Labour: Cutting Welfare and Shredding Trust in Democracy

Labour's proposed £5 billion welfare cuts - which appeared nowhere in their manifesto - reveal a troubling gap in our democratic system. This isn't merely about budget numbers or policy details. It's about whether governments, even those with apparently strong mandates, should be able to implement significant changes that were never explicitly shared with voters.

Labour's Surprise Welfare Cuts - A Democratic Breach?

Have a look for “£5 billion welfare cut” in Labour’s 2024 manifesto and you won’t find it. Yet just months after their landslide victory, those proposed cuts emerged - swiftly and quietly. The reformed Personal Independence Payment (PIP) criteria would exclude hundreds of thousands of disabled people. The Work Capability Assessment would be abolished entirely. Young adults under 22 with health conditions would be denied additional support. And Winter Fuel Payments have already been stripped from millions of pensioners.

Labour campaigned on a vision of welfare reform that emphasized dignity, opportunity, and fixing a "broken system" - language that signaled improvement, not retrenchment. Voters who supported Labour expected compassionate reform, not cuts deeper than anything attempted by Conservative governments since 2015.

This disconnect between promise and policy undermines not just trust in Labour, but in the democratic process itself. When governments implement major changes never presented to voters, they break the fundamental social contract of representative democracy.

Consent within Democracy - More Than Just The Ballot Box

True democratic consent isn't a blank cheque given at elections. It's an ongoing dialogue between the governed and those who govern.

In mature democracies, consent must be continuously refreshed through openness, consultation, and responsiveness. Citizens should be able to recognise the policies being implemented as consistent with the platform they voted for, even when specific details weren't spelled out.

As a mature democracy with strong deliberative traditions, we should expect our governments to handle significant policy shifts with candour and in good faith. That might involve such mechanisms as citizen assemblies, extended parliamentary debate, and transparent impact assessments before implementation. It might also involve structured dialogue with affected groups, ensuring policy changes maintain public legitimacy.

This approach recognises that while governments have the right to govern, they must do so mindful of the need for ongoing consent - especially when vulnerable lives hang in the balance.

Why This Matters - The Real-Life Democratic Cost

The democratic deficit created by these unannounced cuts has real consequences beyond constitutional theory.

Consider Gabriel Kennedy, a single mother with multiple sclerosis who cares for two autistic teenagers. "Claiming PIP is already a humiliating, dehumanising process," she says in The Independent, and now faces the prospect of losing crucial support her family depends on. Or Brian, a single father with mental health issues and autism who told The Guardian that even now he "lives on the edge of existence" and sees "a devastating fight for survival ahead" as his benefits stagnate against rising costs.

When people facing such challenges feel policies affecting their very survival were implemented without democratic consent, their faith in democracy itself is eroded. They experience not just material hardship but profound alienation from a political system that seems to dismiss their voice and needs.

This alienation breeds cynicism, disengagement, and ultimately weakens democracy's foundations. If voting doesn't ensure your interests are even considered, why participate at all? The resulting disillusionment creates fertile ground for political extremism or apathy - neither conducive to healthy democratic life.

Democracy Between Elections - A Vision for Change

If we accept that democracy should be more than periodic elections followed by years of unchecked governance, what might a better system look like?

First, we need enhanced parliamentary transparency and scrutiny. Major policy shifts not explicitly mentioned in manifestos should face additional procedural hurdles - perhaps requiring cross-party committee approval or special debates.

Second, we could strengthen citizens' assemblies and deliberative forums to inform policies between elections. These could create structured spaces for the public to engage with complex trade-offs, ensuring decisions reflect considered public judgment rather than just electoral arithmetic.

Digital platforms can also extend democratic participation beyond the ballot box. New civic technology tools allow citizens to organise around specific issues and make their voices heard between elections. Mechanisms like participatory budgeting, already successful at local levels, could be scaled to involve citizens in national spending priorities.

Whatever the mechanisms used, what matters is establishing that democracy is a continuous practice of consent, not a one-time authorisation. The dangers of this "blank cheque" approach to democracy are playing out vividly in the United States, where Donald Trump's re-election has seen the swift and severe implementation of a destructive agenda that many voters didn't anticipate. When fundamental changes to the social safety net are contemplated, those directly affected should have meaningful input before decisions are finalised - not just the right to protest afterward (which itself is something we can no longer take for granted).

Democracy Is Not a Spectator Sport

Labour's welfare cuts exemplify a wider democratic problem we can no longer ignore: policy without explicit voter consent undermines democracy itself.

This isn't simply about whether these specific welfare changes are right or wrong. It's about whether our democratic institutions adequately protect the principle that governments should implement what they promised - or at minimum, not do what they implicitly promised not to do.

The solution requires both institutional reform and civic engagement. Parliament must become more effective at scrutinising government actions against electoral commitments. Citizens must participate more actively between elections, not just during them. And governments must recognise that a mandate is not a license to implement whatever policies they wish.

Democracy thrives on trust - trust that your vote actually determines the policies that will govern your life. When that link is broken, democracy itself is weakened.

Elections alone do not make democracy thrive - it's our daily commitment to holding power accountable that truly protects our voice. Labour's unannounced welfare proposals should serve as a wake-up call for democratic renewal, not just another episode of broken promises to be cynically accepted.

At Open Britain, we're working to revitalise our democracy through campaigns, community organising, and policy development that put citizens at the centre of decision-making. (By joining our movement, you can help build a democracy that works continuously, not just on election day.)

Democracy demands our constant vigilance and participation, not just our periodic votes. The choice is ours: accept a hollow democracy limited to election days, or build institutions and practices that make consent meaningful every day in between.