The latest poverty data from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is already being met with a familiar shrug. The BBC appears not to have noticed the report. Politicians are not debating it. And the headline figures look broadly unchanged. Around one in five people in the UK is still reported to be in poverty. Compared with pre-pandemic levels, the rate appears flat. For some, that will be taken as evidence that the situation is stable, or at least not deteriorating. That interpretation is, however, wrong, and dangerously so.
As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has put it:
On the surface, it might appear that nothing has changed. But persistently high poverty rates lead to worsening real-world outcomes.
What they make clear is that what has changed is not the extent of poverty, but its nature. Poverty in the UK has become deeper, more entrenched, and more destructive. And, as they note, the longer this is tolerated, the more damage it does to individuals, to communities, and to the economy itself.
There are several reasons to think those concerned with our political economy are wrong to ignore this report.
First, poverty has deepened to an unprecedented degree. In 2023/24, 6.8 million people, or almost half of everyone in poverty, were living in very deep poverty, with incomes no more than two-thirds of the poverty line. That is the highest number and highest proportion since records began in the mid-1990s. The poorest households are now, on average, 59 per cent below the poverty threshold. This is not marginal hardship. It is, all too obviously, systematic exclusion.
Second, the consequences of prolonged poverty are cumulative. The JRF highlights the lived impacts, whether they be fatigue, hunger, stress and social disconnection. These are not incidental effects. They directly undermine people's ability to work, learn, care, and participate in society. Poverty in this sense narrows horizons and reduces economic contribution. It is not just a moral failure; it is also a macroeconomic one.
Third, destitution and food insecurity have accelerated quite alarmingly. What is defined as destitution more than doubled between 2017 and 2022. Food insecurity grew even faster. Between 2021/22 and 2023/24, the total number of people who were food insecure increased by 2.8 million, which represents an increase of 60 per cent in just two years. Among people already in poverty, food insecurity rose by nearly half. This is the predictable result of a benefits system that has been allowed to drift towards levels of support where destitution is an inevitability.
Fourth, work no longer provides protection against poverty. While employment is shown to reduce the risk of poverty, it is far from a guarantee. In-work poverty has risen steadily, particularly among part-time workers, the self-employed, and those working in hospitality and administrative support. Two-thirds of working-age adults in poverty live in households where someone is in work. That provides clear evidence that low pay, insecure hours and weak labour protections are now central drivers of hardship.
Fifth, poverty follows lines of inequality. Disabled people, informal carers, renters, larger families, lone parents, and people from some minority ethnic groups face persistently higher poverty rates. Over half of the people in Bangladeshi households and around half in Pakistani households live in poverty, with even higher rates for children. Disabled people face poverty rates eight percentage points higher than non-disabled people, despite rising employment levels. This problem is not down to individuals. It is because of the structural design that creates discrimination by political choice.
Sixth, housing costs are also actively manufacturing poverty. Around four in ten social renters and more than a third of private renters are in poverty after housing costs. Many are only pushed below the poverty line once rent is taken into account. This is not a market failure; it is the obvious outcome of a housing system organised around rent extraction rather than personal security.
Seventh, geography reflects policy choices. London has the highest poverty rate, driven largely by housing costs. Scotland, by contrast, has significantly lower child poverty, in part because of the Scottish Child Payment, which indicates the impact enlightened government policy can have on poverty-related issues whilst proving that poverty is not inevitable. The implication is obvious: benefits reduce poverty when governments choose to deploy them properly.
The Government's Child Poverty Strategy does, therefore, matter. Scrapping the two-child limit was the single most effective intervention available to lift children out of poverty, and if DWP modelling proves accurate, child poverty could fall by 400,000 over this Parliament as a result, which would be a historically significant shift.
But that is not enough. Even after that reform, more than 4 million children are forecast to remain in poverty by the end of the decade. Other groups remain largely ignored. Some planned changes, including cuts affecting people who fall ill, will worsen hardship. The basic rate of Universal Credit remains perilously close to destitution thresholds. This is not a safety net. It is a poverty trap.
The deeper lesson of the JRF analysis is unavoidable. Poverty in the UK is not the result of bad luck or temporary shocks. It is the outcome of fragmented, reactive and often damaging policy over two decades. Weak income growth, high housing costs, benefit cuts and the normalisation of food banks as a substitute for rights have produced a system that generates deepening poverty by default.
The consequences are profound. Poverty damages health, undermines children's development, constrains decision-making and suppresses future earning power. It also holds back economic growth. A society that tolerates mass hardship wastes human potential on a colossal scale, whilst reducing the spending power that resource reallocation would create.
The direction of travel must change in that case. That means abandoning the idea that poverty reduction must wait for growth, because that means it might never happen. In any case, improving living standards is not dependent on growth; it is a condition for it. That means setting social security at levels that genuinely cover essentials, re-linking housing support to real rents, rebuilding labour protections, and treating housing, care and income security as core economic infrastructure.
Above all, it means recognising that poverty is a political choice. Scotland shows that different outcomes are possible. Until the UK chooses differently, poverty will remain not just widespread, but deeper, more persistent and more destructive with each passing year. We need a politics of care. Right now we have a poverty of care
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I would make two points, a technical and two more complex ones.
