Labour needs to be more than the “Party of work”

This article was originally published on the LSE British Politics and Policy blog on 26th March 2025.

Labour’s rhetoric about the the need to cut the welfare budget isn’t just about economics, but about morality. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have declared Labour the “Party of work”, making a moral case about the value of working. But David Spencer warns about the risks of seeing work as intrinsically valuable and stigmatising those who cannot work.

The UK government’s decision to reform (and effectively cut) the welfare budget has attracted much criticism. On top of previously announced cuts, the Spring Statement delivered even deeper reductions in welfare spending, all in the hope of saving the government from breaching its self-imposed fiscal rules.

From a narrowly economic point of view, there is the argument that the government has other options available to it – for example, it could raise taxes, though this would mean breaking its manifesto commitments. From a moral perspective, there is the view that the government is unfairly targeting the most vulnerable in society, adding to their suffering.

But the government has defended its actions. Firstly, it argues that the welfare bill is rising unsustainably and needs reining in. Secondly, it argues that people on benefits would be better-off by gaining work. This second argument incorporates a moral dimension. It derives strength from the idea that people need work to achieve happy and healthy lives.  

In this context, Keir Starmer has declared Labour the “party of work” and has set about getting as many people into work as possible. This, on the basis, that work is good and the foundation for a good life.

A moral case for work

The moralising over work is not new. It has existed for many years. Previous Labour and Conservative governments backed welfare-to-work reforms. Work was something that society should celebrate not denigrate. “Strivers” were those who worked; “shirkers” were those who relied on benefits. The positives of work included not just access to wages but also the ability to contribute to society and to develop positive social ties.

This moral story of work, however, represents a myth. At least, it lacks nuance as to how work and well-being are related.

On the one hand, research does suggest that unemployment is bad for well-being. The negative effects of unemployment on well-being are also long-lasting. They have a ‘scarring’ effect on workers that can mean they find it hard to recover their well-being if they return to work.

On the other hand, research shows that any job is not better than no job. Rather, swapping unemployment for a low quality job can harm well-being. Working for a living for some people at least can be just as undignified and health-limiting as not having a job.

The above research cautions against making blanket assertions about the goodness of work. In particular, it shows the importance of ensuring job quality is improved so that the jobs available add to rather than subtract from well-being. This places an onus on government as well as employers to reform work in ways that encourage higher job quality.

The issue of job quality is especially important for those with disabilities and health-related issues. These workers will need reasonable adjustments in work to meet their needs. The fact that their employment rates are low to start with reflects not on their own indolence and unwillingness to work but on the lack of work opportunities that they can do. Tightening up eligibility for and the generosity of benefits will not help the disabled and ill if routes into work remain limited.

The rhetoric of people lounging around and enjoying life on benefits (one repeated by opposition Ministers) misses the real hardships faced by benefit recipients. Cuts in benefits announced by the government will only add to existing misery and further marginalise already disadvantaged groups.

Resetting the welfare debate

The moral high ground is with work. Evidence of the rise of so-called “deaths of despair” (linked to the lack of work) feeds the idea that we need work to live. Work, literally, may be a way to save lives. At the same time, however, work is something that can make us ill and paradoxically, unable to work. Striving, in short, can make us welfare-dependent.

The point is not to dismiss work – to see it as all bad – but to see it for what it is: i.e. an activity that we do to make a living and one that can under certain (though not all) circumstances bring us happiness and fulfilment. Seeing work as it is also means recognising the value of time away from work and not stigmatising those who, for different reasons (some beyond their control), are without work. Their lives may yet be made whole by work, but, in the meantime, we need to show them compassion and where necessary support their needs.

A just and moral society should value the lives of all of its citizens, whether they have or do not have a job. It should also strive to combat the strains of work and offer hope for a future where we can all enjoy life more, including with less work.