The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Can Labour start a different conversation about benefits?

The public is very far away from embracing some of the ideas about the welfare state that social dem

By Rafael Behr Published 07 March 2012 15:25

The Labour Party faces a terrible dilemma dealing with the politics of welfare. That is one conclusion I took away from an event last night, run by the Fabian Society and the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), that I was lucky enough to chair.

The focus of the evening was a presentation by David Brady, associate professor of sociology at Duke University in North Carolina. Respondents on the panel were Alison Garnham, Chief Executive of the CPAG and Stephen Timms, shadow employment minister.

Brady's presentation distilled some of the arguments in his book Rich Democracies, Poor People: How Politics Explain Poverty - a comparative international study of the relationship between welfare systems, poverty and inequality.

At the risk of doing violence to Brady's thesis, I think I can summarise the gist as follows: spending on social security works. Countries that have higher welfare spending have lower rates of poverty. What is more, the wider social dividend of that outcome creates a positive feedback loop, building more consent for generous state support. By contrast, countries that develop a political discourse based on individual responsibility as the determinant of life chances - essentially the argument that personal failings, bad lifestyle choices are what hold people back - end up less equal and with more poverty. What is more, the cost of paying for that social failure (e.g. in increased crime and incarceration) outweighs the cost of a generous welfare system.

It was pretty compelling and, not surprisingly, popular with the Fabian audience. Much of the ensuing discussion focused on the political challenge of communicating these truths, held to be self-evident, to a sceptical British population. The Tories, it was argued, cheered on by the media, have successfully convinced the nation that money spent on benefits is being squandered, subsidising idleness.

Labour's job, by extension, should be rebutting those myths, defending universal benefits and robust state intervention to alleviate poverty. Stephen Timms did a valiant job of agreeing broadly with the moral consensus in the room, while delicately pointing out that the vast majority of the electorate are in a different place and that, under what was euphemistically referred to as "difficult financial circumstances", simply spending more on welfare was not on the agenda.

There was not much appetite in the room, I sensed, for a discussion of tough political choices presented by the obligation to bring down the budget deficit. No one raised the point in the audience. Only one person raised the question of whether it might at least be politically expedient to accommodate people's perceptions that there is inherent unfairness in the way benefits are currently paid out - sometimes appearing to reward inaction and penalise work.

It was, for the most part, a refreshing and insightful discussion, serving as a necessary corrective to some of the assumptions about the ineffectiveness of welfare spending that seem rapidly to be congealing into a political orthodoxy. That said, some recognition of Whitehall's woeful record of innovation and productivity in social spending would have balanced things out a bit. Not for nothing did ministers in the last Labour government complain (in private) that the money they were spending was "bouncing off" the bottom 10 per cent of recipients.

I came away distinctly pessimistic about the prospects for Labour developing a coherent position on this stuff. A Fabian Society audience is a very particular crowd, but often representative of the intellectual mood of the party. If last night's discussion is anything to go by this is very, very far away from the political mood of many people whose votes the party needs. Most Labour MPs I speak to recognise this problem. Their constituents are lapping up the government's tough rhetoric on welfare. The holy grail for Labour is a position that reassures the public that the benefits system is fair, not wasteful, rewards effort, does not offer something for nothing, while also meeting the high moral demands of activists who think any accommodation with Conservative language on this theme is craven capitulation to the forces of darkness.

Liam Byrne, shadow work and pensions secretary, is due to make a speech on Friday in which he tries to advance Labour's position. The thrust, I gather, will be that the welfare state, as originally conceived, was based on expectations of full employment and that any renewal of the welfare state should have the same goal in mind. The attack on the Tories is that they are dismantling social security, aiming to chase people off benefits and into work, but without honouring the implicit promise that there is work to do. This strikes me as sensible terrain for Labour to be marching on. As I argue in my column for the magazine this week, the government's failure to address unemployment and the likely bungling of reforms that are meant to make work a more attractive option than benefits will start to turn the tide of opinion on this issue. Labour can only capitalise if it has a clear position - and if it is united behind that position. That last point poses the greatest challenge.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Welfare Labour

More from Rafael Behr

View the discussion thread.

