Andy Burnham (Image: Getty)
Sometimes a phrase slung across the despatch box has a habit of sticking, and Kemi Badenoch managed to sling one Labour’s way that has followed them like a bad smell. No longer are they to be referred to as ‘the Labour Party‘, but instead upon them is bestowed the title ‘the Welfare Party’.
I do not think, when Mrs Badenoch fired that specific broadside, that she intended it as a compliment; it certainly hasn’t been received as one. Yet the longer one examines the evidence, the harder it becomes to label that new brand as unfair; the Welfare Party are living up to their name.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Few readers of the Express will be shocked to hear that the welfare state has grown beyond what we can manage.
Indeed the truth behind Andy Burnham‘s bonkers benefits has finally been exposed – it’s barely believable.
Now new figures exposed in the press this week show that almost half of Labour MPs are now propped up by a majority exceeded by the amount of people receiving disability benefits.
We ought to consider what this signals: a governing party whose survival in office depends not on the productive economy, but on the scale of the welfare it rolls out at our expense.
A ballooning benefits bill is not, whatever vapid platitudes ministers mutter to one another in the voting lobbies, a symptom of compassion. It is a symptom of failure.
At present some 4.1 million people now claim Personal Independence Payments (PIP), the vast majority being of working age.
These men and women would have, a generation ago, been expected to contribute substantially more to the economy than they draw from it.
Extrapolate this trend over the next few decades and the picture is starker still.
The advent of AI, which drives people away from work by hoovering up entry-level jobs, partnered with more choosing benefits over employment, spells ruin.
For years we have seen more retirees than those in work, the burden of funding the care of those who have earned their end-of-career life falling on fewer shoulders.
How long will it be until the backs bearing an ever-greater weight break under the strain?
There was even the disappointing but sadly not shocking news that one in every six Universal Credit payments made last year was doled out to households containing a foreign national – to the tune of £11.9 billion.
It has long been viewed by those on the right as a bizarre way to strive for a good society by relocating the wealth of the earners to the pockets of the unproductive.
The inflation of these numbers is now reaching such eye-watering extremes that they cannot be waved away with the usual invocations of “fairness”.
Add to this the triple lock, the great sacred cow of British politics, which is increasingly being regarded by younger politicos in Westminster with something close to derision, and the problem crystallises.
The state has long since passed merely spending your money. It draws ever-greater sums upward and outward from the productive economy, distributing them into a socialist apparatus of dependency.
In the past politicians tried to pretend this was not happening; now they extrapolate your funds with willing connivance, knowing full well that their own re-election depends on their addiction to tax.
Small wonder, then, that Labour backbenchers agitate perpetually for benefits to rise further still – after all, their voters need them to.
But perhaps we ought to ask what happens to a country whose wealthy are packing their bags, whose tax base is contracting, and whose jobs market has grown quiet, when the answer to every difficulty is simply to enlarge the welfare state rather than the economy that must, eventually, pay for it.
We do not lack for compassion in this country, no. What we lack, increasingly, is production.
Labour’s bonkers benefits handouts finally exposed – it’s barely believable
Britain’s welfare system has come under renewed scrutiny after fresh figures highlighted the scale of benefit payments and the impact of Labour’s changes to Universal Credit.
The figures have reignited a familiar political argument: whether the welfare state is providing an essential safety net for people who cannot support themselves, or whether parts of the system are creating financial incentives that make it harder to move into work.
The debate has become particularly intense following Labour’s decision to remove the two-child limit on Universal Credit in April 2026.
Under the change, eligible families can now receive the child element of Universal Credit for a third and subsequent child, where the relevant conditions are met. The Department for Work and Pensions says the change can increase a household’s Universal Credit entitlement by £303.74 a month for each additional child who was previously excluded.
Critics have seized on the figures as evidence of what they describe as an increasingly expensive benefits system.
But the reality is more complicated than the most dramatic political claims suggest.
The two-child limit reversal
The biggest recent change at the centre of the argument is the abolition of the two-child limit.
The policy had previously restricted the child element of Universal Credit and Child Tax Credit for many families to their first two children, subject to exemptions.
Labour removed the restriction from April 6, 2026.
The government has defended the move as part of its broader effort to reduce child poverty and provide greater support to families.
The financial effect, however, is significant.
According to the government’s latest benefit-cap statistics, households affected by the removal of the limit can receive an additional £303.74 per month for each qualifying child who was previously excluded.
That does not mean every large family automatically receives thousands of pounds in additional cash.
Other rules continue to apply, including the benefit cap and the detailed eligibility conditions attached to Universal Credit.
Nevertheless, the policy represents a substantial expansion of potential support for some families.
The numbers behind Universal Credit
The basic Universal Credit allowance also changed in 2026/27.
For a single claimant aged 25 or over, the standard allowance is £424.90 per month, compared with £400.14 in 2025/26.
For a couple where one or both claimants are aged 25 or over, the standard allowance increased from £628.10 to £666.97 a month.
There are additional elements for children, disability, caring responsibilities, childcare and housing, depending on individual circumstances.
That means the headline figure for a Universal Credit claimant can be substantially higher than the basic standard allowance.
The government also increased benefit rates generally in 2026.
Official figures show that most benefits were uprated by 3.8 per cent, reflecting the annual uprating process.
For supporters of the changes, these increases are part of maintaining the value of support as household costs rise.
For critics, however, the cumulative effect is what matters.
Critics point to the cost of the system
The controversy comes as the government faces intense pressure over public finances.
