Voters expect a Labour government to reduce poverty not make it worse

The Herald Scotland

2 days ago

Sir Keir's deputy Angela Rayner insisted the vote would go ahead on Wednesday but the government's defiant stance did not stop the numbers of rebels from ticking up. Now the government has confirmed talks are taking place about changing the reform package.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves' finely balanced budgeting depends on the £5bn she says will be saved by 2030 through the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. She also wants to prevent daunting projected increases in welfare spending down the line.
Read more Rebecca McQuillan
But deep concerns about the impact of the cuts on sick and disabled people has led the rebels to table an amendment which, if passed, would halt the bill in its tracks.
With days still to go for more MPs to join the insurgency, the government can no longer be sure of winning – hence the dialogue.
But even if they could, ignoring such a huge show of concern would be madness. That backbench disquiet would turn to anger and anger would turn into open mutiny. And all for the sake of a bill that, while leaving some claimants better off, would likely push others into poverty, possibly in their hundreds of thousands. Money must be saved, but no Labour government should be taking risks like that with people's lives.
The insurgents have the advantage of being highly credible. They are drawn from across the party and feature heavyweight backbench figures including nine committee chairs such as Dame Meg Hillier, the respected head of the Treasury Select Committee, who proposed the amendment, and former Holyrood minister Patricia Ferguson, chair of the Scottish Affairs committee. Twelve Scottish MPs have signed and the amendment has the backing of metropolitan mayors Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham.
The rebels don't argue with the government's overall aims – to protect those most in need and help other claimants into work – but they fear the reforms won't have that effect.
There's no escaping the reality that the government has to save money. With the rising cost of defence, a cash-hungry NHS, housebuilding and the jaw-dropping deficit caused by Covid and Liz Truss – all set against the backdrop of sluggish growth – any Chancellor would have to get out the paring knife.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves wants to cut the benefits bill (Image: PA) And the government is right to be worried about the benefits bill. The number of people claiming health-related benefits with no requirement to work has gone up by 800,000 since 2020. Spending on health-related benefits has gone up £20bn since the pandemic and is set to go up nearly £20bn more by 2029. Some claimants could work, with the right support. There is indeed a moral case for reform – governments shouldn't just leave people languishing in a benefits trap.
But voters – and Labour MPs – expect a Labour government to bear down on poverty, not make it worse, and the proposed changes don't pass that test.
On the one hand, the government is set to spend much more on schemes to help people into work, end benefit reassessments for the most sick or disabled people and increase the basic level of UC.
But it also proposes tightening the criteria for the least disabled people claiming personal independence payments (which does not directly affect Scotland) and cut the health-related element of Universal Credit (UC) for new claimants (which does). The amount of UC new claimants receive because they have limited capacity to work would be reduced by almost half.
These claimants, the government hopes, will then find work.
The trouble is, changing benefits is a clumsy, inexact approach to changing behaviour. For the policy to be a win-win – making savings for the government while also helping people access a better future – all those who are losing money must be able to find jobs.
What if it doesn't work like that? That's what sends a trickle of cold fear down MPs' backs. What if employers don't play ball or work programmes aren't effective?
Relatively small reductions in benefits can have a serious impact on struggling families, as The Herald's recent series on child poverty revealed.
Read more
The Department for Work and Pensions has concluded that the plans would push 250,000 people into poverty, including 50,000 children, though it insists many would then find work and no longer be in poverty.
According to the Resolution Foundation think tank the reforms could help more than 100,000 people into work but hundreds of thousands would fall into poverty regardless.
No wonder so many Labour MPs hate the policy. If defending the winter fuel payment cut was hard for them, then this policy would be a bed of nails.
But the fiscal constraints the government faces are real. The government cannot let the benefits bill rise to unsustainable levels or leave people who could work languishing at home.
So Labour ministers and MPs are now talking to one another to find a solution. That implies delaying implementation or watering down the reforms.
The rebel MPs want further consultation. They want back to work mentoring support to be put in place before cuts are made. They also want to better information on how the changes would affect employment levels among sick and disabled people before backing the plans.
It's not what ministers wanted, but if they listen, the outcome will be better, fairer, more defensible reforms that are much more consistent with Labour values.
The Prime Minister may well come to thank his bloody-minded backbenchers in the end.
Rebecca McQuillan is a journalist specialising in politics and Scottish affairs. She can be found on Bluesky at @becmcq.bsky.social and on X at @BecMcQ