As Prime Minister Andy Burnham tours Britain promising “everyday fixes”, from banning phoney bargains to make subscriptions easier to cancel, families like Donna O’Hara’s are still choosing between food, rent and heating. Behind the consumer-protection rhetoric lies a deeper emergency: Universal Credit that no longer covers the basics, private rents that outpace housing benefit, and more than a decade of austerity that has left 7.4 million low-income households unable to afford at least one essential. With the October Budget looming, campaigners and analysts warn that without structural reform to welfare, housing and local economies, Burnham’s plan risks being remembered as tinkering around the edges of a crisis that is breaking Britain’s social contract.

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – Donna O’Hara sits in her rented home in the north of England, surrounded by the quiet arithmetic of survival. For several weeks each month, until her daughter’s wages arrive, the 54-year-old cannot afford food. She visits a food bank instead, or borrows money from neighbours; she says she hates having to ask.

“I hate asking people for help. I hate borrowing money,” she says, her voice carrying the particular exhaustion of someone for whom crisis has become routine. “Mentally, it’s just stressful, and it’s embarrassing having to go to the food bank, utterly embarrassing.”

O’Hara’s story is not exceptional in Britain today. It is a representative.

The 54-year-old mother of four began relying on food banks after her son and his girlfriend moved out following the birth of their baby in February. They had been contributing to the household bills. Losing that income tipped everything over the edge.

But the deeper context of O’Hara’s situation reveals the complex web of structural failures that campaigners, analysts, and even the new Prime Minister Andy Burnham acknowledge have been decades in the making.

O’Hara has multiple myeloma, a blood cancer. Doctors have hospitalised her three times since October. They administered life-saving antibiotics after infections forced her to pause chemotherapy. Her cancer is currently in remission, but doctors have told her it is likely to return before she can resume treatment. Her husband died of lung cancer last year.

Two of her children are on Universal Credit, the UK’s main working-age welfare payment. After paying child maintenance, her son is left with £340 a month to live on. He cannot work because he is waiting for gallbladder surgery.

“Who can live on 340 pounds a month?” O’Hara asks. “And because I’m always helping him out, that cuts into my money.”

Her own housing benefit payment is £1,800 a month, against a rent of £2,500 for a private property with the downstairs toilet she and her late husband both needed because of their cancer treatment. She has fallen behind and expects to be evicted.

“The day the bailiffs come round, I must be packed and ready to go into the housing they put me in,” she says. “Who knows where I’m going to end up?”

A Crisis Rooted In Policy Choices

The UK has been in an acute cost-of-living crisis since inflation surged in late 2021, driven initially by pandemic disruption and then by the spike in energy prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the war with Iran. But for households like O’Hara’s, the strain runs much deeper, with roots in more than a decade of austerity, weak wage growth, stagnant productivity, and the economic aftershocks of Brexit.

That longer history is now central to Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s political pitch. To tackle the crisis, the new premier has set out what he describes as a 10-year plan built around expanding social and affordable housing, reforming Universal Credit, and investing in local economies. He is currently touring the nation to engage with people’s financial concerns.

But a growing chorus of analysts, charities, and anti-poverty campaigners argue the measures announced so far amount to little more than tinkering at the edges of a broken system.

Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) puts scale behind stories like O’Hara’s.

“We estimate 7.4 million low-income families were unable to afford at least one essential item in the last six months,” said Sam Tims, the charity’s lead analyst, pointing to cutbacks on heating, toiletries, and food. “This is at a record high.”

Tims Traced The Roots Directly To Policy Choices.

“The combination of all these damaging structural factors has left our economy weaker, our wages lower and stagnant, our rents higher and our income safety net in need of repair,” he said, noting that the basic rate of Universal Credit support is lower now than a decade ago in real terms.

He welcomes the removal of the two-child benefit limit in April, estimated to have lifted about half a million children out of poverty, but argues it needs to be paired with a “protected minimum floor” in Universal Credit and higher local housing allowance rates to make private rents affordable again.

