Are we all really in this together? An exploration of austerity measures and neoliberal dominance, utilising Gramscian concepts of ‘hegemony’, ‘commonsense’, and their impact on social work practice.
Paulina Rachanska – 3rd year Social Work
Abstract
Previous research has shown that austerity measures introduced by the Conservative-led Coalition UK government (2010-2015) following the global financial crisis of 2007-2008 disproportionately affected the poor, single parents, people with disabilities, women, and asylum seekers. This paper explores the Gramscian concepts of hegemony and common sense with references to the dominance of neoliberal thought and the public support for cuts to social expenditure. It argues that, although social spending cuts affected those already marginalised the most, the majority of the British public, including those most affected, supported them. As the austerity measures had disastrous consequences for the users of social work services, the paper explores the duties of social workers to challenge these measures along with the commonsense language of ‘benefit scroungers’ or immigrants as a ‘drain on public resources’, recurrently used to justify them. Subsequently, it analyses the correlation between the negative impacts of welfare cuts and the growing public support for British Exit from the European Union (“Brexit”); concluding that a combination of economic, cultural and political forces shaping the British public’s views on immigration impacted on the outcome of the 2016 referendum.
Introduction
“We’re all in this together”, announced George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the June 2010 ’emergency budget plan’ speech (The Guardian, 2010) to justify the Conservative-led Coalition government’s plans to introduce public spending cuts. It is difficult to lend credibility to this claim, seeing that over the two subsequent years, the Chancellor of the Exchequer lowered the tax rates of high-income families and reduced the corporate tax rate (HM Revenue & Customs, 2018). Figures from 2008-2009 show that over 27 per cent of British households were living on wages below the Minimum Income Standard (JRF, 2019); it was these households that were, over the subsequent years, most affected by the social spending cuts. With over a quarter of the population living below the Minimum Income Standard, it is mystifying why in 2010, over 50 per cent of the British public supported these austerity measures (Deloitte, 2018a: 16).
Introduction
This article attempts to demystify this high level of public support of social spending cuts in Britain. This will be done by utilising the Gramscian concepts of hegemony and common sense. Furthermore, this paper will analyse how the social spending cuts impact the social work profession and its service users. It will also outline how social workers can take on ‘organic intellectuals’ and challenge the neoliberal status quo.
The definition of common sense and hegemony and austerity; how did the government legitimise social spending cuts.
Before analysing social spending cuts can be made, it is essential to look at the broader political and cultural landscape within which these austerity measures became the ‘necessary evil’ woven into the general public’s common sense. Common sense in Gramscian context is the public’s interpretation of the world around them and is not mistaken for the synonym of sound judgment. Gramsci, moving away from the traditional Marxist view of the bourgeoise obtaining dominance through state coercion, proposed that within capitalist societies, dominant groups achieve hegemony by political, cultural and ideological means through the introduction of common-sense norms and values into the lives of the various strata of society (Cunningham and Cunningham, 2014). When these norms become accepted by the majority, including those whose lives these values seek to oppress, hegemony is achieved (Boggs, 1976; Buttigieg, 199 1). Over the past decade, the ideology of austerity became one of these common-sense norms contributing to the advancement of neoliberal hegemony (Spours, 2015).
The term austerity refers to a period of fiscal consolidation during which drastic cuts to public expenditure are made to reduce the national debt. pro-austerity economists such as Alesina and Perotti claimed that governments should “aggressively tackle the expenditure side” to reduce the budget deficit and save the post-banking-crisis economy (Cooper and Whyte, 2017: 4). The principal ‘logic’ behind austerity is built on a model of expansionary fiscal consolidation. Public spending cuts are favoured over tax increases, attracting more business investment and fast economic growth (Cooper and Whyte, 2017). Although the effectiveness of austerity measures in achieving sustainable growth has been disputed by many economists (Guajardo et al., 2011), the Conservative-led Coalition government presented them as Britain’s only solution to save the economy. Conservative politicians created several myths surrounding austerity to make public spending cuts more palatable to the British public. Firstly, the public debt was presented as being at an all-time high, requiring immediate public intervention and portrayed as the result of the previous government and the public’s reckless spending (The Guardian, 2010). This myth can be dispelled when looking at the history of Britain’s debt as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP); what can be noted is the ratio was not exceptionally high in 2010 given the country’s history; indeed, the percentage of debt to GDP was higher from 1917 to 1970 (Pettinger, 2018). Another way this myth can be dissipated is to look at Iceland’s post-global Financial Crash (GFC) public debt. Percentage-wise, it was much higher than that of Britain’s. Still, the public of Iceland protested against the austerity package imposed on them by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and subsequently, Iceland’s economy has rebounded (Cooper and Whyte, 2017: 9).
