We investigate the state of the welfare state – read our new series
Some 80 years after Labour's 1945 electoral victory on a platform of "great national programmes of education, health and social services", the UK's welfare state is in bad shape.
We have been planning this new series for several months. It is purely coincidence that we are publishing it in a week where Labour MPs will vote to strip benefits from disabled people after next year.
Fourteen years of Tory austerity brought the welfare state to its knees, leaving a legacy of benefit sanctions and a record number of food banks. Enter stage left; a Labour Government which would sicken its predecessors of 1945, committed to removing even more state support from the most vulnerable in society.
Food bank use reached record levels under the Tories Meanwhile the Scottish Government is forging a different path. We heard just this week in a Big Issue report that Scotland is leading the way at reducing child poverty while kids in other parts of the UK are increasingly struggling.
We want to show that Scotland could do more without being tied to the sinking ship of the UK.
Our investigation from Monday to Sunday will show how Westminster governments systematically sought to remove the protections of the welfare state, while Scotland tried to chart its own path and help those in need.
It'll feature expert commentary, deep dives into the data, livestream Q&As with key figures, personal essays reflecting on how the UK Government treats people who are unemployed and living with disabilities, and much more.
As we mark this key anniversary of Labour coming to power with promises of a fairer, more secure future for UK citizens, it's time to reflect on what went wrong.
We hope you'll find the series informative and, hopefully, infuriating.
Read online or in print from Monday to Friday. Take advantage of a subscription from just £1 to get access to the full investigation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
32 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Cost of supermarket booze set to soar after Labour clobbers brewers with extra £124million in taxes
The British Beer & Pub Association reckons it will put around 16p on a four-pack SHOP BOOZE TAX HIKE Cost of supermarket booze set to soar after Labour clobbers brewers with extra £124million in taxes Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) BREWERS have warned of shop price hikes after being hit with a £124million tax on packaging. Ministers yesterday saddled beer and lager producers with a £192 a tonne charge for recycling their glass bottles. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which puts them on the hook for the cost of council collection, sorting and recycling, has been branded a 'Bevy Levy'. The British Beer & Pub Association reckons it will put around 16p on a four-pack. Boss Emma McClarkin said: "By heaping a further £124million on brewers - the equivalent of 4p per 330ml bottle – these new fees sabotage the Chancellor's hopes for British businesses and will hit shoppers at the tills. 'To put it mildly, EPR could drive some brewers out of the glass bottle market and heap more costs on pubs which will only endanger jobs and growth. 'This is just not good enough given the barrage of rates and regulations the sector is already grappling with.' Alex MacDonald of the UK Spirits Alliance warned 'punishing fees' for glass will hurt business and raise the price of drinks for consumers. Earlier in the year Jeremy Clarkson used his Sun column to lash out at the Bevy Levy and all the other taxes crippling pubs like his, The Farmer's Dog. EPR makes producers responsible for the full eco lifecycle of their products, footing the cost of councils to collect, sort and recycle waste packaging. Labour plotting blitz on boozers with Budget 'sin tax' raid on pubs as Wes Streeting threatens outdoor smoking ban
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
The prime minister's welfare U-turn is welcome – but not the end of the matter
No doubt there is much relief in No 10, in the Treasury, at the Department for Work and Pensions and in the whips' office, that the welfare reforms crisis is over. That, however, is as nothing to the emotions being felt by the estimated 800,000 people who had been traumatised by the thought of losing around £3,850 in their annual income. The government's own assessment was that some 250,000 of them would thereby be pushed into relative poverty. Many were in despair. Behind the official impact assessments was an unmeasurable quantity of prospective human misery. While the fates of Sir Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, Liz Kendall, Morgan McSweeney and various other Labour figures have, understandably, been the subject of much media attention, it is not too sanctimonious to point out that this whole debate should not be all about the careers of frankly well-heeled politicians and advisers – but those who need help simply to survive. This is about them – and it is a matter of some embarrassment, and shame, that Labour MPs only roused themselves to do anything about the coming disaster when they themselves had been given a shock of their own after their party's dismal performance at the local elections and the Runcorn by-election. Mass redundancies at the next general election loomed into view. Suddenly, their consciences emerged from the inner recesses of their brains, ready for a wrestling match. For a change, the consciences won. It need not have been like this. It is, indeed, incomprehensible that the government was proposing such legislation without concluding their consultations with groups representing disabled people. Despite Ms Kendall's efforts to keep the focus