Just read the report from the UC Big Ideas meeting. Here's my thoughts...

On childcare its my usual point (broken record I know) but let's not reinvent the wheel, just take the digital infrastructure in place (Childcare Grant Payment Service for Student Finance England) and expand it to the UC system so the model would be you tell UC who your provider is, your provider invoices the UC system etc. Childcare is a key problem with income instability because one month you get the big reimbursement but another month you get nothing because it was August the month prior, the system says you should put this money aside carefully but that doesn't chime with low income realities. Of course the ideal would be a move to such a system being combined with lifting reimbursement from 85% to 100% and a large chunk of childcare costs could be easily subsumed from DWP to DfE if government said they would expand free after-school care in primary schools to everyone on UC (and ideally universally eventually).

The other issue on income instability is being a Masters student. I know my circumstance is niche but its exactly the kind of small scale, easy to fix solution a review like this should be tackling. Masters loans - unlike undergraduate loans which split into maintenance and tuition - are a single loan, UC therefore treats 30% as income upon which your UC should be tapered and assumes the other 70% will be tuition. The reality is that my course (which is not an outlier) aligns with one-year of undergraduate fees (albeit split over 2 years as its a part-time masters) so: £9,975. The loan is £12,858 so 77.6% of the loan pays the university, in other words I'm tapered £495 away from my UC awards (over the 2 year period) for £900 of which isn't income for me, it's paid to my university. There has be a change so that you can send evidence of how much your fees are and only the loan less the fees is tapered or ideally even that should have a small allowance (like the undergraduate maintenance loan does) to reflect course costs (in my case buying equipment for film production).

A 3-month window might give more stability, if it were structured something like an energy bill account where it informs you that your most recent earnings are higher than before so your UC will fall by a certain amount going forward but in terms of dealing with those significant drops in income you might get one month (when summer comes returning university students often sweep up lot of shifts in McDonald's whilst my availability due to childcare is more limited and my self-employed tutoring income almost completely dries up) it's actually quite useful to have the sort of immediate bounce-back support from UC so I would caution against it.

As I noted at a recent Resolution Foundation roundtable (though I suspect it falls outside the remit of this review) the reform of Jobcentre Plus, should in my view follow as such:

Design Jobcentre Plus into regions that map the 33 or so (proposed) mayoral authorities in England and the nations of NI, Scotland and Wales.

Each region could then provide tailored (likely phone or online based) careers support for NHS trained professionals or education trained professionals or those interested in such careers via a wider pool of region-wide staff. There will be other areas like apprenticeships or a career in the civil service etc. where local jobcentre staff will simply never be able to offer the kind of advice a more specialised advisor could.

Local face to face services would continue to operate and indeed would refer people to the regional specialists where appropriate.

It's also crazy (excuse the pun) to me that when I was receiving support via Talking Therapies I was offered tailored job support consisting of 6 phone calls which included reviewing - line-by-line my CV, interview technique tips and other really helpful guidance. This was provided by someone who I assume either works in HR but one day a week works for Talking Therapies or perhaps works for TT full time now but has a HR background. I can't tell you how useful this was and I think frankly it shouldn't require people to acquire PTSD to access it! This kind of offer could easily become the norm offered by Jobcentre Plus on a regional basis and would boost confidence of jobseekers rather than seeming like the tick-box 10 minute appointments I experienced with the Jobcentre.

Much as my preferred (radical) approach to the 5 week wait would involve auto-enrolling every person with a National Insurance number into UC so when their income drops they receive support immediately in the month thereafter (something that would radically improve the lives of the self-employed and also completely wipe out the problem of billions of UC unclaimed by those eligible who don't apply). I suspect that would be a step too far for the government to take at this point. Therefore an alternative my be to pay a fixed lump sum equitable to the Standard Allowance to anyone who applies, if they're eligible for UC this is simply treated as their first payment and not reclaimed, if they're found ineligible for UC it would equally be written off as a sort of government emergency fund that people are entitled to claim if they've fallen on hard times (reducing problem credit) but you could limit access to this to just one claim per annum as a sort of new right, people could apply to UC again if their circumstances had changed but in that same 12 month period they wouldn't get the 5 week wait payment. If someone was found to have clearly made a fraudulent claim (i.e. no reasonable reason for why they would be eligible for UC - i.e. mega high earnings) the money could be reclaimed via a fine.

The point about when the rent is due is true. Most companies allow you to decide when your direct debit comes out so it surely must not be beyond the capabilities of government to redesign their payments systems to allow for a bespoke UC payment date where people want to align it with their rent day. However I have to say, in terms of income instability, my biggest gripe is that we still get Child Benefit paid 13 x 4 weeks and UC is paid on the 1st of each of the 12 months. It would be very helpful to have Child Benefit changed to a 12 monthly, 1st of the month payment aligned with UC.

