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 once again moved to the centre of political debate, as new figures reveal the scale of government spending on benefits and the rapid growth of some health-related payments. The numbers have prompted renewed arguments about whether the current system is financially sustainable, while ministers face pressure to reform support without leaving vulnerable people without assistance.
The headline language surrounding welfare can be highly charged. However, the underlying figures are substantial. According to the latest official forecasts, total UK welfare spending is expected to rise considerably over the coming years, driven particularly by pensioner benefits and increasing numbers of people receiving health and disability-related support.
The issue is becoming particularly important for the Labour government under Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Chancellor John Healey, as ministers attempt to balance public spending pressures with commitments to support people who cannot work or who face additional costs because of disability or long-term illness.
The numbers behind Britain’s welfare bill
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s March 2026 forecast put total welfare spending at around £352.8 billion in 2026/27. That figure was projected to rise to approximately £406.9 billion by 2030/31. Welfare spending was expected to increase from 10.9 per cent of GDP in 2025/26 to 11.2 per cent by 2030/31.
Those figures cover a very broad system and should not be interpreted as money being handed out solely to unemployed working-age adults.
A large proportion goes to pensioners. The OBR forecast pensioner spending at £169.2 billion in 2026/27, rising to £196.2 billion by 2030/31. Universal Credit and its legacy equivalents were forecast at £97.8 billion in 2026/27, while disability benefits were projected at £50.2 billion.
This distinction matters because political arguments about welfare spending can sometimes make the entire bill sound as though it consists of unemployment payments. In reality, Britain’s social security system includes pensions, disability support, Universal Credit, child benefit and a range of other payments.
Nevertheless, the growth in health-related benefits has become one of the most significant areas of concern.
PIP has become a major flashpoint
Personal Independence Payment, or PIP, is designed to help working-age people with the additional costs associated with disability or long-term health conditions. It is not means-tested, meaning that eligibility is based primarily on how a person’s condition affects their daily life rather than simply on their income.
The government’s Timms Review has highlighted the extraordinary increase in expenditure.
According to the Department for Work and Pensions, PIP spending was around £15 billion in financial year 2019/20, measured in 2026/27 prices. By spring 2026, DWP forecasts indicated that spending could rise to more than £41 billion in 2030/31, including around £34 billion for working-age claimants.
That growth has intensified the debate about whether the existing system is operating as originally intended.
The Timms Review found that receipt of PIP among working-age people had increased faster than both the overall population and the disabled population. It also identified particularly rapid growth among young people, women and people reporting mental health or neurodevelopmental conditions as their primary condition.
These figures do not, by themselves, demonstrate that claims are illegitimate. A rising number of recipients can reflect genuine changes in population health, awareness of entitlements, economic conditions, administrative decisions or other factors.
That distinction has become central to the political argument.
Labour faces pressure from both sides
The Labour government is under pressure from critics who argue that welfare spending has become too difficult to control.
Opposition parties have used the rise in health-related benefit spending to demand tighter eligibility rules and stronger measures to encourage people who can work to enter employment.
At the same time, disability organisations and campaigners have warned against treating the increase in claims as evidence of widespread abuse.
The government’s own review acknowledges that PIP has serious problems, but its conclusions are more complicated than simply calling for cuts.
The interim review published in July said PIP was no longer working effectively and identified problems with assessment and decision-making. However, it also described PIP as an important contribution towards the additional costs faced by disabled people.
The September update went further in outlining possible reforms. The emerging recommendations include reducing unnecessary reassessments for people with lifelong or degenerative conditions, improving application forms, strengthening decision-making procedures and expanding access to face-to-face assessments where evidence is incomplete or contradictory.
The review also states that a reformed benefit should remain non-means-tested and that cash support should remain its foundation.
Fraud and error are another part of the story
There is also an important distinction between legitimate welfare expenditure and money paid incorrectly.
The latest government figures show that total benefit overpayments in 2025/26 were estimated at £9.9 billion, equivalent to 3.2 per cent of benefit expenditure. Fraud accounted for an estimated 2.2 per cent, while claimant error accounted for 0.6 per cent and official error for 0.4 per cent.
The Department for Work and Pensions says fraud and error levels are now at their lowest since the pandemic.
Ministers have nevertheless committed to significant additional action. The government says it is targeting £14.6 billion in gross savings from fraud, error and debt activity through 2030/31. Measures include additional counter-fraud staff, more targeted Universal Credit reviews and new powers allowing authorities to identify and recover incorrect payments.
That suggests the welfare debate is not simply about reducing entitlement. It is also about ensuring that payments go to the correct people and are calculated accurately.
A growing fiscal problem
The wider concern is the cumulative effect of rising welfare spending on the public finances.
The OBR’s forecast showed welfare expenditure increasing by more than £90 billion between 2024/25 and 2030/31. Health-related caseloads are an important part of the increase: the OBR projected the incapacity caseload to rise from 3.4 million to 4 million between 2024/25 and 2030/31, while the disability caseload was projected to rise from 6.5 million to 8.8 million.
More recent fiscal data have added to the pressure. In September, the OBR reported that central government spending in the first five months of 2026/27 was £7.4 billion higher than its forecast profile, with net social benefits and debt interest among the drivers.
That does not mean welfare alone caused the deterioration in the borrowing position. Government finances are affected by taxation, economic growth, debt interest, departmental spending and many other factors.
But it does demonstrate why welfare has become such an important issue ahead of future fiscal decisions.
The employment question
There is another dimension that goes beyond accounting.
The government wants more people with health conditions to move into employment where possible. Chancellor John Healey recently argued that Britain cannot accept large numbers of young people remaining on benefits without employment or education opportunities. He described tackling youth unemployment as both a social and fiscal priority.
The challenge is identifying who can realistically work, what support they require and whether suitable jobs are available.
A system that makes it easier for people who are able to work to return to employment could reduce welfare expenditure while increasing tax revenues. But poorly designed changes could also create hardship for people whose conditions genuinely prevent them from working.
That is why the government’s review is attempting to address both the financial sustainability of PIP and the experience of disabled claimants.
The political argument is far from over
For Labour, welfare reform presents a difficult balancing act.
The government must respond to rapidly rising expenditure without suggesting that people with disabilities are responsible for a fiscal problem they did not create. At the same time, ministers face legitimate questions about whether the current trajectory can continue indefinitely.
The figures show that Britain is spending hundreds of billions of pounds a year on social security, with health and disability payments accounting for an increasingly important share of the projected increase.
But describing the entire system as a collection of “handouts” would obscure the reality. Much of the spending consists of legally established entitlements, including the State Pension and support for people with substantial disabilities or caring responsibilities.
The more significant question is whether the rules remain sustainable as the number of claimants changes.
What happens next?
The Timms Review is expected to publish its final recommendations later in 2026. Its emerging proposals indicate that the government is considering substantial changes to the way PIP is assessed and administered rather than simply abandoning the benefit.
At the same time, ministers face pressure to reduce fraud and error, increase employment among people who can work and control the long-term growth of welfare spending.
The numbers make one point unmistakable: Britain’s welfare bill is large, and several important components are projected to grow significantly.
Whether that represents an unacceptable burden or a necessary cost of providing social security depends partly on how the system’s objectives are defined. The available evidence shows both the scale of the expenditure and the genuine difficulties faced by many claimants.
For the Labour government, the challenge will be turning those competing realities into a welfare system that is financially sustainable, administratively effective and capable of providing support to those who genuinely need it.