Week 19. The Welfare State
When the Welfare State Feels Unfair: Rethinking Justice, Support, and Survival in the UK
Across the UK, a growing number of citizens are facing a daily struggle to meet the basic costs of living. Imagine, for example, a single parent working full-time, doing everything that is expected of them by society. Despite their efforts, they may find themselves trapped in a cycle of rising rent, inflated utility bills, and an unforgiving economy. Food, heating, transport, and even childcare have become more difficult to afford, pushing hard working families closer to the edge (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2024).
In contrast, another hypothetical example might involve someone who is not in employment due to a disability or long-term illness. This person may receive a combination of Personal Independence Payment (PIP), Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), and housing support. As a result, their financial situation, while by no means luxurious, may appear more stable than that of a working household struggling with childcare costs and rent on a low wage (DWP, 2024).
This raises uncomfortable questions about equity in the UK’s welfare system. While benefits are rightly designed to protect the most vulnerable, and while many claimants face severe and often invisible challenges, perceptions of imbalance are increasingly common among working households. The idea that one can work full-time and still be worse off than someone receiving state support can create resentment and disillusionment, not necessarily directed at individuals, but at the system itself (Hills, 2015).
Life, of course, is never black and white. The vast majority of benefit recipients have genuine needs, and many working families access benefits too. Yet the frustration felt by many working citizens seems to suggest that the current structure of the welfare state is not meeting modern expectations of fairness or dignity.
It leads us to a critical question: Where did we go wrong with the welfare state?
A Vision That Once United a Nation
In 1942, the Beveridge Report laid the foundation for what would become Britain’s modern welfare state. Authored by economist and social reformer Sir William Beveridge, the report identified five societal "giants" to be defeated: Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor, and Idleness (Beveridge, 1942). The vision was revolutionary for its time, establishing a social safety net designed to support citizens “from cradle to grave” through universal healthcare, social security, and accessible education (Timmins, 2001).
It wasn’t just about economics, it was about dignity, solidarity, and fairness. This post-war consensus led to the creation of the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948, the expansion of state-funded education, and a significant boost to social housing. (Thane, 2018).
For decades, this framework provided a reasonably stable foundation for British society. It helped reduce poverty, improved health outcomes, and fostered a sense of shared national purpose (Lowe, 2005). However, over time, the system began to show signs of strain. Economic downturns, austerity measures, rising inequality, and shifting political ideologies have all contributed to increased pressure on welfare services (Hills, 2015). At the same time, gaps and loopholes widened, and the public discourse around “deserving” and “undeserving” claimants began to polarise opinion (Deeming, 2015).
Today, the system often feels stretched beyond its original intent, leaving many to question whether the welfare state still reflects the ideals that once united the nation.
Public discourse often includes stories of people allegedly misusing welfare, using benefits to fund substance abuse, declining work opportunities, or remaining in long-term dependency. While these cases exist, it is vital to approach them with both scrutiny and compassion.
Addiction, for example, is not a lifestyle choice but a recognised mental and behavioural disorder. The NHS classifies alcohol misuse as a serious medical condition, one often linked to trauma, mental illness, and socio-economic hardship (NHS, 2024). Individuals dealing with such issues are not "enjoying" life on benefits; they are often struggling with isolation, poor health, and a lack of hope.
Conversely, working parents who cannot access the same level of support often feel invisible. They may not qualify for housing benefits, free school meals, or council tax reductions. Their struggle isn’t due to lack of effort, but rather a system that does not adequately support low-income workers (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2023).
Both the person with addiction and the single parent are vulnerable, but in different ways. One is vulnerable to relapse, stigma, and systemic neglect; the other to burnout, poverty, and hopelessness. The welfare state should be broad enough to hold space for both, without forcing them into a hierarchy of suffering.
We must move past the idea that vulnerability is a competition. The real injustice is not that some people in pain receive help; it is that others in pain do not. This failure to extend dignity to all struggling citizens reveals deeper cracks in our social fabric (Lister, 2015).
A Call for Balance and Reform
The welfare state is not broken beyond repair. But it does require a more nuanced, compassionate framework, one that recognises the realities of modern poverty and supports hard working people as robustly as it does those unable to work.
