THE former Labour prime minister Harold Wilson argued that the labour movement owed more to Methodism than Marx. Socialists will dispute that but there is no doubt that in the 19th century a good deal of the imagery and words used in workers’ struggles came from the Bible. That is not a surprise when its considered that Marx’s Capital was not available in English until 1887.

One line from the Bible (Thessalonians) which was much used in the first decades of the 19th century and remains relevant now is “he that does not work neither shall he eat.”

It’s a view that is firmly lodged in the mind of right-wing social democracy. After Labour was elected in 1997, Tony Blair tried to push through welfare cuts — in that case to incapacity benefits — and suffered in May 1998 a rebellion of 80 Labour MPs.

The logic was that the money was needed to invest in reforming government and services and it’s the same logic that remains in place with the current government’s plans to cut personal independence payments.

Yet this logic is not, historically, a Labour one. The 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act introduced the workhouse (abolished 1929) where people who could not support themselves were sent. In return for lodging and a basic diet, menial work was required. The Act was introduced not by the Tories but by the Whigs (Liberals).

It was only after 1906 with the first appearance of Labour MPs in the Commons that the start of a modern welfare state, the state pension in particular, began.

Keir Starmer has previously said that those who are on sickness benefit should be looking for work. He has claimed that Labour is the party of work. That is certainly not what Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who wrote the original 1918 constitution of the Labour Party thought.

Clause four, amended in the Blair years, essentially framed the party as one for the many not the few. All those who did something to promote the wealth of the country by hand or by brain, were labelled producers and were welcome. The Webbs in an explanatory document were also clear who was not welcome — “the idle rich” who lived off the labour of others.

There is dignity in labour, a long-held labour movement perspective. At work you can join a union, organise and start to change things. However if you are unable health-wise to work —think, for example, long Covid — that just doesn’t work.

The Chartists in the 1830s and 1840s popularised the “he who does not work, neither shall he eat” slogan for the rich who lived well, not from their own labour but from exploiting others, while those who worked could not afford to eat.

In this period and indeed up to at least the early 20th century there were many who were unable to work or unable to earn enough from work to provide for the essentials of living.

Engels’ book, The Condition of the Working Class in England (1845) and investigations into the state of the poor in London and elsewhere by journalist Henry Mayhew in 1849 underlined the point.

The two world wars in the 20th century led to demands for spending on welfare — including Labour’s 1945 welfare state in Britain. There was an understanding that in a capitalist economy there was a need for a social safety net.

The current government is moving away from that historic compromise and promoting warfare over welfare, while taking little action to tax hugely wealthy companies and individuals.

It represents a significant break from the history and traditions of the left and the labour movement.

Keith Flett is a socialist historian. Follow him on X @kmflett.