‘Handouts from the state do not nurture the same sense of self-reliant dignity as a fair wage,’ says Keir Starmer in an article for the Sunday Telegraph. He’s right. Being in work is the most effective bulwark against poverty. Yet time and time again, government fairness is judged in terms of how it tweaks benefits rather than what was done to get more people into work. It’s a common belief that under the Tories, the lowest-paid were hammered and the best-paid walked away with the most.

When Tories cut benefits, it’s usually to incentivise people to move from welfare into work – and make not just them but society better off overall. That’s the theory, but what’s the results?

The single most important figure for measuring that comes from something called the Family Resource Survey, an in-depth annual study of more than 20,000 households. It measures household income after all factors (including the all-important housing costs). The red line below is, in my opinion, one of the central metrics for assessing all Conservative policies: welfare, employment and housing.

On the Daily Politics last week, I was a guest alongside the Observer’s Sonia Sodha who said the Tories had inflicted cuts on the poorest while disproportionately helping the richest. Sonia was referring to the impact of taxes and benefits. If you only look at this (and don’t factor in earnings, housing costs etc.) she is right – and I was wrong to contradict her. I should have said that this is only part of the picture. Increasing employment was the main purpose of the post-2010 reforms, so that effect can – in my view – only be judged by factoring in earnings, housing subsidy and everything else.

The economy of the post-crash years has been pretty miserable for most people. But during this period, the Tories did manage to make sure the biggest percentage rises in incomes went to those who needed them most.