Rhetoric and Morality — How the Coalition Justifies Welfare Policy

Abstract

At the time of its formation, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition government elevated reducing the deficit in the public finances above all other concerns. The Coalition Agreement signed by both parties in the wake of the 2010 general election argued that this was ‘the most urgent issue facing Britain’ (HM Government, 2010, p. 15). In the subsequent emergency budget, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, outlined his desire to eliminate the structural deficit within one parliament, and to do so largely through spending cuts rather than tax increases. This commitment had severe implications for all aspects of government expenditure, but none more so than welfare. The Department for Work and Pensions had a larger budget than any other government department (£151.6 billion in 2010–2011), and Osborne argued that cuts to welfare were required to help ease the pain of deficit reduction in other areas. In light of this, Hayton (2012a, p. 137) identified Coalition welfare policy as being driven by three main pressures. These are the overriding imperative identified by the politicians involved to reduce the deficit in the public finances; an ideological commitment to reduce the size and role of the state in relation to the wider economy and society; and the internal dynamics of the Coalition, namely the need to negotiate positions acceptable to both parties.