The Financial Times is reporting today that key Labour MPs are softening their opposition to another round of welfare cuts.
This comes in the same week that the Health Foundation has published evidence that I have already discussed this morning, showing that healthy life expectancy in the UK has collapsed, and that most people in the UK now become seriously ill before they even reach pension age, with our performance on this measure now being second worst among comparable wealthy nations.
The juxtaposition of these reports is not merely unfortunate. It is an indictment of Labour's thinking.
The FT reports that senior figures are preparing another round of welfare cuts, with the Tony Blair Institute calling for a "default ban on claiming sickness benefits for people with milder mental health problems." The justification offered is that the cost of benefits linked to ill health will exceed £100bn by the end of the decade.
The issue is that cost is all they appear to be worried about. What is missing from that conversation is any honest engagement with why so many people are ill.
First, people are not claiming sickness benefits because the system is too generous. They are claiming them because they are sick. The Health Foundation's evidence makes that clear. Healthy life expectancy has fallen sharply. In more than one in ten local authority areas, it is now below 55. This is a population health crisis, and it has identifiable causes. They are austerity, poor housing, insecure work, inadequate incomes, weakened public services, and a food environment saturated with ultra-processed products that are driving chronic illness at scale. Labour is addressing none of these things seriously.
Second, the economic logic being deployed is simply wrong. Cutting benefits does not make sick people well. It makes sick people poor. It does not return them to the workforce. Instead, it removes the support that might eventually allow some of them to do so. In addition, it reduces tax revenues further if maximising that tax from those on lower earnings is what the government wants to do, whilst increasing pressure on the NHS and social care, and transferring costs from the Treasury onto individuals and families least able to bear them. This is not fiscal responsibility. It is fiscal illiteracy dressed up as tough-mindedness.
Third, the politics here are as confused as the economics. Labour MPs who resisted last year's social security cuts are apparently now prepared to back "reform focused on getting people back to work," according to the FT. But work requires health. Unhealthy people, most especially in older age, are essentially unemployable, as many are finding to their cost. Health is, then, a precondition of work, but the environment that creates that good health has been systematically destroyed over more than a decade, and Labour shows little appetite for rebuilding it. Talking about work as the solution whilst ignoring what makes work impossible is not a serious position. It is a rhetorical gesture designed to neutralise political pressure.
The consequences of this approach are predictable. A further squeeze on sickness benefits will not reduce the number of sick people. It will simply make their lives harder, accelerate their deterioration, reduce their personal and financial resilience, and eventually increase the total burden they might impose on public services as the likelihood that they will have increased need for support as their old age advances and their finances run out will rise.
Meanwhile, the housing crisis continues, the food environment goes unaddressed, insecure work remains the norm for too many, and the public health infrastructure that has been hollowed out by austerity is not being rebuilt. The conditions that are driving people into ill health before they reach 60 will remain in that case.
This is the defining incoherence of Labour's current position. It has accepted the neoliberal framing that the welfare bill is a problem of supply. It says too many people are claiming benefits. The problem is not that; it is one of demand, because too many people are genuinely ill because of how the economy treats them. Until Labour confronts that distinction with a degree of honesty that appreciates beyond it at present, whatever reforms it proposes will fail on their own terms, and the human cost will continue to mount.
If the evidence that healthy life expectancy in one of the world's wealthiest countries is falling faster than almost anywhere else in the developed world is not enough to prompt a serious rethink, one has to ask what would be. Labour came to power promising change. On the evidence of this week, it is offering more of the same, whilst expecting different results.
That is not good enough. Not for the people living with the consequences. And not for a government that claims to govern in their interest.
Unless and until Labour abandons the now frighteningly apparent incoherence of neoliberal thinking, it has nothing to say to this country, and a recent opinion poll outcome that suggested it might have just nine seats in the next parliament may be nine seats too many, so irrelevant is it, and its Tony Blair Institute-derived thinking to the well-being of the people of this country now.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The logical endpoint of this withdrawal of national social security would be local facilities in each parish where the ill and the old and the destitute and the desperate – all of the undeserving poor – can be housed together and put to some useful work. What could we call such institutions? I know – workhouses. What could possibly go wrong?
In a few years time, we are going to worry about homelessness and drink and drugs and street crime and wonder where it comes from.
Much to agree with
Yes. I’ve written a few times here that eventually a modern day version of the Poor Law will be introduced. Probably guaranteed to happen if Reform/Tories are in power for any length of time. More or less every policy that they have to increase the wealth of the well-off (or defence), is based on “finding the money” from cutting back welfare.
But Labour tends to follow suit. There is this obsession with getting people back to work, when the value of that work, and whether unhealthy people can actually do it, is never discussed.
And if AI progresses as suggested by some, the work for many isn’t going to be there in the future. Something else that neoliberalism has no answer to.
I have a motto for those workhouses, Andrew.
Work makes you free.
Seems familiar though. Can’t quite place it.
Nice motto.
As an alternative I offer “to each what they deserve”. Because obviously our open, socially mobile and meritocratic society is structured so that people are economically rich from their own hard work, intrinsic merits, and moral worth. And anyone who is poor deserves what they get.
