- News
- governments-cabinets
- Chancellor says she ‘can’t leave welfare untouched’ this parliament as budget looms
Chancellor says she ‘can’t leave welfare untouched’ this parliament as budget looms
In a declaration that sent ripples through Westminster and beyond, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has drawn a firm line in the sand, stating she ‘can’t leave welfare untouched’ this parliament, a pronouncement that feels less like fiscal necessity and more like a profound political choice with a deeply human cost. The Treasury’s gaze, it is understood, has settled specifically on the Motability scheme, a vital lifeline that provides vehicles to over 650,000 disabled people across the UK, with potential cuts to its tax breaks threatening to claw back up to £1 billion.This isn't merely a line item in a budget spreadsheet; it is a direct intervention into the daily lives of some of the most vulnerable citizens, a move that forces us to ask whose shoulders are truly being asked to bear the weight of the nation’s financial repair. Reeves, in her pre-budget interviews, has framed this as an unavoidable sequel to her earlier warnings about the need for both cuts and tax increases, positioning herself as a pragmatic steward of the public purse.Yet, one must scrutinize the narrative being woven. The Motability scheme is not some peripheral allowance; it is an infrastructure of independence, enabling access to employment, healthcare, and community.To unravel its financial fabric is to potentially strand individuals, effectively trading their mobility for a marginal percentage point in a deficit reduction plan. This decision echoes historical patterns where social safety nets are often the first targets during fiscal squeezes, a trend that feminist economic analysis has long critiqued for disproportionately impacting those already on the margins.The personal is, inevitably, political. For a single mother relying on a Motability car to get her wheelchair-using child to school and herself to a precarious zero-hours contract job, this isn't a policy debate—it's a threat to her family's entire ecosystem of survival.One must question the calculus that identifies this particular support as the optimal area for savings, rather than, for instance, a more aggressive pursuit of tax avoidance by multinational corporations or a reevaluation of massive defense procurement projects. The rhetoric of ‘tough choices’ often obscures the underlying values guiding those choices; is this about shared sacrifice or is it about enforcing a specific ideology of the state's role? Expert commentary from disability rights organizations warns of a cascading effect: reduced mobility leads to increased social isolation, deteriorating mental health, and greater long-term demand on the NHS and social care budgets—a classic case of false economy.The chancellor’s assertion that those with the ‘broadest shoulders’ must pay their fair share rings hollow when the immediate action is to narrow the horizons of those with the greatest needs. As the budget looms, this is more than a financial statement; it is a litmus test for the government's commitment to a social contract that doesn't abandon its most vulnerable members in the name of balance sheets. The human impact of axing this scheme will be measured not in billions saved, but in opportunities lost, dignities compromised, and lives made immeasurably harder—a consequence that no amount of political spin can ultimately sanitize.
JA
Jamie Lewis123k2 days ago
ah yes, the 'tough choices' always seem to land on the same people idk, maybe the system is just absurd on purpose
0