Labour’s blatantly unfair benefits splurge will tear this country apart

Making working parents pay to support non-working parents’ children is not only illogical, but a complete betrayal of the social contract Daily Telegraph 03/12/25 link Let’s start with a fun little quiz. Guess which politician made the following statement, almost exactly 10 years ago.

“We are not the party of people on benefits. We’re not the party to represent those who are out of work. Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people.” Did you get it? If not, I’m sure it will absolutely astonish you to learn that the politician who uttered those admirably firm and principled sentiments was none other than Rachel Reeves. As in, the woman who, just last week, chose to add £3.5bn to our welfare bill by scrapping the two-child benefit cap. A decision which rather suggests that Labour actually is “the party of people on benefits”, after all. Naturally, I wouldn’t dream of suggesting that the Chancellor is a shameless liar who is motivated solely by a desperation to save her own career. It may simply be that, in the decade since she made the comments above, she’s ever so slightly modified her views. But either way, even a political communicator of her dazzling talents would now struggle to claim with a straight face that Labour is “a party of working people”. Especially after the post-Budget analysis by the Centre for Social Justice. Thanks to the Chancellor’s actions last week, the think tank found, working families with three children will now need to earn £71,000 a year before tax to receive the same income as non-working three-child families. What a mind-boggling state of affairs. So how on earth can the Government justify it? Labour politicians endlessly boast that their approach to welfare is “compassionate”. Well, maybe. But then, it’s always easy to be generous with other people’s money. These same Labour politicians also like to boast that they’re “lifting children out of poverty”. A laudable goal. But – and forgive me if this sounds blunt – surely that’s the responsibility of those children’s parents. Labour, however, seems to think that it’s the responsibility of other children’s parents, instead. As a result, working parents will be paying not just for their own children, but for non-working parents’ children, too. And, to add insult to injury, many of those working parents will find that they’re now poorer – in some cases, quite a lot poorer – than non-working parents. Which means that their own children will be poorer than the non-working parents’ children, too. Labour loves to preach about “fairness”. But where’s the fairness in that? I do hope Ms Reeves will be kind enough to explain. Because to me it sounds like a complete betrayal of the social contract. Most working people are perfectly happy to see their taxes being used to help those less fortunate than themselves; those who have lost their job through no fault of their own and need support while they search for another. But welfare is meant to be a safety net – not a hammock. And if it’s possible to be better off on welfare than in work, what does the Government think the consequences will be? The answer is so obvious that it shouldn’t need saying. But since it doesn’t seem to have occurred to the people who rule us, let’s spell it out for them. First, this blatant injustice will cause monumental resentment among the people who are forced to fund it. Which in turn will lead to bitter social unrest. It could easily tear this country apart. Even worse; it could prompt every family earning less than £71,000 a year to think: “Sod this for a game of soldiers. Working is a mug’s game. Let’s go on benefits, too.” And then who’ll be left to foot the bill? Bear in mind that, even as things stand, a majority of people in this country receive more from the state than they pay in. And the bigger that majority grows, the closer we’ll come to economic ruin. Clearly, something must be done. But what? Here’s a small suggestion. If you’re of working age, and able-bodied, but not in work, you temporarily relinquish your right to vote until you’re back in work again. That way, cynical politicians would no longer be able to boost their own chances of re-election by using workers’ money to buy the votes of non-workers. Such a proposal, I imagine, would go down very well with “a party of working people, formed for and by working people”. Unfortunately, however, that’s not Labour.