on improving their quality of life by giving people with disabilities the job opportunities they yearn for, the Treasury's rush to find some quick savings in public expenditure gave the exercise a mean-spirited vibe. This was never a promising background for a sensible and sensitive reform of the social security system. There were never any estimates, let alone guarantees, about how many disabled people would be lifted out of poverty into jobs, and the risks were far too great. That is why ministers lost the argument. The result is the messy compromise that has now emerged. Politically, it has averted a parliamentary nightmare, and it will mean that the government gets much of its reforms through. However, the partial U-turn still leaves the government looking foolish, even callous. It is not only the vulnerable people terrified by the now-ditched reforms who will have lost trust in Sir Keir's administration, but the electorate as a whole. Almost a year ago Labour campaigned on 'Change'; no one interpreted that as an assault on the welfare state, with the deeply unpopular means-testing of the pensioners' winter fuel allowance and clumsy changes to universal credit and personal independence payments (PIP). Sir Keir and his colleagues promised an end to the 'chaos and confusion' that reigned under the Conservatives. With three panicky volte-faces in as many weeks (including on winter fuel allowance and the national grooming gangs inquiry), the government is looking incompetent, not in control of events, and divided. In the revised package of measures there are, nonetheless, very welcome improvements. A reform of the points-based system for assessing PIP, a rather crude and dehumanising process, led by the social security minister Sir Stephen Timms, will now be 'co-produced' with disability rights organisations – a major breakthrough. Ms Kendall's excellent schemes to provide personal assistance, coaching and advice to open up job opportunities are to be brought forward. Another valuable enhancement. The 'right to try', widely welcomed and reiterated, will also be a great source of reassurance to people nervous about losing their hard-fought benefits if taking a particular job doesn't work out for them. This also means they don't have to go through another gruelling reassessment for PIP eligibility. What remains, however, is a two-tier regime, where existing claimants have a guarantee that none of their income will be lost, but new applicants for PIP and the health element of universal credit face a potentially much more difficult time. Ms Kendall is right to point out that such a situation is not so unusual when changes to social security are made, such as when the two-child benefit cap was introduced, or the successive postponements in the qualifying age for the state pension. However, that does not make such a system right. If it is unacceptable to drive people with certain types of disability into poverty in 2025, why is it the right thing to do in, say, 2028 or 2029? Ms Kendall also says she wants a system that is fair to people who cannot work, and fair to the taxpayer. That is a fine ideal, but, perhaps through no fault of hers, the right balance is yet to be struck. Clearly, much more serious work remains if the social security system is to be placed on a sustainable basis. It is perfectly true that it must command the confidence of the tax-paying public, who pay for it as well as benefit from it. It will also have to include the biggest single element in the system by far, the state pension. Unavoidably, it also has to be joined to a new approach to paying for adult social care, a challenge successive governments of all parties have ducked for decades. The UK's demographics demand a more comprehensive review of the welfare state, and the creation of something much closer to the cross-party consensus that prevailed for so long after the Beveridge report laid the foundations for social protections in 1942. As yet, there's no sign of that. Just some chaos and confusion.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
ANOTHER Starmer U-turn as PM ‘deeply regrets' calling Britain an ‘island of strangers' to warn of mass migration
SIR Keir Starmer says he 'deeply regrets' calling Britain an 'island of strangers' to warn of mass migration. The PM disowned his comments from May despite doubling down at the time amid fury from many of his own MPs. It marks the fourth U-turn in a matter of weeks following retreats on winter fuel, a grooming national inquiry and welfare cuts. Sir Keir told the Observer he was not aware of the similarities to Enoch Powell's infamous Rivers of Blood speech. The PM said: 'I had no idea – and my speechwriters didn't know either. But that particular phrase – no – it wasn't right. I'll give you the honest truth: I deeply regret using it.' He said he should have read through the speech properly and 'held it up to the light a bit more'. In the speech last month, the Labour leader was plugging his visa crackdown to cut monster levels of net migration. He declared: 'In a diverse nation like ours … we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' Last night, Tory Robert Jenrick said: 'It says it all that Starmer 'deeply regrets' saying Britain risks becoming an 'island of strangers'. 'By 2031, nearly a quarter of people in the UK will have been born abroad. 'Starmer regrets saying what's obviously true because he doesn't believe in borders or the nation state. 'Starmer now says he was just 'reading the words out', like a dummy. 'We need a leader, not a ventriloquist.' Britain's migrant crisis being fuelled by Putin's Russia and other hostile states in secret plot to destabilise Britain 1 'We need a leader that has vision.'