Last year, after all the kerfuffle that lino backtracked on social security cuts, they did not. They quietly went about doing it with little attention from the media.
That being said, I dont claim anything persoanlly but my understansing is there is no such as a sickness element anymore – perhaps a contributor on here can has some insight, I mean, whats left to cut?
Mr T Blair has always always wanted to end Social Security, his nebulous Institute who I feel are realy running things in the UK have no right whatsoever to be interfering here.
The cabinet represent no more that nodding dogs who seem to have no conscious, what so ever about running down the country. I find the lot of them evil, frankly.
I wonder, what will the vile papers write when they have finally abolished all forms of social security?
They will write that the elderly, especially the infirm elderly, are a drag on the economy and jeopardise the well-being of the young, so should be disposed of. It’s an argument already being heard in certain quarters.
https://yaledailynews.com/articles/ishikawa-the-cost-of-aging-who-gets-to-bear-the-burden
[…] is declining. Levels of the investment looked to be falling. Simultaneously, the government is looking at austerity once more with the intention of reducing support for those in need in the […]
You can’t expect the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, to concentrate on such secondary matters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Streeting
Firstly, they are way beyond his competence and experience.
Secondly, he is focussed (and has been for some years) on becoming Prime Minister (after May 7th, but before Labour are obliterated at a GE – his own majority in Ilford North is 528).
Thirdly, with his political donors and sponsors being heavily involved with private health care providers (when they aren’t lobbying for Netanyahu’s government), he has little personal incentive to pursue improvements in the health of the wider population (unless it involves the provision of long term drug-based solutions like weight-loss injections).
Given Labour’s stonking majority in 2024, it is politically unforgiveable that they did not come into government prepared to use their mandate to drag the “social care” issue out of the long grass, and implement a lasting radical solution. But of course they had other priorities – changing the party, and preparing it for self-immolation. At that task at least, they look to be succeeding.
Much to agree with
The causes of poor health are poor diet, excessive drinking, inadequate exercise, and smoking. Last time I looked it was not the government that made me fat. These are all individual choices that when they impact my or any one’s health get socialized as a government cost. Health care in this country has increased from about 7% of GDP to 11% since 2000. There has to be a limit to what government can spend on our health if we dont take individual care of what we do with our bodies. While I agree with much of your writing I can’t accept that my bacon sandwich and three pints is the fault of Keir Starmer. You tend to put government into the middle of everything. In the end the British are unhealthy surely because they do it to themselves. I can’t hold a world view that my environment is entirely shaped by malign actors working on me that the government should be controlling and that I have no ability to manage my own destiny at all.
I think this frames the issue far too narrowly. Of course individual choices matter. No one is denying personal agency. But choices are not made in a vacuum.
Diet is shaped by food pricing, marketing, availability and working patterns. Exercise is shaped by transport systems, urban design and available leisure time. Alcohol consumption is influenced by pricing, advertising and social stress. Smoking rates are strongly correlated with deprivation. These are not excuses. They are realities.
If unhealthy outcomes were simply the result of bad individual decisions, health inequalities would not map so closely onto income, housing quality, education and geography, but they do.
That does not mean government should control every aspect of life. It does mean government has a responsibility to shape environments that make healthier choices easier.
And yes, there must be discussion about prevention. But prevention is not lecturing people about bacon sandwiches. It is addressing poverty, insecurity, stress and the commercial incentives that profit from poor health outcomes.
That is not neoliberal dogma’s opposite. It is simply recognising that health is both personal and social. Pretending it is only one or the other guarantees failure, and you are providing an excuse for that failure. Why?
Michael Bax
You need to read more and understand how the British state is configured. Start with Fintan O’Toole’s ‘Heroic Failure’ (2019) and his postscript from p.237.
O’Toole identifies that in the UK, power is highly centralised. This is what enabled the Attlee’s government to enact sweeping progressive reforms in the post war period. Conversely this centralised power is what also has held us back previously and also enables what Attlee achieved to be rolled back and to be wantonly discarded.
Therefore – O’Toole argues – the UK is too dependent or vulnerable on the whims of whoever becomes in charge of such a system of power. Richard’s insertion of the state in the ‘middle of everything’ merely reflects what he and his fellow Irishman know to be true about the way this country is governed – only those on the outside of it can see it perhaps?
Consider this? Does such a state mitigate those selling booze, food, drugs, debt, fags, health products to is citizenry or just let those selling do what they like? And if, so – who should bear the cost of the consequences? Indeed, what are those consequences for the individual and the country?
The answer you would get would depend on what sort of mindset there was of the people in charge wouldn’t it? Would you call that ‘governance’? I’d call it a fucking lottery. Not exactly democracy is it?
Remember that when we fought WW1, the soldiers we needed were mostly in poor physical condition and under nourished. Because the people in charge of a powerful system of doing nothing about it. That is what we have now – politicians refusing to use their power to help you, me and Richard.
Many thanks
Might current Labour Party attitudes on the well-being of our citizens, and their children (aka. Future citizens and workers) be a result of its political theory and practices being somewhere on a spectrum between ignorance and perversity?
