The "strivers vs. skivers" political framing has had several profound and well-documented social and political effects: [1, 2, 3]

• Stigmatization and Dehumanization: It divides society into a false moral binary (hard-working, righteous "strivers" versus lazy, undeserving "skivers"), deeply shaming benefit claimants, people with disabilities, and out-of-work families.
• Justification of Welfare Cuts: The narrative provided a political justification for sweeping austerity measures, public spending cuts, and punitive welfare-to-work policies by portraying state support as a lifestyle choice or handout rather than a social safety net.
• Pitting Communities Against Each Other: It fostered a corrosive sense of resentment among low-income working families—many of whom were themselves relying on in-work benefits or tax credits—directing frustration at unemployed neighbours rather than structural economic issues like low wages or high housing costs.
• Distortion of Public Perception: It fueled massive public misperceptions regarding the scale of unemployment, welfare spending, and benefit fraud, masking the reality that a large percentage of housing or state-support recipients are actually in paid work.