In this post, Owen Davis discusses the
hotly contested area of welfare policy in the run up to the 2015 General
Election. Data around public attitudes to the welfare state are presented and
it is argued that each of the three main political parties need to convince the
public that they have the best strategies for reforming the benefits system.
The post concludes by suggesting that there is plenty to fight for in the run
up to May and that the welfare state is likely to remain one of the key social
policy battlegrounds.
Welfare Policy and Public Attitudes
The welfare state remains one of the most politically sensitive areas of
social policy and will undoubtedly be high on the agenda in the upcoming
general election. The main political parties will each compete to offer their
own visions for reform which appeal to their core demographics of voters. Attitudes
towards the benefits system vary across the political spectrum, however two
things are certain about the general state of public opinion. First, the public
are deeply suspicious of welfare claimants. This is demonstrated in recent analysis
by Baumberg and colleagues[i] (see figure
1), which shows that negative attitudes towards those traditionally viewed as
‘needy’ and ‘deserving’ of public support (e.g. the unemployed, sick and
disabled people) have persisted and even hardened over the past twenty-five
years. Specifically, figure 1 shows that while there have been some fluctuations
in attitudes over the past ten years, generally over 35% of surveyed
respondents attributed the need to laziness and more than 25% did not view the
needy as deserving of support. A second and related point is that the British
public have little faith in the benefits system. There are widespread beliefs
that the welfare state encourages idleness and allows those who should be in
work to have a ‘free ride’ at the expense of taxpayers. As shown in figure 2,
data from the British Social Attitudes survey reveal that two-thirds of people
either ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ that the benefits system is effective
in encouraging people off benefits and into work.
Figure 1: Hardening attitudes towards the
needy 1985-2010
(Baumberg et al., 2012: 7)
Figure 2: Attitudes towards the benefits
system, (BSA, 2011)
Future Policy Directions
So what does this mean for policy and politics? First, no party hoping
to win the forthcoming election can afford to appear soft towards those on
benefits. Secondly, politicians from the major parties each need to be clear
about what they plan to do to reform the system. Since 2010, the Coalition
government has pursued an ambitious policy of welfare reform. Estimates by the
Child Poverty Action Group put the cumulative cuts to social security and
working tax credits at £22bn annually relative to 2010/11[ii].
Alongside drastic cutbacks, the Coalition has implemented two major policy
initiatives – The Work Programme and Universal Credit. The former replaces
previous schemes such as the ‘New Deal’ packages launched by New Labour and
operates on a ‘payment-by-results’ system, allowing a number of different
providers – public, private and voluntary – to do ‘whatever it takes’ to get
the unemployed back i to work[iii]. Alongside
this, the Universal Credit scheme aims to simplify the benefits system by
creating one universal working-age benefit, and thus reduce the administrative
complexity which can sometimes prevent people from leaving the so-called
‘unemployment trap’ – where the financial losses incurred upon taking work are
too great to incentivise people to leave benefits.
The aims of the Coalition governments’ policies to date have clearly
resonated with popular sentiments. Both the Work Programme and Universal Credit
focus on incentivising working age claimants to move off benefits and i to
work. Combined with cuts to benefits, they demonstrate a clear ‘carrot and
stick’ (or mainly stick) policy impetus. In the run up to May, the Conservative
Party is promising more of the same with further ‘caps’ on out-of-work
benefits, as well as stopping benefits rising faster than wages[iv].
Their Coalition partners – the Liberal Democrats – offer a slightly less
punitive policy approach based on ‘Opportunity and Responsibility’[v].
In particular, in keeping with their liberal tradition, they pride themselves
on having given low paid workers a £700 tax cut and promise to reduce taxes on
low incomes further if they win the election[vi].
This, they argue, will encourage more people off benefits and in to work. Meanwhile,
it is less clear exactly what the Labour Party pledges are on welfare, possibly
because they are still trying to work this out for themselves. One idea which
has received some attention is the possibility of increasing the links between
benefits and past contributions[vii]. This
notion of restoring the ‘contributory principle’ may prove a particularly
useful way forward for the Labour Party in countering their image as the party
of the ‘undeserving’, whilst keeping faith amongst their more progressive veins
through seeking to reform, rather than dismantle the welfare state.
