Latest news with #WilliamBeveridge
New Statesman
21-07-2025
- Business
- New Statesman
Britain faces a revolutionary moment. Labour must respond
LONDON, ENGLAND - JULY 8: New UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer (centre front) stands with Labour Party MPs, including some who won seats in the recent general election, at Church House in Westminster on July 8, 2024 in London, England. Labour won 411 seats in last week's general election, giving them a majority of 172. (Photo by) In the summer of 1942, at the height of the Second World War, in a country reeling from the trauma of Dunkirk and battered by the Blitz, noted economist William Beveridge put the finishing touches to his now-famous report. In its pages he set out a blueprint for a radical overhaul of the British state, one that would offer every citizen protection from the devastating social ills that gripped the society of his time. He wrote 'a revolutionary moment in the world's history is a time for revolutions, not for patching.' The Moment We are In Britain now faces another revolutionary moment but of a very different character. Beveridge's work imagined the architecture of the welfare state. Today's momentous task is that of fixing our economic fundamentals so that his creation might survive to the next generation. Under the last government our political and economic institutions became systemically incapable of meeting the basic demands of the British people; higher wages, bills that don't spiral out of control, thriving & cohesive communities and public services which function when they need them. Since 2008 the real wages of a typical full-time worker have been flat and they have no more spending power than they would have had 16 years ago. Unaltered this path leads only to collapse. Public consent for the contract which underpins our democratic system is stretched to breaking point. That contract is simple but profound. The people entrust their representatives with power so long as that power serves their interests and addresses their concerns. Yet, over many years, the political class ignored this pact. They placed party loyalty, special interests, or personal gain above those who put them in office. They ignored difficult realities while lending their ears only to the loudest, most organised voices in local or factional politics. They placed a higher premium on getting a headline in a newspaper than the exercise of power in service of the electorate. The majority were left silent until that silence became a roar of indignation. One year ago, diagnosing this profound dysfunction, a group of Labour MPs came together with a shared recognition: that national renewal would demand disruption, honesty about the difficult trade-offs ahead and the courage to face them. In the last week of July 2024, we penned a letter to the Prime Minister committing to these values, to stand behind him and the Chancellor in pursuing them and restoring trust in government to look after British families' finances. We announced that we had formed the Labour Growth Group. The Roots of the Crisis When Labour swept to power in July 2024, commentators excitably compared the result to the triumph of 1997. In truth, beyond the size of the majority, the two moments couldn't have been more different. In 1997 Britain had a public-sector debt-to-GDP ratio of around 35%, when this Government took office, it was nearing 100 per cent. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Many in politics and the media had spent years pining for a return to the halcyon 'normality' of this era but it is precisely there that the seeds of the current crisis can be found. The fall of the Soviet Union pre-empted a period of elite overconfidence in globalisation, liberal capitalism and the primacy of technocratic consensus. New Labour's 'Third Way' was highly effective in taking advantage of the proceeds of this period to deliver hugely important progressive reforms like a national minimum wage. But underlying structural weaknesses in the economy simmered even as a booming City of London kept tax receipts high. The tectonic plates of political and economic dysfunction had begun, slowly but surely to drift toward one another. The rupture occurred in 2008; the global financial crisis shook national economies to their core. Over-indexed on financial services and incredibly economically imbalanced. Britain was particularly exposed. The Cameron government responded with austerity; an economic choice as foolish as it was cruel. Slashing an already faltering public sector when investment was desperately needed and credit was cheap. Gutting everything from towns across Britain but baseline services. A decade of drift followed in which successive Tory governments doubled down on every external constraint to the economy imaginable. Quangos boomed as ministers merrily handed over democratic accountability for political decisions. MPs