A common system in the US and the UK is the more money you have the more breaks and leeway you're allowed but the poorer you are the more have to do to survive and prove that you deserve basic benefits. It should be vice versa. The rich can afford to spend more, to go through more. The poor need a significant leg up (food, clothes, housing, healthcare) to reach a point where they can support themselves in society. And all of this happens while the poorer population is full of consumers that need to buy the products that come from companies that are owned, in part, by that 1%.
Yes, governmental politics are to blame because there is no other explanation as to how the richest 1% would own so much of the nation's assets. There should have been higher taxes on the wealthiest few in order to restore economic balance. Without these regulations, the rich will only get richer.
In a small country like England with a small population, it's likely that the membership of government represents the upper classes and other with money and influence. Further, the members of the House of Lords, half the English Parliament, inherited their seats in government or are appointed by the Crown. This skews the membership towards the most powerful and wealthy people. Even through simple oversight, much less by conscious design, government policies can work to a large degree against people who can't afford to run for office.
Yes, governmental policies are to blame for income inequality. If you look at countries that have policies that benefit the poor and disenfranchised, you will see less income inequality than if you look at countries that do not do much to help the poor. I think especially that government policies in regards to deregulation and privatization are to blame.