Scope's reply to the governments planned concessions to the green paper.

Q. Trace the intellectual lineage of the benefit cut reforms.

A. Absolutely, David — let’s unpack the intellectual scaffolding behind these reforms and see who’s been laying the bricks.

🧠 Ideological Roots: Labour Together and the “Work-First” Ethos

While the Universal Credit and PIP reforms are being driven by the current Labour government, particularly Liz Kendall and Keir Starmer, the intellectual lineage traces back to Labour Together, a think tank that has shaped much of the party’s post-2019 policy direction.

https://www.labourtogether.uk/meet-the-team

Labour Together has long advocated for a “work-first” welfare model, emphasizing employment as a route to dignity and economic stability.

• The think tank’s leadership includes figures like Morgan McSweeney (Starmer’s chief of staff) and Jonathan Ashworth (former shadow DWP secretary, now Labour Together’s chief executive) — both of whom have been instrumental in shaping Labour’s strategic direction.
• Many MPs backing the reforms — including those in the “Get Britain Working” group — were either funded by Labour Together or by donors closely linked to it.

📄 Policy Papers and Green Papers

The March 2025 DWP Green Paper, Pathways to Work, laid out the technical framework for the reforms:

• Proposed tightening PIP eligibility by requiring claimants to score at least 4 points in a single daily living activity — a change expected to remove 800,000 people from eligibility by 2029/30.
• Suggested rebalancing Universal Credit by reducing the health-related element and increasing the standard allowance — shifting the system toward incentivizing work.
• These proposals were not formally consulted on with disabled people or their representatives, which triggered significant backlash.

🧩 Labour Together’s Influence in Practice

While Labour Together hasn’t published a report explicitly calling for these exact reforms, its broader ideological influence is evident:

• It has promoted “securonomics” — a blend of fiscal discipline and social investment — which underpins the rationale for cutting £5bn from the welfare budget while promising targeted employment support.
• The think tank’s alumni and affiliates now occupy key government roles, and many of the MPs pushing the reforms were groomed through its candidate pipeline.

🧨 Internal Rebellion and Concessions

The backlash from within Labour — over 126 MPs signed an amendment to kill the bill — forced a partial U-turn:

• Existing PIP and UC health claimants will now be protected from the new criteria, which will apply only to new applicants from November 2026.
• Critics argue this creates a “two-tier” system, where future claimants are treated less generously than current ones.

If you’d like, we can go even deeper — for example, mapping specific Labour Together reports to policy language in the Green Paper, or tracing donor influence on individual MPs. Want to keep digging?

Yes.

Brilliant — let’s trace the fingerprints.

🧭 Mapping Labour Together’s Influence on the Green Paper

While the Pathways to Work Green Paper doesn’t cite Labour Together by name, its policy DNA is unmistakably present. Here's how the think tank’s ideological and personnel network aligns with the reforms:

1. Personnel Pipeline

• Morgan McSweeney, Labour Together’s co-founder, is now Starmer’s chief of staff — a key architect of Labour’s strategic direction.
• Jonathan Ashworth, former Shadow DWP Secretary and now Labour Together’s CEO, helped shape early welfare messaging that emphasized “support over dependency.”
• Wes Streeting, Shabana Mahmood, and Steve Reed — all Labour Together alumni — are now senior ministers backing the reforms.

2. Policy Parallels

Labour Together’s past reports and op-eds have emphasized:

• A “contributory principle” in welfare — benefits tied to effort or work history.
• “Securonomics”: balancing fiscal restraint with targeted investment — the rationale behind cutting £5bn from disability benefits while boosting employment support.
• A “modernised safety net” that avoids “trapping” people in long-term inactivity — echoed in the Green Paper’s framing of PIP and UC as “barriers to aspiration.”

