This week in the House of Commons, the mood was thick with moral posturing as MPs debated welfare cuts that ended up being far less severe than anticipated.
Yet, you wouldn’t have guessed it from the reaction. Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs put on a display of deep concern, their expressions mirroring the kind of mournful reverence seen at a solemn funeral.
An Emotional Performance in Parliament
Liz Kendall, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, took to the podium with visible distress.
She swayed dramatically as she delivered her speech, lamenting the proposed savings—just £5 billion from a benefits bill nearing £100 billion annually. That’s almost double the nation’s defense budget.
Other MPs joined the chorus of despair, declaring that these modest reductions would cause widespread panic and even fatalities.
The debate’s tone became increasingly theatrical, painting a Dickensian picture of Britain where the poorest were left to fend for themselves with mere scraps from the state.
Diane Abbott Takes Center Stage
The next day at Prime Minister’s Questions, Labour MP Diane Abbott made her presence felt.
She dismissed any claims that the cuts were based on morality, accusing the government of balancing the books on the backs of the most vulnerable.
The chamber fell silent as she spoke—partly out of respect for her status as the longest-serving female MP, but also because she was voicing a perspective deeply ingrained in the establishment.
For years, the political elite—including those in parliament, Whitehall, the BBC, and academia—have pushed the idea that increasing benefits equates to progress.
But where was the discussion about the workers who fund these programs through their taxes?
A Journalist’s Breaking Point
As Abbott delivered her speech, frustration boiled over in the press gallery.
One journalist, struggling to contain his irritation, let out an audible groan, puncturing his notepad with his pen in exasperation.
The idea that challenging welfare dependency was immoral was simply too much to take.
Even Sir Keir Starmer, not exactly known for his fiery rhetoric, pushed back slightly, pointing out that it was not moral for a million young people to be out of work, education, or training.
But his response lacked the forcefulness the moment demanded.
The uncomfortable truth is that handing out money with few restrictions doesn’t just help those in need—it also creates a system where not working becomes an appealing option.
The Growing Crisis of Welfare Dependency
Currently, 9.3 million working-age adults in the UK are not employed, and the number of people claiming disability benefits has soared from under six million a decade ago to nearly nine million today.
Mental health referrals have skyrocketed since 2019, with lockdowns undoubtedly playing a role.
But are all these claims legitimate?
There is no doubt that genuinely disabled individuals need support.
However, when benefits are given out for conditions like obesity, acne, or food intolerances without stringent checks, it damages public trust in the system.
If taxpayers feel their hard-earned money is being squandered on dubious claims, the incentive to work diminishes.
Why endure the daily grind when you can simply claim an ailment and receive the same financial support from home?
Lessons from the Past: The 1980s Economic Crisis
This isn’t the first time Britain has faced such a dilemma. In 1981, the country was in economic turmoil, with double-digit inflation, widespread unemployment, and urban riots.
Margaret Thatcher’s government was under immense pressure, with even figures from her own party calling for a return to “consensus politics.”
But one voice stood firm—Norman Tebbit, the employment minister at the time.
He delivered a speech that enraged the left but resonated with many: his father, he said, had been unemployed in the Great Depression, but rather than riot, he “got on his bike and looked for work.”
Though controversial, his message was simple: work is not just a financial necessity; it’s fundamental to a functioning society.
That sentiment shaped the attitudes of many, including those who once sympathized with the left but came to see the realities of economic life.
The Reality on the Ground
Fast forward to today, and similar frustrations are brewing.
A self-employed plumber in Herefordshire works tirelessly to support his family, yet he watches as his cousin, a long-term heroin addict, receives generous benefits and food parcels—so many, in fact, that he sells the extras on the black market.
Another acquaintance, who has worked only six months in the past 25 years, enjoys a comfortable life on government support, complete with subsidized travel and a free TV license.
Stories like these fuel resentment. When hard-working people see their taxes funding an unbalanced system, they begin to question the fairness of it all.
And when benefits are handed out with little scrutiny, it weakens public support for a social safety net that should exist to help those truly in need.
Rethinking the Conversation on Welfare
Even former Prime Minister Gordon Brown often referenced the parable of the Good Samaritan, arguing that society should not ignore suffering.
But let’s remember—the Samaritan used his own money to help, not government handouts, and he did so without seeking personal gain.
The Bible itself advocates for work, with St. Paul famously stating, “If any would not work, neither should he eat.”
Welfare should be about lifting people up, not creating a system that traps them in dependency.
This week’s welfare cuts are just a small step, but they have sparked an important conversation.
By addressing these issues now, perhaps Britain can still steer itself away from economic decline.
But, just as in 1981, it’s going to be a close call.