I published an alternate history novel titled ‘Eugenica’ in April 2016 that examined a variety of themes inspired by the notion of the false science of eugenics becoming a cornerstone of British social policy in the 1930’s; those themes included friendship, loyalty, personal courage, oppression, persecution, discrimination, latent prejudice, and, ultimately, the triumph of the human spirit in adversity. The idea that eugenics would indeed become a government policy was not that far-fetched, it was a popular subject in 1931, and the British Eugenics Society was very influential. Public figures such as Winston Churchill, H. G. Wells, and Leonard Darwin, son of the famous naturalist, Charles Darwin, were involved in publicly debating the principles established by Sir Francis Galton; the man who is credited as the father of modern eugenics. At the beginning of the novel I posited the idea that Ramsey MacDonald’s minority government looked to the British Eugenics Society for the support needed to win the 1931 General Election; the cost of this was to be the creation of a new government department: the Ministry of Social Biology.

Many believe that after World War Two the subject of eugneics disappeared from our world, western society being apparently shocked and appalled by the Nazi regime’s interpretation of the subject, which today is more often termed ‘dysgenics’ as it focused almost exclusively on the negative points that a more cynical mind could distil from the pseudo-science, but this belief is not based on fact. In 1989 the British Eugenics Society changed its name to ‘The Galton Institute’ to divest itself from the negative connotations that the subject of eugenics was still associated with, and then it was renamed again in 2021 as ‘The Adelphi Genetics Forum’, under which title it still exists today.

In May 2024, the Labour Party won the General Election and promised a new era of change and optimism under the leadership of Sir Kier Starmer, but that promise turned sour in under a year. On 18 May 2025, the new government introduced the Green Paper: Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working; a thinly disguised attack on disability welfare. A very limited public consultation process was begun, but before it can be completed on 30 June 2025, the government introduced The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill to parliament on 18 June 2025, and it is to receive its first reading on 01 July; the very next day after the public consultation is supposed to end.

The green paper has provoked a degree of anger amongst disabled people, as well as charities and organisation who traditionally represent them. One of the most contentious points is the government’s deliberate attempt to misrepresent the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) as a work related benefit, which it is not; employment status is not a consideration in the eligibility criteria. PIP is was introduced to help disabled people live more independent lives in acknowledgement of the fact that having a disability imposes further costs that non-disabled people do not have to meet. It also proposes to make both qualification and requalification for the PIP much more difficult; many claimants have their eligibility subject to periodic review and, so it would appear, a significant number would fail under the more stringent criteria the bill itself seeks to introduce and will lose their PIP entitlement as a result.

Is this an attempt to introduce a seemingly eugenic flavour to government social policies? On its own, probably not, but in association with other changes the same government is introducing a pattern can be seen to be developing. Initially, it was claimed that the green paper was intended to help disabled people into work, but prior to it being published the
Social Security and Disability Minister, Stephen Timms, announced on 13 February 2025 that the Access to Work scheme, which was designed to help disabled people not only gain but also retain employment would be subject to cuts along with other welfare reforms. Neither the green paper nor the subsequent bill contain any concrete plans to help disabled people find work; they are exclusively punitive in the cutting of disability benefits. Both documents avoid using the words ‘prejudice’ or ‘discrimination’, which are the genuine barriers to disabled people not only finding work but enjoying a rewarding career also. Add to this the fact that the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, did not mention any plans for accessibility investment in public transport for disabled passengers in her June Spending Review, that The Data Protection and Information Bill, which will give the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) greater powers to monitor benefit claimants’ bank accounts, is currently passing through parliament, and finally, that the passing into law of The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which will legalise assisted suicide. Although a private member’s bill and not a product of the Labour government, many people believe that it will be abused to influence people disabled by life threatening conditions to choose to die early as a cost saving measure. All in all, it looks a concerted attack against disabled people in Britain today; a very eugenic stance to take.

Thanks to a rebellion of over 200 Labour MP’s (at the time of writing) we now find ourselves in peculiar and even offensive position in which a Labour government, reduced to almost a minority status as in 1931, is forced to turn to the opposition parties in parliament in order to ensure that The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill survives its first reading next week. Perhaps even more unacceptable is knowing that this bill is exactly the kind of instrument that the previous Conservative government wanted to introduce during its term in power.

I am going to speak to my own MP today and I hope to convince her to sign the Reasoned Amendment introduced by those Labour MP’s who believe that The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill will only injure disabled people; even the DWP’s own limited assessment suggests that at least 250,000 disabled people will be pushed into poverty. I will be taking a copy of Eugenica to give to her, motivated by one reader’s declaration that ‘everyone should read this book; it will change how people view the disabled’. I hope that it has that affect upon her.