Labour created the welfare state. Are they now dismantling it?

The National

04-07-2025

The backdrop? The end of the Second World War. UK voters wanted an end to wartime austerity and certainly didn't want a return to the pre-war economic depression.
In other words, they wanted change.
Clement Attlee's Labour government, in essence, delivered it – inspired by a report by economist William Beveridge, which detailed a system of social insurance covering every citizen, regardless of income. It promised nothing less than a cradle-to-grave welfare state.
This included, notably, the establishment of the NHS and a significant expansion of social security and education.
READ MORE: Shetlanders raise £10k for Gaza charities through pop-up art exhibition
The Beveridge Report was widely accepted at the time, including by the Tories. But it would be unfair to not give credit to the party for ushering in what are widely considered some of the most radical reforms in UK history.
Fast forward almost 80 years to 2024 and we found UK voters also clamouring for change. This time, after 14 years of Tory austerity lay waste to public services.
Labour, led by Keir Starmer, ran – quite literally, of course – on a platform for 'change'. The party's manifesto was marketed as 'quietly radical', as was Starmer, according to more than one Labour source of mine.
But since the July 2024 General Election, the party founded by Keir Hardie has instead scrapped the Winter Fuel Payment for pensioners before then partially U-turning.
It has so far remained steadfast on the move to refuse compensation for WASPI women.
And then there's the Labour Government's welfare reforms benefit cuts.
(Image: PA)
The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill was first announced in March, including measures to limit eligibility for Pip, the main disability benefit in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and freeze the health-related element of universal credit.
The legislation passed its first hurdle on Tuesday, albeit not without a huge backbench rebellion which saw the changes to Pip stripped out pending a review.
To note, Pip does not exist in Scotland as it has been replaced by the devolved Adult Disability Payment (ADP), administered by Social Security Scotland.
So while changes around Pip will not impact on benefit claimants in Scotland directly, changes made south of the Border will hit Scotland financially due to the Barnett formula.
The National spoke with Chris Renwick, a professor at the University of York who specialises in the history of the social sciences and the welfare state, and asked whether it would be accurate to say Labour – with moves such as the welfare cuts – are, in essence, dismantling the welfare state.
'I think it's complicated because I think that when you talk about dismantling stuff, I don't think that Labour is ideologically committed to the idea that the state shouldn't be doing those things,' he said.
'They're not like the Thatcher government in the 1980s. And if you were to talk to Labour MPs about it, I'm sure they would tell you that they didn't get into politics to do this kind of thing. I don't think that they're interested in deliberately dismantling things.
'I just don't think that they have a coherent governing philosophy that says what it is that they should be doing and all they all they've got as a response is to try and trim at the edges of things.'
Renwich added, speaking before Tuesday's vote on the welfare bill: 'Now you might, you might argue that the effect, should they actually go through with it, would be the same.
'But I don't think they're actually actively looking to kind of stop the state from doing things.
'It's just that they don't, they don't seem to have any kind of coherent idea about what the state should be doing.'
READ MORE: How Scotland's black cabs are fighting back against megacorp Uber
He went on: 'I think what's very obviously the problem with Labour at the moment is that they do not have a theory or philosophy. There seems to be no explanation of what it is that they're trying to do.
'Take the example of the cuts to disability [payments]. I mean, what is it they're trying to do? That seems to be a good example of the difference between a cut and a reform.
"Because you can't look at some of those underlying figures that are associated with sickness-related benefits and not think, well actually there kind of seems to be a problem here when you look at the comparison between claimant figures in the UK and broadly comparable nations. But the response being just to say, well, the answer is that we just need to cut the amount of money available, it's not really a serious response to it for a variety of reasons.'
Renwick added: 'One of which is that they're only doing it to save money. They're not doing it as a kind of a reform because they don't seem to have any explanation of what they should be doing instead.
'And you don't need to spend too long looking at what it is that they're trying to do and what the possible consequences are just to realise how hugely problematic it is.'
Regardless, it's a series of stark decisions that will impact some of the UK's most vulnerable.
(Image: Carolynne Hunter/PA)
For Marylynne Hunter and her daughter Freya (above) – who has severe complex health problems and disabilities, is non-verbal and blind and requires full-time oxygen and at-home nursing care – it's a rollback of the welfare state which flies fully in the face of what the former Labour Party stood for.
The prominent disability campaigner, who resigned from the Labour Party over the plans last March, said the Universal Credit freeze will 'absolutely affect my daughter' as well as other children.
'A young adult like Freya, who can't access life outside, she can't go to college, she can't go anywhere,' Hunter said. 'That money is essential for her.'
Hunter told The National that she feels as though Labour are betraying their core values.
'I agree with the original values of the Labour Party, where if you weren't able to work, due to illness or whatever, then you were supported in a dignified way.
'Those are the core fundamentals of the Labour Party, to support people and distribute wealth between people who are wealthy to support people who are not quite as wealthy and are vulnerable.
'Throughout the years, obviously there's been a lot of other governments – including Conservative governments that have stripped things away, but you wouldn't ever have expected it [from Labour].
'And that's why I left.'