The new markers that tell you if you are rich in 2025

Champagne towers, cocktails and caviar: a century ago F Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby immortalised the mysterious riches of the 1920s Jazz Age elite in their shiny, vacant world, where wealth was both dazzling and doomed. Gatsby was leading the way to the American dream – prosperity, success, the ultimately tragic pursuit of the unattainable – and his lavish parties became the epitome of what it meant to be rich and look happy. Back then, that meant Rolls-Royces lined up in the yard, and “crates of oranges and lemons”. But one hundred years since the seminal novel was published, how has that changed?

Some things certainly haven’t changed at all – namely that we’re no less captivated by money. From Succession to The White Lotus, Triangle of Sadness to Expats, wealth porn still sells just as fiercely as Fitzgerald’s classic. We love to ogle at the vulgarity, condemn the materialism, and analyse the sprawling inferiority that wealth breeds – but still imagine how we might one day find ourselves up there, too.

What’s sometimes unclear is what exactly “up there” looks like, and how to tell when you reach it. While owning a media empire or staying at a five-star luxury resort in Thailand might be obvious giveaways, the way we define wealth and status is ever-evolving, sometimes in peculiar ways.

Now, nine out of 10 people who earn more than £100,000 per year don’t consider themselves wealthy. A survey by YouGov for HSBC found that the general public believe that to be considered “rich”, you must earn an average annual income of £213,000 – more than six times the national average salary of £30,000.

The same survey found that, rather than being a landowner, owning a kitchen island might be enough to prove you’re well off. A private driveway is now considered decadent, and owning a car to put on it – sports-model or otherwise – is seen by some surveyed as being a privilege.

There’s plenty of data trying to pin down the exact point at which you go from not-rich to rich – one survey found that a pre-tax income of £180,000 per year puts you in the 1 per cent of earners in the UK in 2025, while to be in the top 1 per cent of wealth holders, says parliament, you need £3.6m of assets. Others find that the number is significantly lower, at £120,000. Earning £62,750 or more before tax per year places you in the top 10 per cent of earners nationwide.

The thing is, by these definitions the wealthy no longer consider themselves wealthy, or feel it: in a country still shaken by the events of the last five years, including the last heady 10 days (with more shockwaves set to come), our perception of our own wealth (or lack thereof) and of others’ – of what it feels like to be rich – is more complicated; a more nuanced part of the picture.

Driving that change is, of course, wealth inequality that, after a long era of austerity, a cost of living crisis, Covid, the ongoing impact of Brexit and global politics, has been on a worrisome trajectory for many years – and the trouble is, says Danny Dorling, professor of human geography at the University of Oxford, “the more unequal a country gets overall, the poorer the wealthy feel”.

“We’re actually more in the 1930s than the 1920s when it comes to wealth inequality,” Dorling, who has written several highly acclaimed books, explains. “Which might sound like a pedantic difference but, actually, if you go back to the very start of the 1920s in England and look at the richest of the 1 per cent, who really were the aristocracy, had an income that was 400 times the average, and their income mainly came from their wealth and their assets, which were often overseas.”

Currently, he explains, wealth is concentrated in housing and pensions, with house prices failing to properly keep up with inflation. “I don’t want to exaggerate it, but the Covid-19 pandemic also disproportionately affected the wealthy. It was an incredibly age-specific disease, more than almost any other. And it was the rich who get to live to their nineties more often than working-class people, who tend to die younger.

“So there a very large number of Covid deaths were of elderly people, including people with property in the countryside. That property ends up being sold by the family earlier than it would have been if they hadn’t died, and a couple in London, say aged 55, do a jump to the countryside 10 years earlier than they might have done. That produces a temporary, apparent rise in house prices, which is why for the past few years we have had a degree of uncertainty about wealth – partly because, when these folk die, the money doesn’t disappear, but it does get more concentrated among those who have inherited.”

Wealth inequality was at its lowest, Dorling explains, in the 1970s – now, charities like the Joseph Rowntree Foundation are calling for heightened awareness and political and public concern for the gap between the rich and the poor in order to curtail the precarity it burdens those at the bottom with.

