Does Labour think benefit claimants are ‘taking the mickey’?

An offhand remark by the minister in charge of welfare reform illustrates the scale of the problem facing this government, and of the likely backlash it will receive, as Sean O’Grady explains

Liz Kendall, secretary of state for work and pensions (and a candidate soon to become Britain’s most hated woman), has said more about her plans for welfare reform.

While stressing the vital support needed by those with disabilities and long-term illness trying to get jobs, Kendall remarked: “I have no doubt, as there always have been, there are people who shouldn’t be on those benefits who are taking the mickey, and that is not good enough – we have to end that.” It wasn’t the main point of the interview she gave, but such language is an omen of the bruising and divisive struggles to come...

Why reform welfare?

It’s expensive, for one thing, and the economy desperately needs more people in the workforce, labour and skills shortages being major obstacles to growth (and immigration a politically hazardous solution). Ministers also argue that a lot of those on benefits would desperately like to work.

More than half of the £300bn or so the UK spends on social security goes on pensions, and that is set to rise further with an ageing population and the apparent sanctity of the “triple lock” that guarantees annual increases. Instead, attention is focused on sickness benefits, which run at £65bn a year and have gone up markedly since the Covid-19 pandemic.

Why the rise in sickness?

It has perplexed the experts. Some of it is due to long Covid, and some to a rise in mental illness, especially among the young. There is no evidence of a surge in people “taking the mickey”.

What will the government do?

Go as carefully as it can. Kendall will publish a green paper on reforming the system in about a month’s time – a first draft listing options for change rather than any hard commitments. It will test opinion, attract useful scrutiny, and prepare the ground for much more definitive – and potentially painful – policies in the near future.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves will need to have made some savings in the Department for Work and Pensions in good time for her next Budget in the autumn. How credible the new social security rules will be is a matter for the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Will there be a Labour revolt?

Almost certainly. To make any meaningful contribution to the government meeting its fiscal targets, the benefits bill will need to be cut radically, and there will inevitably be losers. That means genuine stories about financial hardship, all of which will appal most Labour MPs.

Many of the young-ish 2024 intake had their political awakening in the “austerity” years of the Conservative-led coalition government, and they did not enter politics to repeat the policies imposed by George Osborne. In other words, they will be sympathetic to Kendall and Reeves but unwilling to balance the books on the backs of the poor. There will be parliamentary rebellions, rows at conference, open dissent in the media, and resignations. Labour will be split and Kendall will be the target of the resentment.

How can ministers sell the cuts?

By denying they are cuts. As Jon Ashworth, ousted MP and now head of Labour Together, prefers to put it: “The welfare system as currently designed traps people out of work and actively denies people who want to work real, genuine help."

What about the public?

They are more in line with Reeves and Kendall, to be fair. According to YouGov, only 9 per cent of Britons believe that all, or almost all, users of the benefits system are genuinely in need, with this widening to just half of the public (49 per cent) believing that at least the majority of people on benefits deserve such help. This is against about four in 10 Britons who feel that half of welfare recipients or less are genuine claimants.

So Kendall might actually escape being Britain’s most hated woman, if only because Reeves got there first.