When the polling stations open next month, it is likely that many of the poorest people will stay away. Britain’s democracy is a divided one. At the 2010 general election, there was a gaping 23 percentage points gap between the turnout of the richest and poorest income groups. Why? Because those living in poverty who choose not to vote often feel completely excluded and disconnected from the political process.

Over the past six years, I have done academic research with a small group of individuals in Leeds directly affected by welfare reform. Most of those I spoke to did not vote. Sam, a young jobseeker when we first met, explained why: “Whoever I vote for, the country’s going to the dogs anyway so I don’t bother”, she said.

Can’t be bothered to vote? If you’re young, you simply can’t afford not to Read more

I heard politicians spoken about with contempt, words dripping with anger and mistrust. They were vehemently criticised for their readiness to talk as experts on welfare and poverty: areas on which they in fact appeared to know little. A plea for those who govern to “walk a year in my shoes” was common. Cath wanted a different type of person to hold power: “They’ve got to have experience. It’s like having a midwife who’s never given birth to a child. You can’t take her seriously ‘cause she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Only when you’ve walked through a big, long, dark scary forest, do you have a right to speak about that forest. If you haven’t been through it, keep your mouth shut.”

But as wave after wave of welfare reform is implemented, politicians continue to denigrate and stereotype those in receipt of out-of-work benefits. Individuals keenly felt the injustice of the mismatch between the reality of their own lives and politicians’ blinkered representation of claimants passively “sleeping off a life on benefits”. This representation is duplicated and reinforced by a media that seems to have successfully recast poverty as light entertainment.

As out-of-work benefit claimants struggle to get by, they watch on as political parties clamour to be seen as the party of the “hardworking majority”. Jeremy Corbyn’s electoral strapline may be “for the many, not the few” but so far he and his party have said little that can be read as a direct appeal to people on benefits. Even where Labour criticises the Conservatives’ appalling record on child poverty, the emphasis is always on the majority of poor children living in households where someone works. As if child poverty in families with no one in paid employment is somehow less of a problem.

In this context, it is not surprising that so many of the poorest people choose not to vote. Theirs is not an act of apathy – for they are often intensely political – but of disgust. It is also a politicised expression of the extent to which politicians do not seek to represent them.

What is more surprising is that those I’ve spoken to so often see a case for further welfare reform, even though they are directly affected. Individuals described the importance of getting tough on some “other” who was judged undeserving of state support. Disability benefits claimant Kane explained: “there are quite a lot of people faking bad backs and stuff. So I think [the government has] got to do something”. As the “othered”, themselves, they seek to manage and deflect the pervasive stigma of benefits. Such is the strength and spread of the dominant narrative on “welfare”, that it is perhaps difficult for individuals to do anything else. Ironically, the replication of this narrative by the poorest reinforces it, and reduces the scope for alternative accounts to gain ground.

Some of those I interviewed also called for a fundamental change to the way “welfare” is presented. I asked Sam (who is now in insecure, part-time work) what one thing would persuade her to vote: “I’d like politicians to clamp down on how benefit claimants are shown as scroungers all the time in the media. But I won’t hold my breath,” she replied.

Rosie, a low-paid single parent agreed: “To get my vote, I’d like politicians to promise there’d be no more Benefits Street. The barriers between the rich and poor are getting worse. Whatever happened to equality?”