Research by King’s College London published in January even went as far as to say that wealth inequality could cause “societal collapse in the next decade” if we don’t pay attention. “And that’s the thing,” says Dorling. “While income inequalities peaked around 2018, they have been coming down slightly. But absolute poverty has increased. Destitution has increased. Almost everybody is poorer. So it’s a strange time and, in a way, it’s just like the time after the Great Gatsby era – just as the shine was coming off.”

Even the well-off – or at least comfortable – feel poorer. “There’s a subjective element that is hard to address when it comes to defining who is considered rich, or wealthy,” explains Aaron Reeves, a professor of sociology at LSE and co-author of Born To Rule, The Making and Remaking of the British Elite. “Through a straight-forwardly economistic type of lens, how we define wealth quite simply comes down to how many net assets you own. At the moment to be in the top 10 per cent of the wealth distribution you need about £1.2m in assets at a household level. But when you think about house prices in London, for example, that’s not that economically large for many people.

“Those house owners might not think of themselves as rich: most people carry a strong sense of those who are above them. Again, this subjective element over the objective definition of wealth distribution comes down to where you think you sit in relation to other people.”

It’s not new, and neither is the idea of that “squeezed middle class”, says Reeves: we really do all feel less well-off. “What’s happened over the last couple of years is that living standards went down for lots of people, partly because of the cost of living crisis, which, although the impact of that was most keenly felt at the bottom of the income distribution, it absolutely did affect everyone – everyone is buying food and petrol, labour costs have gone up, things like nurseries have become more expensive over the short term.

“At the time, we’ve gone through a period in Britain of very low growth and wage stagnation on top of that. All of it has contributed to this real sense that things haven’t been feeling secure, or like they’re progressing.”

That sense of security is key – while the roaring 1920s and other periods of great growth were all about conspicuous consumption, now affluence comes down to whether or not you feel financially secure. Especially when you’re not relying on active income.

But wealth isn’t all about numbers on pages, more so than ever it’s about having the right stake in the right pie; enough on paper to get you the right level of say where it matters – or having a “voice full of money” as Fitzgerald describes Daisy Buchanan. Things like sending children into private education – which, Dorling is quick to point out, “doesn’t mean you’re buying ‘good’ education, you’re just buying results – a good education is not being trained like a dog to get stars”, he says – are key markers of wealth, not only because of access to cash, but because of the social repercussions and access to influence it might afford later.

A report by the Fairness Foundation, along with The Policy Institute and the Department of War Studies at King’s College London found that 63 per cent of Britons now think the very rich have too much influence on politics in the UK – and you only have to look across the pond to glance at US politics to see the glaringly dangerous repercussions this bears.

The Great Gatsby, though, was about aspiration – something that, in 2025’s Britain, feels almost naive. The age of social mobility and the potential for moving up the ladder has become little more than a lottery. The rise of “inheritocracy” means the age of ambition could be over. Someone who can help their generationally-poor child on to the property ladder (almost impossible without help for many millennials and Gen-Zers) would now be considered rich; a young person with even modest savings put aside might also be. Compared to the “silver elite” – the over-50s generation who benefitted from decades of rising property prices and generous pension schemes – high-earners relying on their careers in their thirties and forties facing extortionate nursery fees and sky-high mortgage rates will feel comparatively poorer than if they were in a similar position two decades ago.

It’s likely why The Economist went as far as to say that now it’s not your career that matters by any shot – getting rich solely comes down to marrying the right person, who can provide inherited wealth if you don’t have it; a methodology straight out of the pages of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice.

In that sense, then Gatsby himself – a self-made man with exuberant wealth – would be a rare figure in today’s society, though infinitely more of us are chasing his lifestyle: you don’t have to be invited to a Gatsby party to observe wealth up close anymore, we just have to look at our phones. And we probably all feel poorer for it, though there are some interesting markers that do feel like modern markers of wealth: YouGov found that the social age has seen the affluent “prioritise lifestyle, health and wellness over luxury goods, and investments have emerged as critical markers of wealth. This trend is especially pronounced among the young, who increasingly view lifestyle as ‘the new luxury’.” Definitely not very Gatsby (or, let’s be honest, any fun).

