Labour has been urged not to duck out of major welfare reform despite fears the party looks like it is targeting the “most vulnerable” in society. Plans to tighten access to disability benefits have caused unrest among MPs and triggered the resignation of a Labour whip.
The Government’s own impact assessment estimates 370,000 people claiming Personal Independence Payments in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will lose out. The number of future claimants could fall by 430,000.
A Labour MP warned it looks as if the Government is “going after the most vulnerable people in society”.
He said: “It was the pensioners to start off with, now it’s the disabled this time.”
The MP warned of unhappiness among some newly elected Labour members, saying: “They’re saying Starmer sure is not going to lead us into the next election. I think a lot of people would be happy if he stepped down before the next election.”
There are fears opposition to welfare changes in Labour ranks will stop the Government from making much bigger changes.
Daniel Herring of the Centre for Policy Studies said: “If Labour duck welfare reform, they will be condemning many to a life without purpose as well as loading current and future taxpayers with unsustainable debt.”
He said the “moral and fiscal” case for reform is “overwhelming,” arguing that the “taxpayer simply cannot afford to keep footing the bill for claims on the current trajectory”.
In April, official forecasts showed total UK welfare spending is on course to hit nearly £375billion in 2029-30.
Sebastian Charleton of the Adam Smith Institute also pressed for change, describing welfare spending in the UK as “grossly unsustainable”.
He said: “Benefits must once again be reserved for those genuinely unable to work - not used as a blanket provision that stifles aspiration.
“The government’s recent plans are welcome but they fail to meaningfully reduce the welfare bill in the long term. If politicians are serious about restoring Britain’s finances and getting Brits back to work, ambitious and systemic change must follow.”
The Department for Work and Pensions was invited to comment.