Might they be failing to differentiate between an essential resource and a medium of exchange/representative tool?
P. S. The word-concept “attitudes” has been chosen instead of the word-concept “thinking”, as the latter word seems to be beyond the capability of the current Labour Party.
[…] continue my theme of health, care and Labour's incoherence, already well established this morning, comments in the media forced me to look at a new report from the so-called Tony Blair Institute […]
[…] continue my theme of health, care and Labour's incoherence, already well established this morning, comments in the media forced me to look at a new report from the so-called Tony Blair Institute […]
I suppose what we are seeing is the the success of the Thatcherite idea that it was social security that brought the country to its knees (or should we say von Hayek’s serfdom ‘hypothesis’).
It says a lot about us as a people that we should at once develop a system of social security and ‘think that it was too good to be true’ or that ‘we’ve never had it so good’ and then squander it. It shows a lack of faith, a weakness of character – almost as if we had never stop believing that the sky would fall on our heads. It’s a sort of fatalism that can only ever come out of NOT a lack of imagination, but a deep humanistic love of death (see Thomas Hobbes) itself born out of lack of faith in life (and I’m afraid this is where religion and the ‘afterlife’ does not help – it pushes us to squander the here and now in the pursuit of some fantastical dream accessible through death).
This my friends is what you get in when you treat a people harshly, remove safety nets, opportunity and don’t mitigate against unfair power structures in society.
Kinnock Junior MP was on C4 last night and he was both semi aware AND dumb when he said that society seems to make life impossible for anyone trying to improve things. He touched on something real but negated any responsibility for it as a politician in charge of the law and policy (it was society’s fault, not Labour’s). Unwittingly, he gave Starmer’s Labour party away right there – what Fintan O’Toole calls its ‘effective nullity’ (great turn of phrase that only an Irishman could muster).
Outrageous but, sadly, not a surprise. Those in receipt of benefits still remain a useful political football to those politicians seeking the votes of those members of the electorate who believe that those in receipt of benefits are nothing but scroungers.
Maybe they should consider implementing what happened in the film ‘Logan’s Run’. It would reduce the need for pensions and the cost to the Treasury!! I am not serious in that suggestion, obviously. But, what is being proposed would cause harm to many, many people in society and how can that even start to be justified?
Craig
Logans Run Craig? We are heading more towards Soylent Green, if Palantir get their way…
Tim Lang talked about making healthy choices easy choices, look for example at the Dutch cycle network
I see Labour has had a resurgence in the polls at the expense of the Greens which is unfortunate. Zach has had a lot of unfair confrontation on national tv of late which obviously hasn’t helped.
Maybe the sums of money (business profits and public health and adult care payments) that the present and previous governments allow to be offshored through tax havens along with pension tax reliefs should be relabelled as ‘welfare’ payments (for the wealthy)?
The removal of these reclassified ‘wealthy welfare’ payments that exist for the ‘benifit’ of a small very wealthy minority would then make sense.
By redirecting these ‘wealthy welfare’ payments and effectively onshoring business and care home profits, these funds could be properly reinvested in the various businesses and adult care homes, etc., (that employ these practices) to pay their employees better wages, improving working conditions and raise the quality of the services and products they provide their local customers (i.e., benefit the many)
I predict that long term this would strangely reduce the need for the current goverment’s so called ‘welfare’ payments?
I am not sure these activities were “permitted”.
I am not sure how to attach this link properly?
https://publication.cles.org.uk/ending-extraction-in-the-uk-care-system/#case-studies-1
It is a link to an interesting recent report on reclaiming our regional economies and ending extraction in the uk care industry that highlights the problem of finacial ‘leakage’ and includes case studies that outline how local community initiatives, carers, volunteers, families and local councils are coming together to try and take back control of caring for the most vulnerable in society.
My partner (supported by myself) cares for her father who has dementia in our own home and therefore we have first hand experience of how the current care system setup is failing a 89 year old registered blind veteran. Fortunately he has a caring daughter to care for him and keep him safe.
Thank you.
What if what we are observing is a feature and not a bug? Who benefits?
Why do you think that when it is not elsewhere?
I’m no apologist for Labour or Tony Blair but I think the institute’s recommendation is sound. It states that those with non-work limiting conditions covering anxiety, stress-related disorders, lower back pain, common musculoskeletal complaints and certain neurodevelopmental conditions would receive treatment and employment support in place of benefits to avoid drawing too many people into long-term dependency for conditions that are often treatable and compatible with work. I have been diagnosed with depression for 30 years and have always worked as has my brother who has been diagnosed with depression and anxiety for near the same. I agree with everything else you’ve written but cannot see how this recommendation is not better for people with these conditions. To quote a GP involved, “A system that leaves people on benefits without timely treatment or a route back to work is not compassionate. It is bad for the country and bad for people’s health.”
Because over the last four decades the trickle down austerity game has been played over and over in the capitalist west to the same detriments for the many and benefits for the few. Becomes difficult to imagine that it’s not done with intent, as ignorant as that intent might be.
If it’s done with knowing intent then it is truly without any sense of morality. It all comes back to the question of what is government for?