An insidious argument is gaining traction in the ongoing debate about public spending: cutting benefits is a moral necessity.
Proponents claim that reducing welfare dependence encourages self-sufficiency, strengthens the economy and ensures that only the “truly needy” receive support.
But this narrative is not only misleading – it is deeply harmful. Framing austerity as a moral imperative ignores the lived realities of those who rely on social security to survive.
In our city, where housing costs are high and economic disparities stark, slashing benefits would push the most vulnerable further into poverty, worsening inequality and deepening social divisions.
The argument that cutting benefits is a moral necessity relies on two flawed assumptions. First, it assumes that most benefit recipients are unwilling to work and must be incentivised to seek employment through financial hardship (be punished into work).
Such an approach ignores that the vast majority of claimants are either already in low-paid jobs, have disabilities, are carers or are unable to work due to circumstances beyond their control.
In Brighton and Hove, a city with many residents in precarious employment and zero-hour contracts, welfare often functions as a crucial safety net rather than an incentive to avoid work.
Second, the moral case assumes that reducing state support somehow enables self-reliance. In reality, a robust welfare system allows people to achieve self-reliance in the first place.
Access to benefits ensures that families can afford rent, children can attend school without hunger and disabled individuals can maintain dignity and independence.
When these supports are stripped away, people do not magically become more independent – they become more desperate.
Our city is often seen as prosperous and progressive but severe inequalities are beneath the surface. The city has one of the highest homelessness rates in the country.
Rising rents and stagnant wages mean many families rely on universal credit to stay housed and get fed Reducing benefits would make it even harder for low-income households to meet basic needs.
Children would bear the brunt of these cuts. From 2022 to 2023, 26.4 per cent of Brighton and Hove’s children lived in poverty – up from 25.9 per cent the previous year.
Reducing benefits would mean more families struggling to afford school meals, proper clothing and learning resources. Educational attainment gaps would widen, reinforcing cycles of deprivation that stretch into adulthood.
Disabled individuals would also face devastating consequences. The city has the 51st highest percentage of disabled people under the Equalities Act definition in England.
Out of 153 upper-tier local authorities in England, many rely on personal independence payments (PIP) and other benefits to access mobility aids, transportation and specialist care.
Cuts to these lifelines would mean a reduced quality of life, increased social isolation and higher healthcare costs in the long run.
Councillor Bruno De Oliveira is an Independent member of Brighton and Hove City Council and former chair of the council’s Health and Wellbeing Board.
