Councillors have agreed to invest £100,000 towards the Regenerative Futures Fund (RFF), a new multi-million-pound initiative to make Edinburgh a fairer place to live.
Acting on the Capital’s pledge to take all the actions necessary to eradicate poverty in Edinburgh, the Council’s support will help kickstart an ambitious £5m to £10m fundraising plan.
With every £1 contributed by the Council, the Regenerative Futures Fund expects to leverage £5 to £10 from other sources of funding, significantly boosting the support available for community projects across the Capital.
The money will be used to support between 10 to 15 community organisations over the next decade, providing them with stable, long-term funding of up to £100,000 per year to create sustainable solutions that will address the root causes of poverty and inequality in Edinburgh.
It also builds on commitments made by the Council in February as part of its budget-setting exercise to prioritise poverty fighting projects, including £500,000 towards child poverty reduction, £100,000 for a Youth and Community Welfare Transition Fund, £25,000 to support the Big Hoose project which helps families experiencing hardship with household items, alongside close to £3m towards the city’s homelessness spend.
Council Leader Cammy Day said: “I’m delighted that we’ve had support from Councillors to make this investment into the future fairness of our city.
“Back in 2020 Edinburgh became the first UK city to set a target date to end poverty and we remain committed to doing everything we can. We know that this is not an easy task but we must be ambitious and drive the change that is so greatly needed.
“The creation of the RFF not only directly responds to our poverty fighting goals, it answers the calls we heard loud and clear from the Edinburgh Poverty Commission: we need a city-wide partnership fund to help us end poverty together.
“Today’s decision is a promise to work hand-in-hand with those who understand poverty firsthand, ensuring that their voices help us towards Edinburgh’s solutions.”
Leah Black, Head of Regenerative Futures Fund, Foundation Scotland said:This is a significant step towards creating a more equitable and sustainable Edinburgh.
The Regenerative Futures Fund is driven by the principle of shifting decision-making power to those most impacted by poverty, allowing communities to lead initiatives based on their own experiences and insights.
“We’ve spent close to two years designing a scheme co-created by a diverse range of people including those with lived experience of poverty and I’m excited to see how it will empower our communities to effect real change in the lives of those living in poverty.”
An annual progress report on the program will be provided to the Policy and Sustainability Committee in Autumn 2025.
New national guidance which aims to reduce the cost of school uniforms for families has been published.
Following consultation with schools, families, uniform suppliers, pupils and councils, the new guidance also sets out key considerations to ensure pupil comfort, freedom and happiness.
The guidance, which can be used to form individual school uniform policies, includes advice on encouraging schools to adopt measures that limit costs for families and reduce waste, including limiting the number of items that pupils need and promoting items that can be reused more easily.
The Education Secretary launched the guidance during a visit to Camperdown Primary School in Dundee where she learned about work by pupils to develop a cost of the school day action plan.
Ms Gilruth said: “Every child in Scotland should be able to attend school feeling comfortable, confident, and ready to learn. However, we know the cost can be a significant burden for families and we want to support schools to minimise these costs.
“This new national guidance contains measures for schools to develop and implement their own affordable and sustainable policies that recognise the individual needs of all pupils.
“It makes clear that schools are expected to do all they can to limit school clothing costs for families as part of our wider aim to reduce the cost of the school day. The guidance also encourages schools to develop flexible and inclusive policies which promote generic items of clothing and do not include compulsory branded items, supporting our efforts to be more sustainable.
“Ending child poverty is the central mission of this government and reducing the cost of the school day for families will play a crucial role in this work.”
A spokesperson for Edinburgh School Uniform Bank reacted: “We’re delighted that the government has adopted many of our suggestions around school uniform in their new guidance:
Pupils’ comfort, happiness and freedom to learn and play should be at the centre of considerations about school uniform and clothing, alongside a focus on removing barriers to participation in school education.
Branded items of uniform and blazers should not be compulsory, nor promoted or encouraged by schools.
Schools should avoid including items that need frequent washing or are difficult to wash or dry, and
promote and support arrangements for families to access pre-loved clothing, and
consider the availability of non-standard sizes of uniform, clothing and footwear included within their policies to ensure that all pupils, regardless of their age or build, are able to access comfortable and practical clothing and footwear at a reasonable cost.
Scottish Government left with “no choice” following funding cut
Plans to means-test Winter Fuel Payment in England and Wales will see the Scottish Government’s funding cut by up to £160 million.
Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville has confirmed the Scottish Government therefore has ‘no alternative’ but to replicate the decision in Scotland and restrict payments to pensioners who receive eligible benefits.
Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said: “Despite all efforts to review our financial position we have been left with no choice but to follow the UK Government and restrict payments to older people who receive relevant eligible benefits.
“This is a necessary decision when faced with such a deep cut to our funding and in the most challenging financial circumstances since devolution. The reduction we are facing amounts to as much as 90% of the cost of Scotland’s replacement benefit, the Pension Age Winter Heating Payment.
“Given the UK Government’s decision to restrict payments to those in receipt of means-tested benefits, such as Pension Credit, and the implications for the Scottish Government detailed above, I have urged the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to undertake a benefits take-up campaign for Pension Credit and to move forward with plans for a social energy tariff.
“Both of these measures will provide some further protection to energy customers in greatest need.”
Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes commented:
The UK Government’s decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment in England and Wales will see our funding cut by up to £160 million.
The Scottish Government has been left with no choice but to replicate the decision in Scotland.
Age Scotland: Winter Fuel Payment decision ‘brutal’ for Scottish pensioners
Age Scotland is continuing to urge the UK government to reconsider plans to scrap the winter fuel payment for pensioners who do not receive pension credit.
The charity has responded to news that, following the UK Government’s plans to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment, the Scottish Government will have no alternative but to replicate the decision in Scotland.
Age Scotland’s Policy Director, Adam Stachura, said: “It’s infuriating that huge numbers of older people will miss out on the vital Winter Fuel Payment when it is devolved to Scotland.
“We recognise the financial challenge the Scottish Government would face to make up the shortfall to keep the payment universal, but we desperately hoped there could be a more effective delivery of this payment and that it could have looked more generous than the UK Government’s new, and meagre, approach.
“At minimum, a quarter of a million pensioners in Scotland on the lowest incomes or living in fuel poverty will no longer receive this vital financial support over the winter months, while hundreds of thousands more on modest incomes are going to struggle with their energy bills even more than normal as a result.
“This brutal decision by the UK Government was made too fast, cuts too deep and its impact will be severe. It’s important that they rethink this move, as it has a huge impact on the devolution of social security and the needs of Scottish pensioners who live in some of the coldest homes in the UK.”
Visit www.age.scot/SaveWFP to sign Age Scotland’s petition to save the Winter Fuel Payment.
“Poverty statistics that hide the real scale of increases risk policymakers missing what is truly happening to poverty.”
Many households remortgaging or taking out new mortgages since 2022 have experienced sharp falls in their disposable income as higher interest rates have pushed up housing costs, and by December 2023 this is set to have pushed 320,000 such people into poverty. But official data do not measure mortgage interest payments properly, so official poverty statistics will only capture about two-thirds of this effect (230,000 people).
These are the findings of a new IFS report, released on Thursday and funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which examines recent trends in poverty and deprivation. Other key findings include:
Despite the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis, the overall rate of absolute poverty was the same in 2022–23 as in 2019–20 (18%, or 12.0 million people), though it did rise slightly by 0.8 percentage points (520,000) between 2021–22 and 2022–23. But there was a significant increase in more direct measures of hardship. For example, the proportion of working-age adults who reported being unable to keep their home warm enough rose from 4% to 11% (1.8 million to 4.6 million) between 2019–20 and 2022–23, and the share who reported being behind on bills rose from 5% to 6% (2.1 million to 2.5 million).
Part of the difference is likely to relate to how the official statistics measure incomes and hence poverty. Higher energy and food prices mean that lower-income households and pensioners faced a higher inflation rate than average – but this is not captured by the official poverty statistics. Taking account of higher inflation for these households implies poverty rose by 210,000 more people than implied by official statistics for 2021–22 and 2022–23 (730,000 people rather than 520,000), including 80,000 pensioners.
In addition, the official statistics do not measure households’ mortgage interest payments directly, instead modelling them based on average interest rates. This matters when there is a growing spread of interest rates as some households come off their fixed rate: in 2022–23, mismeasurement of mortgage interest payments resulted in the number in poverty being understated by 70,000; as more fixed-term mortgages end, that number is set to rise to 150,000 (based on December 2023 interest rates).
There is evidence that mortgage rate rises have pushed some adults into financial hardship. Adults remortgaging in 2022 were 2 percentage points more likely to fall into arrears on bills than those with mortgages who had not remortgaged. This suggests that, once all households have remortgaged, the number of adults behind on bills could rise by 370,000.
