As the Guardian notes this morning:
Ministers have left the door open to a humiliating U-turn on their highly contentious plans to cut benefits for disabled people, amid mounting uproar over the proposals across the Labour party.
Both Downing Street and the Department for Work and Pensions did not deny they were about to backtrack on plans to impose a real-terms cut to the personal independence payment (Pip) for disabled people, including those who cannot work, by cancelling an inflation-linked rise due to come into force next spring.
Think about this for a moment.
Labour ministers, who have received a pay rise of 2.8% to bring their basic MP pay to £93,904 from April, with the pay of every minister being in six figures as a result, were planning to remove the inflation element of the Personal Independence Payment from all recipients of that benefit, whatever their condition, in a deliberate move intended to make their lives harder so that Rachel Reeves might balance her books.
I could spend a long time analysing this, or simply summarise what this looks like. It would seem that, like Musk, these ministers have had an empathy bypass. They are clearly utterly unable to comprehend the situation of a person with a disability utterly dependent on state help - which many will feel guilty about claiming because the whole system is callously set up to make them feel that way - but without which they cannot survive.
It takes some quite extraordinary lack of humanity to be unable to do that when the facts will be known to you.
A person who is so indifferent to the condition of others that they considered this, and had to be forced into reversing their decision, is not fit to be a government minister. That is where some Labour ministers are.
This is the Age of Aggression in action.
This is neoliberal indifference made clear.
This is an action promoted by those suffering ethical indifference.
This is callousness.
This was unforgivable, Starmer, Reeves and Kendall.
We should not forget.
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!
If anything the suggestions they’ll remove or severely restrict Universal Credit ‘limited capacity for work related activity’ is even worse.
That’s not making a small reduction, that’s removing hundreds of pounds a month from Pele that have been assessed as having essentially little to no possibility to replace that lost money through other means
Pretty much the first thing they should have done is abolish the two child benefit cap which puts thousands of families and their children into poverty. Punishing the children on a misguided moralistic crusade against feckless parents. As if families who fall on hard times – or indeed blended families with children from previous relarionship – can somehow not have third and subsequent children retrospectively. At a stoke it could eliminate a huge amount of childhood poverty.
Then the spare bedroom tax. Because the poor must be grateful to live in cramped and overcrowded rooms.
But no, the Labour government keep this performative cruelty. And then double down by attacking the disabled.
They talk the talk of helping the poor, but their actions speak louder. Hateful.
All to agree with
No kid starver we won’t forget
You may u turn but it’s not decided if the criteria for pip is tightened. Tighten the pip less people qualify, those on carers allowance also no longer qualify so that’s double the amount of people now having to look for a job to feed them selves. And the carer still has to have caring responsibilities and work full time as there is little no no part time jobs and they won’t be considered for a role in the first place as they need flexibility to be a carer. There is a vicious cycle.
Also a u turn does not stop what you identified as the equally vicious employment cycle which is systematically failing the disabled and non economic unit populations.
And on top of all this the policy is only being tweaked to appease the protests not because it is the just and humanitarian thing to do.
Interesting article from the SNP
https://www.snp.org/slippery-starmers-many-u-turns/.
I had not realised the sheer amount until reading, As with most politics today blat a shocking story quickly cover it and everyone forgets, rinse and repeat. It’s a Tory trick that continues, people are too tired and downtrodden to question anything and become numb to the sh@tshow that is now our country.
Thanks
This is what happens when we allow politics to be imbued with the values of the rich who fund politics.
It’s very simple.
You can’t have the rich outspending the rest of us to bend the ears of our politicians in their favour. That is not democracy .
If many in Labour feel that you just have to accept the world as you find it, then what is the point of politics? You might as well hand the whole lot back over to Charlie and his missus and the ever expanding Windsors.
I was listening to The Moral Maze this week debating “Is there a moral case for cutting welfare?” and thinking to myself, I wonder how many of the people pontificating on the programme had ever found themselves or a close family member in need of claiming social security benefits, and dependant upon those benefits for their basic living costs such as food and heating.