“Removing the cap was important, but if we’re serious about ending the need for food banks, we need to ensure the basic rate of support is enough to live on,” Tims said in an interview. “Right now, it isn’t.”

The Growth Fallacy

Adam Lang, director of policy at Carnegie UK, says the think tank’s polling shows just over a quarter of households could not afford an unexpected £850 expense, and one in 20 cannot afford to feed everyone at home.

“What is striking is that we’ve conducted the same survey for the last three years, and we see no real improvement on most of these measures,” he said.

Lang cautiously supports Burnham’s approach but warned against expecting a single set of measures to fix things.

“It is heartening to hear the UK government talk of a 10-year plan,” he said. “On the other hand, it is clear that life is too hard for too many and change is required.”

He argued governments need to track wellbeing alongside growth and employment, so policymakers can see “not just how the economy is performing, but how people are doing.”

Evelyn Henderson-Child, senior researcher at the Centre for Local Economies (CLES), goes further, arguing that even when growth does happen, it does not reliably reach those navigating the crisis.

“GDP can kind of swish on upwards while the foundational conditions of life, community resilience and people’s financial stability are eroded,” she said, pointing out that growth-focused policy tends to prioritise high-productivity sectors while overlooking the ones that actually sustain society and offer significant amounts of employment, such as food, retail, transport, housing, and care.

The answer lies less in growth itself and more in who benefits from it, she believes.

“Traditional policy tends to rely on patching up inequality, if it does at all, after wealth is generated and concentrated at the top,” she said. “It’s about pre-distribution, rewiring the economic system from the get-go so that economic and social benefits are spread more evenly.”

Burnham’s Response: ‘Everyday Fixes’ Or Cosmetic Politics?

Burnham’s latest announcements reflect this tension between the scale of the crisis and the modesty of his initial response.

In a recent statement, the Prime Minister outlined a package of measures he described as “everyday fixes” aimed at easing pressure on household budgets. These included:

• A ban on “phoney bargains”: If something is advertised as half price, Burnham argues, it should actually be half price. “We will make sure that when families snatch a deal, they can be confident they’re actually saving. That’s the least they deserve when budgets are so tight,” he said.
• Making it as easy to leave a subscription as it is to join: New rules will come into force in January 2027, requiring businesses to notify customers before renewing subscriptions.
• Removing VAT from domestic electricity bills: This measure, already announced, will provide modest relief on energy costs.
• A £250 annual discount for households living near new electricity pylons and substations: Announced on Wednesday, the government said people living within 1,600ft (500m) of new upgraded infrastructure across Britain will receive the discount for a decade.
• A 20% cut to business rates for pubs, social clubs, and live music venues in England from April, described by Burnham as a “first step” to help the industry.

Dame Clare Moriarty, Chief Executive of Citizens Advice, welcomed the subscription changes: “For too long consumers have been tricked into paying for products or services they don’t use, or didn’t even want to begin with, costing millions of pounds each year. So we really welcome the government’s move to speed up action on subscription traps.”

But she added a pointed caveat: “Today’s announcement is an important move, but it can’t be the end of the story.”

Ray Duffey, CEO of debt advice charity PayPlan, offered similar qualified support: “Reducing the cost of essential household expenses can make a real difference, and measures such as removing VAT from household electricity bills will provide some small relief for many. But it’s important that this forms part of a broader approach to supporting financial resilience.”

“Our data shows that increased cost of living remains the number one cause of debt among people seeking support from PayPlan in 2026, with more than a quarter in all parts of the UK citing it as a contributing factor to their financial difficulties,” Duffey added. “In particular, those aged 35-44 are the hardest hit, with 30% of this age group citing increased cost-of-living as a cause of their debt problems.”

‘I Can Accept Criticism That This Isn’t Enough’

In a strikingly candid interview with BBC’s Wake Up to Money, Burnham acknowledged the limitations of his approach.

