top of page
ELECTION 2024 HAVE YOU READ THE MANIFESTOS (Logo) (4).png

Social Security

by Michael Orton, Warwick University and Richard Machin, Nottingham Trent University

Conservatives
Labour
Liberal Democrat
Green
Reform
Plaid Cymru
1
1
2
2
2

‘It is disappointing to see that none of the party manifestos set out ambitious or transformative changes to social security.’

Reviewing general election manifestos is inevitably a forward-looking exercise. However, it has been necessary for this review to consider the fundamental changes to the social security system implemented over the last 14 years. Whichever party is elected to govern on 4 July will inherit a reduced and diminished system. Benefit changes implemented in this period have created severe issues relating to adequacy – to give just one example, 55% of recipients of Universal Credit are unable to afford enough food (Trussell Trust, 2024).

​

We view adequacy as the most pressing problem in this policy area. However the legacy of 14 years of cuts has led to a lack of vision about what the social security system is for and what it has the potential to achieve. It is disappointing to see that none of the party manifestos set out ambitious or transformative changes to social security.

 

Analysis published during this election campaign by the Resolution Foundation (2024) demonstrates the severity of the cuts to adequacy in the social security system. Benefit changes implemented since 2010 include an overall benefit cap, the two-child limit (denying means-tested support within Universal Credit to third or subsequent children), cuts to housing support and a four-year benefit freeze. In the latest parliament, temporary COVID-19 and cost-of-living support was welcome but not enough to offset the cumulative post 2010-impact of £2,800 annual losses for the poorest one-fifth of households (in marked contrast to pensioner households which have gained £900 per year on average). For further detail on benefit changes in this period see the work of the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School of Economics (Hills, 2015; Cooper and Hills, 2021).

​

The Resolution Foundation assert that ‘rising destitution, record homelessness and child poverty are just the sharpest evidence that the current safety net is inadequate’. The administration of the social security system has also caused difficulties for many claimants with the introduction of digitalised claims, punitive sanctions and long waits for payments.

​

The  Conservative  manifesto  continues  the problematisation of benefits, signalling that social security should not be a ‘lifestyle choice’ and there is an ‘unsustainable rise in benefit claims for people of working age with a disability or health condition’. It states that £12 billion can be saved by measures including reforming disability benefits, accelerating the rollout of Universal Credit and a tougher sanctions regime. For disabled claimants (particularly those with mental health problems) the manifesto pledges to improve Personal Independence Payment assessments, alongside a tightening of the process for those claiming incapacity for work benefits and an overhaul of the fit note system. These are in effect more cuts. The manifesto offers some benefit increases but for particular groups: for pensioners through the retention of the triple lock and retaining other pensioner benefits; and, for those on higher incomes with children, by changing income eligibility criteria for Child Benefit.

​

The Labour manifesto is notable for its lack of consideration of social security. The manifesto states Labour will develop a strategy to reduce child poverty and that it wants to end mass dependence on emergency food parcels. But no pledges are made on increasing benefit rates – other than retaining the pensions triple lock – nor reversing any of the benefit reductions introduced over the last 14 years. Instead, the focus is on work as ‘the foundation of our approach to tackling poverty and inequality’. Employment is also the core concern in relation to disability with a pledge to ‘support more disabled people and those with health conditions into work’. There is a commitment to review Universal Credit ‘so it makes work pay and tackles poverty’ which could mean large-scale transformation but as no further detail is given that is wholly hypothetical and in practice there is no concrete basis provided for enabling flourishing lives.

​

Compared with the Conservatives and Labour, the Green Party, Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru manifestos are tonally more positive regarding social security. The Liberal Democrats pledge to ‘repair the broken benefits safety net’ and end deep poverty within a decade. The Green Party acknowledge that ‘all of us might need extra support or a safety net at different points in our lives’ and Plaid Cymru say reducing child poverty should be a major goal for government.

​

In terms of content all three of these parties commit to the triple lock/maintaining pension levels but they also commit to increasing other benefit rates. The Green Party proposes raising Universal Credit by £40 a week, carer’s allowance by 10% and disability benefits by 5%. The Liberal Democrats pledge to increase carer’s allowance and Statutory Sick Pay plus introduce an enhanced rate of Child Benefit for one- year-olds. Plaid Cymru’s position is to increase Child Benefit by £20 a week along with other measures. The three parties also propose abolishing some of the punitive elements of Universal Credit (notably the two-child limit, bedroom tax, and ending/reducing the five-week wait for initial payment). In addition, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru commit to an essentials guarantee within Universal Credit but therein lies the caveat with these three manifestos – each would be a significant improvement on the current system but even an essential guarantee falls far short of the basis for ensuring a flourishing life for all.

​

The ‘contract’ published by Reform refers to a ‘benefits system which is broken’ and emphasises that a reformed system will ensure that ‘those who can work do work’. It lacks specific detail, referring only to an increase in the starting point of income tax to £20,000, increased back-to-work support focusing particularly on 16–34-year-olds, and the withdrawal of benefits for people seeking work after four months or two job offers. For claimants with a disability, it pledges exemption from regular assessments for those with severe or long-term disability and independent face-to-face medicals for Personal Independence Payment and Work Capability Assessments.

​

Reform claim that these benefit changes would produce £15 billion savings per year. The IFS assess that ‘this would represent a big cut to the size of the state’ but that the costings are problematic and the spending reductions would realise significantly less than stated. This ‘contract’ does not present a viable vision for social security and would expediate the diminishment of the welfare state.

​

In summary, the Conservative manifesto promises continuation of what we have seen since 2010. The Labour manifesto acknowledges poverty but provides no plan for achieving a fit for purpose social security system. Labour and the Conservatives share a work focus, lack of consideration of punitive elements and absence of measures on adequacy. The Green, Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru manifestos are more promising on adequacy but even they do not include the potential for social security as a transformative source of dignity and independence (especially for women and disabled people) nor measures to ensure British society can flourish. Social security is not just about a minimum safety net and the direction of travel in the last 14 years has lost sight of this. Sadly this is reflected in all the manifestos reviewed and broader political discussions.
 


References

​

​

​

​

​

Icon credit: zum rotul/The Noun Project
 

bottom of page