Official borrowing figures released in September showed that public-sector net borrowing reached £18.3 billion in August, above economists’ expectations of £15.5 billion.
Borrowing for April to August stood at £77.3 billion, £8.1 billion higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility had expected at that stage. Reuters reported that rising government spending, including welfare spending linked to inflation, was adding to the pressure on the public finances.
That context has made welfare spending an increasingly important issue ahead of the government’s October Budget.
The political argument is therefore not simply about whether individual claimants should receive assistance.
It is also about how much the state can afford to spend on welfare while simultaneously funding the NHS, defence, housing, social care and other public services.
The benefit cap still exists
One important qualification is that Britain’s welfare system is not unlimited.
The benefit cap continues to restrict the total amount of certain benefits that working-age households can receive.
For a couple or lone parent with children outside Greater London, the annual cap is £22,020.
Inside Greater London, the corresponding limit is £25,323.
For a single adult without children, the limits are £14,753 outside Greater London and £16,967 in Greater London.
There are exemptions and special rules, meaning the cap does not apply to every household.
The removal of the two-child limit has nevertheless created an interesting interaction between the two policies.
The government says some families receiving additional child-related Universal Credit could see their entitlement rise above the benefit-cap threshold.
Where the household is not exempt, the additional amount can therefore increase the benefit cap applied to the award.
That illustrates why simple claims about families receiving a particular headline amount can be misleading.
The controversial question of work incentives
The most politically sensitive issue is the relationship between benefits and employment.
Critics of welfare expansion argue that the system should ensure that taking a job leaves people financially better off than remaining out of work.
The Centre for Social Justice has argued that changes to the two-child limit could result in large differences between the incomes of working and non-working families in some circumstances. Its analysis estimated that a family with three children receiving a combination of benefits could receive around £46,000 in 2026/27, although that figure depends on assumptions about household circumstances and the benefits included.
Such calculations have attracted considerable attention.
But they should not be interpreted as meaning that every family receiving Universal Credit gets £46,000 in cash.
The calculation incorporates different forms of support, including housing and health-related benefits, and depends on a specific household scenario.
This distinction is crucial when discussing welfare policy.
Disability benefits add another layer
Another major part of Britain’s welfare debate concerns health and disability benefits.
Universal Credit includes additional payments for people with limited capability for work or work-related activity.
The structure changed significantly in 2026.
For new claimants who do not qualify for protected arrangements, the LCWRA element is £217.26 per month in 2026/27.
However, claimants who were already receiving the higher rate before the changes, as well as some people with severe conditions or terminal illness, can receive the protected rate of £429.80 per month.
This distinction is important because political arguments about welfare often combine different groups into one category.
Someone receiving support because they are temporarily unemployed is in a very different position from someone receiving disability-related assistance because a serious condition limits their ability to work.
Treating both situations as identical produces a distorted picture of the system.
Labour’s welfare dilemma
The government therefore faces competing pressures.
On one side is the argument that welfare should protect families and disabled people from poverty.
On the other is the argument that welfare spending must remain financially sustainable and should not weaken incentives to work.
Labour’s decision to abolish the two-child limit places it firmly on one side of that debate.
The policy provides additional support to eligible larger families, but it also creates additional expenditure at a time when the government is already under pressure to control borrowing.
That tension is unlikely to disappear.
The government’s broader welfare reforms have also attempted to increase employment among people who are able to work.
In 2025, the government described its welfare programme as the biggest shake-up of the system in a generation, with reforms intended to help sick and disabled people who can work move into employment.
The policy challenge is therefore not simply about reducing or increasing benefits.
It is about designing a system that provides protection while maintaining a credible route into employment for those who can work.
The political row is unlikely to end
The latest figures provide plenty of ammunition for Labour’s critics.
They can point to the abolition of the two-child limit, higher Universal Credit allowances and additional support available to some larger families.
They can also point to the broader pressure on public finances, with borrowing running above official expectations.
Labour, however, can point to the same figures differently.
The government can argue that increasing support for children and vulnerable households is an intentional policy choice rather than an accidental expansion of the welfare state.
The debate ultimately comes down to competing priorities.
How much should the state spend?
Who should qualify?
How should benefits interact with wages?
And how should taxpayers balance support for people in difficult circumstances against the need to keep public finances under control?
Those questions cannot be answered by a single headline figure.
What the figures really show
The latest evidence does demonstrate that Britain’s welfare system has undergone important changes under Labour.
The abolition of the two-child limit has expanded entitlement for eligible larger families.
Universal Credit rates increased in 2026/27.
Disability-related payments have been restructured.
And welfare spending is contributing to the wider challenge facing the government’s finances.
But describing the entire system as a collection of “handouts” obscures the fact that benefits serve different purposes and go to people in very different circumstances.
Some are unemployed.
Some are working but have low incomes.
Some are responsible for children.
Others have disabilities or health conditions that affect their ability to work.
The same welfare system therefore produces very different outcomes for different households.
What is beyond dispute is that welfare has become one of the major financial and political questions facing the government ahead of the October Budget.
With borrowing already above expectations and spending pressures mounting, ministers will have to explain how their welfare commitments fit into the wider fiscal picture.
The argument over Labour’s benefits policies is consequently far from over.
For critics, the latest numbers reinforce concerns about cost and work incentives.
For supporters, they represent deliberate investment in families and social security.
The figures provide evidence for both sides of the political debate, but the underlying question remains the same: how Britain chooses to balance financial sustainability with protection for people who need state support.