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.
From a councillor who is too busy with public positioning and not getting on with the day job of actually responding to emails from actual residents reporting actual problems in his actual ward.
Their emails are checked if they don’t respond. Do an FOI of all councillors, You’re trying to crate rumours. Probably one of the Labours’ own councilors using this as a distraction. How cheap???
Thank you Bruno, for putting this so succinctly. I use my benefits to help me work in the voluntary sector and if they are cut, I will be pushed into the gig economy in my 60’s. I will struggle enormously to maintain any quality of life in that sector and also the clients I support will suffer with a lack of experienced volunteers. It looks and feels very bleak for all of us just trying to do our best with the challenges we face being “disabled”. The equating of paid work and morality is a harrowing rhetoric more suited to the tory party and it makes me and my colleagues despair.
I pay tax so you can doss and do voluntary work… Lol seriously. That’s boomer entitlement right there.
In your 60’s, doing ‘voluntary ‘ work and relying on benefits… I wonder what your net contribution to the exchequer has been over your lifetime? Bruno snd his ilk are now in the minority in supporting this type of lifestyle.
Thanks for your TED Talk on neoliberal morality and poor spelling. Let us know when you’ve done anything useful besides punching down and posting smug nonsense like redoing your GCSE.
Is that all you’ve got? Spelling/typos? You’re not exactly Oscar Wilde are you? Still, if it makes you feel better…
A bit rich from a councillor who stood for a Labour party who has repeatedly cut benefits locally – Council Tax Reduction – for the poorest families which has especially hit people with disabilities. There was no moral case then either but twice you’ve stood for Labour.
Whilst I agree that such cuts are morally unjustifiable, I think it is also morally unjustifiable to not provide a way to help people out of their situations, as the former chair of the council’s Health and Wellbeing Board, Cllr De Olivia will have likely heard stories of people being stuck in poverty, supported accommodations, and unhealthy situations because the safety net of benefits, doesn’t address the core issues.
Take food banks, for example. They are there to provide food parcels in an emergency, but when someone is relying on it week after week, as is commonly the case, that’s no longer an emergency. Maybe a different way to look at it is not to cut, but to reallocate to getting a person into a sustainable life that doesn’t require benefits. Not everyone will be able to do that, individual and complex each person is – but it should be an aspiration.
There are plenty of jobs out there.. that is the most direct route a sustainable like.
This is one of the things that complicate matters, and it shouldn’t. Those in supported accommodation will be in receipt of housing benefits, typically speaking, but if they were to start working, they’d lose those benefits and end up facing a financial cliff edge, which would end up getting themselves evicted because they can no longer afford the rent. It’s a scenario that I’ve witnessed a lot.
There’s an argument to be made there that tapering benefits to allow a smoother transition would be far more helpful in getting people into work.
I agree with you on this point Benjamin. I also think there should be an increased supply of council housing even if it not in the city centre. It would enable people to have decent, affordable accommodation and a short commute into the city to work.