Did Labour really create welfare dependency?
Twitter
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Stumble
RedditIt’s a common criticism from Conservatives that Labour has created its ‘client electorate’ in the form of people drawing state benefits, that is, people dependent on the state for their beer, baccy and bingo money.
The reality is different. The Conservatives, between 1979 and 1997, created “welfare dependency” on a scale hitherto unseen. Take a look at the following table (numbers obtained from the Annual Abstract of Statistics for various years):
* (i) SSB: total social security benefits, cash
* (ii) RP: retirement pensions, cash
* (iii) total payments minus retirement pensions payments (cash paid to those commonly called ‘social security scroungers’, ‘layabouts’, ‘spongers’).
Now, if social security payments to the ‘scroungers, layabouts and spongers’ (SLS) increase as a proportion of GDP, only two possibilities exist: (i) the number of SLS has increased, or (ii) we are paying the SLS more. Personally, I would have thought that neither possibility would be an attractive contemplation for a Conservative.
National Statistics (ONS) changed the way that it reported Social Security spending (‘cash benefits’) after 2000/01. Table 10.24 in Annual Abstract of Statistics, 2009 shows that ‘total Government expenditure on social security benefits and administration’ was 11.5% of GDP in 2000/01, rising to 12.0% of GDP in 2003/04, and falling to 11.4% of GDP in 2006/07.
Then, take a look at the rows for 93/94 and 96/97, and compare to 78/79.
Did Labour create “welfare dependency?”
I think not.
Related posts:
- What is the point of the Tories’ welfare plans?
- Denham: we may need to change the welfare system to adapt to people’s sense of fairness
- Labour needs to make a bold statement on the state retirement pension
- Welfare abolition hits women hardest
- Where does Labour stand compared to the rest on the core issues of housing, income, welfare and adult education?
Comments are closed