Sam Ray-Chaudhuri, a Research Economist at IFS and an author of the report, said:‘Rising mortgage rates have played and are likely to continue to play an important role in many households’ living standards. But, perhaps surprisingly, they are not measured properly in the official income data.
“This has led to the headline statistics understating the number of people in poverty, something set to get worse in next year’s data. Poverty rises have also been understated due to the unequal impact of inflation.
“At a time when rates of deprivation and food insecurity have risen substantially, poverty statistics that hide the real scale of these increases risk policymakers missing what is truly happening to poverty.’
Peter Matejic, JRF Chief Analyst, said:‘This research shows the cost-of-living crisis wasn’t felt equally by everyone. Compared with before the COVID pandemic, many more people, especially those on a lower income, struggled to heat their homes or keep up with their bills.
‘One reason lower-income households went without essentials is because they faced a rate of inflation even higher than the headline numbers. High interest rates also saw many households forced into financial hardship after they remortgaged.
‘This report raises many questions about whether social security is adequate for the challenges looming over struggling households. The new government can’t wait for growth, after years of cuts, caps and freezes to social security have left families without the financial resilience and security they needed to cope with higher prices and costs.’
Commenting on the IFS report IFS on poverty, which shows that 320,000 people pushed into poverty because of mortgage interest rate rises, TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: “This surge in poverty shows the awful impact on people’s lives of the Conservatives’ economic and policy failures.
“It’s a poverty crisis that has been created by poor growth and social security cuts. Interest rate hikes came on top of the longest period of pay stagnation for more than 200 years.
“Rapid delivery of the government’s plan to make work pay will ensure more better-paid, secure jobs and help reduce poverty among working families.”
It may have been a surprise election, and only been a six-week campaign, but for many people the ‘festival of democracy’ inspired little genuine enthusiasm (writes PTER KELLY, Chief Executive of The Poverty Alliance).
Perhaps this was because the outcome was so widely predicted and, in the end, seemed almost inevitable. More likely was that after years where many politicians were increasingly distrusted and political debates appeared disconnected from the realities of day-to-day life, the election held little interest for many.
Of course, the result was by no means guaranteed, no matter what the polls said. And if the result was not guaranteed, what comes next is still very much a subject for debate. What was clear from the result, though, is that the decline in trust in politics was very much in evidence at this election: turnout fell to 60%, the second lowest in more than 100 years.
But now that the votes have been cast, historic landside secured, MPs sworn in, and Ministers appointed, many of us who want to see progressive social and economic change are asking: now what?
Almost two weeks after the result, we are moving from the territory of ‘hot takes’ and instant analysis to a place where we can begin to see the emerging opportunities where progress could be made. The question for anti-poverty campaigners is how these opportunities can be turned into real change.
At a basic level, we need only look at the manifesto that the new Labour Government was elected upon to see what comes next and where the opportunities lie. In it we will find commitments that are to be welcomed.
For example, the package of change intended to improve the lives of working people, especially for those at the tough end of the labour market who get by on low pay and insecure contracts.
These are changes that reflect some of the priorities that we called for in our own election manifesto, especially around commitments to increasing the minimum wage and providing minimum working hours.
The Labour manifesto also contained a pledge to create a new child poverty strategy. One of the undoubted disappointments of the election campaign was the lack of discussion about poverty and inequality, particularly by both main UK political parties. At best the cost of living crisis was a proxy for discussions about poverty, but at no point was there any serious attempt to say how an incoming government would act to address the systemic failings at the heart of poverty.
Although commitments to labour market change and anti-poverty strategies are all very welcome, much of the detail on delivery remains unclear.
How, for example, will a child poverty strategy accommodate the current retention of the two-child limit? The reality is, of course, that any child poverty strategy must start with the scrapping of this policy, and then look to strengthen our social security system. The pressure building around the two-child limit in recent days is emblematic of the tensions that exist in the new Government’s current approach.
The new Prime Minister and Chancellor have been clear in this approach – economic growth is the central objective, the overriding mission, and at the same time public spending to be contained within the previous Conservative Government’s plans.
Neither of these commitments leave much immediate space for addressing poverty, despite the promise of a new strategic approach. As the IFS have said: ‘delivering genuine change will almost certainly also require putting actual resources on the table.’
It is this tension that the Government’s approach – a desire to address poverty but within current spending limits – that opens up a new space for anti-poverty campaigners. We must use the high-level commitments that have been made to deliver the substantive changes we know are needed.