bemoaned levels of regulation and the size of the welfare bill while allowing both to balloon to record levels. Rock bottom wages were offered for essential work as the economy became utterly reliant on unsustainable levels of low-skilled migration. This failure of politics deepened social fractures. The Brexit vote in 2016 was a warning from voters to political elites seemingly unable or unwilling to respond to the public's pain. The immense economic cost of leaving didn't however result in the British people 'taking back control' but rather to power transferring from an unaccountable bureaucracy in Brussels to an equally dysfunctional one in Whitehall. The Conservative Party presided over this disgraceful period of British history and has rightfully been relegated to a position of political irrelevance as a result. But we must be clear that the same fate will await the Labour Party if we do not create a radical break from their legacy of failure. The hangover of the wilderness years leaves us too ready to be defined by opposition: anti-cruelty, anti-chaos, anti-Tory. This is fighting the last war; we must pursue a politics shaped by addressing what matters here and now. Our Vision: Strategic Disruption The dysfunction gripping Britain is not an unavoidable tragedy. It stems from a clear political failure and a catastrophic absence of moral courage. Our founding principle is that decline is neither inevitable nor acceptable; Britain's best days are ahead, but only if we choose purpose over complacency and disruption over caution. For too long politicians were content to accept the things they could not change, we instead set out to change those things which we cannot accept. We must smash the status quo. We reject the exhausted politics of technocratic incrementalism and trickle-down 'meritocracy' that favours those privileged enough to start the game of life three-nil up. The belief that 'grown-up' management will be enough to right the ship of Britain's institutions has not so much collided with reality as been obliterated by it. At the same time, we are in open conflict with populist nihilism, which diagnoses the failure of the current system but offers only embittered rage and dangerous fantasy in response. This is exemplified by the opportunism of Nigel Farage's promise of up to £80 billion of unfunded tax cuts to disproportionately benefit the country's highest earners. We stake claim to the politics of strategic disruption, reforming ruthlessly yet with recognition of fiscal reality, and absolute clarity about the trade-offs involved. All measured by a single standard: does this serve to make the working people of Britain better off? We put a strong economy at heart of our politics because it is a necessary condition to fund public services, reduce inequality and make all our constituents better off. Aneurin Bevan captured this truth: 'Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus'. If the centre-left fails to deliver abundance, then it will fall to the radical right on the barren grounds of scarcity. We stand proudly in a Labour tradition of radicalism that runs through Attlee's creation of the welfare state, Crosland's radical reshaping of left economics, and Bevan's fearless assault on entrenched interests to establish the NHS. Labour Growth Group is not just another faction, it is a political and moral project to rebuild Britain's broken systems in service of the many. Tony Blair once described New Labour as the 'political wing of the British people'. We take up that standard, not as insiders but insurgents relentlessly dedicated to placing the British people's needs above politics as usual. The National Renewal Compact: A Modern Beveridge Model to Rebuild Britain Britain urgently requires a framework for national economic renewal as bold and transformative as Beveridge's original vision was for welfare. Over the next year the Labour Growth Group will deliver our own comprehensive blueprint in the form of the National Renewal Compact, a set of accords underpinned by practical, costed plans to slay each of the giants holding Britain back. Just as Beveridge confronted the ills of his era, we currently identify five modern giants strangling Britain's economy and society: ● A Paralysed State: A machinery of government so risk‑averse and inward‑looking that it cannot confront hard choices or deliver lasting reform. ● A Nation Divided: A deeply imbalanced economy that concentrates wealth and opportunity in a few postcodes while vast regions are left behind. ● Building Banned: A planning and delivery system so clogged that Britain cannot build the homes, transport links, and infrastructure a modern economy demands. ● Enterprise Smothered: A regime of regulation and culture of hesitation that saps investment, dulls innovation, and turns ambition into retreat. ● Energy Constrained: A failure to secure abundant, affordable power—leaving households