding their breath in fear of the arrival of their energy bills.  These increases are having a devastating impact on households, and a study by Deutsche Bank has predicted a quarter of UK homes will be in fuel poverty by the year 2015.

As a charity that helps people in financial need, we know that the issue of fuel poverty is of paramount concern to the people we assist, with nearly two fifths indicating that they couldn’t afford to heat their homes before coming to us.  Moreover, just under a third were regularly skipping meals.

We know that Angela, who is her disabled son’s primary carer, survives on a low income and with winter approaching, she told us she is dreading her gas and electricity bills arriving. She is worried she will struggle to make ends meet.

And then there is Jayne. As well as being blind, Jayne has fibromyalgia, arthritis and Raynaud’s syndrome – conditions which mean that she needs to keep warm to reduce the pain in her aching joints. She is struggling to afford her energy bills and now goes to bed without any heating at all, often waking up to find her feet and hands have turned blue.

In Britain in 2011, there are still many individuals – just like Angela and Jayne – who are being forced to choose between whether they ‘Heat or Eat’. Is it right that companies make money at the expense of vulnerable people?

Our Turn2us service is highlighting the issue of fuel poverty through a social media campaign. We will be asking people to submit information on how much they pay for energy as a percentage of their income and the results will be automatically plotted on an interactive map. To join in or follow the campaign visit www.FuelPovertyMap.org.uk.

Rob Tolan is the Head of Policy & Research at the national charity Elizabeth Finn Care, which runs the Turn2us service. Turn2us helps people in financial need gain access to welfare benefits, charitable grants and other financial help – online, by phone and face to face through our partner organisations.

Average earnings are rising at less than the rate of inflation, and this is being presented as an argument for a smaller rise. Yet the Conservative government broke the earnings-benefits link in 1980 precisely to run down benefit levels compared to the incomes of working people, and it has never been put back. In 1980, unemployment benefits were a fifth of average earnings; today they are a tenth. Together with eroding the connection between National Insurance and benefits (most benefits that were once contributory are now means-tested for all), this has helped make social security the residual system it is now, rather than the social insurance system it was originally designed to be.

Governments can’t have it both ways. Either benefit levels keep up with the rest of society, making them a social safety net, or they keep up with prices, leaving them frozen in time. You can’t exclude the poorest from rising prosperity in the good times, and then expect them to pay the price when times are hard. Raising benefits with average earnings for the long-term would be a positive step, stopping the gap between benefits and earnings growing further. But doing it as a one-off to save money will have the opposite effect.

In the short term, calling the September inflation rate a ‘blip’ – as one Conservative MP did – is misplaced. Inflation is high because food and energy prices are rising fastest – and people on benefits spend more of their incomes on both of these than most. Indeed, no lesser authority than the Institute for Fiscal Studies has proved that inflation has been hitting the poorest hardest. There is a far stronger case for increasing benefits by more than the average inflation figure – not less – just to keep people living in poverty standing still.

In fact, the whole argument is disingenuous at best, penny-pinching at worst. Each month’s  inflation figures are annualised: they compare the world now with the picture a year ago, regardless of when in the year price hikes were highest. Benefit increases are retrospective, so when levels finally go up in April, they will be taking account of price increases that have already happened. So long as there is consistency, whenever in the year you set the benchmark, you’ll ultimately end up with the same results. Critics should be honest: moving the goalposts at this stage would mean a real-terms cut in benefits.

What has been mooted would be taking money from the pockets of the poorest, in order to pay for a crisis that was caused by the excesses of the richest. This government has past form on that. Indeed, it has already saved billions by switching which measure of inflation it uses to raise benefits. People living in poverty are already being hardest hit by job losses, price rises, tax increases, and spending cuts.

That is ‘unfair’.

Raising benefits with the cost of living is just basic decency.

Last Thursday (20th October) the inaugural annual lecture of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Poverty – chaired by Kate Green OBE MP – took place in the Houses of Parliament. The Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, addressed the audience – made up of organisations that work with poverty in the UK and several MPs. Antony Metcalfe, manager of the Fairbridge programme in Wales and one of our partners present at the event, talks about his experience.

