Labour's benefits reforms are absolutely necessary and long overdue
One overcast Saturday morning in 2002, I was holding an advice surgery for constituents in Castlemilk, the poverty-stricken housing estate in the south-east corner of my Glasgow Cathcart constituency.
It was a relatively quiet session, but a visit by two young men has remained in my memory ever since. They were about sixteen, had just left school and one of them (his mate was only there to offer moral support) wanted to know how to claim out-of-work benefits.
The boy was explicitly looking for long-term financial support that would excuse him from the task of ever having to seek work or full-time education. When I asked him what physical ailment prevented him from getting a job, he replied with a knowing smirk towards his friend: 'Bad back.'
I didn't ask if any of his own family members were claiming what was then known as Incapacity Benefit; I didn't have to. There were few families in the area, then or now, whose income didn't rely at least in part on the largesse of the state, despite the fact many members were of working age.
Even before I became an MP, I had toured my local constituency Labour Party branches urging members to support the Blair Government's efforts to reform the system.
I probably used many of the clichés and blithe assumptions that Labour MPs use today to defend their support of the Work and Pensions Secretary, Liz Kendall, and her plans to institute genuinely radical reform: that Labour is the party of work, not of benefits.
The clue in the name! Many people on out-of-work benefits want to work; they just need more support to do so.
Neither of these statements is strictly true. Yes, Labour was founded to represent the working classes in Parliament. It's also true that one of its founders, Keir Hardie, had little time for those who chose worklessness over employment.
But culturally, today's party is dominated by middle class activists to whom the prospect of a Labour Government forcing benefit claimants into work is anathema. And while the claim that 'many' might prefer work to benefits is in some degree true, it is far too small a degree to make much difference to the economic necessity of reform.
And that is the fundamental challenge that Kendall and the Government face: if Britain is to be transformed in a way that will radically reduce the numbers claiming out-of-work benefits, it will need to disappoint – nay, enrage – many of its supporters.
It will need to annoy a large proportion of the people within the party itself, and also a considerable number of (well-paid and productively employed) media commentators and other stakeholders.
There is, of course, an economic case for reducing the cost to the state's finances. And this is especially crucial now because the excuses people come up with are getting more absurd.
In previous decades the preferred excuse of my young constituent and many others for claiming benefits was 'a bad back'. This is a conveniently unevidenced malady. But today more psychological – and therefore even less provable – ailments have become more popular among those hoping to leave the burden of honest labour behind them for a life of watching daytime TV.
The numbers claiming to suffer from stress, depression and even PTSD (which, oddly, affects many who have not served in the Armed Forces) has swelled the claimant numbers.
Britain simply can't afford to continue to fund a situation in which a large proportion of the population is allowed to claim benefits rather than earn a living and pay taxes. This is a truth that can either be faced now, when there remains some opportunity to address it, or in the future, when the rot will have gone too far to stop the country from sliding into national decline and bankruptcy.
Which is where the moral case for Kendall's mission comes in. Labour's Left-wing has been most vocal in its opposition to reform, which is only to be expected: what is the point of being on the Left at all if you don't seize every available opportunity to broadcast your morally superior concerns for poor people that callous Right-wingers, even in your own party, don't care about?
But there is no moral case for living off the hard-earned taxes of those who actually have a job. And there is nothing noble about allowing those who suffer from a range of mental illnesses to remain at home when you know that having a job and working side-by-side with colleagues will do far more to improve their mental health than the status quo ever could.
These are hard truths that previous Governments, including the Labour Government I served, managed to avoid. Electoral considerations always prevailed over the optimistic rhetoric of ministers. This meant that reform was downgraded to a mere tinkering at the edges of the benefits system.
Kendall's appointment as Work and Pensions Secretary was one of Keir Starmer's most astute decisions. She is ambitious and supremely capable. But more importantly she understands what is at stake if she fails. She is far from the heartless caricature that her opponents in the Labour Party describe. In fact she could well be the saviour of countless working class communities that have been scarred by generations of political failure.
