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
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Key questions answered on Sizewell C after Reeves confirms nuclear investment
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has signed off on a £16 billion investment in nuclear power, including funding to build the Sizewell C nuclear power station. It comes ahead of the spending review on Wednesday, where Ms Reeves will outline departmental budgets for the next three years. Here we answer key questions about Sizewell C and the Government's wider nuclear power plans. – What is the Sizewell C nuclear plant? Sizewell C was first proposed 15 years ago on a site by the hamlet Sizewell, which sits on the Suffolk coast between Aldeburgh and Southwold. The area is already home to two separate power stations, the decommissioned Sizewell A nuclear plant and pressurised water reactor Sizewell B. Nuclear power plants use a process called nuclear fission, where atoms split, releasing heat which is then used to generate electricity. – How much funding has the Government announced? The Chancellor said £14.2 billion will be invested to build the Sizewell C plant, marking the end of a long journey to secure funding for the project since it was first earmarked in 2010. At the peak of construction, Sizewell C is expected to provide 10,000 jobs. The company behind the project has already signed £330 million worth of contracts with local businesses. Elsewhere, the Government confirmed one of Europe's first small modular reactor (SMR) programmes, backed by £2.5 billion in taxpayers' money over five years. Ministers announced Rolls-Royce as the winners of a long-running competition on Tuesday for the bid to build the SMR programme. – How could Sizewell C contribute to the UK's future energy system? Sizewell C will power the equivalent of six million homes and is planned to be operation in the 2030s, the Government said. It is also understood that the plant will generate electricity for 60 years. The Treasury said that, combined with the ambition to build SMRs, it would deliver more new nuclear energy to the grid than over the previous half century by the 2030s. It comes as nuclear plants are seen as increasingly important electricity sources as the Government tries to decarbonise Britain's grid by 2030, replacing fossil fuels with green power. The last time Britain completed one was in 1987, which was the Sizewell B plant. Hinkley Point C, in Somerset, is under construction and is expected to produce enough power for about six million homes when it opens, but that may not be until 2031. Sizewell C is part of the Government's wider ambitions to support clean power, such as wind and solar, and decarbonise the country's power grid to tackle the climate crisis and ensure future energy security. – What are small modular reactors? SMRs are a nuclear fission reactor that are a fraction of the size of a traditional nuclear plant. This means they can be built on smaller sites across the country, closer to where the electricity is needed. Still an emerging technology, only China and Russia have successfully built operational SMRs. The Government says the newly-announced UK project could support up to 3,000 new skilled jobs and power the equivalent of around three million homes, with a first site expected to be allocated later this year by state-owned Great British Energy – Nuclear. The hope is eventually attract private investment, especially from tech companies, which might build SMRs to power data centres.– Who has welcomed the Government funding? Trade unions welcomed the move, which the Treasury said would go towards creating 10,000 jobs, including 1,500 apprenticeships. The GMB union said giving Sizewell C the go-ahead was 'momentous'. Regional secretary Warren Kenny said: 'Nuclear power is essential for clean, affordable, and reliable energy – without new nuclear, there can be no net zero. 'Sizewell C will provide thousands of good, skilled, unionised jobs and we look forward to working closely with the Government and Sizewell C to help secure a greener future for this country's energy sector.' Mike Clancy, general secretary of Prospect, said: 'Delivering this funding for Sizewell C is a vital step forward, this project is critical to securing the future of the nuclear industry in the UK. 'New nuclear is essential to achieving net zero, providing a baseload of clean and secure energy, as well as supporting good, unionised jobs. 'Further investment in SMRs and fusion research shows we are finally serious about developing a 21st-century nuclear industry. 'All funding must be backed up by a whole-industry plan to ensure we have the workforce and skills we need for these plans to succeed.' – Who has criticised the plans? Various campaigners oppose the plant and have criticised the decision to commit the funding, saying it is still not clear what the total cost will be. Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C said ministers had not 'come clean' about the full cost of the project, which the group has previously estimated could be some £40 billion. 'There still appears to be no final investment decision for Sizewell C, but £14.2 billion in taxpayers' funding, a decision we condemn and firmly believe the Government will come to regret. 'Where is the benefit for voters in ploughing more money into Sizewell C that could be spent on other priorities, and when the project will add to consumer bills and is guaranteed to be late and overspent just like Hinkley C? 'Ministers have still not come clean about Sizewell C's cost and, given negotiations with private investors are incomplete, they have signed away all leverage and will be forced to offer generous deals that undermine value for money. Starmer and Reeves have just signed up to HS2 mark 2.' Environmental campaigners have also warned of the impact the plant could have on local wildlife, given Sizewell is surrounded by protected areas. The whole coast is an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB), the shingle beach is a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) while the nearby Sizewell Marshes and Leiston Sandlings are special protected areas (SPAs) for birds. Many argue that ministers should focus on investing in renewable energy, such as wind farms, instead. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Starmer and Farage have doomed Britain to a spiral of decline