But then, maybe that’s the point. Now, being rich isn’t about being able to buy – it’s cushioning from the chaos, freedom from acute worry, and the ability to fund what our parents did: to give our kids a better start than we had. Just like Gatsby, we’re all still reaching for that unattainable dream. But the decades in between have shifted the goal posts. Now, being rich looks less like excess and lavish parties – and more like having peace of mind.

Do you feel rich or consider yourself wealthy? Let us know…

Eberechi Eze puts visitors ahead against the run of play

Manchester City welcome Crystal Palace to the Etihad Stadium as they attempt to further their bid for a Champions League place.

A dreary derby draw represented another disappointing performance from Pep Guardiola’s side in the absence of Erling Haaland, though their hopes of salvaging a difficult season have been boosted with the Premier League now guaranteed five qualification spots in Europe’s top tier. Manchester City can put the pressure on Chelsea and Newcastle, who play tomorrow, by climbing above the pair with victory here.

A win will not come easily, though, against a visiting side in fine form. A chaotic, card-riddled clash with rivals Brighton provided a fourth win in five league games as Oliver Glasner continues to take the south London club up the table. Three points here would continue their charge into the top half as they seek another strong end to the season.

Follow all of the latest from the Etihad Stadium with our live blog below:

BBC had ‘unofficial league table of best and worst British accents’

The BBC had an “unofficial league table” of British accents, in which Birmingham was ranked the worst, one of the broadcaster’s most esteemed war correspondents has said.

In remarks at a University of Sunderland event marking the opening of an archive of her work, Kate Adie – who now presents From Our Own Correspondent – said the BBC would receive widespread complaints over regional accents when she started her career.

Ms Adie, who for years was one of the BBC’s best-known journalists, said: “It is one of this country’s complex matters. Accents vary hugely and how they are received varies hugely.

“Years and years ago the BBC had an unofficial league table of the most liked and the most hated accents.

“The view was that some of them drove people nuts up and down the country. Geordie did pretty well. It’s liked.”

Confirming the answer given by the audience when asked to guess what the most disliked accent was, Ms Adie is reported by The Guardian to have said: “From one end of the country to another, it’s Birmingham.

“Michael Buerk, who comes from Birmingham, was once asked why he didn’t use the accent. He said, ‘I didn’t want death threats’.”

The veteran correspondent said that, when she started out as a station assistant at BBC Radio Durham, they would receive “complaints from everywhere” if a locally-accented producer read the news bulletin.

“We got complaints from everywhere. The whole range of audience. They felt it wasn’t right for news. It is a curious one,” she said.

Ms Adie, aged 79, covered a host of conflicts while working as the BBC’s chief news reporter between 1989 and 2003, having first joined the corporation as a radio technician and producer 20 years prior.

Her first major break came covering the Iranian embassy siege in 1980, after which she went on to report from war zones around the world, including the Gulf War, the 1986 bombing of Libya, and the Bosnian war.

During the Tiananmen Square massacre, Ms Adie was hit in the elbow by a bullet which is reported to have killed the man standing next to her, and was nicked by a bullet fired at point-blank range in Libya. She was awarded an OBE in 1993.

The newly opened archive is reported to contain more than 2,300 items donated to the university, including Ms Adie’s tapes, letters, photographs and the bullet which grazed her at Tiananmen Square.

The Independent has approached the BBC for comment.

Trump envoy suggests dividing up Ukraine like post-war Berlin

Donald Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine has claimed that the country could be partitioned like Berlin after the Second World War as part of a peace deal – as the US president urged Russia to “get moving” on a ceasefire.

Keith Kellogg told The Times that British and French troops could adopt zones of control in the west of the country, forming a “reassurance force”, while Russia’s army could remain in the occupied east – separated by Ukrainian forces and a demilitarised zone.