I was privileged to be invited to attend the inaugural annual lecture of the APPG on Poverty at the Houses of Parliament last week. As one of the people sitting on the charity panel, I had the opportunity to field a question to the Minister. I asked what the government was doing about a problem a lot of young people we work with face: combining seasonal work with benefits. If a young person finds seasonal work, they have to go through the process of coming off benefits and then back on them again once their work stint is over, which is a big disincentive for them to take up seasonal work at all.

The Minister recognised that this can be a real barrier to progression and might deter some from breaking out of unemployment and achieving that first step on the work ladder. According to the Minister, the introduction of the Universal Credit will solve this issue, but in the meantime he is instructing the JobCentrePlus to ensure young people can step on and off the welfare system more easily and without being penalised.

I was fortunate to also be able to speak to the audience about our work addressing the needs of those deemed hardest to reach across South Wales, many who come to us from worklessness households, from the homelessness system or suffering from addiction issues. Our Cardiff programme, together with the other Prince’s Trust programmes, will support 50,000 young people across the UK this year. This might be by raising aspirations, confidence and motivation or by facilitating young people to start their own business. Today’s job market is highly competitive and, because our main aim is to raise youth employment, we need to ensure that all our young people receive the support they deserve at these difficult times.

One of our programmes, funded by Oxfam, is based on the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, an approach that builds a holistic picture of people’s lives by considering their assets (skills, health, relationships within the community, access to services and financial situation) rather than starting from a negative view of what people lack (work, money, skills). With this initiative we are tackling the causes of youth poverty and unemployment by enabling our young people to understand their surroundings and how they themselves can grow out of poverty by taking control of their lives.

All the other organisations that showcased their work to tackle poverty across the UK were passionate and driven and had a deep understanding of the entrenched reasons behind individual and family poverty – and I felt like we all shared the same goals. My only concern is that in this difficult economic climate, those most at risk and with the furthest to fall might slip through the net of economic reductions and budget cuts.

Antony Metcalfe is the manager of the Fairbridge programme in Wales – part of the Prince’s Trust. Fairbridge is an Oxfam partner who works with young people in England, Scotland and Wales to help them overcome the barriers in their lives by supporting them to develop the confidence, motivation and skills they need to turn their lives around.

Why is this happening? Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows 5.8 million people in the UK are living in ‘deep poverty’ – where household income is at least one-third below the poverty line – the highest proportion ever recorded. Inflation is at a 3 year high, which means that families already struggling to pay for food, fuel, clothes, travel and other basic costs are finding it even harder to make ends meet.  And in addition to this, 40% of the charities we support are facing budget cuts, with two thirds of these charities slashing their food budgets in an effort to stay afloat.

Despite this evidence some people believe that food poverty isn’t a problem in the UK, and that if people are going hungry it’s because they’re choosing to fritter away their money on lottery tickets, cigarettes, and other ‘luxuries’. Edwina Currie, ex Health Minister, voiced these feelings on a BBC Radio 5Live phone in this week, to the outrage of two listeners who had phoned in to talk about their own experiences of going hungry.

The misguided belief that the “irresponsible poor” are to blame for their own hunger is distracting people from the real issues, namely: record unemployment, food price inflation, and spending cuts that are real causes of hardship and hunger. It’s easy to blame individuals for their situations, much harder to looks at the root causes of these problems and choose to be part of the solution.

This week I received a handwritten letter from a woman asking for food. She writes that ‘with the bills there is not much left for food.’ Her wish list is extremely modest, asking for tins of beans, cereals, eggs and potatoes, ‘as these things fill the belly just as much as an expensive meal’. We’ve put her in touch with sources of local support and I really hope that her situation improves, but this is just one example of the dozens of calls, emails and letters that we get at FareShare every week from people asking for help. I’m not claiming that these calls constitute a scientific sample, but it is clear beyond doubt that UK hunger is real.

