The modern welfare system dates back to the Beveridge Report, which identified the five giant evils of want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. This report led to our welfare system, the social housing boom and the NHS. It changed post-war Britain into one where the national consensus was one based around a social contract between citizen and state that lasted for decades.
Then came Thatcher. Yes, much of the conversation around the effects of Thatcherism has been about the privatisation of services previously supplied by the state. But the ideology of small statism and individualism also crept into every aspect of the way governments thought about their role in society and, while the welfare state and NHS were not wholly abolished, the thinking behind them was abandoned and derided. The social contract was broken even as the welfare state staggered on.
The cost of everything, the value of nothing
Conversations about ‘welfare reform’ became conversations about bringing down the cost rather than returning to the principles that built the system in the first place. That conversation about the fiscal costs of benefits overtook a conversation about the moral costs and benefits of a social security system.
This didn’t just affect the simplistic way the right spoke about benefits. It also affected campaigners for the welfare state. Arguments to protect the system became largely about the impact of the withdrawal of money from a variety of groups rather than about the need for the right system delivering the right support at the right time.
The welfare rebellion that did so much damage to the relationship between Keir Starmer’s leadership and the PLP was a classic symptom of this. While there was much in the proposals that started us on the journey to where Milburn is likely about to take us, the language and attitude were all about saving money – not improving lives. We sounded like we were conceding to the framing of the argument put forward by Kemi Badenoch et al., whose limited understanding of social solidarity means they may know how much it costs but will never understand its value.
Yes – the welfare bill is far too high.
Yes – the welfare system is broken.
Despite the constant framing of what the rebellion was about in the press, there are very few Labour MPs who would find either of those statements contentious. The question is not whether we should reform the welfare system but how and, within that how, what are the principles that should lead that reform.
If you were to listen to the tired Thatcherism of the Tories the answer would be that we should simply give the smallest number of people the least amount of help that can be gotten away with. ‘Slice the bills and the rest will follow’ is their clunky and often cruel approach.
Thinking big
From everything we have heard from Milburn, Timms and Burnham, Labour has learned from its attempt to ape that approach. Burnham’s bravery in thinking big is expected to be reflected in what the forthcoming reviews recommend, which will be about far greater support for those suffering from the giant evils far earlier – with a reciprocal presumption that this will lead to more people in employment, education and training, be they young people or disabled people (or both).
There are traps here for some of the campaigning organisations who work in this area. If we are to reclaim ‘idleness’ as an evil (as I believe we should) then there is an element of moral judgement there that has been out of vogue in recent years. If we are to focus more on investing in young people’s futures there will – and must – be an expectation of return on that investment. Any whole system reform must lead to more people working because that is what we believe to be the right thing for most people.
As someone who can personally attest to the harm to my own mental health of periods of unemployment in my youth, I am happy to say that I do believe the system should be largely designed to steer people towards work. But from the principle that ‘idleness’ is an evil not from a sense that we don’t want to pay for those who find themselves most on the sharp end of the labour market.
Moral arguments
Labour MPs are not the caricature the Tories like to paint. They are more than aware that the system itself doesn’t work as they are also on the sharp end when those who would suffer from blunt cuts and cliff edges are those who will fill their mailboxes and surgeries.
The way that the debate has been shaped for decades as one about the cost rather than the shape of the system has meant that the moral argument against change has often felt more powerful. But that does not mean they can’t and won’t embrace change. But they will need to be given both a clear narrative that does not speak to the notion of cost cutting but of improving lives. And that narrative will have to stand up to scrutiny.
Labour MPs are aware of the need to future proof the social security system against a future right wing government. That means wholesale change to the system. That means investing in the future of NEET young people. That means that the welfare bill coming down will be an inevitable symptom of success, not the aim of reform.
The aim of reform must be the same as the aim of the system itself – to ensure that citizens of this country, no matter their background or circumstances, have the opportunity to live full, enriching lives of work, contribution, pride and contentment. That is the case the government must make both to its own backbenches and to the country. That is how Labour can reclaim the welfare debate.