Social security costs for Great Britain in 2024–25 are forecast to be around £303.3 billion. This represents about 10.8 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or nearly one quarter of the total government spend. It is not surprising, therefore, that the government is intent on reducing the bill.
Although social security and welfare spending raises popular images of scroungers, skivers and the underserving workshy, in reality, it is complex and wide ranging. For instance, the same forecast recognises that 55 per cent, a projected £165.9 billion, is taken up by pension costs, including the £137.5 billion on the State Pension. A further £90.4 billion is spent on people with disabilities and £35.1 billion on housing benefits. Also increasing rapidly is the cost of health spending, currently at 45 per cent of GDP, a whopping £1,200 billion.
We also know that people, communities and society all benefit from work. This can be financially, but also in terms of service, in respect of innovation and sustainability, and by increasing personal and family dignity. Indeed, mental health can be improved by engaging in work. Not all work, however, is paid and the voluntary and non-paid areas are equally crucial to personal, familial and social flourishing. We must also note that it is women who often occupy many of these positions and represent a still marginalised sector of our society.
Nevertheless, with a bleak economic forecast, growth down at 0.1 per cent of GDP, increasing costs in all public sector areas and a need to increase security spending, it might seem imperative that the public sector is reformed and costs reduced.
However, we must remember that welfare recipients and benefit claimants are a disparate group. Indeed, those targeted by popular media and political slogan-makers are often the most vulnerable and impoverished in society, having complex needs, and being powerless and disenfranchised from having their views heard. Reform and cost-savings, on the other hand, are undertaken by those in positions of power, authority and, importantly, financial security. The Get Britain Working group and White Paper present a cogent political case, but from a position distanced from those in need. On the other side of the political argument, left-wing political groups present a principled political and moral case but without a clear direction or viable alternatives.
In my book, Analysing the History of British Social Welfare, I show how those in poverty and in receipt of welfare benefits are often sacrificed on behalf of the rich or ‘the haves’ in society. This is not just a pragmatic and utilitarian act of extreme uncaring selfishness but an ingrained ritual necessary to ensure that those not having to rely on the provision of welfare are not inadvertently ‘infected’. Drawing on Durkheim’s piacularism and Girard’s mimetic violence and scapegoat thesis, I argue that those in positions of political and economic power will often necessarily treat those dependent on them as impure and potentially dangerous. It creates an atavistic, rather than conscious, imperative to blame, cast out and vilify the impure – in this case those receiving welfare benefits.
Because of the perceived dangerousness and protection accrued from blaming and sacrificing welfare recipients, those not in this category tend towards cohesion and acceptance of this morally iniquitous approach. This reflects the welfare cuts promoted by Liz Kendall and Rachel Reeves. People requiring social security or not working because of long-term ill-health or disability are both a soft target and the ‘dangerous other’. In popular thought, payments and support for these people are ripe for reform, indeed sacrifice, lest their impurity taint the rest of society. The complex, multi-layered context is given scant consideration, and individual need and vulnerability seem lost.
So how is welfare to be reformed within this context? We know that the costs of social security are rising, and no one would dispute the economic imperatives for reform. But compassion and a whole-society approach are necessary if we are to protect all citizens whatever their needs, and construct a socially responsible system.
What we need is a brave conversation at all levels of society that looks at work and its many meanings and ways of being performed, and similarly examines social security, support and social welfare. I argue that there needs to be further development concerning a Universal Basic Income (UBI) that allows all people to work in various ways including as yet unpaid labour that is generally undertaken by those in marginalised positions. It has already been successfully trialled in many countries. UBI incentivises work by providing extra to those undertaking paid work over and above that basic income, while also cushioning those who are not able to earn. It would be costly and certainly would not save on the welfare bill, at least initially. But if it were paid through a progressive taxation system, the latter being something that some critics of the proposed reforms would welcome, it would rebalance the social economy and counter the perceived necessity of sacrificing the most vulnerable in society. Of course, this may also attract reactionary and emotive arguments stating that economically inactive people do not deserve ‘free handouts’, but this ignores the many income-rich but economically inactive and the economically inactive but essential workers undertaking familial childcare, voluntary support and unpaid labour.
It is not enough to simply increase service access through universal basic services as the New Economics Foundation may suggest. These would be open to cuts and changes to our understanding of ‘universality’ in the future. To prevent continued governmental sacrifices of those in poverty, ill-health and vulnerability, UBI is needed to reset society, roll back the income gap and to support people in contributing to their families, communities and wider society in ways appropriate to their capabilities.
Dr Jonathan Parker is Professor Emeritus at Bournemouth University, and Honorary Professor at University of Stavanger.
Analysing the History of British Social Welfare by Jonathan Parker is available on Policy Press for £27.99 here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of Bristol University Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image credit: Hasnain Sikora via Unsplash