Discussion
The politics of welfare policy remain interesting to anyone with their
eye on the political arena. Whatever the outcome in May, politicians of all
colours will need to show that they have a plan for modernisation of the
welfare state. The electorate will expect concrete proposals which address
their concerns. Despite the differences highlighted above between the pledges
made by the three main political parties, there is a remarkable degree of
consensus in this policy area and in many respects, social security policy
represents an interesting case study on the ‘crowding to the middle’ in British
politics over the past twenty years. For example, specific policy changes
enacted by the Coalition government have received only tokenistic criticisms
from the Labour Party, demonstrating increased agreement on general principles.
One interesting illustration of this is the opposition’s response to the
benefits cap, a policy brought in by the Coalition in April 2013 which limits
total income from benefits for families with children to £500 per week and for single
people to £350 per week[viii]. Interestingly,
instead of pointing to evidence that this policy was failing to save money or
get people into work[ix], the Labour
Party supported the cap in principle, making only a rather minor administrative
point that it ought to be higher in London than in the rest of the UK[x].
This is just one of many examples when the Labour Party has sought to appear
‘tough’ on matters to do with the welfare state[xi].
At the same time, the Coalition have come under criticism for being too harsh
and punishing the vulnerable. In particular, the Bedroom Tax has met with
disapproval[xii],
and reports of rising food bank usage as a result of benefits sanctions have
proven controversial[xiii]. In
short, the three major political parties have significant image problems in
this area of social policy, meaning that neither can afford to be complacent in
the run-up to May.
Owen Davis
Owen is a PhD student in the School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research at the University of Kent. His research explores the links between social policy and health inequalities. He holds a BSc-Econ in Politics and Modern History from Cardiff University, an MSc in Social Policy from the LSE, and an MA in Methods of Social Research from the University of Kent. His research is sponsored by the ESRC and primarily employs quantitative research designs such as longitudinal analysis and multilevel modelling to uncover the mechanisms linking social policy and health inequalities. Another aim of his thesis is to develop theoretical knowledge in the field by building an analytical framework for understanding this area of research. Owen is also interested in current social policy issues including welfare reform and food poverty and campaigns locally on these issues. He has previously worked for a Member of Parliament, in local government and with a social housing organisation. Owen is available for comment on issues related to welfare reform, food poverty and social security policy. His email address is od60@kent.ac.uk and he tweets @opdavis87
References
[i] Baumberg, B., Bell, K. and Gaffney, D. (2012) Benefits Stigma in Britain. London: Elizabeth Finn Care/Turn2us
[ii] The Guardian (2013) Every Welfare
Cut Listed: How much a typical family will lose per week http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/apr/01/every-welfare-cut-listed, April 1st 2013.
[iii] DWP (2012) The Work Programme https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49884/the-work-programme.pdf, Accessed: 2 March 2015.
[iv] The Conservative Party (2015) Our
Long-Term Economic Plan. https://www.conservatives.com/Plan/CapWelfareReduceImmigration.aspx, Accessed: 2 March 2015
[v] The Liberal Democrats (2015) Welfare
and Unemployment http://www.libdems.org.uk/welfare_unemployment, Accessed: 2 March 2015
[vi] The Liberal Democrats (2015) Welfare
and Unemployment http://www.libdems.org.uk/welfare_unemployment, Accessed: 2 March 2015
[vii] The Guardian (2014) Labour Policy
Report Calls for Radical Reform of Welfare State http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/labour-reform-welfare-benefits-culture, June 14th 2014.
[viii] Benefit Cap https://www.gov.uk/benefit-cap, 12 November 2014.
[ix] Chartered Institute of
Housing (2013) Experiences and Effects of
the Benefits Cap in Haringey http://www.cih.org/resources/PDF/Policy%20free%20download%20pdfs/Experiences%20and%20effects%20of%20the%20benefit%20cap%20in%20Haringey%20-%20October%202013.pdf, October 2013.
[x] The New Statesman
(2013) Labour’s Disastrous New Line of
attack on the Benefit Cap: it’s too soft http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/labours-disastrous-new-line-attack-benefit-cap-its-too-soft, 15 July 2013
[xi] Perhaps even more
telling are recent comments by Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Work and Pensions
Secretary that Labour will be tougher on the long-term unemployed than the
Tories http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare, 12 October 2013.
[xii] The Mirror (2015) A Million more families will pay the hated
Bedroom Tax if David Cameron Triumphs in May http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/million-more-families-pay-hated-5250713, 28 February 2015.
[xiii] The Guardian (2015) Food banks: benefit sanctions leave clients
hungry for months. http://www.theguardian.com/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2015/mar/02/food-banks-benefit-sanctions-leave-clients-hungry-for-months, 2 March 2015.