But that success depends on difficult short-term decisions that will be drastically unpopular and which will have some painful consequences for some people. It would be easy for the Government to abandon this project for the sake of electoral advantage and popularity. That would be more than a mistake: it would be a betrayal of the very people the Labour Party claims to represent.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The winners and losers in Labour's first spending review
When Rachel Reeves publishes the government's spending review on Wednesday, the stories the Treasury will want to tell are the energy, transport and other infrastructure projects that will get a share of the big boost in capital funding – £113bn. They will argue that cash, freed up by the change to the fiscal rules in the budget, could only have happened under Labour and was opposed by the Tories and Reform. But the capital spending cannot stop expected cuts in day-to-day spending, meaning extremely tight settlements for departments, with savings expected from policing budgets, local government, civil service cuts, foreign aid, education and culture. Treasury sources said they would still spend £190bn more over the five-year parliament than the Conservatives' spending plans – meaning more than £300bn will be distributed among departments. Real-terms spending will grow at an average of 1.2% a year over the three years that the spending review period covers, a significant drop from the first two years when it will be 2.5%. Even that figure does not tell the full story because of the disproportionate boost being given to defence and the NHS – and has led the Institute for Fiscal Studies to warn that the spending commitments will require 'chunky tax rises' in the autumn, when coupled with other expected priorities such as restoring the winter fuel allowance to more pensioners and action on child poverty such as ending the two-child benefit limit. Here are some of the key offers from the spending review – and the rows over cuts. The biggest row of the spending review has been between Reeves and the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, over policing, which one source describes as being a 'huge headache'. Cooper has brought out the big guns to make her case, first with a letter from six police chiefs who warned that without more funding the government would not meet its manifesto promises on crime. Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan police, and other senior police officers have also written to the prime minister to warn him that investment was need to prevent some crimes being routinely ignored. It is understood the policing budget will not face real terms cuts but the level of spending is still under discussion. The Home Office is under strain as a major spending department that is key to some of the most ambitious manifesto pledges – including halving knife crime, police recruitment, reducing violence against women and girls as well as dealing with monitoring offenders who will be released earlier due to sentencing changes. The other major spending review row is over deep dissatisfaction from Angela Rayner – the deputy prime minister and housing secretary – with the level of funding for social homes in the spending review, making her one of the last remaining holdouts in negotiations with the Treasury over departmental spending settlements. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been battling for more funding for the affordable homes programme as well as trying to preserve cash for local councils, homelessness and regional growth initiatives. The Treasury had previously put £2bn into affordable housing, described as a 'down payment' on further funding to be announced at the spending review, which Reeves said would mark a generational shift in the building of council homes. However, the next phase of funding has caused a major rift with Rayner – and more so because capital spending on infrastructure such as housing is meant to be a priority. The environment secretary, Steve Reed, is said to have been holding out for a big capital injection to fund flood defences. The autumn budget said the government was facing significant funding pressures on flood defences and farm schemes of almost £600m in 2024-25, and that those schemes would have to be reviewed for their affordability. Sources at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) confirmed a post-Brexit farming fund would be cut in the review. Labour promised a fund of £5bn over two years – from 2024 to 2026 – at the budget, which is being honoured, but in the years after that it will be slashed for all but a few farms. The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, had a long fight to keep cash for a major programme of insulation, which was a key part of the government's net zero strategy. However, there are reports suggesting other schemes could be scaled back to protect the insulation programme. At the October budget, Reeves announced £3.4bn over three years for household energy efficiency schemes, heat decarbonisation and fuel poverty schemes. The government responded to concerns expressed at the time calling the sum the 'bare minimum' and promising a spending uplift at the review. Miliband's department is expected to get significant capital investment