Another narrative of the British government’s austerity discourse was that if they did not implement public spending cuts, Britain would ‘end up like Greece’ (Pentaraki, 2013). Following the GFC, the discourse within the European Union regarding Greece’s economic situation evaded the mention of systemic causes leading to the country’s financial crash, focusing instead on the so-called extravagance of the Greek public and government. Despite the claims of the Greek government’s profligacy being erroneous (Pentaraki, 2013; Knox, 2017), politicians skillfully used the example of Greece to legitimise the supposed necessity of the British public to ‘tighten their belts’ (The Guardian, 2010). The ‘logic’ behind austerity policies was further sewn into the fabric of British society through political discourse turning the financial responsibility of banks into a shared responsibility. Clarke and Newman (2012) termed this the ‘alchemy of austerity’, whereby the economic consequences of the banking sector’s irresponsibility ‘magically’ become a public burden. George Osborne argued:
“We borrowed and borrowed as if the party would never end. Banks did. Businesses did. Families did. And so did this government. And then, like any party that goes on too long, things got out of hand. (The Guardian, 2008)
Another premise upon which the legitimisation of austerity is built is the theory of trickle-down or supply-side economics, which claims that making it easier and cheaper for businesses to supply will result in economic benefits for broader society. Although the benefits of trickle-down economics were propagated by Conservative politicians such as George Osbourne, who stated: “everyone will share in the rewards when we succeed” (The Guardian, 2010); even the most prominent neoliberal economists, like Thomas Sowell, dispelled the authenticity of the trickle-down theory (Cooper and Whyte, 2017: 16)
The art of deflection, ‘benefit scroungers’ and immigrants and their portrayal as a drain on public resources
An increase of 54 per cent in the provision of food by charities between 2012-13 and 2013-14 (Cooper et al., 2014: 4) correlated with austerity policies and mainly the rolling out of Universal Credit (The Trussell Trust, 2018; Loopstra et al., 2015; Lambie-Mumford, 2015; Jackson, 2015) one would expect the British public to oppose increasingly damaging social spending cuts. However, a recent survey carried out by the Centre for Labour and Social Studies (CLASS) showed that over 50 per cent of those interviewed believed austerity measures, including public spending cuts, were necessary, with 17 per cent of the respondents answering that they were “neither necessary nor unnecessary” (CLASS, 2018: 36). Utilising a Gramscian lens, the austerity rhetoric propagated by politicians and the corporate media became woven into the common sense understanding of the public, who view the social spending cuts as inevitable. In this way austerity, ideology became hegemonic. It should be noted that in an earlier survey, nearly 43 per cent of those interviewed did not know what the term ‘austerity’ meant (CLASS, 2018: 34), which may impact its findings. A survey by Deloitte (2018b) found that 35 per cent of respondents believed austerity policies would improve Britain’s economy and 41 per cent of respondents agreed that people should take more responsibility for their own lives, opposed to assigning this responsibility to the state. This high percentage of the British public believing that the government has done too much for people is concerning but unsurprising. Over the past decade, there seemed to be a ‘trend’ amongst political figures to frame food bank users as “ones who are not best able to manage their finances” (BBC, 2013). Conservative politicians such as Michael Gove and Alun Cairns (BBC, 2013; BBC, 2017), as well as neoliberal tabloids such as The Sun and Daily Mail (The Sun, 2019; Mail Online, 2014), have all played a part in creating common-sense views on personal responsibility versus the government’s duty to support those in need. With the Daily Mail and The Sun being the most-read UK-wide newspapers, according to NRS figures (Ofcom, 2017), it is unsurprising that there is growing hostility amongst the British public towards food bank users, despite evidence pointing to structural causes of food poverty (Loopstra et al., 2015; Garthwaite, 2016; Perry et al., 2014 and Lambie-Mumford, 2015). In 2016 the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hunger recognised that many voters do not believe the claims concerning food bank demand (Garthwaite, 2017). The approach taken by politicians and media towards food bank users is likely to have contributed to the public’s growing distrust of food bank users and social welfare claimants.
