Articles & Blog
15 June 2026
Did you know there are UK Government policies that create and maintain poverty in Britain today?
The 'undeserving poor' stereotype remains a useful narrative which can be used to ignore the need to eliminate poverty in Britain. It began in the Elizabethan period (1500s) and continues to be propagated by certain politicians and media outlets today. It is a useful story for those in power who neither understand the impact that poverty has on our society, nor have any interest in dealing with it. If someone's poverty can be blamed on an individual's own bad decisions, then a politician's life is made significantly easier. A major hurdle is that ending poverty in Britain is too easily dumped into the 'too difficult to deal with' category, which enables successive governments to ignore the harm their policies do and gaslight the British public into believing them.
To help prevent this, I have compiled a list of current government policies which I believe create and maintain poverty in Britain today. With 14.2 million people (1 in 5) including over 4 million children currently living below the poverty line, this issue cannot wait (House of Commons Library, 2026 https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07096/ )
1. The five week wait for the first Universal Credit Payment. If you lose your job, you will have to wait a minimum of five weeks for your first job seekers allowance payment. Current estimates state that 25% of Britons have less than £200 in their savings accounts and 16% of those - around 8.9 million people, have no savings at all. When the five week wait was introduced during David Cameron's tenure as Prime Minister in the early 2010s, it immediately caused a huge spike in the number of people using food banks. The numbers have been rising ever since. It is a government policy which pushes people into debt.
2. Universal Credit is only paid into one person's bank account in the home. If two or more people are receiving universal credit in the same home, the money will only be paid into one person's bank account. In many relationships, this will be the man's and it actively disenfranchises women from accessing their own money. In doing so, women are financially dependent on their partners and the risk of financial abuse rises significantly and without money, leaving an abusive home becomes even more difficult.
3. Lack of Domestic Violence Refuges. 60.1% of all the referrals received in refuge services were rejected over the past year. The main reason was a lack of space or capacity, accounting for 45.7% of all unsuccessful referrals into refuge. This figure includes circumstances where the service rejected the referral because they could not meet the support needs of the client (Women’s Aid, 2025). Some Domestic Violence refuges do not take boys over the age of twelve.
4. Social homes are completely empty when first let. This is a massive problem which receives little coverage. Some charities have been set up to help people furnish their homes, especially those leaving abusive relationships (some women with children have returned to their partners because of the lack of beds for the children), and others are unable to move into their new home because of furniture poverty, but are still required to pay for their new empty social home.
5. Lack of storage for belongings when entering a domestic violence refuge. For those people fleeing domestic violence, some are faced with a bill of up to £800 per month to store their belongings while they wait for a permanent home. This can put people off leaving their home because they can't take anything with them, particularly for parents. The UK's first charitable storage facility was set up in 2025 by Verral Paul-Walcott https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7xneeUogxM
6. Housing Benefit is not available for under-21s. This policy was introduced by the David Cameron government as part of the austerity measures in the early 2010s. Youth homelessness charities estimate that over 120,000 young people aged 16 to 24 face or are at risk of homelessness across the UK, the majority make up the 'hidden homeless' either sofa sleeping, living in unsafe accommodation or living in temporary accommodation.
7. Lack of focus on building social homes or converting empty houses into social homes. With 1.34 million people on the social housing waiting list, 350,000 people living in temporary accommodation - including 176,000 children, there has never been enough focus on building social homes. The UK had 13 housing ministers over a 14 year period - some ministers only lasted a few months. The average wait for a family home (3 bedrooms) across London boroughs is 27 years, and across England (including London) is 7 years. (National Housing Federation Statistics, 2025)
8. Local Authorities can classify prison leavers as "intentionally homeless" if they lose their previous tenancy while in custody. This means that the local authority is not legally obliged to house the individual. Debts can often accrue while an individual is in prison, such as mobile phone bills, which are not cancelled in the unexpected event of entering jail, thereby pushing the former offender further into poverty.
9. Local Authorities require social housing applicants to have a local connection. Ex-offenders are often required to apply to councils where they have a "local connection," but time spent in an out-of-area prison does not count, leaving many stranded without housing priority and facing the immediate risk of street homelessness.
