Contribution is not capitulation

There is nothing progressive about a welfare state without public support. The Guardian article by Liam Byrne about the contributory principle in welfare drew criticism from a host of figures on the left and right. Owen Jones went as far to suggest that Labour had ‘capitulated’ to the Torieson mass unemployment and benefits. But important work by the Fabian Society shows that Byrne is on the right track.The current danger is that the UK is on the eve of a renewed era of Thatcher-level retrenchment in welfare spending coupled with rising unemployment. The Fabian Society’s Solidarity Society has already shown that public acceptability is key to generous welfare settlements that drive levels of poverty prevention. Social contribution is understood to be a key, although not sole component, of the strategy to building such acceptability.

Building upon Ed Miliband’s theme of hard-wiring responsibility and fairness across all elements of society, Liam Byrne is right to call for a return to the ‘something for something’ culture that the contributory principle delivers. In fact, the way in which we approach all policy making should place emphasis on the responsibilities of government, businesses and citizens – be they net losers or gainers from the welfare state. Public perceptions of welfare are in need of serious shifting.

Polls back this up. Yougov, on the behalf of the Fabian Society, showed that 55% of people viewed themselves as ‘net losers’ from the welfare state, believing that “the benefits and public services we receive are worth less than the taxes we pay”. Only 8% believed they were net gainers (believing that “the benefits and public services we receive are worth more than the taxes we pay”) despite analysis demonstrating that the majority are in fact in such a position of being net gainers.

But a contributory principle as part of an ambitious welfare settlement should not be seen as a bad thing. There are a number of reasons why social contribution is beneficial and desirable – and not all of these are based on electoral strategy. In an essay as part of a book published by the IPPR in 2004, Stuart White demonstrated that requiring individuals to take up opportunities to train or participate in schemes they otherwise would not have can be be important for increasing equality of opportunity.

Owen Jones is right to point out that there are nowhere near enough jobs to go round at the moment. Of course our offer on welfare should always come hand in hand with a critique of the coalition’s complete failure on the economy, coupled with out own plan for jobs and growth – this speaks to the responsibility of Government, as well as of businesses. Mass unemployment is not a price worth paying to bring down the deficit and we shouldn’t be scared of saying so.

The point is that whilst Owen is often spot-on with his appraisal of the big picture challenges faced by Labour, on this occasion, he is wide of the mark. Praising the contributory principle should not be seen as capitulating to the Tories. It is very likely key to building support for a welfare state that is more effective in fighting poverty with higher levels of out-of-work benefits.

Liam Byrne is right to praise the contributory principle and those on the left, including Owen Jones should reject the false choice of contributory versus generous welfare. We must demand both.