The Anglo-French-led force west of the Dnipro river – which bisects Ukraine from north to south – would “not be provocative at all” to the Kremlin, said Mr Kellog, who was excluded from peace talks last month because Russia complained that he was “too close” to Kyiv.

It came as four people were injured in Kyiv and Kharkiv during an overnight barrage of Russian drone strikes, which damaged residential buildings and sparked fires, also hitting the Odesa and Dnipropetrovsk regions.

Mr Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff met Vladimir Putin for talks on a “Ukrainian settlement” in St Petersburg lasting four hours on Friday.

Post-Brexit EU youth mobility scheme on table under a different name

A youth mobility scheme with the EU is on the table – but under a different name, The Independent understands, as MPs attempt to secure government backing for the agreement.

A list of recommendations produced by the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly – a delegation of members from the UK and EU parliaments aimed at strengthening relations with the bloc – has urged the government to establish a “youth opportunity scheme”.

It is understood the scheme would operate similarly to proposals for a “youth mobility scheme”, which had become a major sticking point between the UK and EU.

It would allow 18 to 35-year olds, including those doing apprenticeships, to move and work freely between countries for up to two years.

Britain already has a similar agreement with Australia and 12 other countries, including New Zealand, South Korea, Iceland, Uruguay, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

There is widespread support among the British public for such an agreement with the EU, with a YouGov survey of almost 15,000 people indicating that two-thirds (66 per cent) of people backed the scheme, compared to just one in five (18 per cent) who are opposed.

In Nigel Farage’s Clacton constituency, which voted overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the EU in 2016, more than twice as many people were in favour (57 per cent) than against (25 per cent) the idea of a mobility scheme.

EU officials see such a scheme as a key aspect of closer ties with Britain, but so far, the UK government has publicly opposed it.

There is now hope among MPs on the parliamentary delegation that the change in language will help to get the agreement over the line, as it is understood that a key stumbling bloc for ministers was the term “mobility” – amid fears critics would use it as evidence Labour is restoring freedom of movement.

Supporters of the agreement insist that freedom of movement is not on the table, as the scheme would have clear limits – including on the length of time individuals can stay for and their age.

Asked about the recommendation for a “youth opportunity scheme”, a government spokesperson said there would be “no return to freedom of movement”, but said ministers would “look at the range of proposals made in the report”.

Lord Peter Ricketts, a retired British senior diplomat and a crossbench peer on the delegation, told The Independent: “That word mobility seems to be the stumbling block because it conjours up ideas of free movement – even though it would not be free movement”.

“A youth opportunity scheme is more acceptable on the UK government side.

“And as far as the parliamentarian sides are concerned, they’re less worried about the words and more worried about giving young people opportunities”, Lord Ricketts added.

The Liberal Democrats, who have long been pushing for such an agreement, saw the latest developments as a victory. The party’s Europe spokesperson James MacCleary told The Independent: “Whatever the scheme is called – ‘youth mobility’, ‘youth exchange’ or something else entirely – it’s essential that the UK delivers for young people who deserve the chance to work and live in Europe. It’s mad it’s taken this long to commit to extending a scheme that we already have with Australia and Japan to our European friends.

“I hope to see firm plans put forward before the UK-EU summit in May.”

Meanwhile, Dr Mike Galsworthy, chair of the pro-EU European Movement, argued such a scheme is “long overdue”, insisting it will win the government “new support and momentum”.

He said he “cannot fathom” why it has so far taken so long for the government to get behind it.

A government spokesperson said: “We do not have plans for a youth mobility agreement. We are committed to resetting the relationship with the EU to improve the British people’s security, safety and prosperity.

“Our starting point will always be to act in Britain’s national interest, and we will look at the range of proposals made in the report. But we have been clear there will be no return to freedom of movement, the customs union or the single market.”

The global event bringing fresh energy to planet-positive solutions

As we navigate significant environmental and social challenges, the return of ChangeNOW, the world’s biggest expo of solutions for the planet, is much needed to reinvigorate climate action. The 2025 edition, which will take place from April 24th to 26th, will host 140 countries, 40,000 attendees, 10,000 companies and 1,200 investors.