Firstly the abolition of two child cap will mean that a lot of households will be hit by the Overall Benefits Cap instead
Secondly I suggest that apart from any other issues with Council Tax we need to return to a national, nationally funded Council Tax Benefit scheme. At the moment many people even on the basic rate of Universal Credit are having to pay over 10% of the money they are given to live on towards their Council Tax. I would suggest going back to the original policy intention and giving everyone on Universal Credit a 100% reduction.
Finally of course there is the question of Land and Property prices. As George Monbiot said – and you can say the same about Council Tax anything over the cost of providing the building and a small amount towards the land is a private tax on existing. If we can bring sanity back to that market it will help us all.
Agreed. Entirely.
You are right about housing costs – lack of rent controls means that there could still be income shortfalls to pay rent in the private sector LHA rates. Affordability at 80% market rents, tracking private market rents in the social sector do not help either. But why wait for April for the child cap to be removed and crow about it? Universal Credit is still paid monthly, assessment periods are felt to be too long so discretionary payments are flying out the window. And if you have a long term health condition or disablement, it looks as though payments are being reduced. What if you have kids and are in that category?
It looks like Labours’ gigantic fudge to me. I am overwhelmingly sceptical about it all.
And rightly so…
Thank you all for a most important article on the continuing and deep harm done to impoverished families and their children aka. future citizens and workers.
Might the fact that the semi-independent Scottish Goverment has actually acted to improve this tragedy of choice is shown by their reporting of the matter and their situation-improving action show the reality of choice in this matter?
Might this demonstrate that the the Government of the U. K. has chosen to be significantly tardy and/or dangerously limited in its duties?
The short and long term cruelties and socio-economic stupidities of H. M. G.’s avoidance of prompt and effective actions is validated by the articles below.
https://www.google.com/search?q=has+there+been+any+research+into+the+effects+on+children+of+chronic+under+feeding%3F&oq=has+there+been+any+research+into+the+effects+on+children+of+chronic+under+feeding%3F&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRiPAtIBCjU5MjA2ajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBfdlOl0Xt_1j&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.gov.scot/publications/understanding-health-outcomes-experiencing-poverty-early-years-evidence-review/pages/4/
https://foodfoundation.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-10/1-Briefing-Malnutrition_vF2.pdf
I think I heard on the radio that some pension funds are objecting to the Government’s plan to limit ground rents to £250 a year. So this must mean pension funds are extracting money from the less well off to fund pensions for the better off. I guess this is what happens when we allow private financial systems to substitute for collective provision. Inequality worsens and poverty deepens.
Tbis is being mentioned in a video, probably out tomorrow
You are right
I knew the most of it, and your comprehensive summary focuses the mind.
‘improving living standards is not dependent on growth; it is a condition for it. ‘ – would a short video based around this help public understanding?
On occasions when I have had to make a claim, the attitudes of some near to me were hard to live with, and the wider media hate is hard also. I think we have some messed-up attitudes in this country, not based on either care or logic. The more mean, humiliating and stigmatised benefits are, the more we fear. And we know that many tens of thousands of benefits go unclaimed, through ignorance or people enduring privation rather than claim.
Once anyone understands MMT and the benefit to the economy of everyone having enough to live on (rather than to barely exist) then the ‘we can’t afford it’ argument evaporates.
Years ago when my children were at school, I did wonder what exactly our PMs did at Davos. Your recent video with John Christiansen answered that. It hasn’t all just happened coincidentally, it’s a long-term project. Not a conspiracy, but not in the public eye either. Despite the alarm being raised by some within the clique, about the negatives, the hard core push on, showing a complete and chilling lack of care, and imagination.
I lioke the idea in your seocnd para
And thank you
I used to collect and collate those reports, comb-bind them and cart them around with me. Every time we had an event, foodbank open day, each time I ran a hustings, they would be available. I bombarded my then (Tory) MP with them. Recently I’ve been de-cluttering, and there they all are, over ten years old now. Only now it’s Labour politicians ignoring the suffering and the social consequences of poverty.
The poverty is worse the lies are worse, the repression is worse, and the hypocrisy is beyond belief considering the promises that were made.
Those who are blind but claim to be able to see, come under a very severe judgement in my holy book. And Labour MPs claim to care about poverty, but they make it worse, because they do not believe in a politics of care, they practice a politics of callous, selfish graft.
We are coming for them, and they don’t have an answer. Their house built on sand is going to fall with a great crash.
Righteous, well directed anger can be remarkably productive.
KUTGW!
So much to agree with.
Richard’s points are well taken.
Rowntree are hitting on the inadequacy of the rather comforting notion that the various measures of poverty , which are usually defined by ‘inequality’ measures – i.e. the difference or differential between ‘rich and poor’, – gini coefficients etc , numbers below 60% of median income etc – may not be changing much .
But when everything is getting more expensive relative to incomes across the whole population , there comes a point when those at the bottom simply cannot afford the essentials of life – food, clothing , health and shelter – and enter a state of ‘destitution’ as Rowntree call it. In other words ‘absolute poverty’ is increasing – and long lasting and becoming embedded .
So how can the BBC’s ‘economic correspondents’ not see Richards conclusions : “A society that tolerates mass hardship wastes human potential on a colossal scale whilst reducing the spending power that resource reallocation would create.”?
Its not dismissed with a ‘shrug’ by the BBC – its not even mentioned – a much more effective form of censorship
Agreed
And thanks
Good to see folk paying credit to the efforts of the Scottish Government – and don’t forget that unlike the UK, Scotland is hampered by the fact that it IS in a household situation with no power to create money.
Agreed