
Don't forget why welfare reform matters
Far from being the bold reset the country was promised, the bill simply preserves a broken eligibility system that the government itself has acknowledged is not fit for purpose. Welfare spending is estimated to reach £380 billion by the end of the decade, with incapacity and disability benefits alone approaching £100 billion. This is more than the country currently spends on defence or education, and such a level of spending cannot continue without consequences.
The government should use the ministerial review that they had set up, led by Sir Stephen Timms MP, which they used as a tactic to buy off Labour rebels, to undertake the fundamental review they promised in the first place. That must start with two things. First, it must reduce the £100 billion disability benefits bill. Second, it must reform how we deal with mental health conditions.
That is because the numbers of people with physical disabilities have remained largely stable in recent years. In contrast, those with mental health conditions which have risen hugely since the pandemic. Mental health conditions are now the leading reason for disability benefit claims, particularly among younger people. Among those under 25, 70 per cent of all Personal Independence Payment claims relate to mental health. Many of these cases involve conditions such as anxiety or mild depression. These are not – or certainly should not, at least with proper support – conditions that should lead to a lifetime outside the workforce. However, the current benefits system often encourages long-term claims rather than recovery. People can become trapped in a cycle where worsening health is unintentionally rewarded. There is no doubt that the impact of the pandemic has certainly played a role in this rise, but the solution cannot be indefinite financial support that may deepen the difficulties instead of resolving them.
Solving this means, first and foremost, recognising that the government must prioritise the provision of effective mental health treatment to help people alongside employment support to enable them to get jobs. It also means accepting that for those with more minor mental health conditions, those on benefits should not be entitled to the PIP or mobility allowance. Whether this kind of reform applies to all those with mental health conditions or perhaps those under 30 or 40 is a matter to be discussed – but without radical changes, the welfare bill will remain unaffordable. Currently, the system still struggles to distinguish between those with severe, permanent conditions and those who could return to work with the right kind of help. The government itself has admitted that resources are spread too thinly, often leaving those with the greatest need under-supported. Their approach would allow this imbalance to continue. That is not just inefficient. It is unjust.
At its core, the problem is that our welfare system no longer reflects the values that most people believe in: fairness, responsibility, and aspiration. Every pound spent supporting someone who could work is a pound that cannot be spent on someone who cannot. This is more than a financial issue, it is a matter of justice. To truly help the most vulnerable, the system must stop offering blanket support to those with moderate or temporary needs.
The government still has the chance to champion a system whose primary purpose is to help more people to move toward independence, particularly young adults who still have most of their lives ahead of them. The system should not, as it does now, encourage long-term dependence. We need more accurate assessments for mental health claims, stronger access to treatment services, and real collaboration with employers, charities and training providers. Employment should become the primary goal, and benefit levels must not discourage people from seeking work. This is not about punishment. It is about restoring fairness and financial sustainability to a system that has lost sight of both.
As someone who has had a serious disability since my teens, I genuinely hoped that a Labour government would use its huge majority to make the difficult but right choices – in this case in the interest of the millions of disabled people who have so much to offer.
The country needs a welfare approach built on ambition. We should aim to lift people up, not write them off. This is not a choice between cuts and compassion. The real choice is between keeping a failing system or building one that works. On Tuesday, it felt like Labour chose the former. Britain deserves the latter.

