Skip to content
Governments like to frame their cruellest policies as pragmatic necessities, but what they call ‘efficiency’ is always someone else’s suffering.

Westminster is unsettled, but then when isn’t it? Rachel Reeves, in her latest turn as the iron-fisted steward of fiscal discipline, has announced a £6bn raid on sickness and disability benefits. It is, we are told, a necessary correction: too many people are ‘economically inactive’, a phrase that, like ‘collateral damage’ or ‘friendly fire’, obscures the brutality of its meaning. The new Labour government, having campaigned on the promise of stability, now finds itself improvising a morality play about the deserving and undeserving poor.

The cabinet is not pleased. Angela Rayner, Yvette Cooper, and Shabana Mahmood have all registered their discontent. Reeves, for her part, insists that this is the only way forward. ‘Difficult decisions’ must be made, though, as ever, they are never difficult for those making them. Sixteen disability and poverty charities, including Scope and Mencap, have written to the chancellor in protest, warning of the ‘catastrophic’ consequences. But then, charity letters rarely alter the course of government policy.

Keir Starmer has attempted to frame the cuts as an act of salvation rather than punishment. Those languishing on benefits, he argues, have been ‘wasted’ by the system and need to be put to use. The language is instructive. The unemployed are not people, merely surplus material. Labour, having dispensed with the moralising rhetoric of the right, instead treats economic inactivity as a technical failure. The system must be corrected, recalibrated, disciplined into efficiency.

Why do they always try to bury bad news on a Friday? The weekend, it seems, is meant to blunt the impact. A government announcement is made, headlines are generated, and by Monday, they hope, we will have moved on. But we will not have forgotten once the weekend is over. The consequences of this decision will linger, not only in Westminster’s memory but in the lives of those who will wake up next week and the week after still facing the reality of lost income, increased precarity, and the quiet, grinding terror of knowing that the state has turned its back on them. The government may want a brief reprieve from scrutiny, but those affected have no such luxury.

And what is this relentless obsession with ‘economic activity’ if not a symptom of a deeper pathology? The idea that life must be justified through productivity is one of capitalism’s cruellest impositions. As I argued recently in The Tyranny of Work, we are still haunted by the Protestant work ethic, by the idea that to be human is to labour, that idleness is a kind of sin. Even illness and disability must be subjected to the cold logic of productivity: can you still work? If not, can you be made to? If not, then what use are you? Reeves, Starmer, and their allies would never frame it in such crude terms, but the calculus is clear.

In an announcement seemingly designed for an audience of startled health policy wonks, Starmer has declared the abolition of NHS England. The logic remains opaque. A government that decries the instability of Tory rule now proposes to dismantle the very bureaucracy that holds the system together. Unison, the largest healthcare trade union, has called the plan ‘shambolic’. Perhaps the government sees it differently. The NHS, like the unemployed, is to be restructured, reformed, made more ‘productive’.

For all the talk of a Labour government, it is striking how little of Labour’s historical inheritance is recognisable. Starmer, it seems, has no intention of breaking with the post-Thatcherite consensus, only managing it more efficiently. Austerity is rebranded as responsibility; public service cuts are presented as necessary reforms. ‘Difficult decisions’ abound, though the difficulty is always someone else’s to bear. History does not repeat, but it does return, wearing a slightly different mask.

Hold on, stop the presses.

NEW – No10 told there could be ministerial and other resignations over the welfare cuts as MPs pressure government to drop any PIP freeze. Comes after cabinet ministers voiced their own fears earlier this week.Huge pressure coming from PLP.www.theguardian.com/world/2025/m…

Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot.bsky.social) 2025-03-14T17:40:51.366Z

Artificial Intelligence (9) Book Review (78) Books (82) Britain (35) Capitalism (9) Conservative Government (35) Creeping Fascism (12) diary (11) Donald J Trump (45) Elon Musk (9) Europe (11) Film (11) France (14) History (9) Imperialism (16) Iran (10) Israel (14) Keir Starmer (10) Labour Government (25) Labour Party (9) Marxist Theory (10) Migrants (13) Nigel Farage (13) Palestine (9) Protest (14) Reform UK (21) Russia (12) Suella Braverman (8) Television (9) Trade Unionism (8) Ukraine (9) United States of America (85) War (19) Work (9) Working Class (9)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Share the Post:

Latest Posts

A vintage revolver mounted on a plain beige wooden wall, evoking the concept of Chekhov’s gun. The weapon is displayed in profile with a dark blued metal frame and a worn wooden grip, lit softly to highlight its aged, utilitarian design.
Alexander Dugin

The Gospel of World War Three: Alexander Dugin and the Death Cult of Civilisation

Alexander Dugin’s latest polemic is not political analysis but fascist sermon—an apocalyptic blueprint in which nuclear war is both inevitable and desirable. Cloaked in the language of sovereignty and tradition, it is a call to arms for a new ideology of holy Russian power. What begins with Fordow ends with the end of humanity. And for that reason alone, it demands scrutiny—not celebration. You listening, tech bros?

Read More »
A square-cropped image featuring the bold black text "THE SAMSON OPTION" in all capital letters on a cream background. The second "O" in "OPTION" is stylised with the upper half containing the Israeli flag and the lower half the American flag, symbolising the book’s geopolitical focus
Iran

The Bomb in the Basement, the Bomb in the Mountains: Israel, Iran, and the Nuclear Hypocrisy of the West

The next state to cross the nuclear threshold won’t be doing anything new. It’ll be following the path Israel already took—building the bomb in secret, shielded by silence and strategic utility. The real precedent was set decades ago in the Negev. That’s the hypocrisy at the heart of the so-called international order: one bomb is a threat to civilisation, the other a pillar of it. This isn’t about non-proliferation. It’s about who gets to own the apocalypse.

Read More »
A stylised, screen-printed poster shows the Spanish PM in a suit walking past large NATO emblems on bold, flat panels. The image is rendered in a 1968 protest aesthetic with a grainy texture and a limited palette of red, navy blue, and beige. The composition evokes vintage political posters, with stark contrast and minimal detail emphasising the symbolism of militarism and conformity.
Donald J Trump

Only Spain Has Got It Right

At The Hague summit, NATO committed to spending 5% of GDP on defence and security by 2035—a figure with no strategic rationale and every sign of submission to Donald Trump. Only Spain said no. Pedro Sánchez broke ranks, arguing that gutting public services to fund rearmament was neither economically justifiable nor politically defensible. In doing so, he exposed what the rest of Europe won’t admit: this isn’t about defence. It’s about deference. And someone had to refuse.

Read More »