The Betrayal of Labour’s Legacy
“This is the Labour Party… the clue is in the name… we’re the party of work,” chant Labour ministers on various television and radio platforms as they attempt to rationalize anticipated cuts to disability benefits in the upcoming Spring Statement. These politicians echo the scripted messages handed down from No 10, acting like tailored AI bots, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are abandoning the very principles upon which the Labour Party was founded.
This is not the first instance where Labour has resorted to such reprehensible rhetoric. In 2015, the then-shadow Work and Pensions Secretary declared, “We are not the party of people on benefits. We don’t want to be seen as, and we’re not, the party that represents those who are out of work. Labour is a party for working people, formed by and for the working class.” Ironically, that shadow minister is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is Rachel Reeves’s arbitrary fiscal rules that are being wielded to justify the necessity of reforming the benefits system, potentially leading to cuts in payments for disabled individuals.
The Government is reportedly contemplating modifications to the Work Capability Assessment (WCA)—the evaluation utilized to determine an individual’s fitness for work and their eligibility for universal credit or Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). Additionally, changes to Personal Independence Payments (PIP) are on the table, which would tighten eligibility criteria and thresholds.
Currently, over 14 million people in the UK are living in poverty, with nearly half of them being either disabled themselves, living in a household led by a disabled individual, or acting as a carer for a disabled person. The Child Poverty Action Group has stated that “cuts for disabled people would mean that some of our country’s most vulnerable citizens are forced to bear the brunt of cost-saving measures.” Targeting “cost savings” by cutting disability benefits is not only morally reprehensible, but it stands in stark contrast to the values that a Labour government is supposed to uphold.
When Labour first came to power over a century ago, one of the earliest and most significant acts of that fledgling administration was to enhance unemployment benefits. Labour was established as a party dedicated to the interests of working-class individuals, not just those currently employed. The modern welfare state was created by the first majority Labour government under Clement Attlee, which took immense pride in implementing the Beveridge Report—designed to combat the five giants of want (poverty), ignorance, squalor, idleness, and disease.
During the 1970s, the Wilson government significantly updated the social security system under Secretary of State for Social Security Barbara Castle, with Alf Morris becoming the first minister for disabled people. Castle and Morris were instrumental in legislating for a non-contributory pension for disabled individuals unable to work, mobility allowance (which evolved into Disability Living Allowance and is now PIP), and Carer’s Allowance.
During my time working for the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn, two of our notable achievements included forcing then-Chancellor George Osborne into two significant U-turns regarding tax credits in 2015 and his proposal to cut £4.4 billion from PIP in 2016—specifically the benefit currently targeted by the present Chancellor Rachel Reeves. Ironically, PIP is not solely an out-of-work benefit. It is provided at varying levels based on the severity of a disability to individuals both in and out of work. For many disabled individuals, it is the vital support that enables them to maintain employment. Recklessly cutting PIP could easily lead to fewer disabled individuals being able to work.
Future Implications of Welfare Cuts
The impetus behind these cuts stems from self-imposed pressure to adhere to the Government’s spending targets. As Europe moves away from its own arbitrary fiscal rules to allow for increased borrowing, Reeves seems intent on clinging to her outdated ideology. However, if she feels the need for that security blanket, she could easily raise taxes on the super-rich by aligning capital gains tax with income tax.
Alternatively, if she seeks to save money on social security, she could invest more in clearing the NHS backlog—which would benefit many individuals who have had to claim sickness benefits—and cap rents, as billions of pounds from the social security budget flow directly to private landlords in the form of housing benefits.
Labour was founded as the party of the working class, which encompasses disabled individuals, students, pensioners, and the unemployed. Claiming that “Labour is the party of work” implies that it is exclusively for those employed, thus justifying Labour’s other policies that may lead to cuts in winter fuel payments for pensioners and increased university tuition fees for students. Yet, this Labour claims to be “the party of work.” Those who once worked, those who are about to work, those who have been laid off, or those who are unable to work are being relegated to the sidelines.
Andrew Fisher is a former executive director of policy for the Labour Party
