Why language matters
Last week saw a twitter storm in response to an article on Politics Home, outlining some thoughts from the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Jonathan Reynolds. The headline spoke of public mistrust, and the need for welfare to reflect what people ‘put in’.
If you scroll through the replies to the article on twitter you can see the strength of feeling: ‘disgraceful’, ‘Tory lite’ and accusations of throwing the vulnerable ‘under the bus’. The headline appears to indicate that Labour welfare policy will hark back to narratives from the 2000s and 2010s, like being ‘tough on benefits’, and clamping down on the ‘something for nothing’ culture.
Closer reading of the article gives a more nuanced impression, assertions that no-one should be left destitute, and that issues with Universal Credit such as the five-week wait and 2-child limit should be reviewed. The ‘get out what you put in’ issue seems to be prompted primarily by the Covid-19 experiences of many who found that, for a wide variety of reasons, they were ineligible for any emergency support or UC. More considered responses to the article explained how a contribution-based system could be redistributive and progressive. Many of the twitter commentators may still have issues with this idea, but any potential debate was swept away by the problematic language highlighted in the headline.
Words matter when we talk about welfare and benefits. We’ve had decades of language that stigmatises benefit recipients and the unemployed, that sets up a divide between ‘hard working families’ and ‘benefit cheats’, the deserving and undeserving poor. Whether he meant it or not, and whether Labour policy will look like it or not, Reynolds’ use of phrases like ‘getting out what you put in’ appears to directly continue this narrative.
Particularly right now, when so many people are seeing the importance of more universal government support, this language feels outdated and out of step with the public mood. It is clear now to most of us that being unemployed isn’t due to laziness, but a range of factors mostly outside our control. Thursday night clapping has highlighted that being on a low income isn’t down to a lack of skills or ambition, but an economic system that does not properly value these workers. The universal basic income bandwagon is positively creaking under the weight of people that have jumped on board.
Labour should be building on this awareness to shape a new narrative about welfare, benefits and poverty. To do this they need to choose their language carefully, and be ambitious about building a new consensus about what benefits are for and how they should work. Of course, an interviewee doesn’t get to write their own headline; Politics Home will have known that picking out the phrase they did would gain a lot of traction. But language matters, and politicians should recognise how powerfully it shapes opinion and policy, and that this moment offers a real opportunity to change the narrative.
(c) Anna Dent 2020. I provide social research, policy analysis and development, writing and expert opinion, and project development in Good Work and the Future of Work / In-Work Poverty and Progression / Welfare benefits / Ethical technology / Skills / Inclusive growth