10. Over reliance on the private rental sector to house the UK population. The lack of social housing has led to an over-reliance on private rented properties and these landlords frequently refuse to rent to individuals with a criminal record or those relying on probation support. Racism within the rental housing sector is also rife, but rarely discussed. These barriers are compounded by welfare system limits, such as the freeze or shortfall in Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates, which makes securing private rental properties financially impossible for many ex-offenders without an upfront guarantor or deposit support. [1, 2, 3]
11. Affordable Homes aren't always affordable: Rents or sales of properties are set at up to 80% of local market rates (including service charges). These properties are often managed by Private Registered Providers or Local Authorities to eligible households. However, in an over-heated housing sector this now means that many 'affordable homes' are completely unaffordable and people continue to be priced out of the market.
12. Poorer areas have five times more fast food restaurants than wealthier areas. This has a significant effect on the health of the poorest in society, as poverty-related-stress causes addictive behaviour, and for many people it becomes an ultra-processed food addiction leading to obesity and a raft of other health problems. For more on this watch NHS Doctor Dr Chris Van Tullenken's BBC documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4PFt4czJw0
I do not believe this is the complete list. There are always loopholes in systems which prevent people from moving out of poverty, but what this list does show is the massive barriers that people face to getting out of poverty. A key issue is not just that high levels of deprivation create economic stagnation, crime, ill health and emotional humiliation for the individual, but also that poverty makes people vulnerable to messaging from extreme political parties. If you don't have enough and you don't feel your society is currently supporting you, then people are less likely to be supportive of those in need from abroad, and this feeds anti-immigrant sentiment in the UK.
Eliminating Poverty in Britain is not impossible. Breaking the problem down into sections like this, being honest about how it is perpetuated in the UK and writing a list to work through the issues are all strategies which any government can do. As of 2023, Britain's children were on average 7 centimetres shorter than their European counterparts (Dr Andrea Rodriguez Martinez, led a study at Imperial College London's School of Public Health). It's not just our economy that is stagnating, our children are too. They deserve better than this.
21 November 2025
How Poverty Affects The Body
Science is amazing. It’s particularly amazing when combined with good social policies which transform people’s lives. Two recent fields of research have rewritten the scientific landscape since I studied my biology degree in the early noughties: The Neuroscience of Poverty - how deprivation affects the brain, and Epigenetics - how our environment affects our DNA (our body’s code for making life).
Back then, university lecturers confidently taught that evolution was caused by random changes in our DNA. It was believed that if an unexpected change (mutation) was helpful to an animal or plant, such as an improved camouflage, then it would be more likely to survive and pass the new mutation on to its children. For harmful changes, the organism was less likely to survive and so the mutation died out with it.
However, since then new epigenetic research has completely transformed this view and has shown how the environment in which we live can directly affect the way our DNA works. Epigenetics is the system that turns genes (groups of DNA that contain instructions on how to make our proteins and molecules) on and off. This process works by attaching chemical tags, known as epigenetic markers, to the DNA. These tell the cell to either use or ignore a particular gene. The underlying DNA code is not changed, but the way in which the genes are turned on or off is affected. In bees, the queen, workers and drones all have very different body shapes and yet they have identical DNA, showing that when genes are expressed (turned on or off) differently, they can create a different animal.
The environment is equally as important to humans as it is to animals and poverty is a key aspect of ours. It creates deeply stressful situations which the body reacts to in two main ways - inflammation and the trauma response (fight, flight, freeze). In children, it also affects brain development.
For people living in poverty for a long time, inflammation degrades the human body, in particular the arteries, veins and blood vessels. This increases the risk of developing major health conditions, such as heart disease, strokes and miscarriage, which the NHS then has to treat.
Deprivation also increases the risk of a range of mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety. PTSD is a good example of epigenetics, where the gene for the stress hormone, Cortisol, is wrongly left in the ‘on’ position, causing the body to be in a perpetual state of fight-or-flight. When stress levels are significantly higher than they would normally be, a variety of health problems can ensue. Researchers have found that some of these changes can be passed down from generation to generation.
So, how do humans cope when poverty is driving abnormal changes to their physical and mental health? Addiction is a common response and it can be to anything which will ease the emotional pressure (the allostatic load). It can be found through social media, smart phones, comfort eating, smoking, alcohol, drugs, shopping or anything which numbs the pain and stress of the situation.
For those suffering PTSD, coping can also manifest itself through dissociation – a separation between the mind and the body. When dissociating, the brain protects the individual from the stress of their surroundings by removing them to a safe space within their imagination. This provides temporary relief, but the return to reality can generate further pain for the individual as they are effectively living two lives. Dissociation can lead to forgetfulness and poor emotional control, preventing children from learning and adults from working to their full potential, further increasing the risk of poverty.
There is so much more for science to discover about these complex interactions and we must use them to develop better policies. Treatments exist for health conditions caused by poverty, but without dealing with the underlying issue, we will only ever be scratching the surface. Poverty does not just affect our society through the national health service, it also impacts our economy, crime rate and education system too. Eliminating poverty in Britain remains a topic poised on the side-lines awaiting its day, and when we do finally try, scientists will have reams of research to show the benefits.
Article published by The Equality Trust
Do you remember the London Olympics in 2012?
The country had a buzz during those few weeks like no other. I remember the pride of having our NHS at the heart of the opening ceremony – a reminder of how few countries around the world have a system like ours. The director, Danny Boyle, turned down a knighthood feeling he hadn’t done enough to deserve one. I can’t remember the last time that happened!
The intervening years have involved epic changes in our country. It’s been a revolutionary era with austerity, the London Riots, Brexit, Grenfell, Windrush and the pandemic. The lack of action on housing, inequality and rising child poverty have also left our society dramatically different. It will require a huge effort to change direction.
I am writing this on the London Underground. With a brief scan of the crowd, I can see people from every part of the world, wearing smart clothes engrossed in smart phones. You’d be forgiven for thinking that there is no deprivation in Britain from this scene, but travel back three hours to 6am and the view would look very different. Exhausted bodies of shift workers, cleaners, swimming pool attendants and others, would fill the unusually silent carriage with sleepy heads nodding gently to the rhythm of the train. Many of these people will have two jobs and this usually means less sleep and having to deal with its deep consequences. “No facet of the human body is spared the crippling, noxious harm of sleep loss” wrote Professor Matthew Walker in his brilliant book Why We Sleep.
The stress generated by low-paid work and living without the basics has a profound effect on the human body, which our NHS is then expected to heal. The rates of cancer, heart disease, strokes, miscarriage and poor mental health are all significantly higher for those living in poverty. To the human body, deprivation is a form of trauma which generates the fight, flight, or freeze response. This actively slows the parts of the brain needed for emotional control, listening, and learning – making it more difficult to develop the skills needed to get a good education and a well-paid job.
When I studied my biology degree in the early noughties, it was well understood that our genes entirely controlled our fate, but over the past fifteen years, there has been a dramatic expansion in our scientific understanding of how our environment affects the human body. Epigenetics is the study of how our DNA reacts to the stresses caused by our environment. Our genes don’t create stress or problems for the body (unless there is an unusual mutation). If we can reduce inequality and ensure everyone has the basics they need to thrive in our country, people’s stress levels will fall. Across the country, people’s bodies will switch off the gene for cortisol (the stress hormone) which causes havoc in the body over the long term. Inflammation will also fall and people’s mental and physical health will improve. The 1960s slogan “The Personal is Political” remains true and goes deep down to our very DNA.
The good news is that ending deprivation doesn’t require a messy revolution, it can be done calmly by politicians wise enough to understand the immense benefits it would bring – from lower NHS waiting times and lower crime rates to a growing economy. Everyone would benefit in some way, irrespective of the amount of money in their pockets, but to get there, we would need to foster broad social and political support.