The propagation of the ‘blaming’ discourse has not been limited to food bank users and can be observed in Conservative politicians’ and media’s reports on immigration. Conservative Party members have long been trying to influence public opinion regarding immigration (The Conservative Party Manifesto, 2015: 72). These statements on immigration impacting negatively on British communities and the economy seemed to be successful in diverting the public’s attention from the disastrous consequences of the punitive austerity policies. According to the respondents of the ‘Global @dvisor’survey (Ipsos MORI, 2014: 11), immigration control was the second most important issue that Britain was facing (43 per cent of respondents); while an earlier poll revealed that the majority of the public relied on media to form their opinions regarding immigrants (Ipsos MORI, 2014: 92).
The British Exit (Brexit)Referendum, proposed in the Conservative Party’s 2015 Manifesto (The Conservative Party Manifesto, 2015), seemed like a deflection of the British public’s attention from social spending cuts consequences (Spencer, 2016). According to Hobolt (2016), the pro-EU David Cameron delivered the 2016 referendum to prevent a flight of voters to the populist right-wing United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP)’. On 23rd June 2016, the majority (nearly 52 per cent) of voters opted to leave the European Union (EU). While many factors influenced the public’s decision, according to ‘Lord Ashcroft Polls’ (2016), the primary motivation to leave was to ‘take back control of the country. Ostensibly, the combination of economic, cultural and political forces shaped the British public’s view on immigration, which was thought to have impacted the outcome of the 2016 referendum (Hobolt, 2016). A recent study’s findings support this view and show that the “EU referendum could have resulted in a Remain victory had it not been for a range of austerity-induced welfare reforms” and that growing support for UKIP was noted in areas with significant exposure to welfare cuts (Fetzer, 2018: 1).
Drawing all points together, it appears that a skilful manipulation of the public opinion regarding personal responsibility and immigration, along with the timing of the Brexit referendum; diverted the society’s attention away from the devastating consequences of austerity policies, thus further advancing the neoliberal hegemonic power of the economic and political elites. Similar neoliberal hegemonic practices have been pursued in other countries too (Pentaraki, 2019).
The three S’s: social spending cuts, social work and solutions
Despite the government’s declarations that we were “all in this together”, social spending cuts have disproportionately affected the poor, single parents, people with disabilities, women and asylum seekers (Alston, 2018; Cooper et al., 2017; JRF, 2017). A recent study (Portes and Reed, 2018) reported that those in the bottom 20 per cent of the population would lose, on average, 10 per cent of their income as a direct consequence of welfare reforms, while those higher in the income distribution will incur much smaller losses. It also estimated that over a million and a half more children will live in households below the relative poverty line resulting from social spending cuts. People with disabilities too carry a heavy burden of recent welfare reforms. Families with disabilities are estimated to lose, on average, £11 000 by 2021/22, resulting from recent changes to taxes and social security benefits. This figure makes up nearly a third of their annual net income (Portes and Reed, 2018). Changes to welfare benefits for single parents amplify existing gender inequalities as women make up nearly 90 per cent of lone parents. In addition, the new Universal Credit programme may worsen the situation of women experiencing domestic violence, as the single payment system is likely to give more financial power over to their financial and/or physically abusive partner (House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee, 2018).
Another group that experience hardship because of austerity policies are asylum seekers. Vilified by some of the media as ‘bogus refugees’ (The Sun, 2019), asylum seekers are viewed by 47 per cent of the public as receiving too much or just the right amount of help from the UK government (Sheeka, 2018). The public opinion contrasts starkly with recent figures, showing that refugees live on just over £5 a day (Alston, 2018). Furthermore, following the implementation of austerity policies, over 39 per cent of interviewed refugee community organisation (RCOs) reported a decrease in their funding between 2009 and 2010 (Refugee Council, 2010).
