A philosophy of cynicism and cruelty
As a country, we have a very long and complex history when it comes to how we treat our most vulnerable. In recent years, it is abundantly clear that our country has failed to treat these people with dignity. From the Elizabethan Poor Laws to the introduction of austerity, we have a pattern of taking one step forward, followed by two steps back — and this Labour government is no exception to the rule.
We have a government that solely values its citizens based on how much income tax they pay, disregarding the many other ways they may contribute to our society — whether through intellectual, creative work, or contributions to their communities. To believe that the value of a person is derived from economic output alone is simply cynical and callous, although the Treasury does not share that worldview.
Ideology above basic economic sense
Upon hearing the recent announcements regarding the incoming welfare cuts, I took it upon myself to research the harms that will be inflicted, beyond increased food insecurity and squalor. On the surface, one might think that if welfare spending is likely to spiral out of control, it would make sense to make cuts to rein it in. However, once you consider the harms of doing so, you will arrive at a very different conclusion.
Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall would have you believe that welfare cuts will encourage people to enter the workforce and that our benefits are too ‘generous’ — even though the Resolution Foundation disproved this. Making our most vulnerable poorer will only make them sicker, not more inclined towards employment.
However, it doesn’t stop there — as we all know, bad policy leads to a domino effect of even worse outcomes. Whether you agree that current welfare spending is unsustainable or not, you cannot fail to recognize that making people poorer and sicker often comes with self-compounding economic harms:
- Cutting benefits will inevitably lead to deeper poverty, increased NHS spending, and a reduction in employment figures — you won’t make people find a job by making them sicker.
- Many claimants rely upon these benefits to afford care, whether that be social care or even from the private healthcare sector due to waiting lists. However, cuts to benefits such as PIP would distort both supply and demand in health and social care, due to reduced affordability, increased costs for local authorities, and unmet care needs — leading to inflationary pressure.
- Health and social care won’t be the only sectors affected — it will reduce demand in retail and local business, as lower-income households tend to spend most of their income on essentials. Additionally, this could risk cost-push inflation.
- We will see increased reliance on credit, as claimants will be left out of pocket by these cuts, leading to rising interest rates — a contributing factor to inflationary pressure.
Benefits such as Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment have a stimulus effect, because recipients have a high marginal propensity to consume, which leads to higher spending in local economies, a fiscal multiplier effect, and increased employment and productivity. Cancelling that effect with cuts will affect everyone.
We know that this decision will subject our most vulnerable, those already living well below the breadline, to even greater despair and struggle. It will widen the poverty gap and cause more people to rely on foodbanks. It will leave families with less food on the table, affecting the health, wellbeing, and futures of their children.
However, the difference between us and the Treasury is that we care; we will see the impacts in our communities, with people queuing to enter food banks and struggling to get the care they need. Even if those in SW1 don’t.
There is another option
While precise figures are scarce, previous estimates suggest that closing the disability employment gap might generate at least £50bn per year for our economy, which itself would keep welfare spending sustainable. Not only would it generate billions for the economy, it would increase the stimulus effect created by benefits, therefore reducing poverty and improving living standards. However, this Labour government wishes to cut Access to Work which helps countless disabled people into work and stay employed.
We could live in a country where disabled people, working or not, don’t have to worry about putting food on the table or whether they’ll get sick because they can’t afford essentials such as heating. We could make significant progress towards improving living standards for our most vulnerable members of society. We could put an end to a broken social strata, one which keeps the sick and vulnerable enslaved to poverty and squalor, policed by bad policymaking, inequalities, and inequities.
That is what we, as liberals, must strive for. It is time for our party to put its foot down with this Labour government, which is hell-bent on only making things worse. We have done well so far, but that must not end with Prime Minister’s Questions. It must only be the beginning of a campaign that fights for those underrepresented voices that are being ignored by this government.
* Jack Carter is a member of the Liberal Democrats based in Somerset.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour MPs revolt
Edward Street of old #dundeewestend
Tens of Thousands
A Puffin Books profile of Joan Aiken
"Could you be the one to help a care leaver?"