20 comments

Wed, 2012-03-07 21:56 — Neil (not verified)

At PMQs today the multi-millionaire Cameron admitted, in response to a question from Dame Joan Ruddock, that he had a child with cerebal palsy and had filled out a form to claim disability benefits.

When he first announced the plan to cut child benefit for high rate taxpayers, multi-millionaire trust-funder George Osborne said that people like him should not receive it. And yet he still claimed.

In both examples receipt of these benefits is dependent upon filling out a form and so relies on the claimant consciously seeking the benefit.If they choose not to sign the taxpayer saves and, in a small way, the deficit is reduced.

But all they could see was more 'entitlement' to sums which they would not even notice. They can only be described as benefit scroungers.

Thu, 2012-03-08 00:01 — Anton Jury (not verified)

Whether Tory, Labour or any other political party politics is a game to them. You can see it in the chamber when they are all laughing. I would put my money on it that only about 10% of politicians truely care about what happens in their constituencies and the country for that matter. They all have a really cushy job that gives them plenty of spare time with plenty of benefits.

Thu, 2012-03-08 19:49 — Obi Wan Kenobi (not verified)

Labour could start by investigating the Work Programme Private Providers - all of them up and down the country, as the revelations regarding the Private Provider A4E just keep on coming and coming.

If A4E are being investigated you should investigate all the others because they all operate the same way due to the DWP's contracts with them.

Thu, 2012-03-08 07:49 — Luddite (not verified)

The [prevailing idea] is to cut all taxation and to reduce government borrowing and spending to a sustainable level. After all you can’t have more taking out of the collective-pot than are contributing into to it… But there again; we could all keep pretending money grows on trees. Labour now clearly understands its mistakes. But what are their alternatives more Socialism? Businesses need a strong stable government. At this moment in time Labour offers no credible alternative to responsible government. You don't invest in welfare in times of austerity: you invest in wealth creation. Labour needs to stop navel-gazing and concentrate on creating that wealth. In-order to enjoy a welfare state you've got to be able to afford one!!

Thu, 2012-03-08 08:40 — Mizar (not verified)

Luddite is unaware of the huge wealth we already have - that it is concentrated in the hands of few. That the poor can be supported, and that the rich can pay their way. But Luddite is a zealot, a poor sap, not someone personally benefiting from this system, but parroting the lies of those whose arses he licks.

Thu, 2012-03-08 21:48 — Graeme (not verified)

@sinner, you are right. Totally right.

Wed, 2012-03-07 15:57 — DrPrometheus (not verified)

The Labour Party will only win the next election when it ceases to be New Labour. The party must detoxify and shed its current leadership. If the party does not move further to the left it will not win a general election. That's the reality they will not face up to... expect another hung parliament

Thu, 2012-03-08 14:26 — sinner (not verified)

The problem is that Labour feel that they have to appease the "public demand" from the readers of the Daily Mail to get votes.

What they have never done is question where those demands have originated.

The government has constantly drip fed benefit scrounger stories to the media.It has deliberatley used innacurate figures, or manipulated them. It has used intolerant language. In essence THEY have created the demand and now pretend to be satisfying it.

The job of Labour is to help dispel those myths each and every time they appear. But they have been complicit in their silence. They have failed to realise the many millions of votes that lie in those who have been disapraged in the media and made scapegoats for a crisis not of their making. They cannot sit idly by and say they must abide by the demand of public opinion. Public opinion has been grossly misinformed and distorted.

How much of the public will approve when the sick and disabled lose their care, are living in abject poverty, are being put through medicla assessments that no one can pass and drive several to their deaths already.
How will the public feel when they learn tax credits to disabled children are cut. When people with a host of terrible conditions, including cancer are forced onto compulsory workfare schemes. How ill they feel when they discover that a PM who courted publicity for his disabled child and took everything that the state could provide, including DLA, is now deprivng others of those very same essentials.
Labour has a moral and legislative duty to be the Opposition. It has left the ppor, the sick the disabled to use their limited resources to try to get the true message out about what is being done to the most vulnerable. Disabled people are living in absolute fear and Labour do nothing. The blood is also already on their hands.