Given that the welfare reform system disproportionately ‘targets’ those already marginalised in society, social workers have a professional duty, enshrined in the British Association of Social Workers ‘Code of Ethics’ (BASW, 2014), to empower and protect the rights of service users who often fall into this category. In line with the BASW’ Code of Ethics’ principles, social workers should promote anti-oppressive and empowering policies whilst challenging policies and procedures that are discriminatory in nature. With social spending cuts harming the poorest in our society most deeply, social workers should look at the recent welfare reforms through the lens of ‘sociological imagination’ (Mills, 2000)and be mindful of the systemic causes of the issues their service users’ face, instead of relying on an individualistic understanding of these issues. It is, therefore, vital for social workers to understand how hegemonic ideologies affect service users. Social workers should challenge common sense norms and the language that often harms those most in need. It is imperative for social work professionals to understand how hegemonic neoliberal influences may penetrate the apparatuses within their organisations and to reflect on the extent to which they are embedded in the “fortresses and earthworks” of civil society (Garrett, 2008: 108). In other words, social workers should engage in reflective practice to inquire to what extent they contribute to the maintenance of the ideological status quo. Gramsci hypothesised that the establishment of a successful counter-hegemony would come mainly from organic intellectuals of the working classes who put forward ideas challenging the status quo on a micro-level and less so from elitist intellectuals in the political arena (Boggs, 1976: 77). Although there had been a systematic effort by the previous governments to de-intellectualise the social work profession, visible in focus on competency and reducing education to training (Singh and Cowden, 2009), social workers can become organic individuals if they utilise their theoretical knowledge to view the plight of their service users as caused by systemic exploitation, and to use this knowledge to establish counter-hegemonic values that promote equity.
“… it is only with analytical and critical skills, underpinned by a deep commitment to social justice, that social workers can effectively resist the dominant discourse of individual and social pathology which has come to characterise neoliberal welfare policy across Europe and beyond.” (Singh and Cowden, 2009: 490)
However, merely being aware of how broader structures impact the social work profession and its service users is insufficient. According to Pentaraki (2017: 1258), social workers should form broader coalitions with service users, communities, and trade unions to “articulate a vision of another society- a society structured along with human needs”. For example, social workers could work to achieve structural changes through joining associations such as BASW, which campaign for a “more socially just context” (BASW, 2019).
Conclusion
This article has argued that despite the Conservative-led Coalition government’s rhetoric that “We’re all in this together”, it was those already disadvantaged who suffered most because of austerity policies. It has also shown that although welfare cuts caused the most hardship to the poorest of our society, most of the public, including those most disadvantaged, supported these cuts. Through the repetition of rhetoric such as ‘welfare scroungers’ and those who ‘mismanage their finances’ in the media and the political arena, the elites influenced the public’s common-sense views on personal responsibility and welfare to consent to social spending cuts. As welfare cuts have had, and continue to have, disastrous consequences for the users of social work services, social workers have a duty to challenge these cuts and the common sense language that is used to justify them.
References
Alderman, L. (2018) Portugal Dared to Cast Aside Austerity. It’s Having a Major Revival., Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/business/portugal-economy-austerity.html (Accessed: 23rd February 2019).
Alston, P. (2018) Statement on Visit to the United Kingdom, by Professor Philip Alston, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Poverty/EOM_GB_16Nov2018.pdf (Accessed: 22nd February 2019).
BASW (2014) Code of Ethics, Available at: https://www.basw.co.uk/about-basw/code-ethics (Accessed: 26th November 2020).
BASW (2019) Anti-austerity and anti-poverty, Available at: https://www.basw.co.uk/what-we-do/campaigns/anti-austerity-and-anti-poverty (Accessed: 10th February 2019).
BBC (2013) Michael Gove ‘insulted’ food-bank users, says Labour, Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24042446 (Accessed: 21st February 2019).
BBC (2017) ‘Best way out of poverty is to get a job’ says Alun Cairns’, Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-wales-politics-40007095/best-way-out-of-poverty-is-to-get-a-job-says-alun-cairns (Accessed: 21st February 2019).
Boggs, C. (1976) Gramsci’s Marxism, London: Pluto Press.
Buttigieg, J.A. (1991) Antonio Gramsci: Prison Notebooks, Oxford: Columbia University Press.
Centre for Labour and Social Studies (CLASS, 2018) Survation: Poll on the economy, Available at: https://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/CLASS-Final-Tables.pdf(Accessed: 24th February 2019).
Cooper, N., Purcell, S. and Jackson, R. (2014) Below the Breadline: the relentless rise of food poverty in Britain, Oxford: Oxfam.
Cooper, V. and Whyte, D. (2017) The violence of austerity, London: Pluto Press.
Cunningham, J. and Cunningham, S. (2014) Sociology & social work, 2nd edn., London: Learning Matters.
