There’s an uncomfortable truth at the heart of Labour’s struggle with Britain’s ballooning welfare bill: the party is trapped by its own voters. With forecasts predicting incapacity benefit claimants will hit 4.1 million by decade’s end, Labour finds itself unable to enact meaningful reforms, despite its massive majority, because of its own electoral coalition.

Since the pandemic, disability benefit claims have soared. In England and Wales alone, an additional million working-age adults now receive disability payments, bringing the total to 2.9 million, or 7.5% of the population. Mental health conditions are now the leading cause, accounting for 44% of these claims — up from just 25% two decades ago. The Institute for Fiscal Studies points out that mental ill-health alone explains over half of the recent increase in claimants.

Faced with such explosive growth, Labour — once critical of austerity — has found itself forced into uncomfortable choices, including sharp cuts to Personal Independence Payments (PIP) of around £5 billion. Yet despite, these moves spending is set to rocket regardless, up £13 billion to nearly £50 billion since 2019. More radical action is needed, but Labour is incapable of delivering it. Why? Because its political base won’t allow it any other path.

Labour is seen as the party of welfare claimants. Polling from YouGov underscores this: 41% see Labour as close to benefit recipients, compared to just 13% for the Conservatives. The political logic is clear: Labour voters, including middle-class progressives who see welfare cuts as morally cruel, fiercely oppose slashing benefits. Indeed, it is only since March 2025 that more Labour voters backed defence over welfare spending(28% to 15%). In the six years prior welfare always won out. These voters form a critical segment of Labour’s coalition, alongside unions and the party’s activist base, and further cuts to benefits would risk tearing this apart.

It’s a trap reminiscent of the Conservative Party’s entanglement with pensions. Pensioners, overwhelmingly Tory voters, form a politically protected class. Just 4% of the British public thinks pensions are too high, despite pensions consuming 42% of welfare spending. Similarly, Labour voters instinctively recoil at welfare reform, despite acknowledging that something is deeply amiss.

Labour knows this bind well. Its recent welfare trims sparked immediate backlash from within. Labour MPs, activists, and union leaders erupted, condemning the cuts as betrayal. In true Rachel Reeves style, the party is taking the political pain of cutting welfare without reducing the bill. This dynamic has left Labour impotent, with one route out seen to be publishing their long-awaited child poverty strategy shortly before the key votes — raising the unedifying spectre of making MPs choose between the disabled adults and children in poverty.

But Labour’s paralysis extends beyond welfare payments alone. It knows the answer to many of the UK’s problems is more economic growth: it is much less important that welfare payments are rising if the economy grows faster. But it has chosen an economic approach that compounds the problem. Higher taxes have accelerated an exodus of wealth creators — those vital few who disproportionately fund welfare, and much else, through their taxes. Meanwhile, the Renters’ Rights Bill will gum up the housing markets, and the Employment Rights Bill, backed by powerful unions, further dampens labour market flexibility. Add spiralling energy costs and higher National Insurance contributions, and Labour’s pursuit of growth looks increasingly like self-sabotage. Labour’s own economic logic is twisted into knots.

In truth, Labour is trapped in a perpetual balancing act, torn between the urgent need for welfare reform and the political realities of its voter base. The result is predictable: superficial tweaks to a broken system, growing spending commitments, and a party increasingly boxed in by its own electoral coalition. Until Labour acknowledges the contradiction at the heart of its strategy, Britain’s welfare state will remain bloated, costly, and fundamentally unreformable.

---