
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.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves has folded like the Tin Foil Chancellor she is
Rachel Reeves confirmed on Wednesday that she is a ' spend today, tax tomorrow ' Chancellor. Her spending spree on the country's credit card has set us on a collision course with the autumn when more tax rises will hit working families' pockets hard. After a year of chaos, how can anyone take this Government seriously? Rather than using the spending review as an opportunity to deliver secure public finances, the Chancellor is instead lurching from one disaster to the next. The cruel cuts to winter fuel payments, the £30 billion Chagos Islands surrender and the billions in no-strings-attached union handouts are all chickens that have come home to roost. When the pressure is on, the self-styled 'Iron Chancellor' folds like the 'Tin Foil Chancellor' she really is. She promised to get borrowing down, but the deficit is up by 70 per cent on her watch. She pledged no new taxes rises, yet more are on their way. She pledged not to change pensioner benefits, then U-turned. Then U-turned again. The only consistent thing about her is her inconsistency. Her own MPs, Cabinet ministers and Labour's trade union paymasters smell weakness. They know she's vulnerable and they will demand more money – and get it if they shout loud enough. The Chancellor has boxed herself into a corner. We face an extra £200 billion of borrowing this Parliament compared with the last Conservative Budget, with £80 billion more in interest payments alone. We are almost a year in but no economic plan is forthcoming. Our country is exposed. We have no room left to respond to shocks in global markets. Interest rates and mortgages are staying higher for longer because of her choices, as the OBR has said. She trumpets the hundreds of billions in extra spending she has announced while on the other hand claiming to have fixed the public finances. It simply doesn't make sense. She claims there is 'still work to do to ensure the sums add up'. That's not stability, it's uncertainty – the very last thing markets want to hear. It is not just markets. Her abject failure means British families have seen inflation almost double, unemployment rise, growth stalling, debt interest soar and pensioners sacrificed. The country is worse off because of her choices. What of the winter fuel U-turn? Last summer, pensioners were left out in the cold to avoid 'a run on the pound', as Labour's Lucy Powell put it. Now they claim they can afford to reverse it because they have fixed the economy and the finances – but economists are saying both are in a worse state since Labour came to office. Nothing's changed except the Government's credibility, which is vanishing. Rock bottom confidence There was nothing in her review restore rock bottom business confidence. Payrolls fell by over 100,000 last month alone. Unemployment is up 10 per cent since Labour took office. Only businesses create growth and jobs. But our Chancellor has not yet learnt that basic lesson of economics, her fingers planted firmly in her ears whilst the alarm bells are ringing. Similarly, the first and most important duty of any Prime Minister is keeping the country safe. But even as the world is becoming more dangerous and a new axis of evils draws their battle lines, there was no further progress towards spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence, which Labour claim to be committed to. They stood firm on the Chagos surrender, which is paying for tax cuts for Mauritians while we suffer, costing our country £30 billion to lease back our own land. There is no urgency on the issues of the day. The Home Office budget too has been significantly hit by asylum costs, while illegal crossings soar. Rather than point the finger at everyone else, the Chancellor should take responsibility and fix the problems she has created. Instead, the socialist's lazy embrace of high spending, more borrowing and higher taxes beckons – leaving our public finances dangerously vulnerable. If we were in charge, we would take a different approach. We wouldn't kill growth with tax rises and red tape. We'd restore confidence, focus on efficiency and productivity, and reform welfare to get people off benefits and into work. At the end of the day, it's working people and businesses who will pay – with higher taxes, higher costs, and fewer opportunities. This Spending Review is unaffordable, and so is this Chancellor.


Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Business counts cost of Labour's bloated state amid fears Chancellor is set to launch another tax raid
Business has been left fearing another tax raid after the Chancellor's spending review failed to shrink the bloated state. Bosses demanded that Rachel Reeves show leadership by tackling public sector waste – as the private sector is having to cut its cloth as Government-imposed costs surge. Reeves told MPs she would be 'relentless in driving out efficiencies', claiming billions would be saved through greater productivity and more use of artificial intelligence (AI). But her announcement did nothing to change the size of the spending 'envelope' set out at the time of her Spring Statement, leaving many fearing the worst in this autumn's Budget. Analysis of official forecasts cited by former Bank of England rate-setter Andrew Sentance shows spending as a proportion of GDP will average 44.6 per cent during Labour's parliamentary term. 'However Rachel Reeves spins her spending review, this Government is planning the biggest spending review since World War Two, outdoing even Denis Healey [in the 1970s] in spending as a share of GDP,' Sentance said. That profligacy has come at a cost: higher taxes. Businesses have so far borne the brunt, as the Chancellor's £25billion raid on employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs) in last autumn's Budget left them scrambling to find savings – and, in many cases, cut jobs – as they also grappled with a sharp rise in the minimum wage. The spending review will not improve that situation. In fact, it has only heightened fears that Reeves will put taxes up again. That is because a worsening economic picture – partly thanks to Donald Trump's trade war – could take its toll on growth and, therefore, reduce the tax take. Higher borrowing costs are also making it harder for the Chancellor's sums to add up. Reeves insisted that the fiscal rules obliging her to balance the books are 'non-negotiable' – meaning something will have to give. The Institute of Directors (IoD) voiced hopes that some of the Chancellor's efficiency measures could be used to help business. Anna Leach, chief economist at the IoD, said: 'We would expect over time for savings to be used to bring down the tax burden from its post-war record.' But the Chancellor made clear that she had no intention of doing so. Instead, she boasted that 'every single penny [will be] reinvested back in our public services' – raising eyebrows in the City given the state of the public finances and long-term projections that they will get even worse over coming decades. 