This includes not only scrapping the two-child limit, but ending the benefit cap, stopping the five week wait for UC, introducing an Essentials Guarantee, and more. It also means seeking to shape debates about economic growth, highlighting that growth on its own will not solve poverty and that distribution and pre-distribution of resources needs to be part of the who our economy works for.
There are genuine opportunities to engage with the new UK Government, opportunities that have not existed for more than a decade. I’ve highlighted just a couple above, more will emerge in the months to come. For civil society organisations in Scotland and across the UK these opportunities to engage will be very welcome.
But it will be important for all of us seeking progressive change to remember what has been learned from engaging with Scottish Government’s over the last 25 years – access does not always equal influence. Simply having a meeting with a Minister, being invited onto an advisory group, responding to a consultation does not mean that demands will be translated into action. Of course, we need to engage in these discussions and activities, but we need to consider what else should be done to create change.
There is hope for change at the moment, but to turn that hope into action, to transform our demands into tangible, practical improvements in people’s lives, we need to be better organised across civil society.
We must do more to engage and raise the voices of the thousands of grassroots organisations and campaigners across Scotland and the UK that hold communities together. By raising these voices, by activating those who are in the frontline of the fight against poverty, we will create the necessary sense of urgency that is needed.
Our sector in Scotland involves more than 45,000 organisations, employing 135,000 people, with more than 1.1 million volunteers involved. We need to turn those numbers into an organised social movement, one that is broad based, inclusive and can make the demands the system change to both the Scottish and UK Governments.
At the Poverty Alliance we believe that there are real opportunities ahead of us to make change, but they will only be realised if we work together across civil society. Please join us to make these changes happen.
First Minister John Swinney will welcome new Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to Scotland today.
Speaking ahead of the meeting, the First Minister said: “I was really pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the Prime Minister on his first day in office and to congratulate him and wish him, and his family well.
“I look forward to welcoming the Prime Minister to Scotland where I hope to have constructive discussions with him on our shared priorities for the people of Scotland. This includes eradicating child poverty, growing the economy, prioritising net zero, and ensuring effective public services.
“I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to forge a positive relationship between our governments and for our part, the Scottish Government is committed to working constructively with the UK Government to build a better Scotland.”
WHATEVER your political allegiances. the relationship between the two governments is crucial to the people of Scotland. I’d like to think it will be more constructive than it has been in the recent past – Ed.
What impact has the ‘two-child limit’ in universal credit had, and what policy choices does the next government face? – a report by Institute for Fiscal Studies
Low-income families typically receive an additional £3,455 a year of universal credit (or child tax credit) for each child they have1 . But the ‘two-child limit’ means that claimants do not receive an additional amount for third or subsequent children born after 5 April 2017.
This policy has been the subject of controversy, and the Liberal Democrats and Green Party have both committed to abolishing the limit in their manifestos, while the Labour Party have said they will abolish it ‘when fiscal conditions allow’.
In this comment, we (IFS) outline the impact of the two-child limit on household incomes and work incentives, and the public finances.
To illustrate the impact of the policy, take a lone parent with three children who lives in social rented accommodation costing £500 per month2 , and not working.
Their universal credit entitlement will be made up of the basic £4,721 per year in universal credit for single adults; £6,000 to cover the cost of their housing; and – in the absence of the two-child limit – £10,365 for their children3 .
On top of this, they receive £3,102 a year in child benefit, which is unaffected by the two-child limit, giving them a total income of £24,188 (without the two-child limit); they would also generally have support to cover most or all of their council tax bill. The two-child limit means they receive £3,455 less each year in universal credit, representing a 14% cut to their income and putting them into relative poverty.
Turning to the impact across the population, we find that, when fully rolled out, on average affected households will lose £4,300 per year, representing 10% of their average income and 22% of average benefit income4 .
These losses are concentrated among 790,000 households (10% of working-age households with children) and would affect nearly one in five children (2.8 million).
As things stand, the policy affects only 550,000 households. The difference is because there are families with three children all of whom were born before 6 April 2017; as time passes, more and more large families will have children born after that date.
We estimate that 250,000 extra children will be affected by the policy next year and 670,000 extra children will be affected by the end of the next parliament. HMRC statistics show that in 2023, 50% of families affected by the two-child limit were single parents and 57% had at least one adult in paid work.
Figure 1 shows where in the household income distribution households that are affected by the two-child limit sit. For comparison, we also show the equivalent for all households with children and all households with children receiving universal credit.
Unsurprisingly, the two-child limit disproportionately affects poorer households, but the figure shows that affected households are also more likely to have low income than are all universal-credit-receiving families with children.