With the savings threshold this has always seemed odd to me that it discourages savings. I have a friend who put savings from her break-up into Premium Bonds for her children, in their names, however was told by UC (I think wrongly) that because she could access the money if she wanted to it must count towards her savings and therefore she was ineligible for UC because it exceeded £16,000. At the very least there should be clarity on this matter. More fundamentally it would make sense to me that when there is an annual £20,000 annual tax-free savings option via ISAs that government could use a similar model for UC i.e. savings in excess of say £6,000 a year might incur tapering because if you've got £500 to put away on average over 12 months then yes you perhaps don't need as much UC as you're getting (for whatever reason) but the total amount of savings be raised significantly to say £50,000 otherwise the system is essentially saying that inheritance you received or big insurance pay out or big unfair dismissal claim - you should live off that rather than use it to pay down debts for example, put aside savings or - heaven forbid - apply for a mortgage (which of course would reduce government payouts on housing element of UC because mortgages aren't covered by UC).

On that note, another of my broken record regular gripes. Boris Johnson promised UC housing element would be extended to mortgage repayments (not just interest via a loan scheme). The idea (rational I must say) was that this might allow some UC claimants to be able to secure a mortgage (as their declared income for applications could safely include the LHA minus tapering), it could reduce the chance of repossessions for those with a mortgage, it could even lower the cost of mortgages overall because it would in effect act as a sort of default mortgage insurance thus allowing government to consider banning mortgage lenders from requiring mortgage insurance but most importantly for government is that though it would increase government spending on UC housing element initially, long term mortgages are paid off so the amount government pays would reduce over time so the more UC claimants moving from private rent to home ownership the better). Naturally the other point is that getting more people into social housing reduces the housing element bill significantly so the move from Brighton Council (and others I believe) to actively buying up housing stock to convert into social housing should be expanded (I realise this is well beyond the remit of this review but it could be incentivised through a 100% CGT relief for landlords with a UC claimant tenant who is willing to sell their property either to the tenant or Homes England/a housing association/the local council with government banking the lower housing element outlay).

On interactions with employment I would just say that the system needs to be better set up for the nature of modern work. Many of us on low income will be supplementing whatever we can get from paid work with more than one job and the system seems to somehow struggle with multiple PAYE data, any issues with this causing overpayments (certainly of less than say £200) should not result in the individual having money reclaimed from future payments. Equally many will take on some self-employed work but again I was passed from the main team to a self-employment team in the Jobcentre and then back again when they realised my income from self-employment would not be my main income - each time resulting in multiple meetings in-person never for more than 15 minutes at the Jobcentre. There must be a better understanding built in that people will need tailored self-employment support AND be getting their main income for the first few years from a PAYE system (again tailored local self-employment start-up support could be better handled by regional Jobcentres perhaps even with volunteer mentors who are experienced entrepreneurs). My experience is particularly hard for DWP because I have two paid PAYE jobs, self-employment income and a student loan! Yet these are the realities of low-income life, the system must be flexible enough to handle them.

The other point about trust is that if you get stuck in a traffic jam and are late for a DWP appointment its treated as a sanctionable offence. Jobcentre staff deserve protection but being greeted by effectively bouncers on the door makes them seem a threatening place to visit, like a high-security GP surgery. There should be more leeway and a welcoming feel designed into the local Jobcentres and the meeting system.

The biggest issue with perceptions of UC is that its for unemployed people. I think expanding free school meals to all UC claimants will be quite transformative not just for our incomes but for visibility. Suddenly significant numbers of children will be taking up free school meals and it will become more apparent in communities about the number of families receiving UC. I am worried this might increase stigma and division considering the 'Budget for Benefit Street' rhetoric that has filtered through to communities recently. Hopefully my fears are misplaced. I think what would be useful is more widely linking UC with support for children, the Pupil Premium won't be extended to all those now eligible to FSM but there could be an acknowledgement at least within schools that children receiving FSM but not on PP should also get additional focus and support in class and perhaps greater leeway with things like school trip costs etc. Almost like a PP Tier 1 and PP Tier 2, one that comes with a greater level of support and cash from government and another with no cash attached by raising awareness and perhaps some entitlements in-school.

Finally, another thing about interactions with work. Student loan repayments are de facto a tax. Income tax and employee NICs are deducted from gross income before the taper kicks in on the remaining balance, yet student loan repayments (9%) are not discounted for the purposes of the taper so for example someone earning an extra £100 in a month would lose £28 in tax/NICs and then be tapered £39.60 from their UC income - net income: £32.40 (not a great work incentive to take on a few extra shifts or pursue the promotion to supervisor I have to say but I imagine slashing the taper rate or lifting the Work Allowance are taboo for the review). Someone earning £100 extra a month WITH A STUDENT LOAN would would lose £37 in tax/NICs/student loan repayments and then be tapered £39.60 from their UC income - net income: £23.40. The group of workers most likely to be able to increase their income (graduates) are given LESS work incentive to do so than those who face structural challenges like less qualifications and 'degree-holders only' job pathways. It's worth remembering that Masters graduates pay an additional 6% student loan repayments on top so the calculation becomes: lose £43 in tax/NICs/student loan repayments/masters loans repayments and then be tapered £39.60 from their UC income - net income £3.40. Considering student loan thresholds are being frozen and graduate employment rates are dropping currently this is going to become less and less a niche issue and more a structural one. Changing student loans to a tax within the UC context would save graduates £4.95 in tapering charges for every extra £100 they earn or £8.25 for Masters graduates.