Visionary leaders, established businesses and start-ups alike will gather to showcase over 1,000 sustainable solutions and groundbreaking innovations in key sectors such as clean energy, biodiversity, sustainable cities and the circular economy.

The ChangeNOW 2025 summit will be held at the iconic Grand Palais in Paris, a nod to the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement. Reuniting for the occasion will be guest speakers Mary Robinson, the former (and first female) president of Ireland, Laurent Fabius, former French prime minister, Patricia Espinosa, former UN climate chief and diplomat and Diána Ürge-Vorsatz, leading climate scientist and professor – all of whom were in the French capital a decade earlier to help shape the Paris Agreement at COP21.

There may have been obvious setbacks to environmental policy around the world of late, the United States’ recent withdrawal from the Paris Agreement being a notable one. However ChangeNOW 2025 intends to reaffirm the spirit of Paris, while serving as a catalyst for progress ahead of COP30 and the United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC). “Ten years after COP21, ChangeNOW is where leaders and changemakers converge to accelerate the ecological and social transition,” states Santiago Lefebvre, founder and president of ChangeNOW. “Thousands of solutions will be showcased demonstrating that meaningful progress is within reach.”

His message of positive climate action will be supported by a multitude of world famous faces who will be in attendance at the auspicious event. Natalie Portman, Academy award-winning actress, director, author, activist, and producer; Captain Paul Watson, Founder of Sea Shepherd and Ocean Conservationist; Hannah Jones, CEO of The Earthshot Prize and Olympic champion boxer and gender equality advocate Imane Khelif are just a few of the names set to appear at ChangeNOW 2025.

With over 500 speakers and 250 conference sessions exploring climate action, biodiversity protection, resource management, and social inclusion, ChangeNOW 2025 will also hear the insights of acclaimed corporate leaders from Accor, Bouygues, Henkel, Lidl, Nexans, and Saint-Gobain, who will explain how businesses can be the ones to drive real change.

And the event will not only be an opportunity for global policymakers to discuss next steps in climate action, it will also be a platform for nations to showcase local innovations through their country pavilions. Expect impactful solutions from countries including South Africa, The Netherlands, and Ukraine – demonstrating international collaboration on the topic of climate.

In addition to the packed program of speakers, workshops, exhibits and networking opportunities, ChangeNOW 2025 will host the Impact Job Fair on Saturday, 26 April, with over 150 recruiters and training organisations offering in excess of 600 roles. Dedicated to the public and young professionals, the interactive workshops, educational activities, and career opportunities in sustainable sectors on offer aim to inspire the next generation of changemakers.

The summit will also present the annual Women for Change conference and the accompanying portrait exhibition, which showcases 25 women who are set to have a significant positive impact on their communities, countries or on a global scale over the next 10 years. Created in 2021, the Women for Change initiative aims to platform and provide opportunities for women who are leading change around the world but require further recognition or investment to continue their work. The annual flagship event, which takes place on the afternoon of April 24th, offers women the chance to discuss new ideas, network with likeminded people, and also acquire funding to help solidify their leadership, and amplify their impact.

Step outside the Grand Palais and take a few steps to the Port des Champs Elysées, on the bank of the Seine, where the The Water Odyssey village awaits. One of the event’s standout features, the immersive 1,000 m² exhibition is open to the public and highlights solutions to maritime and river sustainability challenges – offering a mix of conferences, interactive displays, and sensory experiences to engage all ages.

For three days, ChangeNOW will transform Paris into the global capital of impact, bringing together policymakers, entrepreneurs, investors, and the public in the pursuit of sustainable progress.

Book your ChangeNOW 2025 ticket here

Has the government given up on the grooming gang inquiries?

There is confusion about the government’s attitude to the local inquiries into the notorious activities of grooming gangs that sexually abused girls over many years. Many of the cases have involved men of Pakistani origin or heritage, with the victims young white girls.

Often the crimes took place in towns in the north of England, though there were also notable examples in Telford and Oxford. Because of the extreme and sadistic sexual violence employed by these groups, they are also described as “rape gangs”.