“I can accept criticism that this isn’t enough, because I wouldn’t say it’s enough,” he said. “But I take an approach to politics where I do what I can, when I can. Just take that little bit of pressure off and address an issue that you know needs addressing. It’s not the end of the story.”

The Prime Minister, who is embarking on a tour of the UK while Parliament is in recess, said he believed “more public control of essential services” such as water, energy, and housing “would mean we could get to a more substantial answer to the cost-of-living crisis”.

On water, he said it would not be easy to reverse the privatisation of water companies in England and Wales that took place in the 1980s. “But very much, I’m looking at what can be done. Same with energy.”

He also said that, following the return of rail operators to public ownership, he wanted to “remodel the rail fares so that we can get more public benefit for people”.

Burnham told the BBC he has asked Chancellor John Healey to look at what the government can do further on the cost-of-living in the upcoming Budget, on 28 October, and that Healey has said it will be his “main focus”.

Healey has made it clear he will oversee “strong fiscal discipline”, which will limit how much the government has to spend. A major policy group recently cautioned that to keep the promises made by Burnham about defence and the cost-of-living, either taxes must go up or spending must go down.

Labour’s manifesto pledge was not to increase taxes for working people, including income tax, VAT and National Insurance Contributions, which Burnham has said he will uphold.

The Critique: ‘Textbook Tinkering Around The Edges’

But a blistering analysis published in the independent media outlet The Canary argues that Burnham’s plan is “textbook tinkering around the edges” and fails to address the fundamental drivers of the crisis.

“While the things he’s proposing aren’t objectionable, they are yet another example of tinkering around the edges,” the analysis states. “It seems likely that Burnham’s latest proposals will resonate with voters. Honestly, it says a lot about the state of recent governments that he has so many easy wins to choose from. His ideas won’t make a meaningful difference, though, and sooner or later voters are going to realise that.”

The critique points to a series of what it calls “big things” that will make people “much, much poorer in the long run”, including:

• Supporting the ongoing war in Iran, which the analysis argues “is going to drive extreme inflation later this year”
• Failing to renationalise utilities despite “overwhelming public support” for doing so
• Ignoring the climate crisis, which “is going to make Britain poorer at best and uninhabitable at worst”

The reference to the war in Iran reflects a significant foreign policy development that has complicated Burnham’s domestic agenda. The conflict, which has escalated over the past year, has driven up energy prices and disrupted global supply chains, contributing to renewed inflationary pressures that threaten to undermine any progress on living standards.

A Return To Structural Reform?

Burnham’s hints about “more public control” of essential services echo a broader shift in Labour’s positioning under his leadership. The party’s manifesto included commitments to bring rail operators back into public ownership, a process that has already begun, and to establish a publicly owned clean energy company, Great British Energy.

But critics argue these measures, while symbolically significant, do not address the immediate crisis facing millions of households.

“The prime minister is right to talk about structural issues, but the structural issues he’s talking about are the wrong ones,” said one senior official at a major anti-poverty charity, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not allowed to speak to the press. “The problem isn’t phoney bargains in the supermarket. The problem is that Universal Credit doesn’t cover the cost of food, rent, and heating.”

The official pointed to the JRF’s call for a “protected minimum floor” in Universal Credit as an example of the kind of measure that could make an immediate difference.

“If the government is serious about ending the need for food banks, it needs to ensure that the basic rate of support is enough to live on,” the official said. “That means increasing Universal Credit, not just removing the two-child limit.”

The Local Dimension

Burnham’s background as Mayor of Greater Manchester has shaped his approach. He has spoken repeatedly about the importance of “local economies” and has promised to devolve more powers to metro mayors and local authorities.

But Henderson-Child at CLES argues that this rhetoric needs to be matched with a genuine shift in how economic development is done.

“If we’re serious about building local economies that work for everyone, we need to think about what we’re investing in and who benefits,” she said. “At the moment, too much of our economic development strategy is focused on attracting inward investment and supporting high-productivity sectors. We need to be investing in the foundational economy — the food, retail, transport, housing, and care sectors that actually sustain society.”