Legal and policy scholars argue that the right to adequate living standards is not just a moral aspiration but a legal obligation under international human rights law, including Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN General Assembly, 1966).
Reclaiming the Welfare State with Compassion and Clarity
The modern welfare state must transcend outdated binaries of deserving versus undeserving, dependence versus independence. It must evolve into a system that recognises the complexity of human experience, where addiction is treated not as a moral failing but as a public health issue, and where structural barriers to self-reliance are acknowledged rather than ignored (Patrick, 2017; Marmot, 2020).
While concerns about dependency are valid, they must not overshadow the fundamental purpose of social welfare: to ensure dignity, stability, and the opportunity for all citizens to thrive. Empirical evidence shows that supportive welfare policies can reduce drug use and crime by fostering inclusion and access to treatment, rather than exacerbating marginalisation (Fitzpatrick et al., 2013; Wakeman & Barnett, 2018).
A truly just system strikes a careful balance, encouraging self-sufficiency where possible, but never at the cost of compassion. It restores the spirit of Beveridge's original vision: a collective commitment to banishing want, disease, squalor, ignorance, and idleness not through suspicion and sanction, but through solidarity and support (Timmins, 2017).
In reclaiming this promise, we don’t weaken society, we strengthen it. In my opinion, the future of welfare lies not in polarisation, but in policy rooted in empathy, evidence, and equity
This week, I want to reaffirm my position as someone committed to being part of the solution, not the problem. I firmly believe that anyone who takes personal responsibility for their circumstances and owns their journey should be given the support they need to improve their situation. I’m right here, if I can help anyone, please reach out. Don’t suffer in silence.
References
Beveridge, W. (1942) Social Insurance and Allied Services. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office. Available at: https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/livinglearning/coll-9-health1/coll-9-health/
Deeming, C. (2015) ‘Foundations of the Workfare State – Reflections on the Political Transformation of the Welfare State in Britain’, Social Policy & Administration, 49(7), pp. 862–886. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12098
Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2024) Welfare Benefits Statistics. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics
Fitzpatrick, S., Bramley, G., & Johnsen, S. (2013) ‘Pathways into multiple exclusion homelessness in seven UK cities’, Urban Studies, 50(1), pp. 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012452329
Hills, J. (2015) Good Times, Bad Times: The Welfare Myth of Them and Us. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279954666_Good_Times_Bad_Times_The_Welfare_Myth_of_Them_and_Us
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2023) UK Poverty 2023: The Essential Guide to Understanding Poverty in the UK. [online] Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-2023
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2024)Destitution in the UK 2024. [online] Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/uk-poverty-2024-the-essential-guide-to-understanding-poverty-in-the-uk
Lister, R. (2015) Poverty. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.https://www.politybooks.com/bookdetail?book_slug=poverty-2nd-edition--9780745645964
Lowe, R. (2005) The Welfare State in Britain since 1945. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://archive.org/details/welfarestateinbr0000lowe_f4b4
Marmot, M. (2020) Health Equity in England: The Marmot Review 10 Years On. London: Institute of Health Equity. [online] Available at: https://www.health.org.uk/publications/reports/the-marmot-review-10-years-on
NHS (2024) Alcohol Misuse. [online] Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/alcohol-misuse/
Patrick, R. (2017) For Whose Benefit? The Everyday Realities of Welfare Reform. Bristol: Policy Press.https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/for-whose-benefit
Thane, P. (2018) Divided Kingdom: A History of Britain, 1900 to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Timmins, N. (2001) The Five Giants: A Biography of the Welfare State. 2nd ed. London: HarperCollins.
Timmins, N. (2017) The Five Giants: A New Biography of the Welfare State. London: William Collins.
UN General Assembly (1966) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 993, p. 3. [online] Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights [Accessed 25 May 2025].
Wakeman, S.E. & Barnett, M.L. (2018) ‘Primary Care and the Opioid-Overdose Crisis — Buprenorphine Myths and Realities’, New England Journal of Medicine, 379(1), pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1802741