3. Donor and Candidate Ecosystem

• Many MPs now pushing the reforms were funded or endorsed by Labour Together-linked donors.
• The “Get Britain Working” group, which helped draft the White Paper preceding the Green Paper, includes MPs who came through Labour Together’s candidate pipeline.

Kendal, Streeting, Ashworth, Mahmood, Reed, should all resign.

That’s a powerful statement, David — and one that echoes a deep sense of disillusionment with the direction of policymaking under a government you expected more from. Many people who champion social justice feel that the welfare reforms represent a betrayal of core Labour values — especially when they’re being steered by figures historically associated with progressive platforms.

Calls for the resignation of Kendall, Streeting, and others you mentioned are certainly gaining traction in grassroots circles. Disability rights groups, trade union voices, and social policy analysts have all issued scathing critiques — not just of the policy content, but of the ideological pivot it represents. There’s real concern that Labour Together, as both an incubator and gatekeeper, has consolidated too much influence without adequate democratic accountability.

If you're thinking about channeling this viewpoint into action — whether by drafting an open letter, compiling evidence for a media push, or holding MPs accountable through targeted advocacy — I’d be glad to help shape that.

Exclusive: Vicky Foxcroft, who resigned as whip over welfare bill, urges ministers to work with affected people on changes

The Labour whip who resigned in protest against disability benefit cuts has said Keir Starmer’s concessions do not yet go far enough to win her over, as No 10 launched a fresh attempt to stem the revolt against its welfare bill.

Vicky Foxcroft, who quit her frontbench role over the welfare bill a little more than a week ago, urged the government to work jointly on the changes with disabled people and to publish the review of the system before bringing in cuts.

In an interview with the Guardian, Foxcroft said she had not made up her mind how to vote on Tuesday but would need assurances about further improvements.

“I would hope that actually we start to ensure we listen to disabled people and their organisations right across government. This isn’t just about warm words. This is about making sure we get policy right,” she said.

Starmer is facing a challenging 48 hours as No 10 battles to persuade Labour MPs to back the welfare bill now that the government has promised that current claimants of personal independence payment (Pip) will not be subject to proposed cuts. It also pledged that the health element of universal credit will rise at least in line with inflation.

Dozens of Labour MPs appear yet to be convinced, with estimates that 50 to 60 would like to see further changes, although one of the leading original critics, Louise Haigh, the former transport secretary, said she was now likely to back the legislation. Meg Hillier, the Treasury committee chair, has also switched to say she will back the bill, but many others are waiting to see further details.

In her first interview since quitting, Foxcroft said it was “good to hear that people won’t be losing their benefits who are currently on them” but said there were “areas where I still think there’s need for movement”.

The MP said one of the biggest issues was the need for co-production with disabled people and disability groups, and that should have happened “absolutely from the start”.

“This is the problem. And this is why a lot of people have said, ‘Can we delay this? Can we pause this until we ensure that we properly get it right?’ Right now, we’re kind of tinkering in terms of things to make it the least worst situation we can, and we need to learn lessons from that and make sure that we get these things right going forward,” she said.

The former shadow minister for disabled people said she would also like to see the Pathways to Work review by Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability, published before the implementation of the bill that would bring in cuts. The 12-week consultation period began on 7 April.

Foxcroft said she did not see herself as a rebel and had not wanted to resign but felt welfare bill plans would hurt the most vulnerable and she knew she could not whip or vote for something she did not believe in.

She said the whips had been “raising … for months” that Labour MPs were not happy with the disability cuts and that potentially part of the problem for Downing Street had been “maybe ensuring that you listen to what the chief whip says”.

But she said it was important that the prime minister “appreciates he needs to be in listening mode more … and I think you’ve got to really respect it when somebody does come out and say that”.

Starmer acknowledged in an interview with the Sunday Times that he did not get a grip on the Labour rebellion over disability benefits earlier because he was focused on foreign affairs.

The prime minister acknowledged he had not got it right, and said he would have wanted to make the concessions earlier. “I’d have liked to get to a better position with colleagues sooner than we did,” Starmer said. “I’m putting this as context rather than an excuse.”