This is not just a technical point about economic policy. It is a political question about who the economy is for.

“Traditional policy tends to rely on patching up inequality, if it does at all, after wealth is generated and concentrated at the top,” Henderson-Child said. “It’s about pre-distribution, rewiring the economic system from the get-go so that economic and social benefits are spread more evenly.”

The Human Cost

For O’Hara, the debate over growth statistics, structural reform, and policy frameworks is of little consequence.

“Some people say ‘work on a budget’. Try working on a budget when you have to count your pennies just to get a loaf of bread,” she said. “It’s not my fault I got cancer and can’t go to work. Life shouldn’t be like that.”

Her situation underscores the fundamental limitation of Burnham’s approach. No amount of consumer protection measures will help someone who cannot afford food. No ban on phoney bargains will address the fact that her housing benefit doesn’t cover her rent, or that her son cannot survive on £340 a month.

The question facing Burnham is whether he can match the scale of his rhetoric about a “10-year plan” with immediate action that addresses the acute suffering happening now.

His own words suggest he knows the answer.

“I can accept criticism that this isn’t enough,” he said. “Because I wouldn’t say it’s enough.”

For O’Hara and millions like her, the question is not whether the Prime Minister acknowledges the problem. It is whether he will do what is necessary to solve it.

The Road Ahead

The coming months will be decisive. The Budget on 28 October will be the first major test of Burnham’s commitment to tackling the cost-of-living crisis at scale.

Chancellor John Healey faces an unenviable set of constraints: a manifesto commitment not to raise taxes on working people, pressure to increase defence spending, and a debt burden that limits the government’s fiscal room for manoeuvre.

But campaigners argue that the constraints are as much political as they are economic.

“There is always money for war, always money for tax cuts to the wealthy, always money for subsidies to big corporations,” said one anti-poverty activist who asked not to be named. “The question is whether there is the political will to find money for people like Donna O’Hara.”

The answer to that question will determine whether history remembers Burnham’s government as the one that finally addressed the structural roots of the UK’s cost-of-living crisis, or as another administration which promised much and delivered little.

O’Hara currently concentrates on more pressing matters. The bailiffs may come soon. She doesn’t know where she’ll end up. But she knows one thing for certain: “Life shouldn’t be like that.”

The Weight of Expectations

His willingness to break with orthodoxy has shaped Burnham’s political identity. As Mayor of Greater Manchester, he defied the government of his own party over COVID restrictions, positioning himself as a voice for the North. His leadership campaign drew heavily on themes of regional inequality and the failure of trickle-down economics.

But governing differs from campaigning. The choices he makes now will have consequences not just for his political legacy, but for the lives of millions of people who are struggling to afford the basic necessities.

The measures he has announced so far-the everyday fixes, the consumer protections, the modest energy bill discounts- are not wrong. They will help some people sometimes. But they will not address the fundamental drivers of the crisis: a welfare system that does not provide a basic standard of living, a housing market that has pushed rents beyond the reach of ordinary families, an energy system that remains beholden to private interests, an economy that prioritises growth over distribution, and the private monopoly invested in by corporations, the wealthy and aristocrats.

These are not new problems. They have been building for decades. And they will not be solved by “everyday fixes” alone.

The question is whether Burnham, who has spent his career positioning himself as a different kind of politician, will have the courage to take the kind of structural action that his own analysis demands.

O’Hara, for her part, is not holding her breath. She has learned not to expect too much from politicians.

“Everyone says they’re going to help,” she says. “And then nothing changes.”

She pauses, looking around the room that may not be hers for much longer.

“I just want to be able to feed my kids. I want to be able to pay my rent. I want to not be scared all the time.”

She pauses again.

“Is that too much to ask?”

Veritas Press Investigative Analysis
Independent journalism examining global affairs, power, diplomacy and accountability.

Source: Veritas Press C.I.C. | Multi-News Agencies