DAVE MCKEAN

The 2010-2015 Coalition Government in the UK implemented a raft of austerity- inspired policies justified by their conviction of an essential requirement to

significantly reduce national debt following the 2008-9 global financial crisis. The 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review – where the government set out its spending plans for the next three years – heralded an overall reduction in government

spending of £83bn by 2014/15 (HM Treasury, 2013a). All but a few areas of government spending – notably health and education – were spared. Some of the most significant cuts were reserved for the welfare budget, which was earmarked for an £11bn reduction and which has subsequently risen further, such that cuts will reach £18bn by 2014-15 with an additional £4bn to the end of the spending period in 2018 (HM Treasury, 2013b). It quickly became apparent that if some areas of

government spending were to be spared while others were targeted for deeper cuts, austerity politics may be an economic necessity post-2008, but where the axe was to fall was an intensely politicised act. This was something that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, himself makes clear:

“Cutting pensions to pay for working age benefits is a choice this government is certainly not prepared to make” (George Osborne, quoted in The Guardian, 2013b:n.p; emphasis added).

Thus whilst the government has indicated that cuts to welfare spending are an

economic necessity, there is clearly a level of choice as to where the cuts should fall, which areas of government spending should be cut harder and faster, and ultimately which parts of society should be affected most or least. Such choices clarify that even within the restraints of austerity, there is still a significant level of politically conscious choice available with which to pursue a desired agenda to produce a certain preferred outcome (König, 2015).

111

Against this backdrop, the Coalition Government – certainly the Conservative element of it – has been quick to point out that welfare spending was out of control under the previous Labour Government. They emphasise that welfare spending was ultimately unsustainable and should therefore be front and centre of the cuts.

Speaking about welfare reform, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, claims:

“There are few more entrenched problems than our out-of-control welfare system and few more daunting challenges than reforming it” (quoted in The Telegraph, 2012c:n.p).

This is despite social security spending accounting for only a tiny fraction of the overall welfare budget. In 2011/12 benefit spending in the UK was £159bn, of which only £4.9bn (3%) was spent on Jobseekers Allowance. By contrast £74.2bn (47%) was spent on pensions (Guardian, 2013a). Yet, the Coalition Government appear to have put forward a convincing argument for reducing spending on social security to all but the bare minimum (Grimshaw and Rubery, 2012).

All major UK political parties agree on the need to reduce debt levels, with cuts to government spending part of this process. The Conservative Party has suggested that reducing national debt forms a key part of their plan to “secure a stronger economy and a better future for Britain” (The Conservative Party, 2014a:n.p), whilst the Liberal Democrats’ leader up to the 2015 General Election, Nick Clegg, has also pressed the need to meet the challenge of growing national debt through a balance of tax and spending cuts to achieve a “stronger economy and fairer society” (The Liberal Democrats, 2015a:n.p). In comparison, Labour’s former Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, has also expressed the importance to “deliver a surplus on the current budget and get the national debt falling in the next Parliament” (The Labour Party, 2014a:n.p). As a result the political debate centres on three key questions:

(i) How deep the cuts need to be? (ii) How fast the cuts need to be made?

(iii) Where should the cuts be made (which by implication means which part(s) of society and the country should shoulder the biggest burden for cutting the deficit)?

112

The nature of the debate is one which ebbs and flows according to the geo-

economic and geopolitical arguments put forward by the various stakeholders – from the political parties themselves, to political commentators, global institutions (the EU, IMF, World Bank) all the way through to social groups. In crude terms, the

Conservative Party rhetoric argues cuts to be an economic necessity, having very little to do with political prerogatives (The Conservative Party, 2014b); while the Labour Party argue that while cuts are necessary economically, they need not be as quick or as deep. The Labour Party leader up until the 2015 General Election, Ed Miliband, suggests that the current austerity politics in the UK reflect the politically motivated aspirations of the Conservative Party rather more than what is

economically necessary to rejuvenate the UK economy:

“They are doing it, not because they have to do it, but because they want to.” (The Labour Party, 2014b:n.p)

Similarly, the Liberal Democrats have also expressed concerns that their Coalition partners have attempted to pursue deep and rapid cuts too aggressively, as the now former party leader Nick Clegg noted in his speech to the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in 2013:

“Balancing the books is a judgement, not a science. And our plan has always allowed room for manoeuvre. One of the most important things I have learnt in government is this: in a fluid, fast-moving global economic environment,

sticking to a plan requires government to be flexible, as well as resolute. Nimble, as well as determined. When economic circumstances around us deteriorated and UK growth forecasts suffered, voices on the right called for us to respond by cutting further and faster. But instead we took the pragmatic choice to extend the deficit reduction timetable” (Clegg, 2013 at the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference).

Allied to this, heightened levels of conditionality applied to the benefits system – in particular that being placed upon those already in employment and in receipt of social security support from the state – and figures suggesting that the Coalition’s welfare reform agenda has been more symbolic than saving the vast sums of money the UK Government propose is required to sustain a long-term, balanced and

113

sustainable recovery, are fuelling the argument that austerity politics are more politically-driven than derived from economic logic (Taylor-Gooby, 2012a).

The first of three empirical chapters, the aim of this chapter is to reveal how austerity politics are influencing (the geography of) welfare provision in the UK. It will examine whether there has been a qualitative shift in the welfare-to-work policy following the 2008-9 financial crisis (Section 5.2); whether the welfare reforms and austerity measures implemented by the UK Coalition Government reflect economic necessity and/or a conscious political strategy (Section 5.3); and if, and where, there are contradictions between the rhetoric and the reality of austerity-inspired welfare-to- work policy strategies (Section 5.4). It will also address the perceptions and attitudes to welfare-to-work which provide the support for government policy rhetoric (Section 5.5). Finally it will relate these findings to broader debates on welfare geographies (Section 5.6).

5.2 The plan: austerity politics - in what sense a (re)new(ed) welfare-to-work