The Government's decision to U-turn on the winter fuel allowance is absurd – and, sadly, a big indicator that Reform UK is not going to be the party which breaks Britain out of its spiral of self-inflicted decline. Rachel Reeves plans to restore the WFA to all pensioners with an income up to £35,000 a year. It will then be clawed back from the wealthiest retirees via the tax system. Overall, around 7.5 million older people who missed the payment last year are set to receive it again – at an apparent cost in the region of £1.25 billion a year. Paul Johnson, the Chair of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, puts it well: 'It wouldn't even be in the top 100 of things that I would do with my £1.25bn if I wanted to act on poverty. Almost none of the people impacted by this will be in poverty.' He's right. The Government's decision to means test the WFA removed the payment from some ten million people; of these, its own analysis suggested that only 50,000 or so were placed into 'relative fuel poverty'. And remember, 'relative poverty' is merely an income inequality metric; it doesn't mean someone is necessarily unable to afford heating. Even on the face of it, therefore, Reeves is hosing money at 7.5 million people for the sake of lifting just 50,000 out of 'relative' poverty. But closer consideration of the numbers reveals even deeper absurdities. Take the income requirement of £35,000. From the off, that is only a couple of grand less than the national average wage of £37,430. Why should pensioners on that income receive a fuel payment when working-age people on similar incomes do not? If anything, those working-age people are more deserving of help – for their cost of living is often substantially increased by costs from which many pensioners are exempt. How many of those 7.5 million beneficiaries, for example, are living mortgage-free? Retirees are also exempt from National Insurance, and that has big implications for their real income. Without NICs, that £35,000 becomes about £2,500 a month post-tax; for a working person to be in a similar position, they would need to earn quite a bit more than the average wage (enough to be in the top 37 per cent of earners, or thereabouts). Pensioner poverty was a real problem in 2010, when the Coalition Government first introduced the Triple Lock. But whilst there are some struggling pensioners today, it is absurd that the State continues giving indiscriminate welfare to what has become, on average, this country's wealthiest age cohort. Our pathological inability to cut entitlement spending, even to people who obviously don't need it, is one of the main reasons our country is in such a sorry state. We are all but conducting a controlled experiment in how much of the state can be all but dismantled – prisons, courts, the military – in order to avoid touching the big revenue expenditure accounts. Arresting British decline will require breaking out of this cycle. But it's a prisoner's dilemma for politicians: try to do the right thing, as Theresa May did on social care, and it creates an all-too-tempting opening for opportunistic opponents to exploit – as Labour did then, and as Reform UK has done now. Now forced to govern in the long shadow of wildly unrealistic voter expectations, Labour is probably quietly regretting its game-playing over the 'dementia tax'. If Nigel Farage ever becomes prime minister, and is forced to admit the extravagant savings he claims he can get from abolishing DEI and net zero are for the birds, he may well regret killing off such an obvious cut as the winter fuel allowance. 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.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Peter Mandelson, UK's top man in Washington, proves the naysayers wrong
Ambassador Peter Mandelson, the U.K.'s top diplomat in Washington, had a chorus of naysayers and detractors on both sides of the pond when his appointment was first announced six months ago — a trend not helped by his past criticism of the new U.S. president and reputation as a cunning, center-left political strategist. But within a few months, he helped the Labour government strike the first — and so far only — foreign trade agreement with President Trump, scoring what was widely seen as a win for Britain amid the president's tariffs threats. Does Mandelson feel vindicated after his first few months on the job? 'I probably feel more relieved,' he told The Hill during an interview at his opulent, Edwin Lutyens-designed residence. Sitting on a sofa with a portrait of Winston Churchill looming over him, Mandelson recalled his critics labeling him a 'pro-trade globalist,' which he cops to; a 'China lover,' due to his lifelong interest in the country; and 'pro-European,' after a stint as a member of the European Commission that now finds itself at odds with the Trump White House. 'Some people wanted to give me a hard time,' Mandelson said of the days immediately following his appointment. 