in energy infrastructure including nuclear – with the government poised to give the go ahead to the Sizewell C nuclear plant. The chancellor has already announced £15bn in transport spending across the north of England, funds which she said fulfil promises made by the Conservatives to the country but which the party had no way to pay for them in its own plan. Wes Streeting's department is set to be one of the big winners of the spending review and it will lay the groundwork for the NHS 10-year plan, which will be published imminently after the spending review. The department will get one of the biggest boosts to funding as others face real-terms cuts. The funding for the plan prioritises three key areas, moving care from hospitals to communities, increasing the use of technology, and prioritising prevention. No 10 and Streeting hope that the 10-year plan will contain major commitments and a positive story that the government will finally be able to tell properly on improvements to the health service – though any good news could be scuppered by the ballot for strike action by resident doctors. Still, Streeting's department was one of the last to settle formally with the Treasury due to negotiations over drug prices, though departmental sources downplayed any specific row. Any child in England whose parents receive universal credit will be able to claim free school meals from September 2026, the government has said. Parents on the credit will be eligible regardless of their income. The government says the change will make 500,000 more pupils eligible. A Department for Education (DfE) source said it was the best measure outside welfare changes to address child poverty and that the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, had consistently fought to protect school food programmes through each round of spending negotiations. But schools budgets will be squeezed. Teachers will get a 4% pay rise next year, with additional funding of £615m. But schools will still have to fund about a quarter of the rise themselves – a total of £400m from their current budgets. Phillipson has tasked the DfE with finding savings in schools budgets, such as energy bills. Savings will also come as the government is removing public funding for level 7 apprenticeships, which has drawn criticism from skills experts. The justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, was one of the first to reach her settlement to allow her to announce a £4.7bn plan to build three new prisons starting this year, part of a 'record expansion' as the government attempts to get to grips with the prison crisis. The early announcement was essential because it came alongside an announcement that the government would put a limit on how long hundreds of repeat offenders can be recalled to prison amid Whitehall predictions that jails will be full again in November.
Fast Company
15 minutes ago
- Fast Company
OpenAI and Anthropic are getting cozy with government. What could possibly go wrong?
While the world and private enterprise are adopting AI rapidly in their workflows, government isn't far behind. The U.K. government has said early trials of AI-powered productivity tools can shave two weeks of labor off a year's work, and AI companies are adapting to that need. More than 1,700 AI use cases have been recorded in the U.S. government, long before Elon Musk's DOGE entered the equation and accelerated AI adoption throughout the public sector. Federal policies introduced in April on AI adoption and procurement have pushed this trend further. It's unsurprising that big tech companies are rolling out their own specialist models to meet that demand. Anthropic, the maker of the Claude chatbot, announced last week a series of models tailored for use by government employees. These include features such as the ability to handle classified materials and understand some of the bureaucratic language that plagues official documents. Anthropic has said its models are already deployed by agencies 'at the highest level of U.S. national security, and access to these models is limited to those who operate in such classified environments.' The announcement follows a similar one by OpenAI, the makers of ChatGPT, which released its own government-tailored AI models in January to 'streamline government agencies' access to OpenAI's frontier models.' But AI experts worry about governments becoming overly reliant on AI models, which can hallucinate information, inherit biases that discriminate against certain groups at scale, or steer policy in misguided directions. They also express concern over governments being locked into specific providers, who may later increase prices that taxpayers would be left to fund. 'I worry about governments using this kind of technology and relying on tech companies, and in particular, tech companies who have proven to be quite untrustworthy,' says Carissa Véliz, who researches AI ethics at the University of Oxford. She points out that the generative AI revolution so far, sparked by the November 2022 release of ChatGPT, has seen governments scrambling to retrofit rules and regulations in areas such as copyright to accommodate tech companies after they've bent those rules. 'It just shows a power relationship there that doesn't look good for government,' says Véliz. 