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


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Labour's NHS plan: it is right to celebrate medical science, but delivery is the hard part
The NHS is a totemic institution in Labour's history and that of the country, and voters care more about it than most things the government does. So the publication of Labour's 10-year plan for health in England was a crucial opportunity for ministers to show that they are in tune with the public. Given that satisfaction with the health service has hit a record low of 21%, and doctors are again threatening to go on strike, the announcement was also a moment of peril – even before the damage suffered by the prime minister and chancellor earlier this week, when rebels forced a U-turn on planned cuts to welfare. The overarching principles of Labour's reforms were set out last year: more prevention, more technology, more care delivered in the community (as opposed to in hospital). So the challenge was to find something fresh, original and hopeful to say. The promise of science and the potential of localism are what Wes Streeting's team has come up with. The strand of DNA pictured on the document's cover points to high expectations of genomic medicine and other cutting-edge technology. Neighbourhood clinics, by contrast, represent a prosaic recognition of demand for more ordinary services and treatments, from an ageing and increasingly unhealthy population. The aim is to deliver most outpatient care away from hospitals by 2035. This could mean GP surgeries becoming more like hospitals, or hospital trusts taking a bigger role in primary care. The plans for new contracts make it clear that both are possible. But while this sounds fine in theory, questions remain over how, and by whom, such crucial decisions will be taken, and whether the new model will be better than the old one. With the abolition of NHS England, and scaling back of integrated care boards, the existing administration is being radically downsized. One of the risks of the next few years is that this backstage upheaval will distract time and energy from the frontline. Plans to shift resources from richer areas to poorer ones deserve an unequivocal welcome. There is no great secret about expertise being concentrated in prestigious teaching hospitals, or about richer, better educated people being more confident advocates for themselves and their loved ones. Shifting the 'best to the rest' is both a neat slogan and an acknowledgment of present unfairness. Plans to integrate employment support and services such as debt advice into healthcare hubs signal an encouraging awareness that illness and disability have socioeconomic as well as biological causes. The plan tells a promising story. Healthcare is an area of human progress that all can celebrate. It is plausible that proactive Labour ministers can both drive advances and ensure that they are more equitably shared than in marketised systems. Embedding more healthcare workers in communities, and focusing on outreach, could help to improve population health. But there are some worrying gaps. Social care reform is due to be tackled separately, but worsening mental health, particularly in young people, also needs dedicated attention and research. Ministers should also be pressed on the contradictions between their health plan and their pro-growth, anti-regulation message to businesses – including those that sell alcohol and the high-sugar foods that cause obesity. Having brought control of the NHS in England back in-house, to the heart of government, Mr Streeting must now find the people with the imagination to further develop his plan, while turning it into action.

The National
an hour ago
- The National
Keir Starmer's authoritarian tendencies are on full display
EVEN before Keir Starmer became Prime Minister, his authoritarian tendencies were already apparent in the ruthless purge he conducted of his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn and the left wing of the Labour Party. Starmer's authoritarian intolerance is starkly clear today following his government's decision to proscribe the direct action protest group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. It beggars belief, but in the UK today, non-violent direct action involving trivial damage to property by throwing paint is now classified as being on a par with planting a nail bomb in a crowded pub and killing and maiming innocent people. So just so we are clear, chucking red paint on an RAF plane which was suspected of taking British-made munitions to Israel, where they would be used to perpetuate the genocide which the Israeli Government and its armed forces are currently inflicting on the people of Gaza, is a terrorist act according to the Labour government. READ MORE: Petition to have Israeli military branded terrorist group gains traction On the other hand, actual genocide, including dropping a 230 kg bomb on a crowded seaside cafe and killing dozens, flattening civilian infrastructure, bombing hospitals, restricting food aid as a weapon, and mowing down starving civilians desperately seeking food and water, count as Israel's legitimate right of self-defence and the British Government will continue to supply Israel with armaments, military intelligence, and spare parts for the aircraft used to bomb Gaza into the stone age. Meanwhile, the British establishment and media are far more exercised about chanting at Glastonbury than they are about the ongoing genocide in Gaza, mass murder and starvation, and the Israeli Government's openly aired plans to ethnically cleanse the entire population of the territory and effectively annexe it. A spot of chanting is the really offensive thing here. Any hope that the election of a Labour government might see an end to the erosion of civil liberties and the right to protest have been well and truly scuppered now. Expressing support for a direct action protest group which has never caused physical harm or committed violence against any individual is now classified as supporting a terrorist organisation, a criminal offence which potentially carries the risk of fourteen years in prison. Cynically, the Labour government sought to minimise opposition to its authoritarian anti-protest ban by bundling the measure classifying Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation in with the banning of three deeply unpleasant extreme right groups, the "Maniacs Murder Cult", a Moldovan neo-Nazi group, the Russian Imperial Movement – a violent white supremacist far-right group aiming to rebuild the Russian Empire – and its paramilitary wing the Russian Imperial Legion. Classing Palestine Action along with violent Nazis and far right Russian nationalists is an obvious nonsense, but it succeeded in reducing opposition to the measure as MPs did not want to be accused of voting against classing violent Nazi groups as terrorist organisations However, a