The main points appear to be that some people cheat (hardly a reason to collectively punish everyone); that people can be trapped on benefits and unable to return to work (in which case lets address the barriers, not cut the rates); and we can’t afford it (patently false).
I can’t see any moral position which does not start from the basis that we are a rich but very unequal country and we can afford to provide a safety net so everyone can live with dignity.
Perhaps it is idealistic and simplistic, but it seems to me that a lot of the arguments would go away under an explicitly redistributive system of universal basic income, taxed away for those with significant other income.
The trouble is UBI creates massive marginal tax rates.
Could you explain why? Obviously if the taxation system remains the same, but if the rate of taxation was set as proportional to the ratio of your income above the rate of UBI wouldn’t it be progressive?
I acknowledge if UBI was set at well below current real living wage, then the current inequities would remain.
In these days of computers doing the calculations is no longer a real barrier to much more imaginative tax systems.
See this
https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/16544/1/2013_Policy_Paper_Financing%20the%20Social%20State-_Richard_Murphy__Howard_Reed_%28Social_State_-_Idleness.pdf
It’s part of a posture.
Being strong in their convictions. Iron rules etc.
Not pandering to emotional pleading.
Practicing ‘sensible’ economics.
Providing “leadership”.
Not captured by class interests. (which means the employed class- the rentier class is different)
All very masculine, logical left brain stuff.
But we need both “feminine’ and imaginative right brain to function effectively. Using only one side is not to engage with reality.
I broadly agree with that analysis but it is unfortunate that two of the biggest cheerleaders for the current policy (Reeves and Kendall) are women.
Indeed, Farnk, but there is a psychological concept of feminine, nurturing or maternal behaviours or values; and masculine, paternal and ‘self-reliant’ behaviours and values.
They can be displayed by either sex. In fact almost all humans have these qualities. They should be deployed according to the situation. For example if an employee or student is often late, they might need some firm handling but if, on enquiry, one finds they have a sick relative who depends on them, then the other qualities would be needed.
I have argued they are human attributes but some people are more towards one end of the spectrum.
What I didn’t realise until becoming disabled (MS means I can no longer walk), is how much more expensive living is. The price of a wheelchair accessible vehicle is eye watering, any gadget for making life easier comes at a premium, heating costs are higher due to inactivity – just everything costs more. So yes, PIP is very important to help with meeting those increased costs.
From people I know, I know that is true.
Labour, apparently, does not.
Surely the art of politics is like the art of business, produce a product people want.
I gather that Starmers team must have previously worked on Birds Eye Cod Pieces (yes it was a real product dropped just before launch)
🙂
Just saw this headline in The Guardian…
“Cuts to welfare. Cuts to international aid. Has Labour lurched too far to the right?”
…they got it wrong, it should have been…
“Cuts to welfare. Cuts to international aid. Has Labour lurched too far to the stupid?”
The UK government is going down the same route as the USA, of stiffing the vast majority of the public whilst the overlords use their government positions to increase their own wealth. Cynical bastards.
Starmer, Streeting, Reeves and Kendall are just not as overt as Trump and Musk or as fast. It’s small incremental steps and mini backward steps when there is an outcry, but there is an onward march to people being left to fend for themselves without any help from government whatsoever.
Before too long only the wealthy will be able to afford to eat and heat (tick), educate their children (tick – but better in Scotland where there’s no tuition fees ) and obtain healthcare (coming soon).
It’s a nightmare dystopian future. Changing the governing party will bring no relief since the two main parties (3 if Reform is included) are indistinguishable from each other. All of them are nasty parties.
Given the many potential upsides of UBI, couldn’t the high marginal tax rate problem be addressed with strongly progressive brackets?
Not really..
I was just re-reading The Grauniad article quoted above, and came across this paragraph:
“Ministers are said to be examining changing eligibility for Pip in such a way that it would not be available for people who need someone else to help them wash below the waist, or need to be reminded to go to the toilet to prevent them having an accident.”
