Britain's £100billion benefits timebomb that no one is brave enough to defuse

The Sun

4 hours ago

TO the hand-wringing Labour MPs plotting to torpedo the government's £5billion in welfare cuts, some facts.
Even with that squeeze, we are still ­hurtling towards a £100billion sickness benefits bill EVERY YEAR by the end of the decade.
4
4
That is roughly equivalent to the entire size of Slovakia's economy — or the annual output of the City of London.
It is more than the combined yearly budgets of the police, prisons and courts — and twice that of what we spend on defence.
You could buy every Premier League club several times over and then some.
And that is before you even scratch the surface on public money for jobseekers and the elderly.
Britain is a nation that looks after ­people — at ease with the language of safety nets, support and compassion.
But we have to be honest about what we have become: a nation hooked on handouts that is driving our economy on to the rocks.
Painfully clear
A creaking welfare state — with a price tag no government can control and no taxpayer can sustain — is ready to burst.
The parliamentary bill to reform it — introduced yesterday by Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall — was meant to be the moment Labour got serious.
It tightens eligibility for Personal ­Independence Payments (PIP), slashes ­Universal Credit for new claimants and freezes it for existing ones.
On paper it is a package designed to 'make the system sustainable' and save the Treasury £5billion a year by 2030.
Five key changes to PIP & Universal Credit as Labour's benefits crackdown unveiled
But when you actually read the figures, it becomes painfully clear just how little difference it will make.
Britain is still projected to spend £100.7billion a year on health and ­disability benefits by 2029–30 — up from £64.7billion just last year.
That is a 55 per cent rise in just six years, driven largely by soaring costs in working-age sickness and disability ­payments, with PIP fuelling the surge.
Once meant to help those with serious long-term physical and mental conditions live independently, PIP is now claimed by more than 3.7million people — and demand is only accelerating.
The number of new applications has shot up by 70 per cent since 2018, with more than 1,000 new claims A DAY thudding on to DWP desks.
The bill for PIP alone has already ­ballooned from £12billion in 2019 to more than £21billion today, and it is predicted to hit an eye-watering £42.3billion by 2028–29.
Driving this explosion is a marked rise in claims linked to mental disorders — now the main condition for nearly 70 per cent of new applicants under-35.
Combined with long Covid, chronic fatigue, and musculoskeletal complaints such as back pain, we have arrived at a staggering projection: that by 2030 nearly one in 12 working-age Brits will be ­economically inactive due to long-term sickness.
International comparisons lay bare just how much of an outlier the UK has become.
We now spend more on working-age disability benefits as a share of GDP than almost any other advanced economy.
Most European countries — including France, Germany and the Netherlands — have seen their incapacity benefit caseloads remain steady while ours is still climbing.
Is it any wonder why critics start to mutter about the UK becoming the ­' Sicknote Man of Europe '.
But far from marking a moment of unity for Labour, the new bill has lit the fuse on a major rebellion and split the party in two.
More than 100 Labour MPs are squeamish about the proposals, and many have already threatened to vote it down when it comes to a vote in the next few weeks.
Supporters of the reforms say the real betrayal would be pearl-clutching backbenchers pretending the current system can continue.
One Labour insider told me: 'You can't call yourself progressive if you ignore a system that's spiralling out of control. This isn't about cruelty. It's about honesty.'
The internal row gripping the party was not unexpected — but the scale of it was.
A far tougher package was meant to be unveiled at March's Spring Statement to lance the boil in one fell swoop.
But after internal leaks and pushback from Labour left-wingers, No10 blinked.
4
The result? A lightweight version, rushed out early and designed to placate mutinous MPs.
One senior Government figure admitted to me a few months ago: 'We had one shot to fix this, and we bottled it. These are half-measures. They won't be enough.'
The deeper danger now is not just the cost but the fact political will to act is slipping away.
We are an old population, with flatlining productivity, who have very few babies. We cannot have a generous welfare state and a national social care service, and a massive in-work support system
Backbencher
Some inside the party get it. They know the writing is on the wall: an ageing ­population, low birth rates, flatlining ­productivity and soaring demand on every part of the state.
Commons humiliation
As one influential backbencher put it: 'We have to get serious about reforming the state.
"We are an old population, with flatlining productivity, who have very few babies. We cannot have a generous welfare state and a national social care service, and a massive in-work support system.
'We need to change expectations about what Government does in a radical and sustained way. I do not see us being ­serious about that right now.'
Behind the scenes, the whips are in damage control mode, trying to keep a lid on the rebellion.
Abstentions might help Labour avoid a Commons humiliation but they will not solve the underlying dilemma.
This is not just about one benefit, or one Budget line.
It is about what kind of state Britain can be in the 2020s and beyond — and how much we can afford.
For too long politicians have ducked the debate, layering new promises on top of old ones without ever confronting the trade-offs.
Now, the bill is landing and it's not just a financial one, it's political, too.
Labour may win the vote but its bigger test is yet to come: can it finally level with the public, not just about what needs ­cutting, but what kind of country we want to be?
4