Deloitte (2018a) Government beyond Brexit The State of the State 2018-19, Available at: https://reform.uk/sites/default/files/2018-10/Deloitte%20State%20of%20the%20State.pdf (Accessed: 22nd February 2019).
Deloitte (2018b) Deloitte survey: As austerity ends, eight years of cuts have changed attitudes towards tax, spending and the scope of government, Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/press-releases/articles/deloitte-public-spending-survey.html (Accessed: 22nd February 2019).
Department for Work and Pensions (2018) Households Below Average Income: An analysis of the UK income distribution, Available at : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691917/households-below-average-income-1994-1995-2016-2017.pdf (Accessed: 25th February 2019).
Fetzer, T. (2018) Did Austerity Cause Brexit, Available at: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/manage/publications/381-2018_fetzer.pdf (Accessed: 20th February 2019).
Garrett, P. M. (2008) ‘Thinking with the Sardinian: Antonio Gramsci and social work’, European Journal of Social Work, 11(3), pp. 237-250 [Online]. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691450802075592?src=recsys&journalCode=cesw20 (Accessed: 19th February 2019).
Garthwaite, K. (2016) Stigma, shame and `people like us: an ethnographic study of foodbank use in the UK, Journal of poverty and social justice, 24 (3). pp. 277-289.
Garthwaite, K. (2017) ‘Rethinking deservingness, choice and gratitude in emergency food provision.’, Social Policy Review, 29, pp. 87-103.
Guajardo, J., Leigh, D. and Pescatori, A. (2011) Expansionary Austerity: New International Evidence, Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp11158.pdf (Accessed: 23rd February 2019).
HM Revenue & Customs (2018) Corporation Tax rates, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-corporation-tax/rates-and-allowances-corporation-tax (Accessed: 23rd January 2019).
Hobolt, S.B. (2016) ‘The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent’, Journal of European Policy, 23(9), pp. 1259-1277 [Online]. Available at: https://www-tandfonline-com.queens.ezp1.qub.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/13501763.2016.1225785?needAccess=true (Accessed: 21st February 2019).
House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee (2018) Universal Credit and domestic abuse, Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmworpen/1166/1166.pdf(Accessed: 23rd February 2019).
Ipsos MORI (2014) Perceptions and reality: public attitudes to immigration, Available at: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/publication/1970-01/sri-perceptions-and-reality-immigration-report-2013.pdf (Accessed: 22nd February 2019).
Jackson, T. (2015) Austerity and the rise of food banks, Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/350/bmj.h1880.full.pdf (Accessed: 23rd February 2019).
JRF (2017) UK Poverty 2017: A comprehensive analysis of poverty trends and figures, Available at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-2017 (Accessed: 22nd February 2019).
Knox, R. (2017) ‘Legalising the Violence of Austerity’, in Cooper, V. and Whyte, D. (ed.) The violence of austerity. London: Pluto Press, pp. 181-187.
Lambie-Mumford, H. (2015) SPERI Paper No. 18 – Addressing Food Poverty in the UK: Charity, Rights and Welfare, Available at: http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/SPERI-Paper-18-food-poverty-in-the-UK.pdf (Accessed: 19th February 2019).
Loopstra, R., Reeves, A., Taylor-Robinson, D., Barr, B., McKee, M., and
Lord Ashcroft (2016) How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday… and why, Available at: https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/(Accessed: 23rd February 2019).
Mail Online (2014) No ID, no checks… and vouchers for sob stories: The truth behind those shock food bank claims, Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608606/No-ID-no-checks-vouchers-sob-stories-The-truth-shock-food-bank-claims.html(Accessed: 20th February 2019).
Mills, C.W. (2000) The Sociological Imagination, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Reilly, J., Froud, J., Johal, S., Williams, K., Warhurst, C., Morgan, G., Grey, C., Wood, G., Wright, M., Boyer, R., Frerichs, S., Sankari, S., Rona-Tas, A., and Le Gale’s, P. (2016) ‘Brexit: understanding the socio-economic origins and consequences’, Socio-Economic Review, 14(4), pp. 807-854 [Online]. Available at: https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.queens.ezp1.qub.ac.uk/lib/qub/reader.action?docID=4861800 (Accessed: 22nd February 2019).