With people continuing to ask FareShare and other charities for food, my question to Edwina Currie and others who share her views is ‘How many people have to go to bed hungry before you take this seriously, how hungry do people have to be?’

Lindsay Boswell is the CEO of FareShare, a UK charity that fights hunger and food waste by rescuing surplus food from the food industry and getting it to a network of charities who then use it to feed vulnerable and disadvantaged people. FareShare is one of our partners and we are campaigning together and working to expand their network of food banks across the UK.

Photo: ©Antonio Olmos

WORDS: Mora McLagan PICTURES: Lydia Goldblatt

Dionne with her son at Randel Cramer Primary School

“It’s a lifeline” sighs the tired, smartly dressed woman on her way to work in Hackney, London.  “I’ve had to move out to Essex to be able to afford a three bedroom house.  I wouldn’t be able to have that if I wasn’t working full time, and I couldn’t work without the breakfast club.”

This is Dionne, a single mother of two who has recently found herself at the mercy of sharply rising fuel and food bills, against her static wage.  Add to this a long working day with a hefty commute into London at either end of it, and the recipe is not only stress and tiredness; but a tightly run ship.  Dionne has everything mapped out from dawn till dusk to make sure her children eat healthily and in routine.  “Because I don’t finish work till six” she tells me, “I have to give the kids dinner at school too, otherwise they’d be eating too late when we get home.  So I cook their dinner the night before, then take it to school with us to eat in the evening together at the after school club.” Unwilling to sacrifice either her job or her kids’ enjoyment of her home-cooked meals, Dionne would simply not get to work at all if it weren’t for the school breakfast club, run by Magic Breakfast.

This system works for Dionne, only just. But as our Oxfam poll showed this week, poorer families and individuals alike all over the UK are feeling the pinch the hardest when it comes to feeding themselves and their children.  What’s more, their financial balancing acts are becoming even more precarious.  For parents like Dionne; suddenly having to fix a broken car, buy a new school uniform or take unpaid leave to care for a sick relative could send them spiralling further into debt.

A network of school breakfast clubs around England, Magic Breakfast was set up by social entrepreneur Carmel McConnell.  In her previous life as a corporate advisor on business ethics, Carmel was researching her first book Change Activist when she stumbled across the disturbing fact of children arriving at school too hungry to learn. Magic Breakfast was her solution; a charity that provides breakfast at school before the day begins.  For those parents who can’t afford to make a contribution to the club, Magic Breakfast picks up the bill.  It costs as little as £3.50 to give a child a free nutritious breakfast for a whole month.

Though Dionne is able to pay to use the club at Randal Cremer, she is still feeling the impacts of price rises elsewhere. “I haven’t had a pay rise for three years” she tells me. “But each January, my costs go up.  Bus fares go up, train fares go up, petrol is constantly fluctuating up and down, and food obviously… I can just about pay the bills with my wages, but that’s it.  I don’t have anything extra, even for the kids’ birthdays I struggle.”

Listening to Dionne, it’s tempting to suggest that she takes a back seat for a while, reduces her hours or spends more time at home.  But nothing could be further from her mind. “A lot of people have said to me; ‘maybe you should take time out of work? Let the government support you for a while because you’ve been working for such a long time” she explains. “But I’ve been brought up with a work ethic.  My mum was a nurse.  She was a single parent too and she struggled along with me. I didn’t come out too badly! I’d love it for my children to have the same values; that life is not about people giving you things all the time, it’s about you going out there and learning the value of earning it for yourself.”

Dionne and her kids enjoying a Magic Breakfast

Later on at Randel Cramer breakfast club I meet a second mother with the same name: Dionne.  A busy single mum with seven-month-old twins plus two school age children, Dionne is increasingly juggling not just her time, but also her dwindling finances. While living costs like food and fuel have soared in recent months, her income has not.  “My statutory maternity pay is nothing at the moment” she tells me.  “Especially with the cost of utility bills rising, I’m getting into debt as my wages are not going up.  Electricity and gas bills have gone up, and so has food shopping.  I used to be able to do a shop for £250 a month, now I’m spending £150 a week for more or less the same stuff.  I am buying more baby stuff, but it can’t make that much difference.”