The matter has for a long time been fiercely controversial, with allegations that the authorities ignored the plight of the victims, and that the police, social workers and politicians were complicit. In recent days, the government has been accused of dropping the local inquiries that were promised by the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, in January. Some people are outraged; others are asking for a national inquiry…

It seems not, but it certainly allowed that impression to be formed. Under intense attack from the opposition and persistent questioning by the media, Cooper has insisted that the local inquiries into grooming gangs in five towns are still going ahead.

A number of factors. Earlier this month, the lawyer charged with helping set up the local inquiries, Tom Crowther KC (who chaired the 2022 inquiry into the Telford gangs), told a Commons select committee that he had been given little information about the role, and had needed to ask a civil servant “Do you still want me?”

It didn’t help that only one location out of the five – Oldham – was identified in January, and that none have been earmarked since for the “rapid” review, suggesting a certain lack of urgency. Seizing on the issue, the shadow Home Office minister, Katie Lam, demanded answers.

Unfortunately, when the safeguarding minister, Jess Phillips, made her “update” statement to the Commons, she didn’t say much about the local inquiries, and just confirmed that the £5m was still available. She also made her statement on the final day of the parliamentary session before the Easter recess, which made critics suspicious that the government was trying to sneak bad news out.

What Phillips said on 8 April was: “We will set out the process through which local authorities can access the £5m national fund to support locally led work on grooming gangs. Following feedback from local authorities, the fund will adopt a flexible approach to support both full independent local inquiries and more bespoke work, including local victims’ panels or locally led audits into the handling of historic cases.”

It gave the strong impression that the government was trying to downplay the local inquiries for political purposes. Trevor Philips, former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, put the charge against ministers forcefully, saying that they were reluctant to push ahead “because of the demographic of people involved… largely Pakistani Muslim background, and also in Labour-held seats and councils who would be offended by it”.

Aside from denying that they are being complacent, ministers have put forward a case that is rather bureaucratic, and comes late in the day, when the misunderstandings have (arguably) gained traction. They say they are awaiting a different inquiry, that being an audit by Louise Casey, the former victims’ commissioner. This is due next month and will “uncover the true scale of grooming gangs in the UK today, including looking at ethnicity”, according to the Home Office.

Once again, it’s not that clear. Some councils, such as Bradford, have rejected any further inquiries anyway. Keir Starmer, on the other hand, has opened up the possibility of funding for more than five local inquiries. But he and his colleagues say their emphasis is on implementing the recommendations made by previous inquiries – for example, creating a new criminal offence of obstructing an individual from making a report; making reporting of child abuse mandatory; and making “grooming” an aggravating factor in sentencing for rape.

We’ve had one lengthy one already – set up by Theresa May, and chaired by Alexis Jay – which reported in 2022. There have also been trials, along with various local investigations, such as in Derby, Rotherham and Telford, and considerable media interest (indeed, The Times broke the scandal in 2011).

The problem is that the Jay inquiry was national but very broad indeed, taking in so-called VIP abuse as well, while the local investigations have been piecemeal and lacked authority. Even if another five, or more, local inquiries took place, there would be areas left uncovered.

A more powerful argument is that the survivors and victims’ families want an investigation, and that they won’t feel that justice has fully been done and the truth made known unless an inquiry takes place that carries full judicial powers.

Grooming – and the sexual abuse of children in a broader sense – has never been confined to men of Pakistani heritage, but as a specific phenomenon, the gangs have aroused intense interest and debate. The topic is also being exploited, obviously, by racists and Islamophobes.

The clamour for a further national inquiry will not die down, and it feels inevitable that one will need to take place in order to restore some truth and perspective to the discussion. Meanwhile, in the local elections, the Conservatives and Reform are making the most of it.

Time to build a better future – Brick by Brick

The Independent is proud to be able to thank its generous readers and partner organisations for the completion of a new bespoke safe haven for women and their families fleeing domestic abuse.