76% of households affected by the two-child limit are in the poorest 30% of working-age households. In comparison, 63% of households eligible for universal credit with children are in the poorest 30% of working-age households.
Figure 1. Distribution of households affected by two-child limit; universal credit claimants with children; and all households with children, by equivalised income decile
Note: Assumes full take-up of benefits and full roll-out of universal credit and the two-child limit. Only includes households where all adults are under 66.
Source: Authors’ calculations using the Family Resources Survey 2022–23 and TAXBEN, the IFS tax and benefit microsimulation model.
The two-child limit has an (even more) outsized impact on children living in low-income households, as, by definition, a household affected by the two-child limit has at least three children. It affects 23% of households with children in the poorest fifth of the income distribution, but 38% of children in the poorest fifth of the income distribution.
The two-child limit also has varied impacts across families of different ethnicities. We estimate that 43% of children in households with one adult of Bangladeshi or Pakistani origin (400,000 children) would be affected by the policy when fully rolled out, compared with 17% of children in other households (2.4 million children). This reflects both these families having more children and them being more likely to be on low income.
The two-child limit would be even more targeted at the poorest households if it was not for a separate policy: the benefit cap. The benefit cap limits the total amount that a family with no adults in work can claim to £22,020 a year outside London and £25,323 a year inside London (lower amounts are applied for single adults without children). 110,000 households are not directly affected by the two-child limit as the benefit cap already limits their entitlements. Almost all these households are in the poorest fifth of households.
Figure 2 shows relative child poverty rates, defined as being in a household with an income (after housing costs) below 60% of median income, split by the number of children in the household.
Since 2014–15, relative poverty rates have declined for families with one or two children, but they have increased for families with three or more children5 .
Absolute poverty rates have also diverged: they have fallen for small families but remained unchanged for large families. So, in absolute terms, low-income large families are about as well off as they were in 2015, but their incomes have fallen further behind relative to other households, including small families.
Figure 2. Relative child poverty rates after housing costs, 2008–09 to 2022–23
Note: The fall in poverty rates in 2020–21 is at least partly due to benefit expansions in that year, including raising maximum housing support and a temporary £20 per week uplift to universal credit.
The two-child limit is likely one driver of this recent increase in relative child poverty rates for larger families. However, it is not the only explanation. Other benefit cuts are likely to affect larger families more as they on average receive more of their income from benefits (the benefit cap also disproportionately affects larger families); and broader economic trends may also play a role.
Nevertheless, removing the two-child limit would certainly go some way to reversing the recent increase in poverty rates for large families. We estimate that removing the two-child limit would reduce relative child poverty by approximately 500,000 (4% of all children)6 .
The two-child limit has a relatively small effect on work incentives. One statistic that helps explain work incentives is replacement rates: the household’s income if an individual was out of work as a percentage of their in-work household income. The lower someone’s replacement rate, the more incentive they have to remain in work.
With the two-child limit, an average working parent with three or more children has a replacement rate of 62.1%; without it, they would have a slightly higher replacement rate of 63.0%.
This average difference is small for two reasons. First, 28% of these workers are unaffected entirely, as they would not be able to claim universal credit even if they lost work, due to having more than £16,000 in assets or their partner having a sufficiently high income.
Second, for 22% of these workers, the two-child limit actually increases their replacement rate, as it decreases their income when in work but does not affect them when they are out of work, as they would be benefit capped if out of work.
For those who when out of work are eligible for universal credit but not benefit capped – 50% of working parents with three or more children – their replacement rate falls by 4 percentage points.
Naturally, removing the two-child limit would come at a cost. We estimate that removing the two-child limit would cost the government about £3.4 billion a year. For a sense of scale, this is equal to roughly 3% of the total working-age benefit budget; it is also approximately the same cost as freezing fuel duties for the next parliament, or cutting the basic rate of income tax by half a penny.
The indirect fiscal impacts of the two-child limit are more uncertain. Previous research has found that investments in young children can sometimes partly or even entirely pay for themselves by causing better outcomes for those children in later life.
If the same is true of benefit spending in the UK, removing the two-child limit may be less costly in the long run than its up-front cost suggests. However, there is very little evidence on this issue in the UK, though ongoing IFS research is looking to study it.
A fund to trial new ways of combating child poverty has opened for a second round of applications.
The Child Poverty Practice Accelerator Fund (CPAF) will provide up to £80,000 per grant towards local projects that test and evaluate new approaches which target at least one of the three drivers of child poverty reduction: improving income from employment, supporting people with the cost of living, and increasing awareness and uptake of social security benefits.
