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
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Four ways the spending review could impact you
Rachel Reeves has said her spending review tomorrow will be about 'making working people better off', admitting that not enough Britons are feeling their lives improving under the Labour government. Sharing out some £113 billion freed up by looser borrowing rules, the chancellor is expected to announce funding increases for the NHS, schools and defence along with several infrastructure projects. However, other areas could face cuts as the Treasury tries to fulfil its self-imposed fiscal rule to match day-to-day spending with revenues. Some have suggested that the government will be unable to achieve this balance without imposing higher taxes, with tomorrow's spending review likely to set the tone for this year's autumn budget. Here, Yahoo News takes a look at what the spending review entails, and how it is likely to affect your lives. A spending review is the process the government uses to set all departments' budgets for future years, according to the website, including for public services. The current 2025 spending review takes place in two phases – the first of which concluded at the 2024 autumn budget when spending plans for 2024/25 and 2025/26 were confirmed. Phase two, will prioritise delivering the government's missions, and has seen departments holding negotiations with the Treasury over their spending plans for the coming years. Reeve's announcement tomorrow will set planned day-to-day spending totals for all government departments from 2026/27 to 2028/29, and investment spending plans for a further year (from 2026/27 to 2029/30). The government has said that its review will be 'zero-based', meaning it will set budgets from zero and assess all spending for value for money, rather than adjusting up or down from existing budgets, according to Parliamentary documents. Here are some ways this process could affect the lives of ordinary Britons. The NHS is expected to receive an additional £30bn in funding in tomorrow's spending review – most likely at the expense of other public services. A 2.8% increase to the Department of Health and Social Care's day-to-day budget is reportedly to be set over the three year spending review period, which according to The Times, amounts to a £17bn real-terms increase, although capital spending is only expected to rise in line with inflation. What does this mean for patients? Well, it could help the government achieve its target of 92% of patients in England waiting for planned treatment being seen within 18 weeks of referral by the next election, rather than the current 60%. The spending review will likely benefit the government's 10-year plan to modernise the NHS, including with more community-based care, better preventative treatment and digital technologies, with details on a revamp and additional funding of the NHS app expected to be announced in tomorrow's review. This, in theory at least, means you could have more freedom and flexibility in accessing scan and test results, booking appointments, and receiving information on treatments and trials, as well as the ability to choose which hospital to go to. Ahead of her review, Reeves announced that £15.6bn will go towards improving public transport projects in the North and Midlands – hopefully improving travel times and available routes. The spending settlement includes £2.5bn for Greater Manchester for projects including new tram stops in Bury, Manchester and Oldham and £2.4bn for an extension of the metro from Birmingham city centre to the new sports quarter. It also includes £2.1bn to start building West Yorkshire Mass Transit by 2028, £2bn for the East Midlands to design a new mass transit system between Derby and Nottingham and £1.8bn for a metro extension linking Newcastle and Sunderland via Washington. An additional £1.6bn is being given to Liverpool City Region for new bus routes, including to the airport and football stadiums, while £1.5bn will go to South Yorkshire, including £530m to renew the region's trams. The deal also includes £1bn for Tees Valley, including £60m for the Platform 3 extension at Middlesbrough station and £800m for the West of England, including £200m for mass transit links between Bristol, Bath, South Gloucestershire and north Somerset. The spending review looks to provide a big boost to public transport outside the capital, but Londoners will not fare as well, with Mayor Sadiq Khan decrying a lack of cash being allocated to London. Campaigners feared that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero's Warm Homes Plan was in line for cuts, although a government source has told The Guardian that Reeves has decided against this. If this does prove true, then up to 300,000 households will likely have the same level of support in saving money on their bills and making their homes more energy efficient. The plan includes a boiler upgrade scheme supporting households switching to a heat pumps, while lower-income households and renters are entitled to energy efficiency upgrades such as insulation and low-carbon heating. Access to affordable housing may still prove challenging after tomorrow's review, however, with Inside Housing writing that the government's target of delivering 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament is regarded by most as "unfulfillable". Council services such as tenant support and homelessness services could also take a hit, with councils currently making an unprecedented £1.2bn of savings and cuts to balance their books, with the County Councils Network warning tomorrow's review will be a "make or break" moment. It is rumoured that the government is considering introducing taxes on rental income for landlords in its Autumn budget to pay for the Department of Housing's spending. Schools are expected to receive an unexpected extra £4.5bn a year in the upcoming spending review in a move that will be welcomed by teachers and parents alike. This means day-to-day funding for schools will increase by more than £4.5bn a year by 2028-9 compared to this year, The Observer reports. This will help cover the expansion of free school meals for families who receive Universal Credit, and partly fund a pay rise for teachers agreed upon last month. However, school finances are still likely to feel squeezed, as the government puts £615m towards pay rises, with schools having to find £400m from their own budgets. More money is also expected for reforms to Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) provision, which will help more pupils stay in mainstream schools. Additional money is also set to be made available from the Treasury's £113bn capital investment fund to repair leaking roofs and crumbling classrooms. What is the spending review? Everything Rachel Reeves could announce to fix UK economy (The Independent) London bracing for cuts in Chancellor's Spending Review (The London Standard) Voices: Wes Streeting has won the spending review – but will he blow his winnings? (The Independent)
