Brexit may define this election, but as the NHS haemorrhages resources and struggling families see their annual incomes squeezed by thousands of pounds, politicians would do well to remember Britain is facing other battles. And though it may not seem it, Labour’s recent pledge of free school meals for all primary pupils is in many ways a symbol of the conversation we should now be starting. When it comes to public services and social security, two big themes jump out: first, that there is a critical level of underfunding and mismanagement that is damaging a growing number of people’s lives; and second, how government should respond.
It’s noticeable that Labour has been announcing a string of policy proposals this year that not only push for increased “welfare” spending but that do it in terms of universal benefits. Even this week’s pledge to increase the allowance of unpaid carers by £10 – which would only affect a narrow group of voters – is a nod to the principle of universalism. It’s a measure that would mean the income of a daughter who left her career to look after her elderly parents would be brought into line with the level of a job seeker, and see long-neglected family carers get a pay rise, just as traditional workers would from Labour’s pledge to increase the minimum wage.
But is now is a dangerous time to advocate this sort of higher “welfare” spending (even if it is fully costed), let alone universalism? In an election in which – on the rare occasions May will allow the agenda to shift away from Brexit and on to domestic policy – the Conservatives will be painting Corbyn as untrustworthy on the economy, even those on the left may think it wise to avoid talking in terms of universal benefits. At a time when one in four low-income families are regularly skipping meals, wouldn’t it be better to argue for, say, higher benefits for disabled people living in poverty, rather than a free school lunch for a middle-class child, or a bus pass for a wealthy pensioner?
But to think in these terms is to see the fight to protect Britain’s welfare state backwards. The Conservatives have gutted funding to public services and social security over the past seven years. This has not simply made cancer patients and shop workers poorer, but has chipped away at the entire concept of state support. Introducing policies such as the bedroom tax and cuts to child tax credits hasn’t only pushed people into rent arrears and to food banks. They have spread the idea that public spending on housing or children’s welfare is essentially discretionary – the equivalent of a charitable donation that certain (usually flawed) people receive and as such can easily be removed. We’ve seen this time after time since 2010, where tens of billions of pounds – from disability benefits to housing for young people – have been axed from services perceived as costly and for “other people”. In doing so, the principle of social security itself is weakened.
In this climate, the fight for the left is not simply about providing meals for hungry children or social care for paraplegic people. It’s also about convincing voters who have food on the table, and are able to leave the house unaided, that these things are a fundamental right.
That, together, a society builds quality health, education and housing, and that in turn we all share and benefit from. Framing public services and social security in collectivist terms – from universal benefits such as free school meals to the NHS and social care that we’ll all one day need – is one of the most powerful ways to achieve this.
Higher spending, in the right places, rather than a sign of incompetence, is often the definition of long-term efficiency. But this argument alone will never sell a policy change, let alone shift cultural attitudes towards public spending, especially on benefits.
Politics, at its heart, is about communicating to voters a positive vision of the society you want and how it relates to their everyday lives and those of their families. In the weeks running up to the election, Corbyn must push housing, wages, healthcare, and social security on to the agenda. How exactly Labour presents its argument will be crucial. Times of austerity shouldn’t mean we abandon the principles of universal benefits and higher public spending. It’s when we must shout them from the rooftops.
