The welfare cuts – which according to charities are bigger than the Tories’ – are set to impact 15,000 disabled households here in Southwark alone, costing most thousands of pounds a year. That is not what people voted for. That is what Rachel Reeves and the Labour Party has chosen to do.
When people put their cross next to Labour in 2024, they did not vote to push 250,000 disabled people, including 50,000 children, into poverty. But that’s exactly what’s happening – not to fund hospitals, or schools, or social care – but because Labour refuses to tax tech giants and the super-rich.
This wasn’t a mistake. This was a choice.
Here in Southwark, I’ve seen the impact of these decisions firsthand. I’ve knocked on the doors of people waiting on disability assessments for months, carers juggling unpaid work with relentless bureaucracy, and families living with the daily pressure of foodbanks and fuel debt.
And yet, this Labour government is offering nothing but more of the same.
Southwark Labour councillors – who once campaigned against austerity – have twice voted unanimously against Liberal Democrat proposals to push for change. In November, they refused to call on the Government to reinstate the Winter Fuel Payment for pensioners. Then in March, they rejected our motion to scrap the two-child benefit cap – a cruel and arbitrary limit that is currently affecting 7,670 children in 2,170 families across Southwark.
Nationally, Labour MPs like Diane Abbott have voiced their concern, warning that “there is nothing moral about cutting benefits for what may be up to a million people.” But the front bench isn’t listening – and the poorest are paying the price.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
At the last election, the Liberal Democrats set out the most ambitious anti-poverty welfare platform of any major party. We committed to scrapping the two-child limit and the benefit cap, cutting the Universal Credit wait time from five weeks to five days, and increasing Carer’s Allowance by £20 a week while reforming its eligibility rules. We backed an “essentials guarantee” – ensuring that benefits are actually enough to cover life’s basics.
Our leader, Sir Ed Davey, has been clear: the welfare system must change – yes, to help people into work where possible – but above all to support those who can’t. This government’s refusal to spell out the impact of its cuts is not just damaging – it’s cruel. As Ed said, it is “stirring up fear and anxiety” among the very people it should be protecting.
Labour had a historic mandate to bring hope. Instead, they’ve delivered excuses and austerity-lite.
The Liberal Democrats are now the only party offering a clear, fair and compassionate alternative. We believe in a society where everyone’s dignity is protected – and that belief runs through every policy we fight for, both nationally and locally.
Because poverty is not inevitable. It is a political choice. And we choose to end it.
* Cllr Victor Chamberlain is a Liberal Democrat member of the Local Infrastructure and Net Zero Board at the LGA and is the Leader of the Opposition on Southwark Council.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
How the war impacted on Ravensworth
The Englishman in the High Castle
Slow consulting
ALS, MND - is this another disease where biohacking has potential?
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Care homes under threat after Labour policy change
David Le Grice
Geoffrey Payne
Simon McGrath
11 Comments
“And we choose to end it”
Whether we can end poverty depends entirely on how we define poverty. If we define poverty as not having enough to afford to buy the basic essentials of life, then our ‘essentials guarantee’ may well end poverty. However, if we continue to define poverty using a relative poverty measure, such as having an income less than 60% of the median income, then the ‘essentials guarantee’ will likely be insufficient.
I agree with the basic of life comment, but even here, a little bit of disposable income makes life better. A policy change, to say . basic’s of life plus 5% for disposable income would be appropriate.
@Nigel Hunter
Interesting suggestion. So perhaps we should also be defining the minimum wage on a similar basis? So, if those not working for a living get basic essentials plus 5%, I assume that those who choose to move from benefits to work should receive more. Would basic essentials plus 30% be a sufficient differential?
The problem is that the income required to buy the essentials varies. The biggest factors are housing and debt. The basic outgoings of those with a mortgage free house are a fraction of those for a commercial renter or someone with a mortgage.
The cuts in welfare benefits announced by this Labour government will cost them dearly as they should.
They have a big commons majority but it was achieved on a very low share of the popular vote, greatly assisted by Reform splitting the right wing vote. We need to be very vocal about our commitment to the most vulnerable and take Labour on in their heartlands. Under Starmer they are a party with no soul whatsoever and they deserve
to be consigned to history.
Sorry. I can’t see a word about where the money to pay for all this is coming from.
@Tristan. I can see six “tech giants and the super-rich”. While those need taxing more, it’s not a big tax base. If we are serious about ending poverty, we will need to raise broad-based taxes that result in reduced differentials between living standards winthin the central income brackets and everyone on above average incomes paying more.
Might reform of our distorted tax system make our society more efficient by being more transparent, understood and fair and so more motivating?
Might such reduce economic pressures on the disadvantaged and facilitate less cruel governmental decisions?
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/04/14/the-uk-tax-system-is-deeply-regressive-when-gains-are-taken-into-account/
Taxing wealth is all very well but is it a reliable source of revenue?
Governmental expenditures are paid for by its creation of money. Some, but not all, “recovered” by taxation. Taxation is a tool for managing inflation and, most importantly, a tool for shaping society.
Might it be that if taxation is not equitable and transparent, which it is not, then society is distorted and less effective/efficient?
https://braveneweurope.com/richard-murphy-the-role-of-tax
Labour had a huge opportunity following the GE to create a fairer and more evenly balanced society by introducing or increasing taxes on income and especially wealth that has had for decades a detrimental affect on life chances and qualty of life.