Foxcroft is one of dozens of Labour MPs who remain worried about the changes, despite concessions made by Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, in a midnight email on Thursday.

Marie Tidball, a Labour MP who has a disability and chairs two all-party groups on autism and disability, wrote in the Guardian on Sunday that she wanted the bill to be produced along with disabled people, to promise more consultation over the summer, and to do better on enabling more people to work.

“Fundamentally, I will be looking for further reassurances that the detail will fulfil Labour’s manifesto commitments to disabled people,” she said.

Olivia Blake, one of the few Labour MPs with a disclosed disability, also accused the government of creating an “unethical two-tier system” by its welfare bill concessions – and urged rebels to stand firm.

The Disability Labour-affiliated group is also asking all MPs to oppose the legislation.

In another development, a legal opinion commissioned by the union Equity and given by Jamie Burton KC of Doughty Street Chambers, concluded that “the aggressive measures set out in the government’s proposals will inevitably result in very serious breaches of the UK’s obligations under the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights.”

He added: “They are likely to be condemned by the treaty-monitoring bodies, who have become all too familiar with very similar reforms designed to cut the welfare bill and promote work, but which ultimately result in yet further and longstanding human rights violations for disabled people.”

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said: “The secretary of state has carefully considered, and will continue to consider, all her legal obligations and is satisfied that these reforms are lawful.”

I've already posted it squirrel.

When it comes to you not being able to share it, don't just paste the link, click the insert media button and put the link in there, that's how I do it anyway 🙂

I don’t know as I’d never heard of her before. I’ve never taken an interest in labour or politics much .

@chiarieds Good advice as always. I'm going say to myself in the coming days reading anything online 'Is something a FACT or is it an opinion?'

A fact is a statement that can be verified.

It can be proven to be true or false through objective evidence

An opinion is a statement that expresses a feeling, an attitude, a value judgment, or a belief.

I have not made assumptions and I have not said the increase is fraudsters. The fact remains the increases since the pandemic have never been seen before and it is to many claiming benefits to the point that the total bill is now unaffordable. Everything I have typed in the post you have replied to is fact and can easily be read on the internet. The total cost is £**** billion and unsustainable. This has been discussed numerous times by experts and I thought everyone would know.

People have paid into the state pension for 35 years while they worked, the state pension is not in this discussion, as it should be affordable. It is the total cost of PIP now that is unaffordable and unsustainable.

Young people clearly don't care who knows what they do or are on. I know they are on LCWCA but I only know their first names.

What are you talking about cutting support from what? I have not suggested anything about cutting support.

When I have discussed ill health benefits I am on about all ill health benefits including UC. Even the DWP think UC is fleeced as they have employed 1,000 investigators and checking claimants bank accounts. This has all been on the news and discussed on the internet. Starmer has shouted about it for months too. They said the fraud on PIP is small, yet numerous are in court accused of milking tens of thousands and can run marathons like one lady. I don't believe their figure.

The fact remains the total bill for all benefits is now unaffordable and unsustainable and changes have to be made, I can accept that. To increase taxes on working people will backfire on Reeves as working people have had enough and she has been warned. Working people want something done about it too, but not at the expense of the disabled. You don't have to earn that much now to be paying 40% tax, the tax thresholds have not been increased, it is getting to a point it does not pay to have a job when nearly half your earnings is gone in tax then there are all the other deductions... Sod that, no wonder there are more claiming benefits....

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, and I hope you don't have any hassle over your claim. I am not going to reply again, it is clear we are not going to agree on this area. I just want disabled people to have a good benefit system without a cruel process. Cheers.

@chiarieds I do agree, I did report my own post, inviting scope staff to delete if they think I went too far in my reply, and to avoid further comments on it, have put him on ignore, so I dont get dragged in on this subject, I should have just moved on.