Labour created the welfare state. Are they now dismantling it?
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To note, Pip does not exist in Scotland as it has been replaced by the devolved Adult Disability Payment (ADP), administered by Social Security Scotland.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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Nigel Farage 'in touching distance' of being PM as new mega-poll puts Reform UK on course for 290 seats in the Commons... as Keir Starmer's ratings slump to an all-time low
Nigel Farage is on course to become PM with his Reform UK party within 'touching distance' of forming a majority government, a new mega-poll has suggested. The More In Common survey found, if a general election was held today, Reform would become the largest party in the House of Commons with 290 seats. Although this is below the number of MPs needed for an outright majority, meaning a hung parliament, it was more than twice as many as any other party. And the pollster said Reform is now 'close to the level where they could command an outright majority'. More In Common's new MRP (Multilevel Regression and Post-stratification) model, based on polling of more than 10,000 Britons, put Labour on 126 seats. This is a loss of 285 seats from Sir Keir Starmer 's general election landslide just a year ago, and leaves them with fewer than half as many seats as Reform. The research put the Tories on 81 seats, down 40 seats from last year, with the Liberal Democrats on 73 seats (up one seat) and the SNP on 42 seats (up 33 seats). Meanwhile, as Sir Keir marks one year in Downing Street this weekend, the poll found the Prime Minister's personal approval rating had slumped to an all-time low of -43. More In Common's projection showed a majority of Cabinet ministers would lose their seats in the face of a Reform surge. This includes Deputy PM Angela Rayner, Chancellor Rachel Reeves, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, and Health Secretary Wes Streeting. Labour's main losses were found to be to Reform, with 223 seats directly flipping from Sir Keir's party to Mr Farage's outfit. This includes many long-standing Labour constituencies in the North of England and in Wales. Reform was also shown to be growing support in Conservative areas, with the MRP projecting they would win 59 seats that the Tories held in 2024. The main reason that voters gave for turning away from Labour - regardless of who they would vote for instead - is broken promises and U-turns on previous pledges. More than a third (36 per cent) selected this as a reason, while also high on the list was failing to deliver on the cost of living (31 per cent), and Labour's changes to the wiinter fuel payments (27 per cent). Luke Tryl, UK director of More in Common, said: 'It is an unhappy birthday for the Prime Minister. 'His personal approval has hit an all-time low, while Britons blame him rather than his Chancellor for the welfare mess and think he has lost control of his party. 'Meanwhile our new MRP shows Reform UK as the big winners from the Government's failures. 'Although we are a long way from an election and much will change between, Nigel Farage's party are demonstrating that they are now close to the level where they could command an outright majority. 'Britain's political landscape has transformed entirely from just a year ago.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Plan to scrap two-child benefit cap ‘dead in the water' after welfare U-turn
Sir Keir Starmer will not scrap the two-child benefit cap after his U-turn on welfare cuts left a £5bn hole in Labour 's spending plans. Senior Labour figures have reportedly warned that tax hikes are on the horizon after the benefits climbdown, with a change in the controversial cap, introduced when George Osborne was chancellor, now thought to be off the table. 'My assessment is that is now dead in the water,' a No 10 source told The Sunday Times. A source close to the chancellor added: 'MPs will need to acknowledge that there is a financial cost to not approving the welfare changes, whether that's tax rises or not scrapping the two-child benefit cap. They need to understand the trade-offs.' The prospect of Labour keeping the two-child benefit cap in place will provoke fresh unrest among Labour backbenchers, who have a taste for rebellion after forcing Sir Keir's hand on cuts to the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit. Sir Keir is believed to have told his cabinet he wants to scrap the two-child cap - first imposed by Osborne in 2015. Critics of the policy, which restricts parents from claiming certain benefits for more than two of their children, say it pushes children into poverty. Charities frequently cite the £3.4bn move as one of the most cost effective ways of alleviating child poverty. Asked on Thursday whether he still wanted to scrap the two-child cap, Sir Keir said: 'The last Labour government drove down child poverty and it's one of the proudest things that we did. 'Sadly, the last government allowed child poverty to go back up again. 'I'm determined that this government will drive it down, just as the last Labour government did. 'We've got a strategy and a task force working on this and will lay out the details of that. I personally don't think there's a silver bullet that if you do this one thing, it will deal with child poverty.' Pressure on the PM over the two-child benefit cap will likely increase in the run up to this autumn's Budget, in which Rachel Reeves has been warned she must raise taxes or put Labour's agenda at risk. Jim O'Neill, a former Goldman Sachs chief turned Treasury minister who quit the Conservatives and later advised Ms Reeves, said she faces no choice but to abandon key parts of her economic policy – including her commitment not to raise income tax, national insurance contributions for employees or VAT. 'Without changing some of the big taxes, welfare and pensions, they [Labour] can't commit to things like Northern Powerhouse Rail, small modular nuclear reactors, and various other things that will make an investment and growth difference,' he told The Independent.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
This is how mass migration will change Britain beyond recognition
Britain will be unrecognisable by the end of this century. Unless things change, and change fast, the population of the UK will be permanently transformed by mass immigration. White Britons will become a minority by the year 2063. The foreign-born and their immediate descendants will become a majority by 2079. And nearly one in four people in the UK will be following Islam by the year 2100; this figure would rise to around one in three among under-40s. Many people struggle to make sense of the pace and scale of these changes. They ask how a nation can be transformed this fast without the consent of the governed. But, last week, brand new data from the Office for National Statistics has made it abundantly clear that these trends are already well underway. The findings are indeed shocking: more than one in three babies that were born in England and Wales last year have mothers who were not born in the UK; this rises to more than 40 per cent for babies in England, a record high and up by nearly 10-points in less than a decade. London, obviously, is at the forefront of these dramatic shifts. All six areas where 80 per cent or more of babies have at least one foreign-born parent are in the capital, with the City of London, Brent, Newham, Harrow, Ealing, and Westminster experiencing the most profound changes. But such is the legacy of mass immigration, since it began under New Labour and was then mainstreamed by the Tories, that lots of areas outside London are now also witnessing similar changes. If you exclude London, for instance, the one place in the country that has the highest share of babies who have at least one foreign-born parent is Luton: the figure there is an astonishing 79 per cent.