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Peter Martin
nigel hunter
Craig Levene
Thelma Davies
13 Comments
Thanks Jack. Can you give a reference for the “£50bn per year” estimate, please?
It is a sign of how far from their founding principles Labour has drifted that they can even contemplate cutting benefits.
In 1931 when Ramsey MacDonald did that he split the cabinet had to form a coalition with the Tories and as a result was expelled from the party he led.
The Labour party was lobotimised by Blair, its structures reformed to crush dissent and union influence water down considerably. Starmer won’t end up being treated like MacDonald but he could oversee Labour’s lowest share of the vote since 1931 when the party was crushed at the polls!
Interesting article but it fails to discuss an important concept – the idea of ‘the deserving poor’ and the ‘undeserving poor’. Put simply, most people don’t mind paying a slice of the income they have earned by working if that money is used to help ‘the deserving poor’ but they often feel differently if it goes to those they may view as ‘undeserving poor’ – such as people who may be capable of working for a living but prefer to live on benefits. Sadly we appear to be seeing growing numbers of young people not going on to employment, training or further/higher education once they leave school. Some of these do have genuine mental health issues but others merely prefer to spend their time gaming. Unless we advocate strongly for universal basic income for all, there will continue to be resentment about those choosing not to work but instead to live off the taxes paid by those who do.
@ David Warren. You refer to the 1931 so called National Government but fail to add that the then Liberal Party took part in this, though shortly afterwards it split into three directions.
@ Mike Peters. I would have thought that a universal basic income scheme would increase rather than reduce the problem you refer to, and I don’t see why folk such as Farage and Lord Sugar should be recipients.
David, as our party policy is now for a Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) to be brought in gradually by increases in welfare benefits to end deep poverty, and no longer for a Universal Basic Income (UBI), there would be no question of Farage or Lord Sugar gaining from this scheme.
@David Raw (@Mike Peters) There are two issues perception and reality. It is possible that a benefit which is also given to the deserving comfortably off and even the undeserving rich will be less resented, especially if framed as negative income tax.
The reality is that a UBI system would leave far fewer people facing taper rates that might make working uneconomical.
I’m in favour of more ideology and less “common sense”, given that common sense amounts to the shared prejudices of one’s own reference group.
@David Raw Well spotted!
@David Raw
From what I’ve read, giving every citizen an annual payment sufficient to meet basic needs – which would be taxable for income tax purposes – and then not requiring a benefits system for those unable or unwilling to earn their own income, would give us the best of all worlds: people would have enough to meet their basic needs, there would be no disincentive to work (the ‘some are better off living on benefits’ argument), and the universal aspect of the payment would prevent resentment of those who appear to be living off the income taxes being paid by others. I understand people will object to the idea of millionaires getting the payment, but we already give millionaires free NHS health care and other universal benefits so this is no different in principle. (Plus we can easily increase tax rates for higher earners to remove the extra income they are getting, so it is not a real issue.)
@Mike Peters Have you met anyone who prefers to spend all their time gaming? Who deserves who is deserving and who isn’t? I think we need to cut the judgements and give everyone UBI and be done with it all.
@Meg Thomas
I agree that everyone should get UBI – that was the point I was making. This also prevents us having to think and make judgements about whether people are genuinely looking for employment or not. Those who do work for a living will always be better off that those who don’t, so working will always pay.
And yes, I do know people who could easily work but don’t – and a couple of those spend their time gaming (though they are a minority).
It’s not just “New New Labour”. The system that the LibDems, and previously the Liberals, support has always relied on the threat of poverty to encourage everyone to get up in the morning to go to work. Govts want us to do the necessary work to get the money to pay our taxes. It’s the work that society needs to be done though. Govts don’t need the money per se. They are the ones who create it.
Unfortunately Govts don’t actually guarantee everyone the opportunity of a job which is within our capabilities to do. Many disabled people such as those suffering from Downs syndrome would like to work but are often overlooked by potential employers.
So, they are going to issue an ultimatum to everyone, they really should ensure that all of us do have an opportunity to respond.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-32613957