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Scottish Government refuses to rule out changes to pensioners' winter payment
The Scottish Government has not ruled out making changes to its equivalent on the winter fuel payment scheme, amid concerns some pensioners could be left worse off than their counterparts south of the border. A spokesperson for First Minister John Swinney said ministers at Holyrood were 'trying to understand the fiscal implications' of Monday's policy change by the UK Government. After cutting the winter fuel payment for all but the poorest pensioners last year, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has now confirmed some nine million pensioners in England and Wales will receive the benefit this winter. The payment, worth up to £300, will be restored to the vast majority of pensioners who previously received it, with those with an income of under £35,000 a year qualifying for the UK Government's payment. Today we are expanding Winter Fuel Payments to benefit nine million pensioners this winter. It is right that we continue to means-test this payment so that it is targeted and fair. That's why we have acted to expand eligibility so no pensioner on a lower income will miss out. — Rachel Reeves (@RachelReevesMP) June 9, 2025 In Scotland, ministers had already announced plans to ensure all pensioner households receive a payment. The Pension Age Winter Heating Payment will see all pensioner households get at least £100, with poorer pensioners getting either £200 or £300 depending on their age. Labour, however, challenged SNP ministers to ensure that 'no struggling Scottish pensioners will be left out of pocket under their plans'. Mr Swinney's spokesperson confirmed that, as it stands, the policy in Scotland has not been changed. But adding that ministers are 'trying to understand the fiscal implications' of what has been announced', the spokesperson refused to rule out future changes to the payments. 'We will always seek to support pensioners in Scotland the best we can, we are absolutely committed to that,' the spokesperson said. The change in policy from the UK Government will bring additional money for the Scottish Government – with the spokesperson stressing SNP ministers are 'still trying to understand' how much extra cash could be due. Here, the spokesperson stressed the Scottish Government's budget is 'set largely by Westminster', adding: 'We have to, frankly, read the tea leaves sometimes about what is going to happen to our block grant throughout the year.' The comments from the First Minister's spokesperson came as Scottish Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville described the UK Government's handling of of the benefit as 'shambolic'. Ms Somerville welcomed Labour's U-turn on the benefit cut, but said the decision should never have happened in the first place. She told BBC Radio Scotland it was 'very difficult to try and run a devolved social security system when you're actually finding out some of the details on social media before you can actually find out the details from the Government'. The Social Justice Secretary insisted that was 'no way for the Governments to work together,', adding she was 'deeply disappointed in the way that the UK Government have handled this once again with the Scottish Government'. Scottish Secretary Ian Murray stressed the benefit was devolved to Scotland, saying: 'This is a devolved payment. There's lots of social security that is devolved in Scotland. It is up to the Scottish Government to develop that and come up with their own policy.' The Labour MP also told BBC Radio Scotland the Scottish Government's winter fuel payments system meant that 'limited public money' will go towards helping millionaire pensioners with their heating bills. He insisted the initial decision by the UK Government to scrap the universal payments had been the 'right thing to do at the time', but added that changes could be made to this now the economy has been 'stabilised'.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Independent Scotland would cut ties with Israel, says SNP Westminster leader
An independent Scotland would sever diplomatic ties with Israel, the SNP's Westminster leader has said. Speaking on the News Agents podcast, Stephen Flynn said he was 'deeply upset and angry' about what was happening in Gaza as he hit out at the UK Government's 'weak' position on the issue. The Scottish Government, under the leadership of both Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, has been outspoken on the conflict, consistently calling for a ceasefire and for humanitarian aid to be able to enter Gaza. The Aberdeen South MP also said the UK Government should do something to catch the Israeli government's attention as it looks to ramp up pressure. Asked if an independent Scotland would close its embassies in Israel and break off relations with the country, Mr Flynn said it would. 'I've gone into the House of Commons on God knows how many occasions now and listened to David Lammy and Hamish Falconer, the Middle East minister, and they've told us how 'we're going to do this, or we're going to do that, and this is the latest thing we're going to do'. 'And then he stands up and says, 'but they're ignoring us'. 'Well, if they're ignoring you, then do something that captures their attention.' Mr Flynn's comments come as the Foreign Secretary announced the UK would be sanctioning two Israeli ministers. Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, Israel's security minister and finance minister respectively, have been 'inciting violence against Palestinian people for months and months and months, they have been encouraging egregious abuses of human rights', David Lammy said. Both will be subject to a travel ban and asset freeze. The Westminster SNP leader went on to say that it would not be 'wise' for his party's MPs to visit Israel, claiming they were likely to be turned away from the country, as happened with Labour MPs earlier this year, owing to the party's outspoken opposition to the conduct of the war in Gaza. 'I'd be amazed if any of them did, because they're not daft, and they probably know that they would get turned around and stuck on a plane right back out Israel,' he said. 'Look, I'm deeply, deeply upset and angry about what's happened in Gaza, and what continues to happen in Gaza, and the fact that the UK position has been so weak for far too long in respect of this. 'I think it's important that you convey your views to people who are rational actors.'