exposed, industry uncompetitive, and our future unprepared. This will not be a dry review or an endless discussion exercise. It is a deliberate and provocative act in developing political economy involving leading policy organisations – the Centre for British Progress, Britain Remade and Labour Together among others – as well as thinkers from across the political spectrum. Our own members will bring to bear their expertise from business, energy, law, engineering, trade unionism, technology, economics and more. With their collective energy and experience we will refine our analysis. We are clear that this government has made great strides to confront many of these problems, from the most radical reforms to the planning system in a generation to raising public investment to the highest level for over a decade, to removing barriers to building new nuclear reactors, to rolling back the dominance of quangos. But the gravity of this moment demands an extra injection of radicalism. Each of these giants requires difficult, courageous trade-offs. Fixing our planning system, for example, means confronting entrenched interests resistant to housebuilding and infrastructure expansion. Addressing regional division requires tough choices on fiscal redistribution and decentralisation of power. We are clear-eyed that disruption is uncomfortable, but necessary. Britain has run out of easy options and an increasingly unstable world makes the future hard to plan for. That is why, in the words of the American technologist Alan Kay, we hold simply that 'the best way to predict the future is to invent it'. Our aim is practical, radical, and achievable proposals, not a wish list but a blueprint designed explicitly for implementation. This will not be another policy pamphlet shuffled around desks in Westminster, but instead a rallying point for all those who recognise the urgency of national renewal. It will serve not just as a call to action but as a binding compact, ensuring we do everything we can to see this Government deliver on its promise of transformation. The Cost of Failure Our fight is inherently political rather than technocratic. Regional rebalancing, for instance, is not simply about efficiency or even fairness. It is a democratic necessity. A country divided against itself, in which one region thrives while the potential of others is squandered, is a country that will fracture. The people have been patient, but their latitude has been tested to the limit and will not hold much longer. If we as a party and as a government fail to come together now and reckon with this, then Nigel Farage as Prime Minister is what awaits. The Office for Budget Responsibility has recently warned that the country is effectively sitting atop a fiscal timebomb. Debt climbing constantly until it breaks 270 % of GDP by the 2070s while a collapse in long‑gilt demand could add £20 billion a year to interest bills and an ageing population doubles health spending from its current rate. A man peddling unfunded £80 billion tax giveaways in this environment is playing with matches in a tinder‑dry forest. A chaotic Reform administration could well set it ablaze in short order, driving a severe fiscal crisis in the form of a debt interest spiral. The ramifications for the very fabric of British society of that final act of political betrayal should make blood run cold right across our movement. The Call One year ago, we committed to a simple but revolutionary conviction: Britain cannot afford another generation of timid politics and managed decline. In just twelve months, the Labour Growth Group has evolved from a name on a letter into a determined force of reformers in Parliament, united by the urgency of the moment and a clarity about the hard choices required. Today, as we embark on the next phase of this project, in the form of the National Renewal Compact, we invite all who share our commitment to join us, from business leaders, civic organisations, unions, thinkers, and doers. We will work together to refine our analysis and reveal the answers the country needs. This effort goes beyond party politics; it is about rebuilding Britain's economy and salvaging her democracy. The hour is late, and there is no point in denying the scale of the challenge, but this country which we love has beaten greater odds before. The British people sense another revolutionary moment at hand. Together, let us honour that, and forge a future worthy of them. Chris Curtis MP: Co-Chair, Labour Growth Group Lola McEvoy MP: Co-Chair, Labour Growth Group Mark McVitie: Director, Labour Growth Group Related
The National
04-07-2025
- Business
- The National
Labour created the welfare state. Are they now dismantling it?
The backdrop? The end of the Second World War. UK voters wanted an end to wartime austerity and certainly didn't want a return to the pre-war economic depression. 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.'
