Labour came to power on a promise of “change”, but this month we have heard some very familiar (and very tired) rhetoric as the government trails an expected £6bn in cuts to disability benefits.
The plans have not yet been formally announced, but they look set to include a tightening in eligibility criteria for the main benefit that helps with the costs of disabilities—Personal Independence Payments. They also seem likely to include significant reductions in the support given to people judged to have limited capability to work. If implemented, these proposals would hit millions of households incredibly hard. Not so much change then, but the continuation of more than a decade of austerity and the decimation of the UK’s social security safety net.
In attempting to defend the indefensible, Keir Starmer used a meeting with Labour MPs on Monday to argue that the current system is “the worst of all worlds”, disincentivises employment and costs the state too much. This deeply flawed and unhelpful narrative completely ignores the good that a decent social security system can do. Benefits can prevent and reduce poverty, while also providing safety in times of need.
Amid broader European security challenges, Labour may try to justify these mooted cuts with the need to increase defend spending, but—as Mike Brewer of the Resolution Foundation thinktank recently put it—rich countries like the UK can afford both to defend themselves and reduce deprivation. What’s the point, he asked, in being a rich country if we can’t protect the nation’s children from poverty?
Labour has promised action to address what Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, has described as the “stain” of child poverty, which sees 4.3 million kids living in households below the poverty line in the UK. The government will publish a child poverty strategy this year, and this must prioritise increasing family incomes through investment in social security. All the evidence shows that such measures improve children's outcomes and directly tackle poverty. But the child poverty strategy will be severely compromised if the disability benefit cuts currently being trailed are implemented. Rather than return to austerity, Labour should consider a completely different approach to social security—one underpinned by a new, more honest narrative about welfare.
Last December, Aurora, a widowed parent to two children who works as a carer (and who is part of "Changing Realities", a collaboration between universities, charities, and parents and carers on low incomes, which I lead) told Radio 4 about the things she repeats to herself on a daily basis in order to survive. “Stories. We all have them,” she said. “There’s a time when we become accustomed to the reality of our lives. We overlook the mould in our privately rented property, our damp problem and the pests we share our dwelling with… This month an unexpected cost for dental care has put us on the back foot, and so I must go without lunches for a few weeks. It’ll be OK. Well, this is what I tell myself. We’ll be OK.”
To borrow Aurora’s framing, we need a better a story about social security—and about children, living standards and life chances. The stories that politicians tell really matter. Alongside the development of its child poverty strategy, the government should make the case for the good that decent, dignified support for struggling families can do.
Politicians need to start speaking positively about social security, and about the role the benefits system can play in building a better country. Like birds joining the dawn chorus, their voices would soon be supplemented by others, all echoing this more constructive message. Rather than tired and inaccurate talking points about the burden of the benefits bill, we could hear instead about the changes that social security can bring to the lives of the most vulnerable. We could talk, for instance, about how targeted support for Scottish families through the Scottish Child Payment has meant parents on low incomes can feed their children nutritious meals and pay for them to learn to swim or try a new after-school activity.
Changing the national conversation about welfare is the first step in progressive action against deprivation. We can and should talk about children in low-income families, who must be at the heart of efforts to address child poverty. But we can also build a clearer picture of some truths that we all share: that we were all once children; and we all will know and care about children, whether our own children and grandchildren, or the kids we see playing out on the street or in the fields. We know about the extra costs that children bring and the difficulties of finding the balance between work and care. We know that childhood doesn’t last, and that it’s worth making everyone's childhood as good as possible, for all of our sakes.
Politicians should work with parents and voluntary sector organisations to amplify the voices of people living on low incomes. Parents in poverty, better than almost anyone, can create a compelling case for why change is a matter of urgency. But politicians also need to show leadership, advocating for building a more socially just country. Public attitudes have shifted in recent years in favour of welfare. The cost of living crisis and historic cuts to social security since 2010 mean people increasingly recognise the hardship that so many millions face. Voters can be persuaded of the role that the government can play in addressing this.
The public does also need reminding, however, that social security is drawn on by most of us. Almost half of all children now live in a family in receipt of Universal Credit. Child Benefit is provided to most families in recognition of the additional costs that come with bringing up a child. Reminding people that the UK’s social security system was created to support everyone, like the NHS was, again encourages a more positive framing.
The old narrative on welfare is divisive and should have no place in the UK today. The reality is that there is no them and us. Voters up and down the country face the same worries about their living standards, about how to juggle work, parenting and caring for family and friends. They are looking for security and for real leadership from politicians, and this requires boldness and a sense of purpose.
Both are possible—and required urgently. We need investment and positive talk about social security, not the terrifying threat of cuts for the most vulnerable. This spring, as well as the birds, we need to hear politicians speaking about social security as a force for good. Isn't it about time for new, and better, stories?