So your top half can be clean, but not your bum or your feet! Gee, thank you LINO for that thought! Eeeekkk! How much more inhumane can these so-called “people” get? I put the word people in inverted commas since I do not regard these “people” as part of the human race. Though which other animal they might be I’m not sure. Greedy sharks maybe?
They are sick
In the proper sense of the word
The Recall of MP Act 2015 needs approval by 10 per cent of the registered electors to trigger the loss of the MP’s seat and a by-election.
The 2024 election result for the constituency Leeds West and Pudsey, when Rachel Reeves was elected, gave her a majority of 12,392, from an Electorate of 70,069
(Turnout 54.9%).
I wonder if 7007 people would sign a recall petition! There would probably be enough among those who did vote Labour, let alone others, if so one might organise it!!
An amusing idea…..
“So one” = someone
Press coverage of this – I have never heard such a lot of pathetic hooey in my life. The quality of reporting, let alone the thinking, leaves me speechless.
No mention has been made of what PIP money is spent on. Two people I know are in receipt of PIP payments – one has Ehlers-Danlos, one ADHD. Both live in rural areas. And what do they spend their PIP on…? Other. Working. People. Both are properly economically productive. Both are employers of one or more other ‘working people’. Neither need to be ‘helped into work for the sake of their own self-respect’.
Private enterprise does not like to employ people with Ehlers-Danlos, or people with ADHD, as it sees them as impediments to their ability to compete. PIP acts as an economic stimulus, a little pump connecting the economic margins – the ‘backwaters’ if you like – to the mainstream. It also injects stability, which means that people can take risks, start small enterprises, and spend money locally. Backwaters in the economy, like backwaters in rivers and streams, are important parts of the system.
Rather than moralise PIP payments on the basis of the contribution of the individual, if moralising has to play a part, PIP should be framed in terms of the economic contribution of a local cluster of people. Why this hysterical insistence on the individual? Why break up an economically productive cluster of five into two unemployable, and three insecure parts, who are then reliant upon the state, or food banks, or relatives, and then spend money on berating them for being ‘uncompetitive’? What does that do to ‘self-respect’? And they wonder why there’s a mental health crisis. Dear God.
The doctrine of individualism doesn’t even make sense in its own terms. The finest ingredients in the world won’t make a great curry if the cook is an idiot.
Thanks for relating this.
Excellent points.
This Labour government has disappointed since they first took office.
It seems to me that they are also their own opposition.
Little is heard from the tories; when did they last actually land a figurative punch?
Libdems, who are they?, how many seats did they win?;
Reform – well, I just hope they are a one-time joke, but they don’t seem to oppose this government.
To me, the future looks bleak.
Someone, / Anyone just reading and acting on all the ideas that come from this website would make a lasting impression.
Work & welfare: Am I missing something?
c.1.5m unemployed
c.9m inactive (1/3rd student & 1/3rd sick)
If (say) 50% of the unemployed can’t ever work + 50% of the 1/3rd inactive could be tempted to work = c.2.25m people needing jobs
Current UK vacancies=850k
Can private sector really create 1.4m jobs?
No
The article in the guardian quotes Streeting thus:
“If you’re someone who is in the benefit system and there’s a job opportunity available, and you think ‘I might be able to take the plunge and go for it’ – you’re stuck in this trap of jeopardy”, he told Sky News.
“You think, if I take it and it doesn’t work out, I go straight back to square one, not onto the benefits I was on before, but right back to applying for the benefits and going through what can be an ordeal.”
So according to Streeting applying for the benefits is an “ordeal.” And those who have survived the “ordeal” would love to get a job. Streeting evidently has no idea that as health minister he could simply the application process or that finding out more about the people who are subjected to the applications “ordeal” would enable the government to invest in creating meaningful jobs so as to offer them real opportunities that suit their circumstances . Any sense that the government serves the electors rather than coercing them into “work” doesn’t exist.
Agreed