Every day, my constituents make tough choices. Tough choices like deciding whether to heat their homes or put food on the table. Tough choices like taking out a loan to pay for this month’s rent. Tough choices like selling their home to pay for their family’s social care.

People are making tough choices because governments have made the wrong choices. We warned that Tory austerity would weaken our economy and decimate our public services. We were ignored, and the poorest in society paid the price. Austerity is not just a buzzword. It is the ongoing, brutal reality for millions of people who have been pushed into destitution. It is the face of desperation and anxiety of those forced into a spiral of debt. It is a freezing cold night for the record numbers of people sleeping rough on the streets. It is the graveyard for those left without vital support: more than 300,000 excess deaths have been attributed to austerity policies.

We often talk about austerity in terms of cuts to public spending, but that is just one side of the coin. By starving public services of resources, the government manufactured a convenient excuse for their privatisation. We saw this most acutely with the NHS: an underfunded public service does not just cause satisfaction to plummet, but the belief in the principle of public healthcare itself. Austerity was never about saving money (the UK’s debt pile increased every single year under the Tories). It was about transferring money from the poorest to the richest. Between 2010 and 2018, aggregate wealth in the UK grew by £5.68 trillion. 94% went to the richest 50% of households. 6% went to the poorest 50%. As child poverty was heading towards its highest levels since 2007, Britain’s billionaires more than doubled their wealth.

It was a political decision to defund, dismantle and auction off our public services. And it will be a political decision to repeat this failed economic experiment. ‘It’s going to be painful’, the Prime Minister told the nation last week, prepping the public for ‘difficult choices’ ahead. Did he get permission from the Tories to reuse their trademark slogans? Other ministers have gone one step further, indicating that they do not have any choice at all but to impoverish children and pensioners. Keeping children in poverty is unavoidable, apparently, if we want to restore the public finances. Scrapping the winter fuel allowance is a necessity, we were risibly told, if we want to stop a run on the pound.

It is astonishing to hear government ministers try to pull the wool over the public’s eyes. The government knows that there is a range of choices available to them. They could introduce wealth taxes to raise upwards of £10 billion. They could stop wasting public money on private contracts. They could launch a fundamental redistribution of power by bringing water and energy into full public ownership. Instead, they have opted to take resources away from people who were promised things would change. There is plenty of money, it’s just in the wrong hands — and we will not be fooled by ministers’ attempts to feign regret over cruel decisions they know they don’t have to take.

Not least because, for some ministers, there is no need for regret at all. No, scrapping the winter fuel allowance is allegedly the progressive choice, since it takes support away from those who don’t need it in order to direct assistance to those who most need it. The reality is quite different. Means-testing does not make sure support goes where it is most needed. Just 63% of pensioners who qualify for Pension Credit actually apply for it. If this becomes the gateway for Winter Fuel Payments, almost 1 million poorer pensioners will miss out. The IFS have calculated that it would cost the government over £2 billion to ensure a 100% take-up, higher than the £1.4 billion they say they will save in making the cut.

Beyond that, there is a far higher price to pay. That is the destruction of a fundamental principle: universalism. A universal system of welfare reduces the stigma attached to those who rely on it, and removes barriers for those who find it difficult to apply (both are reasons why the take-up of means-tested payments is so low). What next for means testing? The state pension? The NHS?

If the government really cares about wealth inequality, they wouldn’t attack the principle of universalism. They would raise taxes on the wealthiest in our society. That way, we ensure everyone has the support they need and that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share.

Politics is about choices. The Labour Party was created to alleviate the conditions of the worst-off; those who choose to push children and pensioners into poverty should ask themselves: is that what my constituents elected me to do? I am proud to work alongside other MPs in Parliament who were elected to speak up for a more equal world. We believe austerity is the wrong choice — and our door is always open to those who want to choose differently.

The principle of universalism is the principle of a society that cares for everyone. That is a principle worth fighting for.