top of page
Search

The UK Social Security System: Rich in Principles, Poor in Execution


Co-founder of Whole Nation Conservatives Igraine Gray is a Conservative activist and former council candidate, writer, published author and rehabilitated rough sleeper. Prior to the 2024 General Election she was Policy Assistant to Sir Simon Clarke.


In 2024/2025, the UK government is forecast to spend £303.3 billion (or $383.8 billion) on its social security system (1), an amount roughly the size of the GDP of South Africa (2), give or take a couple of billion. For this colossal investment, the benefit system supports those on low incomes or unemployed, those with disabilities or caring responsibilities, those starting or growing families and pensioners, who get around 55% of benefits expenditure (1). 


But does it actually achieve what it is supposed to?


Our welfare system, and by extension the state, is rich in principles. Within the idea of the Triple Lock, there is the fundamental principle that we should look after people in their later years for doing the right thing and that they should be rewarded (3). The base Universal Credit was built upon - which improved upon its predecessors whilst still fatally flawed - is the life-affirming dignity of work and personal responsibility (4). The overwhelming majority of people support Maternity Pay because it is a foundational belief that having children is a social good and to be encouraged. 


There is broad political consensus, at least superficially, for those entirely honourable goals. These noble principles are often incorrectly deployed as justification for the system we have built on top of them. But there is a huge difference between principle and execution, and whilst we are rich in one, we are substantially poor in the other. The one that matters. Principles that do not survive contact with reality are of no use to anyone. They are a kind of broken promise. Both the Conservatives, having achieved the lowest number of seats and vote share in its history at the general election (5), and Labour, who ended 2024 in the grips of a historic polling collapse not seen in its peacetime history (6), understand the righteous anger caused by a broken promise.


Some of those execution problems lie outside of the social security system. For pensions and maternity, failures in the planning and tax systems are huge drivers of failure. We cannot build homes, energy infrastructure or health and education infrastructure fast enough or well enough to keep up with the demand to have and maintain a family affordably - and the tax system compounds this. As such, the resulting cost-of-living and demographic changes are too big of a beast, rendering any effort by the benefits system to fulfil those moral values entirely useless. With an annual growth rate of 2.9% needed over the next 50 years to pay for today’s level of welfare (7), we should not be surprised that the system is deficient in structure and resources.


However, within Universal Credit, there are so many areas for improvement, particularly with how it approaches employment. The current structure, both with how it helps claimants practically and with the almost subconscious messages it sends regarding the value of work and the claimant, actively hinders the goal. 


Job Centres and Work Coaches have a monitoring aspect to their role, to ensure the claimant is doing what they can to find work, and it should remain. This is done at appointments in job centres when most of this monitoring can be done online with the tools already provided. Appointments should be more focused on work search skills to aid with finding a new job now, and give people the skills to do so later so they may progress. They should also focus on the individual's abilities and strengths, and how they fit in the current labour market. 


Unfortunately, Universal Credit employment support is too one-size-fits-all, delivered day-to-day without expertise in the labour market or a shallow comprehension of what employers are looking for. I recall the case of a recent claimant instructed to apply for primarily entry-level retail jobs when they had significant management experience. They were invited to interviews for management roles and not entry-level ones. Recruiters want to hire employees who will stick around. Rightly or wrongly, if you are overqualified, they may assume you will move on and act accordingly. That level of detailed thought is required when supporting a claimant, and this capacity is not currently in the system. It also means there is no capacity for the nuanced support required if we are to extend the opportunity to those who realistically could be weaned off of sickness-related benefits.


Additionally, appointments are increasingly of the tick-box variety, and the culture this breeds is one of necessity, not opportunity. This is reflected in the DWP Customer Experience Survey responses, where the lowest satisfaction scores were around the tailoring of support and understanding of individuals (8) and the historic sticky patches of long claim durations.


Universal Credit is an almost pitch-perfect example of rich in principle and poor in execution, so poor that even the effective taper rate is not enough to rescue it.


The British Dream, different visions of which have been articulated over time (9), can be effectively distilled into the following sentiment: that everyone should have a chance to succeed in their lives, regardless of their protected characteristics, no matter their postcode, and each generation should increase the chance of success for the following generation. Whole Nation Conservatives, therefore, are a bastion of such an idea. Any conservative offer to the Whole Nation must address the gulf between principle and execution in the social security system and beyond if we are to live up to the British Dream and restore our electoral credibility.


References

 
 
 

Comments

Want to contribute? Contact us!

© 2024 by Whole Nation Conservatives

bottom of page