'Government is supposed to be the legislator, the one making the rules and enforcing the rules.' Beyond those moral concerns, she also worries about the financial stakes involved. 'There's just a sheer dependency on a company that has financial interests, that is based in a different country, in a situation in which geopolitics is getting quite complicated,' says Véliz, explaining why countries outside the United States might hesitate to sign on to use ClaudeGov or ChatGPT Gov. It's the same argument the U.S. uses about overreliance on TikTok, which has Chinese ties, amid fears that figures like Donald Trump could pressure U.S.-based firms to act in politically motivated ways. OpenAI didn't respond to Fast Company 's request for comment. A spokesperson for Anthropic says the company is committed to transparency, citing published work on model risks, a detailed system card, and collaborations with the U.S. and U.K. governments to test AI systems. Some fear that AI companies are securing 'those big DoD bucks,' as programmer Ashe Dryden put it on Mastodon, and could perpetuate that revenue by fostering dependency on their specific models. The rollout of these models reflects broader shifts in the tech landscape that increasingly tie government, national security and technology together. For example, defense tech firm Anduril recently raised $5 billion in a new funding round that values the company at over $30 billion. Others have argued that the release of these government-specific models by AI companies 'isn't [about] national security. This is narrative laundering,' as one LinkedIn commenter put it. The idea is that these moves echo the norms already set by big government rather than challenging them, potentially reinforcing existing issues. 'I've always been a sceptic of a single supplier for IT services, and this is no exception,' says Andres Guadamuz, an AI researcher at the University of Sussex. Guadamuz believes the development of government-specific AI models is still in its early phase, and urges decisionmakers to pause before signing deals. 'Governments should keep their options open,' he says. 'Particularly with a crowded AI market, large entities such as the government can have a better negotiating position.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Welsh FM accused of doing ‘nothing' to protect pensioners from winter fuel cut
The First Minister of Wales has been accused of doing 'absolutely nothing' to protect pensioners, following a UK Government U-turn on winter fuel payment cuts. Darren Millar, leader of the Welsh Conservatives, called for Eluned Morgan to apologise to the pensioners affected by the change last winter, arguing the Welsh Government should have stepped in to support those in need. Speaking during First Minister's Questions on Tuesday, Mr Millar said the cut had forced vulnerable people to choose between heating and eating. Baroness Morgan, leader of the Welsh Labour Government, said she was 'absolutely delighted' that the UK Government had reversed the cut for many. The payment, worth up to £300, will be restored to the vast majority of pensioners, with anyone with an income of under £35,000 a year now getting the payment automatically. The decision last July to restrict the winter fuel payment to the poorest pensioners was intended to save around £1.5 billion a year, with more than nine million people who would have previously been eligible losing out. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, announced the partial U-turn on Monday, following significant backlash from charities, opposition MPs and the Government's own backbenchers. Speaking in the Senedd, Mr Millar said: 'Yesterday we saw a screeching U-turn on the winter fuel allowance by Rachel Reeves, after considerable pressure from the Conservative Party. 'You will know that over half a million Welsh pensioners were deprived of their winter fuel payments last year, leaving some very vulnerable people with the unenvious choice of having to choose between heating and eating – it's an absolute disgrace. 'You are meant to stand up for Wales but what did you actually do in terms of this winter fuel allowance? You did absolutely nothing.' Mr Millar argued Baroness Morgan should have implemented a Welsh winter fuel payment or stood up to Sir Keir Starmer and demanded the payment be restored sooner. Baroness Morgan responded that she was 'absolutely delighted' that Sir Keir Starmer had listened to pensioners in Wales and across the country. 'I'm really pleased that because we have made representations to the Prime Minister on this issue that he has changed his mind and that will make a difference to hundreds of thousands of pensioners across Wales this winter, in a country where we do have more older people and housing which is more difficult to heat. 'I don't think that it's bad to listen to people and then to make sure that you respond to them.' Baroness Morgan had previously pushed back against the cut, having called for a 'rethink' in early May, saying it was something 'that comes up time and again'. At the time, the Government said there would 'not be a change to the Government's policy'. On Monday, Ms Reeves suggested that the 'stability we've brought back to the economy' meant the Government was able to change the eligibility threshold for winter fuel payments.
