A Labour government must shield the welfare state from future Tory attacks

The exasperated cry of “is that it?!” from Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Jonathan Ashworth in response to Rishi Sunak’s Spring Statement captured the sense of disbelief many of us felt at the lack of meaningful new support for those struggling on the lowest incomes. The Chancellor has chosen to prioritise the middle and higher earners he sees as a more likely source of Conservative votes, abandoning the poorest households to the increasingly impossible task of meeting their basic needs on inadequate means.

Labour’s instinct would be to do more for those on the lowest incomes, but the party remains wary of being portrayed as profligate with public spending or ‘soft on benefit claimants’. The dominant narrative on welfare over the last decade has allowed successive Conservative governments to strip away social security, without facing a significant electoral backlash, by claiming that their approach was about ensuring fairness, encouraging aspiration and punishing idleness.

With the harsh consequences for the poorest households being reported in the media every day, the decisions taken in the Spring Statement may well prove to be a political miscalculation. For the vast majority of their time in office, however, it has been all too easy for the Conservatives to impose hardship and portray it as justified. A Labour government in waiting needs to develop both the policies to stem the rising tide of poverty and destitution and a narrative to galvanise public support for this mission. But it also needs to be thinking about how it can protect any progress it makes against neglect from subsequent governments less committed to the cause.

Let’s start with the narrative, as this will precede any firm policy announcements. Labour needs to be talking about social security as a means of investing in people, providing the stability and headspace they need in order to improve their circumstances. I spent the end of last year interviewing people in food banks about the impact of facing such hardship. Everyone I spoke to described how the struggle of trying to make ends meet on an inadequate income sapped their energy and attention, making it hard to take steps towards the type of future they wanted for themselves and their families.

Our collective experience during the pandemic, and in particular the huge number of people who found themselves needing support from the state in a way they probably never envisaged, also opens the door for a more positive conversation about the stake we all have in the social security system.

When it comes to policy, it’s important not to underestimate the scale of investment that will be needed to restore a decent level of security and dignity. Labour has rightly criticised the fact that benefits are only being uprated by 3.1% this year, when inflation is set to exceed 8%. Gordon Brown came closer to setting out what is required, however, when he called for the £20-a-week pandemic uplift to Universal Credit to be reinstated (this should be extended to ‘legacy benefits’, too) and for all benefits to be uprated by 8% on top of this.

Greater investment in social security needs to be accompanied by policies that will address the gaps and flaws in the system and that help to increase public support by reinforcing a more progressive Labour narrative. One approach that would fit this brief is the introduction of a minimum income guarantee, as is being explored in Scotland. This guarantee could give everyone a sense of being protected by a genuine safety net. Deliberative processes involving the public could be used to establish what this minimum level of support should be, perhaps pegging it as a proportion of the living wage. Mechanisms such as auto-enrolment onto Universal Credit could repurpose our current benefits system to deliver such a guarantee. This could be accompanied by a statutory duty to protect against destitution so that all public sector bodies have a role to play in ensuring that no one falls below a minimum standard of living.

Bold structural changes such as these have the potential to change perceptions as well as improve the support available to people who are struggling. They would also produce more ‘friction’ for any future government looking to dismantle social security in the way we have witnessed over the last decade. If it allows itself to be constrained by Conservative parameters, the next Labour government will be able to make only marginal progress on poverty and social security. Although it may seem premature, the party needs to be thinking about how the policies and narrative it forges in office will not only produce a transformative impact, but limit the ability of subsequent governments to row back on this progress.