Ofcom (2017) News Consumption in the UK: 2016, Available at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/103570/news-consumption-uk-2016.pdf (Accessed: 20th February 2019).
Pentaraki, M. (2013) ‘‘If we do not cut social spending, we will end up like Greece’: Challenging consent to austerity through social work action’, Critical Social Policy, 33(4), pp. 700-711 [Online]. Available at: https://journals-sagepub-com.queens.ezp1.qub.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1177/0261018313489941 (Accessed: 2nd February 2019).
Pentaraki, M. (2017) ‘I am in a constant state of insecurity trying to make ends meet, like our service users: shared austerity reality between social workers and service users- towards a preliminary conceptualisation’, The British Journal of Social Work, 47(4), pp. 1245–1261 [Online]. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article-abstract/47/4/1245/2622352?redirectedFrom=fulltext (Accessed: 23rd February 2019).
Pentaraki, M. (2019). Austerity common sense and contested understandings of the austerity measures within a leadership of a professional association of social workers. European Journal of Social Work, 22(6), 935-946.
Perry, J., Williams, A., Sefton, T., and Haddad, M. (2014) Emergency Use Only Understanding and reducing the use of food banks in the UK, Available at: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/335731/rr-emergency-use-only-food-banks-uk-191114-en.pdf;jsessionid=695E3D2B74362AA6A2E4A0ECA12A26DF?sequence=1 (Accessed: 21st February 2019).
Pettinger, T. (2018) Debt as % of GDP, Available at: https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/2776/economics/debt-as-of-gdp/ (Accessed: 23rd February 2019).
Portes, J., and Reed, H. (2018) The cumulative impact of tax and welfare reforms, Available at: http://equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/cumulative-impact-assessment-report.pdf (Accessed: 24th February 2019).
Refugee Council (2010) The impact of the spending cuts on refugee community organisations, Available at: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/assets/0001/5813/Briefing_-_impact_of_spending_cuts_on_RCOs_22_1010.pdf (Accessed: 25th February 2019).
Sheeka, F. (2018) World Refugee Day 2018: How does the British public feel about refugees, Available at: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/06/20/world-refugee-day-2018-how-does-british-public-fee (Accessed: 25th February 2019).
Singh, G. and Cowden, S. (2009) ‘The social worker as intellectual’, European Journal of Social Work, 12(4), pp. 479-493 [Online]. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13691450902840689?needAccess=true(Accessed: 25th February 2019).
Spencer, D. (2016) Forget Brexit – austerity is far worse for the UK economy, Available at: https://theconversation.com/forget-brexit-austerity-is-far-worse-for-the-uk-economy-60346 (Accessed: 23rd February 2019).
Spours, K. (2015) ‘Osborne Supremacy: Observing the new conservative political hegemony’, Juncture, 22(2), pp. 90-98. [Online]. Available at: http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.queens.ezp1.qub.ac.uk/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=5a3d4e9f-7a19-4c54-8331-265e5edaeccf%40sessionmgr4008 (Accessed: 18th February 2019).
Stuckler, D. (2015) ‘Austerity, sanctions, and the rise of food banks in the UK’, British Medical Journal, 350, pp. 1-6 [Online]. Available at: https://www-bmj-com.queens.ezp1.qub.ac.uk/content/350/bmj.h1775 (Accessed: 20th February 2019).
The Conservative Party (2015) The Conservative Party Manifesto, Available at: http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/ukmanifestos2015/localpdf/Conservatives.pdf(Accessed: 22nd February 2019).
The Guardian (2010) George Osborne’s speech in full, Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/sep/29/toryconference.georgeosborne(Accessed: 23rd February 2019).
The Sun (2014) Food banks are a mistake: A hand-out, not a hand-up, Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/749107/food-banks-are-a-mistake-a-hand-out-not-a-hand-up/ (Accessed: 20th February 2019).
The Sun (2019) WELCOME TO BRITAIN UK encouraging illegal immigrants by not deporting bogus refugees in the tens of thousands, bombshell report claims, Available at: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8167669/britain-encouraging-illegal-immigrants-not-deporting-bogus-refugees/ (Accessed: 23rd February 2019).
The Trussell Trust (2018) The next stage of Universal Credit Moving onto the new benefit system and foodbank use, Available at: https://www.trusselltrust.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/10/The-next-stage-of-Universal-Credit-Report-Final.pdf(Accessed: 23rd February 2019).