For politicians, there are two main constraints to ending poverty in Britain: Time and Taxes. Five years is not a long time to end deprivation and yet, with no guarantee of re-election, it would need to be completed in a single government term. Furthermore, we are not a society that votes for tax rises, so we would need to find new ways of financing the process. Thankfully, we have options. The government could issue bonds (called gilts) which could be ring-fenced for a poverty elimination programme. The Royal Bank of Scotland shares (worth billions) which are owned by the government could also be used, as could money from a reduced nuclear arsenal. Fewer government follies would also help, such as Boris Johnson’s Garden Bridge (£43m for nothing) or the Marble Arch Mound which cost £5m for seven months and was classed as London’s worst tourist attraction.
While the constraints of time and taxes are hardly political nirvana, they are our reality and we have to work with them.
We would also need three core concepts to move forward: Focus, compassion, and a plan that works in conjunction with the Green Agenda.
The pandemic showed how much our society can change when we focus on a goal. A new vaccine would normally have taken ten years to develop, but it was created and rolled out within a year. It involved an immense effort by NHS staff and British scientists. We should not assume that large challenges are beyond us.
Compassion also matters. The Victorian notion of the “undeserving poor” is very much alive in our social psyche and it has helped certain politicians over the years in their quest for power. The more politicians have blamed people’s poverty on their own bad decisions, the easier politics has become for them. This approach has culminated in some appalling decisions, like the 2020 free school meals vote during the pandemic, where government MPs initially voted against providing free meals to children over the school holidays. Some politicians who voted against the policy used ‘the undeserving poor’ as an explanation, saying society should “get back to the idea of taking responsibility” Discrimination is easy to erect and can take a long time to dismantle. However, the UK public are often significantly more compassionate than politicians believe: the backlash to the free school meals vote was so furious that it took just two weeks for the government to change its mind.
To counter the stereotype, I have been travelling around the country training teachers, civil servants, and charity workers on The Biology of Poverty. Expanding societal awareness of the very real impact of deprivation on the human body, and the consequences for our society, is a key part of combatting the idea that people in poverty make bad decisions, or that bad decisions deserve punishment.
There are a host of measures that can be taken to end poverty in Britain including, a Minister for the Elimination of Poverty; a nation-wide system of free exchanges for children’s clothes and toys; providing better support in job centres to help people find employment they enjoy; extensive rehabilitation services for cannabis users, sex workers, and prisoners; ending the five week wait for universal credit; refurbish and build new homes; and increase the carer’s allowance. I could go on and on; the list seems endless given the scale of the task, but with a holistic, compassionate, and focused approach, we can create a society fit for every person who lives in it. I think it’s time to try.
1 March 2024
The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Poverty
If a government cannot house its own population, then what is it there for? I posed this question to the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Poverty this week, along with a plan on how to end deprivation in Britain in five years, without raising taxes. The group was enthusiastic and cautious in equal measure. The raft of problems that our population faces can wear down even the most ardent campaigners - and yet they carry on undeterred.
The APPG is raising the voices of marginalised people across the country. I say ‘marginalised’ but in reality, financial pressures are so great for millions in the UK that poverty is increasingly becoming the norm, especially for children. It is a damning indictment of the failure of successive governments that so many children in twenty-first century Britain aren’t able to eat three meals a day and don’t expect three meals a day because none of their friends receive them. This was the message given to me by Marsha Powell, the CEO of BelEve, a charity that works with disadvantaged women and girls in South London. Her experiences encapsulate so much of what is happening nationwide. But there is hope.
As I travel round the country giving talks on my book Eliminating Poverty in Britain, I have been surprised by how many Social Mobility Networks exist in major organisations, including The Bank of England, The Financial Conduct Authority and OFCOM. All of them are led by people who want to raise the issue of poverty and inequality in their workplaces and seek to deal with it in constructive and thoughtful ways. These groups - of which the public knows little about, are chipping away at the barriers which create and maintain poverty in our country.
In the past 15 years there has also been an explosion in scientific research into how our environment affects the human body. Poverty is a form of trauma and if we want to change Britain for the better, then we need to start by making people feel safe. When the body lives without the essentials it needs, the brain enters the trauma state and freezes areas needed for learning, listening and emotional control - all the parts needed to gain good school grades and keep a well paid job. All this leads to a clear conclusion: Everyone benefits in a society without poverty, irrespective of how much money they have.