group of around twenty people, including a former government lawyer, have announced that they intend to defy the Government's proscription by holding Palestine Action signs in protest this weekend, despite the risk of criminal conviction and jail time for doing so. The campaign group Defend Our Juries has said the action will be the first in a series, and every week, "more people will show their support for freedom of expression". The protest will take place on Saturday, July 5, at 1pm, in front of the Gandhi statue in Parliament Square in London. Activists will hold signs saying, 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action." The Government's decision to proscribe the direct action protest group as a terrorist organisation has been widely condemned as an authoritarian over-reach which infringes on freedom of expression and the right to protest, which are vital to democracy. Thousands of people and organisations, including the Network for Police Monitoring and the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, four UN special rapporteurs, and 266 solicitors, barristers and legal academics, have condemned the decision from the Home Office. (Image: Supplied) Defend Our Juries hopes to create a dilemma for UK law enforcement, calling the law change "unenforceable". The group stated: "If they are arrested and charged with Terrorism Act offences, for a statement opposing the genocide of Palestinians, and supporting those who resist it, it will expose the end of democracy and free speech in the UK. "If they do not get arrested, they demonstrate that you cannot, in practice, proscribe a popular organisation like Palestine Action and stop hundreds of thousands of people across the country from supporting them." Tim Crosland, a former government lawyer and director of Plan B, a charity that supports strategic legal action against climate change, is one of those set to take part. He said: 'There are already 18 Palestine Actionists held in UK prisons without a trial, following lobbying by the Israeli government and Elbit Systems, the leading supplier of the machinery of genocide. "If we cannot speak freely about the genocide of Palestinians, if we cannot condemn those who enable it and praise those who resist it, then the right to freedom of expression has no meaning, and democracy in this country is dead.' If the Government can proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, they open the door to doing the same to any other protest organisation which the British Government considers a nuisance, climate activists, disability rights organisations, Scottish and Welsh independence groups, and anti-monarchy campaigners, all could potentially face similar treatment. MP Zarah Sultana, who was suspended from the Labour party for voting against the two-child benefit cap, said: "Let us be clear: to equate a spray can of paint with a suicide bomb isn't just absurd, it is grotesque. It is a deliberate distortion of the law to chill dissent, criminalise solidarity, and suppress the truth." (Image: PA) Sacha Deshmukh, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, slammed the move as 'unprecedented legal overreach', pointing out that it gave the authorities 'massive powers to arrest and detain people, suppress speech and reporting, conduct surveillance and take other measures." Deshmukh added: Using [anti-terrorist powers] against a direct-action protest group is an egregious abuse of what they were created for."


Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Why Labour incompetence created welfare Bill disaster – and worse is to come
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... As a former Chief Whip, I often tell colleagues that the first rule of politics is to know how to count. You have to be able to add up the votes on your side of the aisle and the numbers on the opposite side – and make sure that your figures add up. That may appear to be a pretty low bar to clear but it is one that Keir Starmer's government has spectacularly failed to pass this week. Incompetence at the top of the government created utter chaos over the welfare Bill – but there may be far worse yet to come. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A Bill that set out to cut back support for people with disabilities and health challenges was always likely to meet resistance from both inside and outside of Labour. That is why it is astonishing that the government only began to realise the scale of its miscalculation towards the end of last week, when more than 100 Labour members – led by several senior, moderate MPs – signed an amendment which would have brought down the Bill entirely. Chancellor Rachel Reeves was clearly emotional as Keir Starmer was grilled about the Labour rebellion over the welfare Bill (Picture: House of Commons/UK Parliament) | PA Wire High-handed ministers In one fell swoop, the massive Labour majority in the House of Commons was gone – and all because of the high-handed, contemptuous approach taken by those at the top. For a government to be blindsided in this way is a total failure of party management. It suggests that whips are either not doing their job, or are being ignored by those above them. Above all, it smacks of a government that thinks it is a lot cleverer than it really is, and that does not believe it is accountable to the MPs who make up their majority. What is so concerning about this week's debacle is that ministers appear to be unwilling to make the case for their policies, either with the public or with their own MPs. To govern, after all, is to choose. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Sometimes cuts have to be made, tough decisions taken. If the planned cuts in the welfare budget were so necessary, as the government claimed up to the last minute, why were ministers so unwilling to win the argument with their colleagues? A lack of conviction This matters, because now that the government has shown that it cannot control its own party, every difficult vote becomes that much more difficult. The rebels have had a taste of successful rebellion – why would they stop here? What we are witnessing is a government that does not have the courage of its convictions. It may, in truth, not even have convictions to begin with – and a government that has neither the ideas nor the votes has a rocky road ahead of it. All indications, however, are that this poor management is going to continue. Just hours after the government turned tail on the welfare Bill, anonymous messages were circulating from the higher-ups, threatening that the two-child limit on benefits – one of the greatest drivers of child poverty in this country – would have to be kept in place to teach a lesson to rebellious MPs. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad If the government think they have the numbers to bully their MPs, they may have another thing coming. The first rule of politics is to know how to count.