I hate waking up struggling. Cost living with no support breaking me.

I'm struggling to keep food and pay my gas electric.

I was told by discretionary support that I could apply more than once a year for different items and I believed them until I moved into a new build house with no flooring, no paint on the walls or anything. It was a shell and I applied for things that I have never applied for like flooring, curtains things like that and was then declined because I had applied for a fridge in the last 12 months. The system remains unclear about what we can apply for and cannot so we dont waste our times in the future.

Extremely cold weather in Glasgow.

The weather is getting cold. That means staying indoors, that means using more electric and gas! Will have to budget for food even.

With it being forecast to snow in the part of England I live in, it brings back memories of this often being a bitter sweet part of the year, because whilst me and the kids always look forward to the festive season, I don't look forward to the heating bills that come with it.

Good day

It's a very windy and rainy day, we are just indoors

Quite anxious about the child poverty policy. I have engaged on different levels few times with it and I'm really looking forward to it . This will be an amazing reminder to make a change if the issues highlighted will be resolved and addressed in this policy.

Good day. New day, new place with my baby.

I wanted to write about UC and "compliance interviews". I'll declare an interest first of all - my job is a Welfare Rights Officer, so I help people all the time with their benefit claims, including UC. And I am on UC myself. So I am used to hearing from clients about their problems with UC and I try to be supportive and sort out their issues.

In the summer UC got in touch and I was asked to provide my ID and bank statements. I knew what this meant - ultimately I was going to be selected for one of these compliance interviews. I was not excited but it did arouse my professional curiosity. I dutifully provided a copy of my driving licence, and two months worth of bank statements through the upload facility on my journal. Only, I forgot about one of my bank accounts, that has nothing in it anyway. I reported this on the journal and a month went by with no response. And then another month - still nothing.

I thought they were leaving me alone until September, when I was told on my journal that I had not complied with the ID requirement and there was a new To Do with an upload facility for the missing bank statements. My failure with the ID was that I had not provided a "check code" from DVLA. I checked back through my journal and I was never asked for this!

So I provided both the ID check code and the missing bank statements. No response from UC again.

Until this week and I was notified they want to speak to me to explain the evidence I had provided. A telephone appt next week during working hours. I contacted them through the journal and got it rearranged to just after I finish work.

It was at this point that I've slowly begun to feel the pressure. What about the bank account with no money in - when I started my claim back in 2019, there was £1000. That's gone - do I need to justify that? My daughter quit school in Jan and then re-joined again in June, which mucked my claim about - will they ask about that? What about my drop in wages (I was acting up in a manger role until the new manager came along) - will I need to explain all of that? I am pretty darn sure I have done nothing wrong. But I was speaking to a colleague at work who went through one of these and they told me they ask you to justify any sources of income and ask about how you spend your money???! I don't do eBay or Vinted or anything like that, but I do my mum's shopping for her - she has dementia and often loses her bank card or cannot remember the numbers. More recently she is housebound as she is incontinent. So often times I am required to pop out to the local shops and get milk, meals, pads at the last minute. I even got her new clothes and bedding over the summer. And I am appointee for her bank account so I tot up the expenditure and reimburse myself. I've never paid any attention to this - I am just helping my mum out. But of course, I've not kept any receipts - sometimes her and my shopping is combined. Often times I am just too exhausted running around in a full time job, as a lone parent and carer for my ill mum. All I do at the end of the day is look how much I spent for my mum and transfer the money over.

This has now got me absolutely overthinking the situation - how on earth can I prove what I have done? I am my worst enemy here - my accounting should be much more professional and from now on it will be, but also I think I am panicking over nothing, I hope.

Tomorrow I will be attending a round table meeting in The House of Lords with Changing Realities in preparation of the government's Child Poverty Strategy to be announced next month.

While preparing for this, I have been thinking about some of the sacrifices to my own life and health that I have made over the past ten years in order to prevent my daughter from the worst effects of living in poverty as possible. I would never regret this as my daughter has entered adult life with care and compassion, she is beautiful and kind to all, working hard to complete her A levels while also working part time at her Church café where she also helps out with children's groups on a voluntary basis each week, which takes up a lot of her spare time. On top of this she also cares for and supports me when needed with mental and physical health conditions. I can see though that having lived over half of her childhood in extreme poverty has and will continue to prevent her from fulfilling her life to the full extent of her abilities, which I do not feel should be the case for any child to have to face.

No matter how far the Child Poverty Strategy goes, there will still be a lot of work to be done in order to reach a point where no child is forced to live in poverty. It is not their choice or the choice of their parents. Life circumstances can change in an instant, forcing any one of us into poverty at any time during our lives. This is when the social security system should be there to soften the blow as quickly and easily as possible.

I am committed and determined to fight for equality for all with a fairer society, where there is a social security system that is fair, easy to navigate and accessible, which offers security not punishment to those who need it.

I miss the sunshine and the heat. At least the house was warm and cosy then.