Using Magic Breakfast allows Dionne to feed her children in the morning more cheaply, while also freeing up much needed time.  By using the service, she is then able to drop the twins off at her sister’s house before starting voluntary work as a classroom helper at the school.

This certainly helps, but again, only just. Dionne has also had to make some drastic changes to her family’s lifestyle in recent months. “I’m now having to budget and live a certain standard of life that I’m just not used to,” she explains. “I used to drive, but I can’t afford to now because of petrol and insurance.  It would really help if I could drive though because of the kids.  Lots of buses don’t take double buggies, and even if they did there might be a buggy on already.  I now need to add on an extra hour in travel time on to every bus journey in order to get anywhere on time!”

Without a car and on a very limited budget, Dionne has also altered the way she shops.  It’s far more time consuming for her, and a very physical struggle too;  “I used to go to the supermarket, but it’s hard with no car and also it’s the cost.  By the time you get to the checkout, you might have gone over your budget.  Now, I organise the shopping when the kids are in school.   I have to do two trips, as I’m walking with the buggy and I can’t carry everything in one hand.”

Cooking is also tightly regimented. “I make a weekly schedule.” Dionne explains.  “I know exactly what I’m making before I buy it, so I only buy what we’ll eat and waste nothing. You don’t need to buy own brand sauces, you can make your own with the basics.  I’m only buying the essentials.”  Despite this, Dionne is still struggling to stay out of debt, even with all of her efforts to cook well and cook cheaply.

Dionne's daughter loves the healthy food at Magic Breakfast

Meeting Dionne I was amazed by how much she is able to fit into one day and still emerge smiling at the start of the next.  But tightening the purse strings has really ramped up the stresses in her life, and as she sees it, across Britain too.

“You’ve got this budget, and then you’ve got creditors and debtors hounding you and you just have to make do.  If we have to go back to the days of just eating potatoes and spam then we’ll have to and I think we are going that way!” Dionne worries for her family, but also for the future of all young people across the UK who are growing up in an increasingly unequal society.  Dionne believes the government cuts are worsening the situation, but that the media are also partly responsible;  “They portray a certain material lifestyle that not everyone can achieve” she explains.  “Society is splitting into two halves; the haves and the have-nots, the people who can achieve this lifestyle and those that can’t.”

As our food poll showed, the poorest Londoners seem to have particularly severe problems juggling finances for meals.  To Dionne though, this is far from a surprise; “London has been broken down into very different areas now.  You can predict what is going to happen to the upbringing of a child from one place to another.  The difference is right here in your face.”

Although she herself is struggling, Dionne still sees herself as better off than many in her area. “I have four kids,” she explains, “and I try to get them out of flat as much as possible, but I can only just about afford it.  What does someone do who can’t, now that all the youth clubs and children’s services are shutting?” It’s a very good question, and one that’s being asked right now up and down the UK.

Dionne says all this had made her want to switch careers, to help young people growing up in poorer urban areas build a better future.  That’s why she is now volunteering as a classroom helper at Randal Cremer, to get experience to retrain. “I’m becoming more worried about what’s going wrong in society today,” she says. “But I think that if you give kids the right head start, then you can stop problems like the riots before they happen.”

Pupils at Magic Breakfast

Magic Breakfast is a small step towards making that head start happen for some of the UK’s poorest children, and is shining a light on child hunger – the hidden UK story that deserves to be told.

Over the coming months, we’ll be hearing more from parents at Randal Cremer Primary School over how the cuts and the recession are affecting them.  We’ll also be hearing more on how they think we can all help.  Whether it is speaking out to challenge government policy, or strengthening the community initiatives that keep families and lives afloat in hard times… Stay tuned to their views here.

This is our contribution to Blog Action Day 2011, which focuses on Food.