The Future of Welfare ‘Reform’

Dr Simon Duffy of The Centre for Welfare Reform, CAB Sheffield, 22 September 2015

• Dr Simon Duffy, Director of The Centre for Welfare Reform.

• The Centre is an independent think-tank based in Sheffield.

• We believe the welfare state is a good thing that needs to be defended and improved.

• Find out more at www.centreforwelfarereform.org

• Universal Credit, benefit simplification and better ‘incentives’

• WCA and the privatisation of assessment and support

• The Work Programme and ‘support’ into work using sanctions, stigma and psychological motivation

• Benefit and tax credit cuts to make welfare ‘affordable’

‘Reform’ seem to mean

• Political - the use of stigma and scapegoating

• Economic - to protect high levels of and inequality

• Social - and the growing privatisation of poverty

In fact this ‘reform’ is

The politics of stigma

Hard-working families

skiverproblem family

lazyfeckless

Tax payers

scrounger

Alarm clock Britain

The squeezed middle

benefits lifestyle

benefit fraud

workshyfaker

Vs.

What is the purpose of the scapegoat?

• Identify a powerless group that is incapable of offering effective resistance

• Avoid responsibility for social problems and shift ‘blame’ on to powerless group

• Create a false sense of superiority and entitlement for more powerful groups

• Weaken and distance the powerless group from the possibility of protection

a few economic facts…

The level of public expenditure has hardly

changed in many decades.

But inequality has grown significantly.

That means about 6 million people live on about £40

per week after tax.

‘Austerity’ has seen Government target people on low incomes for cuts.

Disabled people have been especially targeted.

Instead of gathering crumbs at the rich man’s table the poor must now start to dodge his kicks.

The logical result of entrenched inequality

• Do we accept the way in which the story of welfare is told or do we tell (reframe) that story truthfully?

• Do we accept or resist the new ‘reforms’ or do we try to develop real solutions that promote social justice?

• Do we accept that power lies in the hands of a small elite or do we try to change the balance through constitutional change?

How should we go forward

Positive change requires

• A shift in the rhetoric towards the universal rights and responsibilities of citizenship

• A shift in thinking about policy: away from stigma towards universal solutions

• A shift in the constitutional balance of society to better represent the interests of disadvantaged groups