Our Brick by Brick campaign, launched last September in partnership with the charity Refuge, asked for a £15 contribution per nominal brick for the buildings – and there was an immediate and enthusiastic response to the appeal. Construction of the first purpose-built house has now been completed, with a second to follow soon.

As soon as Refuge’s all-female team of decorators have finished up, the first residents will be welcomed into their secure and safe new home. Of necessity, the location of the properties remains confidential, which will lend additional comfort to those who have been subjected to horrific mental and physical torture.

In particular, Refuge, the Persimmon housebuilding company and its charitable trust have devoted enormous effort and care to the design of these new homes – with flexibility in the accommodation for children and appropriate security measures. Especially thoughtfully, pets are also allowed. These will be places of kindness as well as safety.

In the words of The Independent’s editor-in-chief, Geordie Greig: “This is a monumental achievement, and I’m immensely proud of the role our readers and supporters have played in building this house – Brick by Brick.”

Many politicians, royalty and celebrities have put their status to good use by lending their names to our Brick by Brick campaign, including The Queen, Sir Keir Starmer, Dame Helen Mirren, Dame Joanna Lumley, Olivia Colman, Victoria Derbyshire, Andi Oliver, David Morrissey and Sir Patrick Stewart.

Despite the near ubiquity of domestic abuse, which takes many forms, it rarely dominates the news headlines – another reason why The Independent has backed this effort. It is so much more than an exercise in “raising awareness” – a phrase that is often used but rarely matches up to the challenge of the problem.

As so much domestic violence goes on behind closed doors, police and social services never get to hear of it – but the best estimates of the incidence of this type of violence and its effects are sobering.

Last month, it was revealed that between April 2023 and March 2024, 98 victims of domestic abuse took their own lives – on top of the 80 who were killed by a current or former partner, and the 39 killed by a family member. Coupled with the 354 suspected deaths by suicide following domestic abuse since 2020, that brings the total number of domestic abuse-related deaths this decade to 1,012, according to the government-funded Domestic Homicide Project. There will be many hundreds of thousands more similar cases that have gone unrecorded, if not millions.

One reason for these types of crimes – which are often described as an “epidemic”, and one with a long and often hidden history – is that it is just so difficult for women and children to get away from an abusive man quickly and safely. Without a refuge, they can become trapped in barbaric, controlling relationships.

Shelters such as those provided by Brick by Brick will go a long way to remedying that. From a safe home, damaged people can begin to repair themselves, and their lives. They can also more readily seek what help they can from the authorities, as well as legal advice that will secure them justice. Such things are also crucial in rebuilding lives.

More needs to be done, which is undoubtedly more difficult at a time when there is less money around. The social services departments of local authorities have suffered successive waves of austerity, as have police forces. Yet they are there to save lives and prevent injury, and there can be few better uses for taxpayers’ money. More purpose-built refuges would also be a fine investment, saving on temporary accommodation and trying to fix problems when it is far too late to stop the harm. The children, after all, carry the physical and mental scars for the rest of their lives.

In its election manifesto, the Labour Party tried to build on the pioneering work in this field done by generations of campaigners and some politicians who cared enough to make a difference, notably Theresa May, whose government passed laws on disclosure and “controlling coercive behaviour”.

Mercifully, even in these polarised times, this is not a partisan matter. Labour, in its turn, promised to “introduce domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms so that victims can talk directly to a specialist, and ensure there is a legal advocate in every police force area to advise victims from the moment of report to trial”.

The party also promised to halve abuse against women and girls (much of it in the home) within a decade. Disconcertingly, the home secretary Yvette Cooper last November had to concede that she didn’t know how to measure “overall violence” against women and girls, nor “how you look at domestic abuse”. Of course, if any government sets a target (even one that may exceed its own lifespan), it needs to be able to quantify its success, but that should be no excuse for not getting on with the job and maintaining that momentum.

The creation of more safe refuges could be transformative in this effort, and it is something that should take its place in the ambitious housebuilding programme being overseen by the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner.

There are women at the top of government who understand the problem of domestic abuse, are committed to improving the situation of women and girls and have the power and responsibility to do something about it. They should build a better future, brick by brick.