I was born in 1966 and survived thanks to the Welfare state. I quickly learned there was no shame in being poor if you didn’t know any better. When asked by our richer mates what was in our sandwiches on a Monday lunchtime at Junior school, we, the poor kids, chewed on ‘bread and marge’, pretending it was left over ‘stuffing’ from an imaginary Sunday lunch.

In Margaret (the free school milk snatcher) Thatcher’s Britain of the 1980’s I can remember queues of people waiting in the icy wind for a free food handout: European Economic Community (EEC) butter, cheese and tinned stewing steak. Many felt that it was ‘shameful’ and ‘embarrassing’, but they had no alternative. Thatcher’s Government was originally against the idea of free food for the needy, but eventually relented and left Charities to coordinate its distribution.

If you were hungry, you didn’t care about the politics. The disquiet that free food initiatives, although worthy, could erode political support for the welfare state didn’t bother you that much. Although once fed, the nagging doubt that Thatcher’s Government could forget its obligation to ensure that its citizens had recourse to a safety net and could eat, returned.

A decade ago, you would be hard pressed to find a food bank in the UK. Roll forward to early 2018 and there are well over two thousand. This exponential growth is symptomatic of the fact that 14 million people are living in poverty in a country still amongst the richest in the world. Wages have stagnated, and levels of in-work poverty now exceed those of out-of-work poverty.

The growth of food banks is illustrative of zero-hour contracts, rising rents, fuel and food costs, welfare cuts and benefits delays. The latter is driving an average 30% increase in the use of food banks in areas of full Universal Credit roll out.

It can be argued that food banks are intrinsically ‘a good thing’. They embody a public spirited humanitarian desire to alleviate hunger. Their growth seems to be welcomed by the right, centre and some on the left of UK politics. However, should we be open to the possibility that their existence enables advanced economies to, in some cases, avoid and in others, outsource, their duty to protect their citizens from hunger?

Does the well-intentioned food bank model let Governments off the hook, allowing states to avoid searching for long-term, innovative solutions to the underlying causes of poverty and hunger?

UBI is politically feasible, socially desirable and financially sustainable. It would give all citizens a sum of money, meaning everyone, regardless of circumstances, would have the essential means to live. They wouldn't have to worry about where their next meal will come from.

UBI has the potential to restore our dignity as a nation. A nation that not only takes care of its citizens, but enables them to live happy and fulfilled lives. There is shame in poverty, but it doesn't belong to the poor. It is the shame of those in Government who dismiss UBI as unaffordable, when the richest 1% own 29 times what the bottom 20% own in the UK and 42 people hold as much wealth as the 3.7 billion who make up the poorest half of the world’s population.