Labour’s Welfare Reforms to Increase Incapacity Benefit Claimants by 400,000

[Social Media]

 

Labour’s Welfare Reforms to Increase Incapacity Benefit Claimants by 400,000

 

Labour’s welfare reform plans will result in an additional 400,000 people being classified as unfit for any work by the end of the decade, according to government figures. Despite being designed to encourage the long-term sick back into employment, the changes will significantly increase the number of people receiving the highest level of incapacity benefit. This shift follows Labour’s decision to scrap Conservative proposals that would have required more individuals with mobility and mental health conditions to engage in job-seeking activities. Labour maintains that its £1 billion employment support programme will eventually help more people return to work, though the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has so far estimated that 16,000 fewer people will be employed as a result of these changes.

 

Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, has faced criticism from some within her own party over the reforms, which she argues are necessary to fix a “broken” benefits system. In addition to implementing cuts to disability benefits, Kendall has reduced the top rate of incapacity payments for those deemed entirely unable to work. She justified this by stating, “perverse financial incentives that the Tories created… actively encourage people into welfare dependency.” Currently, 1.8 million people receive the “limited capability for work or work-related activity” element of universal credit, which provides £5,000 more per year than standard jobseeker’s benefits and carries no work preparation requirements. Initial estimates last autumn predicted this number would rise to 2.6 million by 2030, but new projections indicate that it will reach 3 million, even after Kendall’s reduction of payments for new claimants.

 

 

Government sources attribute this increase to Kendall’s decision to reverse planned reforms to the work capability assessment, which determines eligibility for incapacity benefits. The Conservative-introduced changes, set to take effect later this year, would have required more individuals with mobility and mental health issues to take steps toward employment. The OBR had estimated these changes would have resulted in approximately 448,000 fewer people receiving the highest level of incapacity benefit by 2030. Although the Treasury had initially supported the plan, Kendall allocated £1.6 billion per year to reverse it after a High Court ruling found the changes unlawful due to a failure by Conservative ministers to acknowledge cost-cutting motives. Labour officials argue that the work capability assessment has been a failure and insist that the Tory plans were “discredited” by the court ruling.

 

Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, strongly criticized the reforms, stating, “It takes a particular level of incompetence to bring forward a welfare reform plan which leaves more people on out-of-work benefits and fewer people in work, according to the official forecasts.” He further argued, “Labour inherited reforms which would have seen hundreds of thousands fewer people on long-term benefits where there are no requirements to take steps towards work. They have scrapped those principled reforms and instead chosen to rush through cuts to disability benefits designed purely to save the chancellor from breaking her fiscal rules.”

 

Stephen Evans, chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute, warned of the complexity of the welfare system, stating, “Action in one area can often have unintended consequences elsewhere.” He stressed the need for a comprehensive, coordinated approach to reform, cautioning that claimants would likely end up “worse off than they would otherwise have been.” He also noted that employment support would take time to ramp up, and significant details about the policy remain unclear.

 

The OBR has told ministers that it is “not clear cut” whether the reforms will boost employment. The body noted that the package includes “different incentives going in different directions.” Tom Josephs, a member of the OBR committee, acknowledged that a £1 billion investment in job support could help, but added, “Past experience is that it’s quite difficult to get really big results from those employment support programmes.” He also criticized ministers for providing incomplete and delayed information about the reforms, which led the OBR to reject government savings claims. “We received some of these costings later than normal and we have less evidence and analysis than normal,” Josephs said.

 

A spokeswoman for the Department for Work and Pensions defended the government’s approach, stating that the planned reforms would “scrap an assessment which has long been a gateway to a life on benefits.” She added that the changes would deliver “a £1 billion employment support package to genuinely help sick and disabled people into work, alongside rebalancing universal credit payments to deliver a boost for low-income families and disincentivise ill health.”

 

Meanwhile, Andy Burnham, Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, criticized the existing benefits system for being designed to generate political headlines rather than effectively supporting people. He urged the government to allow him to take over and rebrand Jobcentres in his region. He argued that back-to-work programmes work best when run by local voluntary organizations that address underlying issues like debt and housing, rather than by “corporate entities that often will operate fairly tick-box systems.” He told MPs on the work and pensions committee, “You can’t order people’s recovery from the top down, you can’t batter them with sanctions towards work.” He suggested renaming Jobcentre Plus to “Live Well Centres,” stating, “It should say to the public, you are going to be helped when you come in here.”

 

Based on a report by The Times  2025-04-03

 

 

[Dionigi]

Having people attend a centre for 38 hours a week, weaving rugs or some other task for which they are capable, would drastically reduce the number of people who claim benefits. Where is the incentive to go back to work if you are given money to live on and can do what ever you like during the day. Lots of them just fill pubs and betting shops or sit around and talk with their friends.

[DeaconJohn]

What difference does it make?

The Protestant work ethic died a slow death a long time ago.

The future belongs to East Asia.

[Chomper Higgot]

Kind of pulls the rug out from the Labour attacking the disabled lie.

[Snackbar]

Dumb & Dumber had more success 

 

 

[Purdey]

Governments cannot encourage rampant capitalism and expect people not to get accustomed to a decent standard of living. You can see how demand for expensive products has grown in Thailand over the years. At one time everyone wanted a bike, now they must have a car. 

Now in Britain and other countries they are using the Norman Tebbit catchphrase to "get on your bike" when people all want EVs.