Disagree with the bolded bit. It was designed so that people like your Aunt and Uncle felt they had a stake in it. What better way to further undermine the concept of universalism. Coming to an NHS near you.
This contrasts with how the architects of thw welfare state saw things. Whether one was Labourist, one nation Tory, or Liberal, it represented a social wage. Universal social security provided a floor designed to catch anyone who fell on hard times. Welfare was never a luxury, despite how the unchanging propaganda of the last 45 years styles it, nor was it a product of high-minded enlightenment by clever, compassionate politicians. It was a gain extracted from capital by labour as the cost of avoiding social unrest and certain kinds of events. The fact of universalism gave other layers in society a stake in the social security system. Better off families might not have needed child benefit, for example, but it gave them extra spending power they could splash on extra clothes, treats for the children (and treats for themselves). But by extending them a stake, it was hoped opposition to their losing an entitlement would protect those who really needed it - families crippled by low wages and debt, mums financially controlled by abusive husbands, and so on. And as imperfect as it was, universalism was a bureaucratic expression of solidarity.
It's now abundantly clear what Tuesday night's Winter Fuel Allowance vote was about. It wasn't, according to the cynical and dishonest hous...
averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com
"Universalism" seems to be used in different ways, and may not be incompatible with the aim of meeting need. I think there may be an illogical leap in the bit you quote from the article.
Universal social security provided a floor designed to catch anyone who fell on hard times. Welfare was never a luxury.....The fact of universalism gave other layers in society a stake in the social security system.
THEN
Better off families might not have needed child benefit, for example, but it gave them extra spending power they could splash on extra clothes, treats for the children (and treats for themselves). But by extending them a stake, it was hoped opposition to their losing an entitlement would protect those who really needed it.
The leap is from saying what social security was designed for - and the stake
everyone had in it (first bit) to a different sort of universality (that everyone should receive benefits).
Does "universal benefit" mean that anyone who
needs a benefit will get it, or does it mean that everyone should get it? There may be political advantage in getting a "buy-in" (everyone gets a bit out of the welfare state) but if, as stated, welfare is to provide a floor for anyone who falls on hard times, that's where universality comes in. The state pension may be the only "universal benefit" (paid regardless of income, though taxable) - child benefit only goes to people with children (though may benefit the whole community as an incentive to maintain the population), and no-one is suggesting that disability benefits should go to people who are not disabled. We pay taxes/NI for benefits which we may or may not need in the future (e.g. if we should qualify as disabled) - it's effectively an insurance policy.
[The stuff about council tax and who should get a discount is mostly wide of the mark, as the bulk of council spending is also on care for those who need it, not on running libraries or emptying bins. Local services used to be funded from rates, which threw up some anomalies, and Thatcher's poll tax replaced it - saving the landed gentry many millions of pounds - and the council tax is a Tory cobbled compromise based on size of house, leaving the landed gentry still saving many millions of pounds. The rates might have been flawed, but it was a tax hard to avoid, and based on how much land people occupied - and taxing how much land people occupy seems eminently sensible when it's scarce.]
