A speech by the leader of the opposition exemplifies much that is wrong with the way British politics conventionally talks about benefit claimants
There is a big difference between expenditure that is rising and a rise that is “out of control”. The amount Britain spends on social security is in the former category. Too much political rhetoric around the subject assumes that it is in the latter one.
The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts the growth in welfare spending over the next five years at 0.2%-0.5% of gross domestic product, from £353bn this year to £431bn in 2032. That money might well be suboptimally deployed. There are rival demands on the state’s resources and a reasonable debate to be had about priorities at the Department for Work and Pensions. But that is not the tone of the debate routinely conducted in Westminster.
The more typical frame is the one adopted by Kemi Badenoch in a speech earlier this week. The Conservative leader characterised the benefits system as a programme of handouts that disincentivises work and encourages the exaggeration of minor physical and mental health problems by undeserving claimants. By way of a moral parable to illustrate the change in attitude that she deems necessary, Mrs Badenoch observed that “double amputees run marathons”.
A moment’s pause would have led a more thoughtful politician to reject that comparison on grounds of both logic and ethics. It makes no sense to extrapolate an argument about what should be normal from a case that is self-evidently exceptional. And it is grossly offensive to people with disabilities to imply that the main barriers to achievement of extraordinary things are an excess of benefits and a lack of motivation.
But Mrs Badenoch is not in the business of serious thought. She has a political strategy that involves casting Labour as a party that only knows how to raise taxes and welfare spending, so she can represent the opposite.
To that end, the Conservatives claim to have identified £36bn in budget cuts, all from working‑age benefits. Pensions, which account for half of all welfare spending, would not be touched. In its verdict on Mrs Badenoch’s plan, the Institute for Fiscal Studies notes that some savings are likely to be available in the areas identified, but the projected amounts are “at the more uncertain end of the spectrum”. That doesn’t stop the Tories promising to spend their hypothetical budget windfall on bolstering defence and a variety of tax cuts.
The government’s approach is more circumspect, partly from political caution. A botched welfare reform last year poisoned relations between Sir Keir Starmer and his backbenchers. But also, Andy Burnham hasn’t wanted to pre-empt the conclusions of commissioned policy reviews – one into youth unemployment, led by Alan Milburn, and another considering the future of personal independence payment, by Stephen Timms. Mr Milburn is due to report next week.
What is known about Mr Burnham’s approach is that he considers investment in skills a more reliable way to help benefit recipients back to work than peremptory withdrawal of support. But while that plausibly leads to savings in the long run, it still involves an upfront cost. How that will be funded in a way that is acceptable to his backbenchers is far from clear. The prime minister might reasonably be accused of lacking precision when it comes to welfare reform. It is a lesser failing than the flight to lazy stereotypes and unserious rhetoric perpetrated by the leader of the opposition.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