Scotsman
25-06-2025
- Health
- Scotsman
The scandalous ageism that sees thousands of Scots with dementia forced to pay for care
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 First Minister in the early 2000s, my push to introduce free personal and nursing care in Scotland received overwhelming support from the public and, despite fierce resistance from colleagues at Westminster, became a popular Act of the Scottish Parliament. But even then, there was obvious confusion, concern and doubt about the role that adult social care – which includes help with everyday tasks – should play in a modern society, contrasting sharply with the public and political embrace of the NHS. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Free personal care was important but only as a first step towards a comprehensive service more in tune with the 'cradle to grave' and 'free at the point of need' approaches taken by William Beveridge, who was instrumental in creating the health service. READ MORE: Why Scotland must get a Minister for Older People and stop ignoring the demographic time bomb People with dementia should not be forced to pay for the social care they need because of their condition (Picture: Will Oliver) | AFP via Getty Images Riddled with anomalies But this vast, complex area of public policy has never been recognised as a priority and we may face another decade of inactivity. Social care lacks political commitment. It remains vastly underfunded, totally fragmented in its coverage and consistency, and riddled with anomalies, with an over-reliance on shrinking private investment alongside rapidly diminishing financial support from government and local councils. The medical establishment has ensured social care remains in the shadow of the NHS, and seems reluctant to use its cash or clout to get this Cinderella service to the Ball. The Health Foundation has identified over 25 reports, inquiries and commissions into social care since 1997 with successive governments kicking the can down the longest road they can find. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Twenty-five years on, and now an ambassador for Alzheimer's Scotland, my disappointment has only deepened. Adult social care is in crisis and will face more serious challenges in the coming years. An ageing population, cynical ageism, underlying health conditions – especially acute in Scotland – and a chronic scarcity of public funds are creating massive inequalities. Personal wealth will largely dictate access to care with less fortunate others depending on council providers currently being starved of resources. This mix of public and private provision isn't working. READ MORE: SNP confirm National Care Service has been scrapped Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Postcode lottery The criteria used to access financial help varies enormously with a postcode lottery for people in desperate need. The funding crisis, rather than need, dictates what is on offer. In her book, Labours of Love, The Crisis of Care, journalist Madeleine Bunting wrote: 'Care for older people has suffered from a toxic combination of chronic underinvestment and politicians' reluctance to spell out the need for more money.' Despite high expectations, the new Labour government has scrapped the idea of having a lifetime cap on care costs, which was a key recommendation from Andrew Dilnot's landmark commission report in 2011. As a result, people experiencing acute social care crises will continue to face losing their homes and pensions because of the massive costs. Equally worryingly, 'adult social care' did not receive a mention in Chancellor Rachel Reeves' recent spending review, despite an avalanche of cash for the NHS. The decision to remove visas from foreign care workers will not help as we remain dependent on migrant labour, especially in Scotland. Social care work is rightly described as low paid and a low priority for politicians but is wrongly characterised as low skilled. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Lack of urgency There seems little prospect of any change in attitude. Another review for the UK Government is to be undertaken by Baroness Louise Casey, undoubtedly the best person for the job, but this will be conducted in a political vacuum created by the lack of a substantial financial pledge to fund its recommendations or any sense of urgency, while hopes of an integrated National Health and Care Service appear to be receding. We don't need another inquiry. The problems are well understood. But are there deeper philosophical or psychological reasons behind our inability to prioritise social care despite public concern? The difference between caring 'for' someone and caring 'about' them may be distorting the debate. We have an idea that we all care 'about' people, as we do, but forget this is different from actually caring 'for' them – an important distinction raised by academic Emma Dowling in her book, The Care Crisis. People might think, why should social care be conceived as similar to health care, as we are all carers now. The deliberate downplaying of social care and the idea that it is not as worthy as health care have fed into government indifference and public acquiescence. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Unfair treatment of people with dementia However, most would be shocked by the most egregious example of failure – the 10,000 people in Scotland with advanced dementia, out of 100,000 with the disease, who are forced to pay for care even though their condition is completely health related. If they were suffering from cancer, there would be no cost. This is not fair. It should be free at the point of need. Especially when dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, is now the leading cause of death in the UK. Social care is in need of urgent attention. Under difficult circumstances, excellent work is being done by local government, the private sector, the third sector and trade unions but governments are consistently failing to accept the need for investment, coordination, leadership, justice and equality. The struggle for recognition may be the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of social care and its inability to compete with the easily understood idea that health care must be free at the point of need. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This may persuade people that health is more important than care and deserving of a superior status. The lack of positive messaging remains a real obstacle to the much-needed raising the status of social care in public discourse. It's time for a new 'Beveridge moment'.