Wed, 2012-03-07 16:11 — Mizar (not verified)

Labour have lost the plot, and have accepted Tory lies. Worse, they have paved the way (such as Purnell's disgraceful attacks on disabled people) to reinforce and double the Tory attacks on the poor.

What is the point of the Labour Party?

Wed, 2012-03-07 16:35 — Paul Mingus (not verified)

Labour are finished, they have zero credibility. They have stood by whilst the coalition has destroyed the welfare state, and attacked the poorest and most vulnerable in society.

Wed, 2012-03-07 16:50 — Evelyn (not verified)

"The attack on the Tories is that they are dismantling social security, aiming to chase people off benefits and into work, but without honouring the implicit promise that there is work to do. This strikes me as sensible terrain for Labour to be marching on."

Agreed. That needs to be allied to a truthful admission of the fact that the deficit does not need to be reduced RIGHT NOW (excuse the emphasis but, to me at least, that is the Tory line on how this works and it is bunk). The idea that it is a ticking time bomb about to explode any moment is absurd and used for political expedience by cynical politicians-Tories in particular.

Wed, 2012-03-07 16:51 — Benjamin Rae (not verified)

I am a socialist and can never trust Labour again. Being slightly less offensive than the Tories is no great shakes and contributes to the illusion of choice for the electorate. There's too many people in prominent positions in the Labour party that would have been described as right wing 20-30 years ago
The media have done a brillian job of convincing people of lies and untruths.
Labour just can't trusted as a genuine social democratic party.

Wed, 2012-03-07 17:13 — Barney (not verified)

@Benjamin Rae

This is true enough. Logic and the reality dictates that the choice must lie with the lesser evil. As it stands, that is still Labour.

Wed, 2012-03-07 17:19 — ZannaBaker (not verified)

There is a growing public concern for the (lack of)fairness of the British society following the way the burden of the financial crisis has been put exclusively on the poorest' shoulders while the responsible of the crisis are still enjoying their outstanding lifestyle... This provides a perfect context for the Labour to launch a major public debate on what fairness means and how it should be implemented. I was watching a really ionteresting debate on fainess in the UK yesterday - might provide a good start!
http://iai.tv/video/in-love-and-war

Wed, 2012-03-07 17:27 — Arturo Bandini (not verified)

Barney, you have another alternative - move to Scotland and vote SNP!

Get out of Toryland while you can!

Wed, 2012-03-07 17:33 — frances smith (not verified)

i met a woman a while back, on esa, her mother had committed suicide, but most interestingly she didn't like her mother, as her mother had actually not been nice to her.

and unless labour come to terms with the reality that many people who experience long term unemployment have deep seated issues related to negative programming when young you will carry on throwing money at the problem, and never achieve anything.

i also know a woman who was one of 11 children, who spent most of her life on methadone, she has serious issues relating to parenting received.

i could go on forever, but until it is understood that what is needed is serious counselling to deal with these negative programming issues and not a bit of positive thinking from A4e nothing will change.

try a google search for life scripts, and see if you can understand the impact of negative ones.

Wed, 2012-03-07 17:47 — Graeme (not verified)

@Frances, Labour and the Tories have been removing financial support from people who are ill, and unable to work. This is about millions of good and honest people, now under attack. Focus your mind on that.

Wed, 2012-03-07 18:05 — Mr Danger

"I came away distinctly pessimistic about the prospects for Labour developing a coherent position on this stuff."

Reading the comments here, I can only agree.

Wed, 2012-03-07 21:04 — Benjamin Rae (not verified)

Barney,
that's one point and I understand why someone would think that. On the big serious questions like distribution of wealth , government role in economy and policies around welfare Labour under Blair/Brown accepted 90% of what Thatcher did with maybe Brown being slightly to the left. With the Thatcherite approach now totally discredited I don't anything like enough of a change from Milliband for me to consider voting for them again. Some of his comments around welfare have been distrubing coming from a progressive. Although his hands are tied to a degree by the need to appeal to Daily Mail types I can't in good conscience vote for a part that's introduced much of the stuff that's now happening to disabled people.