Like many of my generation, I spent my early years in a tenement that was new when Victoria was a girl. From our windows we had an uninterrupted vista of the gasworks and a chemical plant, often shrouded in an evil smelling yellow mist. When I was four, we moved to a new council house on a peripheral scheme. Time and distance lend enchantment, but all these years later, I still recall the joy of space and fresh air. Best of all was the bath and an inside toilet that didn’t have to be shared with five other families.

Although I didn’t realise it at the time, our new street and many others like it, represented a real social mix. My father was a factory worker, but our immediate neighbours included two teachers and a harbour pilot, who might have been considered middle class.

I suppose our street was an embodiment of post-war attachment to a fairer, more equal society representing genuine political will and commitment to “levelling up”. Education was a key piece in the egalitarian jigsaw. All the youngsters from the scheme attended the same primary school, the school leaving age was raised, the injustice of the 11+ was removed and grants brought university entrance within the grasp of working class children like me. For a time at least, there seemed to be substance to cross-party political aspiration to narrow the gap between the haves and have nots.

The prime minister has made much of his commitment to similar “levelling up”. That doesn’t sit easily alongside the imminent end of the uplift to Universal Credit (UC) that has helped keep the wolf more distant from the doors of many families.

The fact that the number of UC claimants rose to around five million during the pandemic is in itself an indictment of government economic and social policy. The withdrawal of the uplift demonstrates that talk of levelling up is simply more of Mr Johnson’s insubstantial and cynical flim flam.

The devolved administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have protested strongly about its removal. They too however, need to reflect on how effectively they have used their powers to address the scandal of the widening gap between the most and least well off in their own backyards.

The widening poverty gap is nothing new. As far back as 2013, Oxfam was reporting that the 10% best-off families in the UK were 273 times better off than the poorest 10%. The Equality Trust estimates the poorest 50% of the UK population account for a mere 9% of national wealth.

The pandemic has substantially widened that gap. According to the Financial Times, the world’s five wealthiest individuals, including Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Bill Gates, increased their collective worth by more than $250billion during the pandemic.

Middle to high wealth groups in the UK have also done nicely out of the pandemic, increasing their savings and benefitting from surging house prices. The Resolution Foundation estimates middle wealth families have experienced a 9% growth in their relative wealth. In contrast, the poorest families have become increasingly dependent on UC, food banks and forced to draw on savings, such as they had.

There is a serious disconnect between the alleged commitment of all UK administrations to levelling up and their social and economic policies. As long as there is there is major corporate influence on governments’ economic policies, levelling up will remain a pipe dream.

To put it crudely, big money doesn’t give a monkey’s about levelling up. Its main priority will always be to maximise bonuses and investor return, principally through driving down costs. The inevitable loss of job security and the negative impact of the gig economy on wages, can only widen the rich/poor divide, meaning levelling up is simply pious window dressing.

In truth, there is no stomach at governmental levels for the actions that will make a difference. Alexandria Ocasio – Ortez’s sartorial message – “Tax the Rich”, emblazoned on her dress at the recent Met Gala, offered a starting point for genuine action.

The UK and Scottish Governments wring their hands about poverty, but cower from levying additional taxes on the wealthiest. We’re told the wealthy will simply move themselves and/or their money elsewhere. Just in case governments haven’t noticed, tax avoidance and yes, evasion, is already a life choice for the super-rich. A serious offensive against tax avoidance and a substantial exit tax on capital would be as good a place to start as any. We shouldn’t worry too much about millionaires and billionaires, they’ll always survive.

In the US, Bernie Sanders has continued to spell out the harmful impact of the growing gulf between rich and poor. His proposals to reverse the trend could apply equally well here. A permanent uplift to the minimum wage would lend substance to Oxfam’s slogan, “Reward work, not wealth”. It’s surely unacceptable that those in full time employment should be reliant on benefits to simply get by.

The mantra of “staying competitive” through a low skill/wage economy is incompatible with a commitment to levelling up. Inflation proofing benefits in line with the state pension would assist the hardest pressed families.

Increased unionisation amongst the lowest paid would represent a first step in the fightback against the deliberate corporate strategy of depressing wages and worsening working conditions. Rebuilding Britain’s crumbling infrastructure and developing renewable energy sources offer the prospect of skilled and well-paid jobs.

Addressing the educational gap, health inequality and inadequate housing are all prerequisites of a realistic strategy to close the gap between rich and poor. It won’t be cheap, and the burden should rest more heavily on those with the broadest shoulders.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.