In the upcoming general election, NHS waiting times, crime levels, economic growth and education will inevitably be key areas of debate. Yet, if we deal with deprivation and the stress that it causes, all of these will naturally improve.
We don’t need a revolution to end poverty in Britain. We already have many of the structures we need. However the concept remains on the outskirts of public policy awaiting its day. Instead, it should be seens as the natural progression of a developed society.
Our country is deeply cynical of politicians’ promises, and understandably so, but we must keep the faith that a brighter future is possible. As the Illinois Governor, JB Pritzker once said, “The kindest person in the room is often the smartest”. Compassion is not a weakness and by moving away from “the undeserving poor” stereotype, we could create a society which is fit for every person who lives in it.
8 November 2023
UK Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, seeks to fine homeless people and charities for their tents.
It is very easy to blame the poor for their poverty. This week, Britain’s Home Secretary, Suella Braverman wrote proudly on Twitter/X that she wants to create a new civil offence to allow the authorities to fine charities who give out tents to the homeless, and fine the homeless themselves if their tent is in an inconvenient spot and deemed to be a public nuisance. Her argument was that people who sleep rough choose to do so and so it is right to remove their tents from them.
“We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice” @SuellaBraverman 4 November 2023.
When I read it, my stomach turned. The “undeserving poor” is a Victorian notion which has served certain politicians very well over the years and given them an easier life. Blaming the poor for their situation gives politicians an opt-out clause for laziness in public office.
Eliminating poverty in Britain is a far harder task and yet, if we are honest, it is the only way of achieving the society we want, with lower waiting times on the NHS, lower crime rates, better mental health and a thriving economy. Even climate change cannot be fully dealt with unless inequality is reduced.
For Suella Braverman and all the other Conservative MPs who voted against and abstained from the free school meals vote during the pandemic, the idea of eliminating poverty in Britain is not on their radar. Fears around the general election in the next 18 months are skewing the need for well planned and properly considered policies which can actually help our homeless population.
There are many reasons why there are 1.4 million people on the social housing waiting list and high levels of street homelessness. Successive governments haven't built enough homes and housing hasn't been a priority. In the past 15 years, Britain has had 13 housing ministers, seven of whom in the last four years. The churn of housing ministers increases uncertainty and prevents plans from reaching maturity.
The removal of housing benefit for under-25s during David Cameron's tenure also pushed many young people into poverty and the ripple effects of austerity continue to be felt. In reality, austerity never ended.
If the Home Secretary really wants to deal with poverty, she would begin with a plan on how to end it in five years, without raising taxes. Governments in Britain are not elected on the basis of raising taxes and there is no guarantee of re-election, so accepting these parameters is fundamental.
It would be an immense task, but with compassion, focus and a detailed plan which works in conjunction with the green agenda, it could be achieved. At the very least, we should try. If poverty levels were halved in five years, that would still mean taking seven million people out of poverty. It would still be worth doing, but without aiming for 100% those levels would never be reached. It needs an all-or-nothing approach.
There is money in the pot to pay for it, if you know where to look. Excessive government waste through poor decision-making and accounting could save millions, and creating a new social gilt fund could raise billions of pounds ring-fenced for social good.
Eliminating poverty in Britain is not a utopian fantasy. We would just be creating a society which is fit for every person who lives in it. If Suella Braverman really wants to help the homeless, she would be thinking holistically and planning properly, rather than pushing the divide and rule agenda.
It is a weak way of behaving for someone in such a position of authority and power. Thankfully, it did not go unchallenged. The National Housing Federation, Crisis, Centrepoint and a raft of other front line organisations wrote an open letter against her plans. It is blindingly obvious that it is a terrible idea and concerning that she thought it was a good idea at all. We need strong politicians who understand the society they are running. Sadly when it comes to our Home Secretary, we will be waiting a while. Her attitude is not just a mistake, it signals someone who has no compassion or understanding of reality.