This article is part of a blog series published in partnership with Academics Stand Against Poverty UK, as they develop their third manifesto audit in the build up to the 2024 election. They will analyse the policies in the manifestos in relation to poverty to assess how confident they are that they will enable British society to flourish.
The run-up to the election on 4 July has been marked by politicians seeking to make ‘culture wars’ a wedge issue, which has driven an increase in transphobia and homophobia. Social attitude surveys are showing decreasing tolerance for trans people and same-sex relationships in society.
In policy making and politics, illustrations of this transphobia and homophobia have ranged from the Education Secretary Gillian Keegan’s consultation on a new version of section 28 to ban the teaching of ‘gender ideology’ in schools; the assertion by the ‘minister for common sense’, Esther McVey, that she wanted to ban civil servants from wearing rainbow lanyards, and then denying that she had said it; and to the repeated statements against trans people by Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch.
Behind these headlines, the experiences of poverty among LGBT+ people have not been widely researched. Partly, this is because it was difficult, until recently, to carry out research with people whose identities were criminalised, or highly stigmatised in wider society. It is also because LGBT+ people have been focused on fighting direct discrimination and hatred.
However, for the past ten years, surveys across the UK have routinely started collecting sexual identity data (whether someone is gay, lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual). In our project, LGBT+ welfare and assets in Great Britain (funded by the Nuffield Foundation), we have analysed this data to see if the patterns of benefit receipt among lesbians, gays and bisexuals are different to their heterosexual counterparts. Key findings from initial analysis of the UK Household Longitudinal Survey are that:
- gay men are more likely to claim any working-age benefit than heterosexual men;
- lesbian parents are more likely to claim parenting-related benefits than heterosexual women;
- bisexuals are more likely to claim disability-related benefits, even when we take into account people having a disability or long-term illness.
From this analysis, we can say that any policies that improve access to social security benefits, or increase their value, will benefit LGB people. In the UK we do not routinely gather data on non-cisgender people, so we cannot say if the same is true of them. However, what data we do have, and research using administrative data in other countries, suggests similar patterns.
Our research also interviewed over 110 LGBT+ people who had claimed benefits since 2014. Like much research on the UK’s social security system since 2010, this revealed horrific stories of destitution and dehumanising application processes, particularly for disability benefits. We welcome the EHRC’s Inquiry into whether the DWP has been routinely discriminating against disabled people. Again, any policies that would aim to reform such application processes, and just bring basic decency into assessments, would disproportionately benefit LGBT+ people.
We also know from our analysis, recently published in the Social Policy & Society journal, that LGB people are less likely to own their own home, either outright or with a mortgage. This is partly because the age profile of this population is younger – six per cent of under-25s identify as not being heterosexual, compared to less than one per cent of over 70s. However, even when we control for age in statistical analysis, we still find that LGB people are less likely to own their own home.
Therefore, any policy changes that support renters, increase the supply of social housing, or increase direct financial support for renters (such as rolling-back the cuts to Housing Benefit and Housing Allowance since 2010) will disproportionately benefit LGB people.
To summarise then, many of the policy changes to tackle poverty that would benefit the whole population would also help LGBT+ people. Despite attempts to create division between people with different identities, a more just social security system that treats people with respect, and a system that provides access to adequate housing, would disproportionately benefit LGBT+ people.
We also need the new government on 5 July to stop being as transphobic and homophobic as its predecessor.
The blog post is based in interim findings from the LGBT+ Welfare and Assets in Great Britain project, a research project led by the University of Stirling. This project has been funded by the Nuffield Foundation, but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the Foundation. Visit www.nuffieldfoundation.org.
Peter Matthews is Professor of Social Policy and LGBTQ+ Studies in the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling. His research focuses on the inequalities experienced by LGBTQ+ people, and their differential outcomes, and how policy can tackle, or reinforce, these. He also really likes trains. Eleanor Formby is Professor of Sociology and Youth Studies at Sheffield Hallam University. Her expertise sit at the intersection of education, sociology and LGBT studies. Specific research interests relate to the life experiences of young LGBT+ people.
Read all the articles in the Academics Stand Against Poverty blog series 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 the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image: Yoav Hornung on Unsplash