'Makes sense when your debt is on a sustainable path, less so when debt [as a proportion of GDP] is heading to 270 per cent and interest costs £105billion/year,' said Simon French, chief economist at broker Panmure Liberum. It all added up, experts said, to an inevitable tax raid this autumn. The frustration for bosses is that while the Chancellor recycles cash around the public sector – part of her plan includes hiring thousands more staff to collect tax – they are having to make tough choices after being battered by her tax raids. Steve Hare, chief executive of UK software firm Sage, noted in an interview with the BBC that while his clients – small and medium businesses – were 'trying to drive their own productivity and efficiency', the size of the Civil Service workforce had swollen to more than half a million. For some firms, efficiencies may not be enough. Michael Turner, chairman of pubs group Fullers, warned: 'The changes to NICs took everyone by surprise and I fear it could be terminal for a number of smaller operators in our market.' The Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Britain's main business lobby group, has warned that the prospect of further tax increases risked further damaging sentiment. 'Businesses are labouring under the cumulative burden of rises in NICs and minimum wages,' said CBI chief executive Rain Newton-Smith. She added: 'With the Autumn Budget now coming sharply into focus, the Chancellor should prioritise squashing tax rumours and speculation that risks stymying confidence and subduing investment decisions.' But others were broadly resigned that more punishment is on the horizon. 'Tax rises are now all but inevitable... no matter what measures are taken between now and the Budget,' said Alison Ring, the director at the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. She added: 'The Government's sticking plaster strategy remains an obstacle to addressing the deep-set challenges facing the country.'


Sky News
18 minutes ago
- Sky News
Is chancellor's spending review the start of a 'national renewal' - or too good to be true?
If you sat through the entire spending review speech delivered by Rachel Reeves in the House of Commons, you might have been lulled into a sense that the UK was awash with a wealth of riches as the chancellor sprinkled billions across the land. There were billions for social housing, nuclear power stations, rail lines and research and development to power the economy. There was money for schools, the police, the NHS, and defence spending, as the chancellor sketched out her roadmap for Britain for years to come, with an acknowledgement that the government - and particularly this chancellor - had endured a difficult first year. "We are renewing Britain. But I know that too many people in too many parts of our country are yet to feel it…the purpose of this spending review is to change that," she said. There was £113bn of borrowing to fund capital investment and an extra £190bn over the course of the parliament for public services, fuelled by those contentious tax rises in the budget last autumn. This was a Labour chancellor turning her back on austerity. "In place of decline, I choose investment. In place of retreat, I choose national renewal," she said. The chancellor deserves credit for the capital investment, which she hopes will unlock jobs and power economic growth. But when something sounds too good to be true, it normally is. For me, former shadow chancellor John McDonnell hit the nail on the head on Wednesday night as he remarked rather wryly to me that "the greater the applause on the day, the greater the disappointment by the weekend". 3:43 Could tax hikes be needed? Because, in talking up the prospect of national renewal, the chancellor glossed over what the "hard choices" mean for all of us. There are questions now swirling about where the cuts might fall in day-to-day budgets for those departments which are unprotected, with local government, the Home Office, the Foreign Office, and the Department for Environment all facing real-terms cuts. My colleague Ed Conway, analysing the government figures, found cuts in the schools budget for the last two years of this parliament - the chancellor's top line figure showed an overall rise of 0.6% over the five-year period of this Labour government. There are questions too over whether council tax bills might be increased in order to top up local government and police budgets. Ms Reeves told me in an interview after her speech that they won't, but she has predicated increases in police funding and local government funding coming locally, rather than from central government, so I will be watching how that will play out. 4:28 Even with the increase in health spending - the NHS is getting a 3% boost in its annual budget - there are questions from health experts whether it will be enough for the government to hit a routine operations target of treating 92% of patients within 18 weeks. My point is that this might not be - to again quote Mr McDonnell - "mathematical austerity", but after over a decade where public dissatisfaction in public services has grown, the squeeze of day-to-day spending could make it hard for the chancellor to persuade working people this is a government delivering the change for them. There is pressure to reverse some of the welfare cuts, and pressure to lift the two-child benefit cap, while the pressure to reverse the winter fuel allowance has already resulted in Reeves this week making a £1.25bn unfunded spending commitment (she will set out how she is paying for it at the next budget). 10:03 Will voters feel the 'renewal'? Reeves told me on Wednesday there was no need for tax rises in the autumn because the spending envelope had already been set, and the money now divvied out. It's a very live question as to whether that can hold if the economy weakens. She did not rule out further tax rises when I asked her last week, while Treasury minister Emma Reynolds told my colleague Ali Fortescue on Wednesday night: "I'm not ruling it in, I'm not ruling it out." The gamble is that, by investing in infrastructure and getting spades in the ground, and tilting limited public money into the NHS, the government can arrive at the next election with enough 'proof points' to persuade voters to stick with them for another five years. On Wednesday, the chancellor laid the foundations she hopes will turn the government's fortunes around. The risk is that voters won't feel the same by the time they are asked to choose.