A friend of mine who has lived in poverty for some time – and is an angry, energetic activist – tells of an interview she did with a journalist about her experience of fuel poverty and the choices she has to make living on the breadline.

At the close of the interview, the journalist said to her ‘but you’re not really poor are you?’, with a knowing, conspiratorial nod.

My friend asked ‘what do you mean?’, to which he explained ‘well, you’ve got great hair, posh looking glasses and lipstick.’

So apparently people can’t be poor and have pride in their appearance at the same time.

But the reality is that my friend is one of the world’s best budgeters and is able to find the best bargains (take note Messrs Osbourne, Johnson and Cameron). She chose well when she received her glasses from the NHS. She has her hair done for free at a local training college and her good taste means she selects quality, stylish items from her local charity shop.

But is seems that’s not good enough – she needs to be conspicuously poor.

This story speaks to a much wider issue of hidden poverty, but also assumptions, misunderstandings and stereotypes.

For example, earlier this year I was part of a radio phone-in about people claiming disability related benefits. The allegation was being made – not for the first time – that most people do so fraudulently, when they are actually fit and well and just too lazy to work. The protagonist’s claim was that because he sees people walking around near his local cafe, dragging their walking sticks, rather than leaning on them, and clearly not at work, then they must be faking a disability and thus fraudulently claiming benefits.

But one only needs to remember that we live in a society in which over half of people receiving disability related benefits are doing so on the basis of poor mental health to recognise that people leaning on their walking sticks isn’t a good proxy for the number of people who don’t ‘really need’ benefits. And more than this, the assumptions contained in the journalist’s allegations and assertions are that style and taste is only the prerogative of those with money.

Writ-large this is a dangerous imposition of superiority and social hierarchy, in which people buy taste, and through this demonstrate some sort of higher value – apparently showing the world they have money, are more successful and somehow inherently better than others.

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.

The reason why this language jars so badly is that there seems to be an assumption that what’s good for business is automatically good for us all; that we just need to work for the best interest of businesses, elevate their interests above all other concerns and all will be fine. It is that easy, apparently.

But this assumption is trickle-down economics at its laziest and least effective.

Cameron’s declaration of a ‘war on the enemies of enterprise’ also assumes that impositions on business (such as health and safety laws) are inherently a bad thing and accordingly that businesses should be as unencumbered by social concerns as possible (that is, as much as the people will tolerate).

Sadly, and dangerously, in reality this risks undermining rules and regulations that keep our businesses humane. Laws that ensure acceptable levels of minimum pay, safe working conditions and prevent exploitation. As Ha-Joon Chang reminds us, child labour is outlawed because as a society we see it as abhorrent. Yet our continued tolerance of poverty-wages – to the extent that we essentially subsidise them through the in-work tax credit system – suggests we’re still all too intimidated by businesses.

Of course we need jobs, and of course we need enterprises to deliver the goods and services that meet our needs.

But surely we as a society (and perhaps even our political leaders…?) are sophisticated enough to understand that we need to be a bit more nuanced in calling for growth, business, jobs.  We need good jobs, jobs that mean a movement out of poverty, jobs that allow employees to balance their caring responsibilities and community engagement, jobs that deliver progression and skills.

And we need good quality enterprises doing good quality activities that match our vision of what sort of society and economy we want to be and that deliver social and environmental sustainability.  And of course, enterprises that pay their taxes.

So we need to be less precious about businesses, and just a wee bit more demanding about what sort of activities they undertake and the way they carry out their activities (for example, through community benefit clauses in procurement, through how we reward and invest and through the social and regulatory structures in which we allow them to operate).

Let us never, ever forget that the economy should be the servant of the people, not the other way around.

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.

Tuesday’s Autumn statement reconfirmed what many have long suspected: there is no imminent prospect of a boom in public spending to match that of the New Labour years. Yet, as spending on public services dwindles, the needs of those who rely on them do not, as the organisations Oxfam works with to tackle poverty in the UK know all too well. The increasingly urgent question, then, is how to provide effective public services more cheaply.

At a report launch last week, Community Links was joined by a range of experts to explore one powerful possibility: that acting earlier to forestall problems rather than cope with their consequences is not only better for those involved, but also cheaper for those paying. Society can no longer afford to wait for trouble – footing the bill, for instance, for the unemployed school leaver who can’t read and write. Instead we could act earlier, by investing in reading recovery programmes several years before. The report is called the Triple Dividend, because an Early Action society benefits three times over – from increased social well-being, lower spending on expensive acute interventions, and higher growth with a better-off workforce: thriving lives, costing less, contributing more.

It’s not a new thought; the report catalogues numerous government reports and other official documents that have reached the same conclusion. Take this, for instance, from a 2009 Audit Commission report:

A young person who starts showing behavioural problems at five, and is dealt with through the criminal justice system will cost the taxpayer around £207,000 by the age of 16. Alternative interventions to support changes in behaviour would cost about £47,000. Over £113 million a year would be saved if just one in ten young offenders was diverted towards effective support.

Or this from the Department of Education’s explanation of the Early Intervention Grant (EIG): “It is common sense that intervening early to stop problems developing has to be the best way of preventing bigger and more expensive problems.”

The question is why common sense so rarely becomes common practice. The report identifies technical barriers – for example in the way the Treasury classifies spending – which have frequently frustrated efforts to implement projects which might cost more upfront but would yield much greater savings in the long run. Initiatives like Social Impact Bonds, which transfer some of the upfront costs onto investors rather than government, have a role to play here but the report calls for more radical shifts within government as well.

‘Transition planning’ within central and local government departments would involve a steady shift of resources from acute services to earlier action, committing for example to spending 5 per cent of their budget on prevention and early action, aiming to increase that proportion by 5 per cent each year for the next three years. It suggests the Office of Budget Responsibility could model the effect within their growth forecasts, and that early action spending should be treated differently within Departmental Expenditure Limits.

This might seem far-fetched at a time of economic crisis, but the Scottish Government is setting a powerful example: Their recent Finance Committee report said: “The current reactive approach to public spending is unsustainable. There must be a shift away from reacting to crises to a greater focus on prevention and early intervention.”  They supported a budget that included a £500m increase in preventative spending, and Education Minister Angela Constance says that “apart from independence, preventative spend is the most radical and exciting agenda that this government is pursuing.”

Early Action is not a fully-costed set of proposals but it is a framework under which to think about the kind of society we want – one in which everyone has access to the support to be successful, not left unaided until the point where we’re forced to pick up the pieces.

Will Horwitz is the Communications Officer at Community Links, a charity working with deprived communities in East London, and also one of our partners.

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.