'Steve Bannon said that we will either blow Mandelson out of the water or bring him to heel,' he said with a glint in his eye. But Mandelson frames his varied past — atypical of a Washington-based diplomat — as an asset. 'Well, yes, I do want the European Union to work. I know enough about it to know what it needs to do to change for the better. But of course, I want it to work. But Britain, whilst a European country, is no longer in the European Union, so we've got to work alongside the EU,' he said. In a key Oval Office appearance, complete with compliments for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer as well as praise for Mandelson's 'beautiful accent,' Trump last month announced his first framework agreement on trade. So far, the U.K. is still the only country to have gotten to that end post, which Mandelson credits to being 'America's best friend' and 'understanding where the president is coming from'. Mandelson's time in the Oval Office with Trump also thrust him into the spotlight here in the United States. For an hour, he stood next to the president as he touted the framework of the new deal, which partially stole the spotlight from his prime minister, who made his remarks via a speakerphone from the U.K. 'I think it's the first time an ambassador of any country has been asked to make remarks in the Oval,' he added. But for the British ambassador, the moment he was asked to speak by Trump came as a surprise. 'I was advised that I wouldn't be invited to say anything. That I was just there as an ornament, he said. Since Trump's return to the Oval Office, the U.K. has waged a public charm offensive in its relations with the new administration. Mandelson has retracted his past criticism of the president and is nothing but praises for the new commander in chief. He adds that while 'some people rail against the president and what he says,' most issues prioritized by Trump have 'a kernel of truth' — a sign he is identifying issues that are a concern to voters. One potential bone of contention, however, is the claim from some members of Trump's administration, including Vice President Vance, that freedom of speech is infringed upon in the U.K. The issue that led to a minor clash during Starmer's Oval Office visit. 'I find it very hard to think of it in my country, being an enemy of freedom of speech,' Mandleson told The Hill. That's not our value system; it's not our history.' But for the British ambassador, knowing that Trump has his 'finger on the pulse' presents a challenge for him in his new role 'understanding and interpreting' the administration to the U.K. 'That's what I'm doing,' he adds. He also said Trump and the U.S. have the 'heft and the leverage' to bring Russia to the negotiating table and broker peace in Ukraine, and that ultimately, it's Trump and U.S. allies that must prevail — not Putin. 'We need that not just for Ukraine, but for peace in Europe and for the safety of the world. There's only one country that will be cheering if the American president is defeated, and that's China,' he says. When asked if he had any advice for Democrats after having helped his own party come back from the brink of chaos into power, Mandelson hesitated to share any outright wisdom, despite admitting to having helped 'dig out' the Labour Party in the past. 'All I'd say is: Don't fall back on a 'business as usual' approach. We didn't,' he explains. Voters that deem a party to be more 'ideological' than driven by common sense, he warns, 'will part company from you'. Mandelson has had, in his lifetime, many reinventions. Aside from helping the Labour Party return to power in the 90s, he's had a host of other high-power roles in the British government, including being a member of Parliament and a Cabinet member in former Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, which he had to resign from after scandal. Mandelson resigned as Trade secretary in 1998 after British media wrote about a secret home loan he had received from a fellow minister. He later resigned as Northern Ireland secretary in 2001 over allegations he had helped facilitate a passport application from an Indian billionaire but was later cleared of wrongdoing. He still holds a seat in the House of Lords. After all that, he says, he strives to be 'uncontroversial', having had more than enough controversy in his life. 'Today, I think I'm really past the point in looking for more of it. I want to be known for my effectiveness in representing my country, its king and its government.' It might also be why Mandelson says he has trouble sleeping these days: He worries about what he hasn't done, or done properly or thoroughly. Most in Washington's tight-knit diplomatic scene know the British Embassy as being host to a high-profile guest list and colorful cast of characters to mingle with. In the past few months, the embassy has hosted parties including a wide range of Trump administration figures, including FBI Director Kash Patel and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, along with a smorgasbord of the city's who's who. But Mandelson admits he's not the main star at the events at his residence. Instead, it's his 10-year-old border collie, Jock, who he says has 'done even better' than he has on the D.C. scene. He isn't wrong. At parties, guests queue up to interact with Jock to play a game of fetch. Every morning, Mandelson and Jock wake to the sounds of 'The Star-Spangled Banner' from the Vice President's home. 'There's no holding Jock after that, he's out of the door. But I love it too, because it makes me feel American, which is nice. I love living here.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