Applications can be submitted by local authorities and health boards, who may choose to work with other groups and organisations in the community.
Eradicating child poverty is @ScotGov’s top priority, and our policies are estimated to keep 100,000 children out of relative poverty this year.
Ahead of a Scottish Parliament debate on eradicating child poverty, Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said: “Eradicating child poverty is a central mission for the Scottish Government and we must find new and innovative ways to achieve this.
“Measures such as the Scottish Child Payment are estimated to keep 100,000 children in Scotland out of relative poverty this year, but we are determined to go further. The Child Poverty Practice Accelerator Fund will support projects that target the root causes of child poverty and create lasting change in our communities.
“Local authorities and health boards are already undertaking transformative work to tackle child poverty and this fund will support them to go further and share best practice, to help make child poverty a thing of the past.”
All political parties must explain how they will urgently tackle hardship this #GeneralElection, says the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. .
The latest findings from our cost-of-living survey, out today, found the number of households going without essentials hasn’t dropped below 7 million since May 2022. This is unacceptable.
Millions of low-income households are having to take drastic measures to cope with a crisis that is far from over:
-1.6 million households turned off their fridge or freezer
– 4.9 million households couldn’t replace worn out clothing
– 5 million households reduced showers
Meanwhile, party leaders remain silent on what they would do to address this in power. This should bring shame to a country as wealthy as ours.
Politicians must set out how they will bring an end to this relentless hardship. They need to tell us their immediate plan to help families who can’t afford life’s essentials – as well as their long-term strategy to tackle poverty.
Find out more about the relentless reality of years-long hardship for low-income families, here:
New research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) shows the relentless reality of years-long hardship for low-income families, with almost 5 million households finding themselves having to cut back on showers.
Those on the lowest incomes, over 5 million households, have continued to go hungry, skip meals and cut back on food.
Carried out immediately before the general election was called, the latest data shows the number of low-income households who are going without essentials like food, adequate clothing and a warm home hasn’t fallen below 7 million since May 2022.
JRF is calling on the politicians to set out their plans to tackle ongoing hardship. It found the bottom 20% of low-income households are facing levels of hardship that refuse to budge and whose situation is no better compared to last year, despite some improvements to the economic situation for families higher up the income scale.
Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) finds that:
7 million low-income households (60%) were going without essentials in May this year. [3] [4]
5 million low-income households (42%) took fewer showers or baths due to cost during the cost-of-living crisis so far.
7 in 10 (71%) low-income households in the bottom 20% were going without essentials in May this year, the same as May last year.
Families on low incomes say they are still taking the same drastic measures to try and save money that were widely reported at the height of the cost-of-living crisis.
In May 2024, low-income households reported that they had taken the following measures through the cost-of-living crisis to cope, due to cost:
4.9 million couldn’t replace worn out or outgrown clothing (42%)
3.7 million sold their belongings (32%)
1.6 million turned off their fridge or freezer (13%)
6.8 million reduced their use of appliances (58%)
7.2 million heated their homes less than they needed to or less often (62%)
Those with the least are struggling the most, with levels of hardship staying at stubbornly high levels. In the last 12 months, the proportion of households going hungry, cutting down on food or skipping meals in the previous 30 days has not budged for those in the bottom 20% of incomes. But there is a slight improvement for those in the bottom 20-40% of incomes. [5]
Our social security system should act as a safety net for families who’ve fallen on hard times. However, 86% of low-income households who received Universal Credit were going without the essentials in May this year.
Rachelle Earwaker, Senior Economist at JRF, says: “The number of low-income families in our country who’ve been forced to choose which essentials to go without because they can’t afford them hasn’t fallen below seven million since May 2022. Despite inflation falling there has been no let up for the poorest families, who are just as likely to be going without food as last year.”
“We need our politicians to set out how they will bring an end to this relentless reality of hardship in the general election campaign.
“Political leaders need to tell us what they will do straight away to help families who can’t afford life’s essentials, as well as their long-term plans to tackle poverty.”
Pupils’ comfort, happiness and freedom to learn and play should be at the centre of considerations about school uniform and clothing, alongside a focus on removing barriers to participation in school education.
All political parties must explain how they will urgently tackle hardship this 
Politicians must set out how they will bring an end to this relentless hardship. They need to tell us their immediate plan to help families who can’t afford life’s essentials – as well as their long-term strategy to tackle poverty.
