Getty
Show Hide image

Why are people reliant on welfare support in favour of curbing benefits?

Attitudes to benefits claimants have hardened over the past decade. But why do benefits claimants themselves often agree? 

Over the past twenty years, welfare has become a dirty word. As in the US, welfare is today narrowly equated with the provision of benefits to those not currently in work. Both the provision (and its supposed generosity) and the lives of those who receive it have been rendered inherently and inevitably negative and problematic.

This narrative – that influences political soundbites and media coverage – has been mobilised to defend an ongoing programme of welfare reform designed to stop people from choosing benefits as a "lifestyle choice". The endless and exponential growth in poverty porn has recreated poverty as light entertainment and invited viewers into the homes of some of Britain’s poorest to observe – and most often to judge – their receipt of state support.

There is a feedback loop between the dominant portrayal of welfare and public attitudes, and it is common (if slightly simplistic) to report a hardening of attitudes to welfare. While we might expect members of the "hard-working majority" to share in the critiquing of the "other" (those on benefits), it is perhaps more surprising that claimants themselves often express similar views. In research following a small group of benefit claimants over time, it was common to hear individuals echoing political pronouncements on welfare.

Despite being adversely affected by welfare reform – and knowing exactly how difficult life on benefits can be – the people I spoke to often saw a rationale for the benefit changes. Reflecting on the welfare reforms of David Cameron’s Tory-led Coalition government, Kane* observed: “I think they had to do summat ‘cause it were getting out of hand weren’t it.”

Individuals such as Kane described a need to get tough on welfare, to ensure that benefits only went to those who need (and just as importantly deserve) them. Amy – who lost her eligibility for disability benefits as a result of the reforms – still felt change was needed:

“In some ways [welfare reform] is a good idea because maybe there is people who don’t need to be on certain benefits that could go out to work. Not like me but people that are just playing on it or something to get money out of the social.”

In this way, Amy appeared persuaded by anti-welfare rhetoric, even as she was adversely affected by the consequences of it.

Amy – and many of the others I spoke to – were often quick to defend their own benefit entitlement even as they pointed to some "other" less deserving. As James put it: “Some people choose it [benefits], some people think ‘I’ll have a kid and go on benefits and that’ll be me’.  Some people are used to it, but I’m not. Well, I never have been.”

As the "othered" themselves "other", they attempt to distance themselves from society’s condemnatory and punitive gaze. Against the constant bombardment of derisory and demeaning depictions of welfare, out-of-work benefit claimants want to separate "them" from "us" and to lay claim to being within the ranks of the "deserving". This is part of (most often unsuccessful) efforts to manage and deflect the pervasive stigma of benefits receipt.

The spread and reach of the negative rhetoric on welfare perhaps crowds out and limits the scope for individuals such as Kane, Amy and James to offer a more solidaristic defence of social security. Ironically, their replication of the dominant narrative only serves to further embed it. Sadly, of course, this make more benefit changes only more likely and easier for politicians to push through.  

*all names changed to protect anonymity

Dr Ruth Patrick is a postdoctoral researcher in law and social justice at the University of Liverpool. Her book about welfare reform, For whose benefit? is available from Policy Press. It is available at a 40 per cent discount to readers of the New Statesman until 31 May - enter the code POFWBNEWS at the checkout​.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The EU’s willingness to take on Google shows just how stupid Brexit is

Outside the union the UK will be in a far weaker position to stand up for its citizens.

Google’s record €2.4bn (£2.12bn) fine for breaching European competition rules is an eye-catching example of the EU taking on the Silicon Valley giants. It is also just one part of a larger battle to get to grips with the influence of US-based web firms.

From fake news to tax, the European Commission has taken the lead in investigating and, in this instance, sanctioning, the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon for practices it believes are either anti-competitive for European business or detrimental to the lives of its citizens.

Only in May the commission fined Facebook €110m for providing misleading information about its takeover of WhatsApp. In January, it issued a warning to Facebook over its role in spreading fake news. Last summer, it ordered Apple to pay an extra €13bn in tax it claims should have been paid in Ireland (the Irish government had offered a tax break). Now Google has been hit for favouring its own price comparison services in its search results. In other words, consumers who used Google to find the best price for a product across the internet were in fact being gently nudged towards the search engine giant's own comparison website.

As European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager put it:

"Google has come up with many innovative products and services that have made a difference to our lives. That's a good thing. But Google's strategy for its comparison shopping service wasn't just about attracting customers by making its product better than those of its rivals. Instead, Google abused its market dominance as a search engine by promoting its own comparison shopping service in its search results, and demoting those of competitors.

"What Google has done is illegal under EU antitrust rules. It denied other companies the chance to compete on the merits and to innovate. And most importantly, it denied European consumers a genuine choice of services and the full benefits of innovation."

The border-busting power of these mostly US-based digital companies is increasingly defining how people across Europe and the rest of the world live their lives. It is for the most part hugely beneficial for the people who use their services, but the EU understandably wants to make sure it has some control over them.

This isn't about beating up on the tech companies. They are profit-maximising entities that have their own goals and agendas, and that's perfectly fine. But it's vital to to have a democratic entity that can represent the needs of its citizens. So far the EU has proved the only organisation with both the will and strength to do so.

The US Federal Communications Commission could also do more to provide a check on their power, but has rarely shown the determination to do so. And this is unlikely to change under Donald Trump - the US Congress recently voted to block proposed FCC rules on telecoms companies selling user data.

Other countries such as China have resisted the influence of the internet giants, but primarily by simply cutting off their access and relying on home-grown alternatives it can control better.  

And so it has fallen to the EU to fight to ensure that its citizens get the benefits of the digital revolution without handing complete control over our online lives to companies based far away.

It's a battle that the UK has never seemed especially keen on, and one it will be effectively retreat from when it leaves the EU.

Of course the UK government is likely to continue ramping up rhetoric on issues such as encryption, fake news and the dissemination of extremist views.

But after Brexit, its bargaining power will be weak, especially if the priority becomes bringing in foreign investment to counteract the impact Brexit will have on our finances. Unlike Ireland, we will not be told that offering huge tax breaks broke state aid rules. But if so much economic activity relies on their presence will our MPs and own regulatory bodies decide to stand up for the privacy rights of UK citizens?

As with trade, when it comes to dealing with large transnational challenges posed by the web, it is far better to be part of a large bloc speaking as one than a lone voice.

Companies such as Google and Facebook owe much of their success and power to their ability to easily transcend borders. It is unsurprising that the only democratic institution prepared and equipped to moderate that power is also built across borders.

After Brexit, Europe will most likely continue to defend the interests of its citizens against the worst excesses of the global web firms. But outside the EU, the UK will have very little power to resist them.

0800 7318496