What is welfare for?

The Tories are obsessed with welfare, with its cost, with cutting it. As someone once said, a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

We could spend forever debating ‘what is welfare for?’ but I wonder whether the more important question is ‘what are we for?’ Or, to put it another way, ‘what is government for?’

If the purpose of government is simply to act as a benign facilitator, to do the bare minimum and stand aside, to prevent destitution and little more, then welfare becomes a safety net. We decide how much people need to survive, ration support accordingly, and take the minimum required from those more fortunate.

But if the purpose of society is to help people live good lives, both as individuals and as part of a wider community, then the conversation changes.

The success of a welfare system should not be measured purely by whether somebody is in work, nor purely by whether they are receiving support. The best systems contain within them their own conditions for renewal and, where possible, eventual independence. That may sound naive. There will always be circumstances in which people need support. But surely the aim should be that individuals, families and households move towards a place where they need less of it. The real question is whether people are moving closer to their own version of a good life.

For one person, that may be sustained employment. For another, it may be managing a long-term health condition, rebuilding confidence after a crisis, caring for a family member, volunteering in their community, studying, creating art, or simply becoming more connected to the people around them.

That does not mean abandoning the idea of contribution. Quite the opposite. Most people want purpose, independence, pride and a sense that they are moving forward.

And contribution does not just mean working forty hours a week and coming home exhausted. It can mean caring for a neighbour, tending a community garden, raising children, supporting a relative, volunteering, creating, organising or participating in civic life.

Too many political philosophies reduce citizenship to little more than economic activity: go to work, come home, shut the door and consume. Leave everything else to the market or the state. But contribution cannot be reduced to economics, and support cannot be reduced to economics either.

The word I keep coming back to is ecosystem.

We are connected, not just by physical proximity but by our actions. There is a saying: how can any of us be happy if one of us is sad? Don’t we owe it to one another, by virtue of nothing more than our shared humanity, to help create a society where work is rewarding and rewarded, where agency is recognised and respected, and where people can see a route to progress rather than a future of managed decline?

Where our current system struggles is that it often makes progress feel risky, contribution feel fragile, and real security feel unattainable.

Everyone ends up sharing the same fear: work harder for less.

Those with very little worry that taking the next step will cut off support just as they begin to get back on their feet. Those doing well face an opaque tax system full of thresholds, tapers and hidden penalties. Those in the middle see rising costs and feel they are carrying ever more of the burden while receiving ever less in return.

My instinct is that support and contribution should be visibly linked throughout a person’s life.

If somebody has a profound disability, or faces physical or mental barriers that are unlikely to be overcome, we should be able to say honestly: we ask nothing of you. You have security because you are one of us. If you want to work, learn, volunteer, write poetry, campaign, create or participate in community life, then wonderful. But your support does not depend upon it.

If somebody is able to work, but currently cannot find employment or needs help to get there, the conversation should be different: we will support you, and we will invest more as you invest more. Build skills. Improve your health. Volunteer. Train. Take steps forward. There is a pathway.

In other words, welfare should not merely protect people from falling. It should help people climb.

The challenge is ensuring that every rung on the ladder leaves people genuinely better off than the one below. Support should taper gradually as earnings and independence increase. Contribution should rise as capability rises. The two should match, and people should be able to see that they match. No cliff edges. No surprises. No sense that initiative is punished.

We also need to be more honest about the relationship between welfare and low pay. In-work benefits have protected millions of households from hardship, but they have also masked the extent to which parts of our economy rely on wages that are insufficient on their own. The question should not simply be how much support the state provides, but how we create an economy in which fewer people need that support in the first place.

For me, welfare is not ultimately about benefits, sanctions or savings. It is about the kind of society we want to be.

A good welfare system should help people move from crisis to stability, from stability to participation, and from participation to contribution. A falling welfare bill should be a symptom of success, not the purpose of reform.

Nor should we try to frighten people into work. We do not really believe that people are innately lazy or looking for an easy life. Most people want to shape their own future. They are far more likely to succeed when offered practical support, encouragement and realistic opportunities than when threatened with the loss of what little security they have.

Which brings me back to the original question.

Welfare is not really about what we owe the unemployed, the disabled, the sick or the poor. It is about what sort of society we believe ourselves to be.

Do we believe people are problems to be managed, costs to be reduced and risks to be controlled? Or do we believe they are citizens with potential, dignity and something to contribute?

If we can answer that question, the answer to ‘what is welfare for?’ becomes obvious.

Matthew Stanton is Councillor for Beam Park Ward in the London Borough of Havering.

Image: https://thebluediamondgallery.com/finger01/w/welfare.html License: Creative Commons 3 – CC BY-SA 3.0 Attribution Link: Pix4free.org – link to – https://pix4free.org/ Original Author: Nick Youngson – link to – http://www.nyphotographic.com/ Original Image: https://www.thebluediamondgallery.com/finger01/w/welfare.html