The Tory Plan for Growth? Cut welfare and fuel poverty in the name of 'fiscal responsibility'

5 June 2025, 14:38 | Updated: 5 June 2025, 14:42

In his speech today, the Shadow Chancellor called the Conservatives the party of “fiscal responsibility” as he pushed for “bolder” reform to our social security system – this is normally shorthand for cuts.

At Trussell, we know that this doesn’t add up. There’s nothing fiscally prudent about deepening hunger and hardship and driving up the costs these create in our public services and economy.

A devastating 9.3 million people are facing hunger and hardship in the UK, including three million children. These are people living far below the poverty line and are likely to be using a food bank or are at high risk of having to do so in the future. Without targeted action on hunger in the UK, more people will be pushed into this situation.

This isn't just a moral argument. Trussell’s research shows that the right thing to do is also common sense for our economy. Failing to act on hunger and hardship is costing our economy and public finances over £75 billion a year. The UK could save billions by tackling it – not by slashing the social security system, which is already failing to cover the cost of essentials we all need to get by, like food, bills and toiletries.

People who cannot work or who are in low paid work should not be bearing the brunt of the economic challenges our country faces. Our social security system should be there for all of us when we need it most, just like our NHS. Persisting with the route of yet more cuts to our social security system and keeping reforms like the two-child limit is irresponsible, and will have a huge human, economic and social cost.

When it works, our social security system enables millions of people to work, manage health conditions and fulfil caring responsibilities when they otherwise wouldn’t be able to. It means our nurses can pay their bills while they continue to save lives. It means disabled people, for whom life costs more, can live with dignity. It means parents can give their children a fair start in life. This is something we cannot afford to lose.

Cutting vital lifelines won’t deliver the sustained growth and rising living standards the Shadow Chancellor seeks. It is likely to drive even more people into hardship, which will harm us all.

This isn’t a future that people want. The majority of the public supports our call for an Essentials Guarantee, which would ensure the basic rate of Universal Credit at least covers the cost of essentials like food and bills.

We need a more hopeful future. Food banks shouldn’t have to exist, but right now, we are seeing persistently high levels of need across the UK. In the last year alone, food banks in the Trussell community provided almost 3 million emergency food parcels to people facing severe hardship in our communities. A third of these went to children. This isn’t right.

Any political party seeking office that is serious about achieving economic stability must address the key drivers of hunger and hardship if they are to deliver what people want – a UK where everyone can afford the essentials like food, bills and toiletries. At Trussell, we work together to ensure no one in the UK needs a food bank to survive. We won’t stop until it becomes a reality.

________________

Helen Barnard is director of policy, research and impact at Trussell.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk