After 14 years of misgovernance, turmoil, and ongoing reductions to public services, the Conservatives have lost power, allowing the Labour Party to reclaim Number 10. Nevertheless, recent actions suggest that the Tories’ influence lingers.
The decision to eliminate the Winter Fuel Allowance and reduce benefits aligns with Conservative policies that prioritise a “balanced budget” over the welfare of the most vulnerable in society. Conversely, Labour has historically prided itself on advocating against poverty and social injustice, exemplified by its efforts to legalise abortion, decriminalise homosexuality, repeal Section 28, and lift millions from poverty.
However, this has shifted. During the 2024 election campaign, Labour spoke of “tight fiscal rules” concerning government spending. Many assumed this was a tactic to placate the right-wing media and prevent a repeat of the 2019 election loss. This view seemed reinforced by initiatives such as renationalising the railways, boosting local community investments, and increasing the defence budget.
The first significant blow came in October 2024 when Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced cuts to that year’s Winter Fuel Allowance. Just 16 years prior, Gordon Brown celebrated this policy as a significant Labour achievement against the Tories.
Shortly after, in March 2025, the government revealed another cut: benefits would be reduced.
Looking back to 2010, Labour and others condemned the Coalition Government’s decision to slash benefits as “inhumane.” Now, fifteen years later, Labour finds itself following the same path.
Some argue that the current state of the country and the world is significantly different from 2010 or even 2020. Many within Labour say that, although they do not favour these changes, they are essential for immediate stability, which will ultimately lead to long-term solutions. Yet, this doesn’t change the fact that millions will face poverty in the name of achieving a “balanced budget.”
In addition to the severe difficulties confronting those in poverty, another issue is emerging that mirrors the Conservatives’ 2010 challenges due to their austerity measures: the far right is poised to exploit a political void, a scenario Labour knows all too well.
When former Chancellor George Osborne initiated cuts to welfare spending, UKIP, led by “man of the people” Nigel Farage, capitalised on the government’s lost credibility. They campaigned against “the establishment”, criticised neoliberal policies, and even advocated for pulling the UK out of the EU, flipping the narrative on the “balanced budget.”
Fast forward to 2025, and UKIP has been supplanted by Reform, another of Farage’s projects. The government’s recent responses have included attempts to quell Reform’s rise, seen in a series of U-turns regarding welfare cuts. However, based on current polling, Labour seems to have acted too late; Reform is about to become at least the official opposition party, if not lead a minority government.
Rather than ally with progressive, left-leaning parties, Labour’s overconfidence may have betrayed us all to the rise of populism.
* Jack Meredith is a member of the Welsh Liberal Democrats and an active campaigner and canvasser with Swansea and Gower Liberal Democrats. His writing focuses on democratic reform, social justice, trade unionism, economic democracy, and the institutional foundations of effective government. He has written for the Fabians, Lib Dem Voice, Liberator, Nation Cymru, Bylines Cymru, and Centre Think Tank.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
13 Comments
Goodness me, some people have short memories. In 1982, the Liberal/SDP Alliance was riding very high in the polls and at one point reached 50%, more than twice as much as either of the other parties. But in the GE of 1983, the Alliance failed to make a major breakthrough in terms of seats and the Tories would continue in power until 1997.
We are over 4 years out from a General Election. Nobody knows how many bust-ups and fall-outs will happen to Reform UK before we elect a new parliament. They will also, almost certainly, make a total fist of running councils.
Our job as Liberal Democrats is to be the opposition to authoritarian parties like Reform, the Tories and indeed Labour. That requires boldness and resolve and to stop pussyfooting around difficult issues.
That means our policies like the EU, Trans rights, Free Trade (anti Trump) and other things needs to be upfront and overt. Faint heart never won fair maiden!
In response to Mick Taylor:
“Our job as Liberal Democrats is to be the opposition to authoritarian parties like Reform, the Tories and indeed Labour. That requires boldness and resolve, and to stop pussyfooting around difficult issues.”
I agree with this sentiment, but how does it contradict what I’ve written? Labour has abandoned the British people in an attempt to counteract right-wing populism with right-wing populism, which is what I am arguing in my piece.
Unless I have misunderstood your comment, in which case, I apologise!
@ Mick,
The 1983 election was somewhat unusual in that Mrs Thatcher herself was extremely unpopular just a year or so earlier, and would almost certainly have lost had it not been for one factor which you didn’t mention.
Namely: The Falklands War.
It’s unlikely that Keir Starmer will be quite so lucky.
Although both the Conservatives and Reform have the same basic politico-social aim, which is to increase the wealth and powers of the already over wealthy and over powerful to the cost of regular citizens and their children, they have different rhetorics. Reform also has the asset of not having a rubbish record in government.
The increased use of food banks and the lack of affordable housing demonstrate both the cruel and destabilising consequences of Austerity/Neo-liberalism, which is still the foundation policy of both the above parties.
What an opportunity is there now for the L. D. Party to have the decisively different socio-economic policy of Social Liberalism, which treats and enables all fairly and so reduces hunger and homelessness and increases our trade power by reducing the costs of living for regular citizens and their children.
Social Liberalism, with its central Mixed Economy facet, has been, and could be, of benefit to our Country and the L. D. Party.
Might a genuinely competitive mixed market and economy, replacing the current inefficient private/rentier dominated set up, make our society healthier, wealthier and more competitive internationally?
“Reform also has the asset of not having a rubbish record in government.”
Yes – because it doesn’t yet have any record covering a reasonable time
I’m not convinced pensioners are the most vulnerable. The triple lock means that pensioners are not worse off in real terms compared to feb 2022 when the war in Ukraine pushed inflation up. Libdems might gain politically by opposing the wfa cut but means testing it is the sensible thing to do in my opinion.
@Russell
“I’m not convinced pensioners are the most vulnerable.”
Isn’t that a dangerous generalisation?
Some pensioners may have greater outgoings than many people e.g. if they have no income other than state pension and maybe some benefits but their living expenses might exceed their income e.g. due to energy costs – which may be coming down a bit but have still gone up a long way.
And some / many may have health problems whose costs are not fully covered by any form of benefits. Costs such as extra transport costs if they are e.g. mobility-impaired and need to spend on taxis because a taxi is the only form of transport suitable for them.
Such a pensioner might which to move to cheaper more suitable accomodation e.g. smaller and more energy-efficient bu there may be none available in their area. Are you going to uproot them from a community where they may have lived all their lives and dump them somewhere with cheaper living costs?
“Libdems might gain politically by opposing the wfa cut but means testing it is the sensible thing to do in my opinion.”
But what is the most efficient way of means testing it? If covering the cost of applying means testing is high it may not be worth doing.
This comfortably off Libdem pensioner (well over normal retirement age) thinks the simplest thing to do would be to treat the wfa as taxable income. It would apply to their highest rate of income tax
Most energy companies average bills over the year so if you pay that way your Winter fuel bill is no higher than your Summer fuel bill. the benefit should just be folded into pension credits and avoid the double means-testing. Everybody’s essential costs are slightly higher in winter, mainly due to higher fresh food costs but we also spend more on non-essentials during the festive season. A simple solution would be to have the annual rises for all benefits in the Autumn rather than the Spring.
If we start shouting and being on tv more shouldn’t the headline be Labour benefit cuts, boon for the Lib Dems!
Hmmm. The decision to eliminate the Winter Fuel Allowance… What decision to eliminate the Winter Fuel Allowance? The decision was to pay it only to poorer pensioners (as measured by, claiming certain benefits), not to eliminate it. We can argue about whether that was a good idea or not, but sticking such blatant falsehoods in an article doesn’t exactly help its credibility!
I agree though that Reform have been able to capitalise a lot on that decision. Although as the next election gets nearer, if Reform are still a threat, then they are likely to get scrutinised much more on their economic credibility. They might then find that promises to splash out lots of money on raising various benefits without accounting for where the money could come from don’t help them as much
I still maintain that with the triple lock those pensioners who have lost the wfa are no worse off in real terms than they were pre Feb 2022 so I fail to see the issue. Those on pension credit are significantly better off. Instead of talking down the economy for 4 months pre their budget they should have announced the wfa means testing as part of an August 2024 budget. Means testing the wfa was the right thing to do.
The Winter Fuel Allowance sends the wrong message. There is a need to redirect the monies already being raised by the energy efficiency and green levies on our energy bills to more effectively reduce energy consumption by certain sections of society.
It is daft for example that warehouses being built in the East Midlands do not have solar panels and wind turbines installed and supply free electricity to their neighbours as part of the section 106 agreement.
So carry on with the old arguments and loose to Reform or change the debate.
I’m sure pensioners on pension credit are hardly rolling in it !
The point about means testing the WFA is that those pensioners whose sole income is the state pension lose out on that WFA by having £3 a week extra as opposed to those on pension credit . They are the pensioners who’ve built up significant NI contributions – many of whom would of been in low paid employment without the back up a public/works pension. It’s no wonder they feel agreived. So much pain for Labour for so little gain. A lesson learned for any incoming future government.