Absolutely. By definition, something is only an investment if there is a reasonable expectation that it will directly result in an increased return later - and generally that the expected increase in return should be more than the amount spent to get it. In real terms.
Otherwise it's just consumption.
So increased welfare spending almost certainly isn’t an investment. There might be an increase in wellbeing, but it is unlikely to translate into increased work, especially given that it reduces incentives. So it's just consumption.
Interestingly, Tony Blair's investment in education arguably didn't bring a significant return, as productivity flat-lined. It was expected to improve productivity in the UK, but didn't. So economically, we shouldn't claim education spending as investment - the first time it was an investment which proved ineffective, but now that we know it doesn't work, we have to accept that it is consumption. We may still decide as a country to increase education spending (I would like us to) but we should be clear that it's consumption (on a good we value - education - which improves our happiness as a nation) rather than investment.
Too many on the left make qualitative assumptions based on their values/ideology - eg that increasing education spending will increase productivity, or that increasing health spending will reduce worklessness - without the discipline to look quantitatively at what actually happens. Ie whether their assumption proves correct when applied.