As the Guardian notes this morning:
More than half of the increase in disability benefits is due to more mental health claims, according to research.
They added:
Whereas in 2002, mental health or behavioural problems were the main condition for 25% of claimants, it had risen to 40% by 2019 and has accelerated further since Covid-19. In 2024, the proportion of those receiving disability benefits whose main condition was a mental or behavioural problem had reached 44% (some 3.3% of the working-age population). It means that “55% of the post-pandemic rise in disability benefits can be accounted for by claims primarily for mental health”, [a new report from] the IFS report states.
That Covid and its aftermath have created such a situation is hardly surprising. It disrupted almost every aspect of life, and made life for everyone harder. This had a particular impact on those who rely on routines, support, and networks of dependency to get through life. These were disrupted. The residual fear that they might be so again is, in itself, deeply disabling. I am not surprised that permanent harm has arisen.
Covid, by itself, is not, however, sufficient to explain this change. Many in our society are increasingly aware that our economy essentially exists to exploit them. It deliberately promotes inequality, exploitation of the most vulnerable through abusive employment practices, and the straightforward sucking of funds from those least well off by excessive charges for interest and rent. At the same time, it rubs the noses of the majority in the excesses of the wealthy through a continual stream of advertising for products that we are meant to aspire to own but which most will never do because the economy is set up to guarantee that we cannot.
Is it surprising that mental ill health has risen in that case? How are people meant to be resilient in the face of such deliberate systemic abuse that is actually promoted by the chosen politics of all the major parties in the country, leaving people feeling hopeless about the prospect of change?
The surprise should not be that so many are off sick, unable to work. The surprise should be that so many hang on, somehow. That is what is impressive and worthy of note. In the face of the enormous adversity that many millions face in this country, which very few politicians seem to have the slightest inkling of either understanding or wanting to do anything about, somehow life goes on, despite the cost to people of simply trying to make ends meet. This is indication of quite exceptional resilience. At the same time, it suggests we may be tottering on the edge of a system that is very close to failing, altogether.
All pervasive neoliberalism and a healthy population are incompatible. It is really that simple.
So, what are politicians going to do about that? Apart from reintroducing workhouses, that is?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
What is extraordinary is that a Labour government – a Labour government! – is not supporting people who need benefits, particularly those related to physical and mental disability, but rather complaining that the many barriers to accessing those benefits are not high enough. Almost as if they have no idea how difficult, demeaning and punitive the current system already is. As if anyone who claims benefits is thereby underserving of support and requires sticks to beat them into ill paid and unsuitable work instead. As if it is better for the poor to live in poverty with insufficient means to meet their basic needs, rather than using the tax system to allocate the nation’s resources differently.
I share your astonishment and disgust
The problem is that Labour is not a true labour government anymore.
No government will resolve this issue because we are governed by corrupt elites who have fingers in pies , pies that require the system stays as it is now.
The rot started with the hollowing out and the sale of all our national industries and institutions around 40 years ago. Thus , in a system that only wants profit, profit that now goes abroad to corporations and elites that are in no way interested in the uplifting of societies from which they profit, the society has no way of making change.
It is a supremely complex issue, one that encompasses unions, governments and private corporations and elites, it is a power dynamic , and unfortunately our governments aren’t aligned with the needs of the population any longer.
Over the last couple of months I have been to various social gatherings where the cost of “working age” benefits is raised – it must be a talking point in the Telegraph. The implication is that anyone claiming money on “mental health grounds” is defrauding the system.
Of course, in any system there is an element of fraud – but all evidence suggests it is tiny and is greatly exceeded by unclaimed benefits. There is also interplay between unemployment/health benefits based on the rates paid and the political sensitivity of unemployment numbers…. but it is impossible to look at these data with anything other than alarm.
The grumbling I hear comes from people that own their own homes and have stable salaries/pensions (mainly pensions!) who can’t empathise with the precarious nature of modern work/housing. They, for the most part, have had stability through their lives… and (if they have them) been able to offer support to their children to ameliorate these problems. Unfortunately, Labour seems to want to pander to these folk.
We know that children from broken relationships or in care do worse than those in stable families…. we should not be surprised that young adults without stable work, housing and community struggle, too. We are human beings!
So, I agree, the rise of payments to those with mental health issues is a problem….. but the solution is better housing, employment and mental health services – not benefit sanctions.
Agreed
I would add that Stephen Bush (Financial Times) is good on this subject – not so much in his articles but in his daily e-mail.
His approach is non-partisan but articulates most of the issues quite well.
Thanks
I cann never quite work out where he stands though
I keep hearing this complaint too, from people who read the Daily Mail, from some still on FaceBook, that young unemployed people on benefits due to mental health claims are scamming the system. When I ask who these young people are, do you know them, answer comes there none. It’s very insidious how these lies spread quite so quickly, and are so difficult to dispute.
Agreed
Clive, thank you for a fantastic and empathetic response. You hit the nail on the head regarding the current generational wealth and quality of life inequality. This is a prime example of why there is such animosity between the current younger generations and the older/Boomer generations. No one should be claiming that all pensioners/boomers are rich and living a great life however, the large number of people in this bracket who have greatly benefited from neoliberalism and gained unearned wealth (e.g., house prices and rents sky rocketing, stable employment etc) should be more empathetic towards the current younger generation.
Regarding labour pandering to these voters, is it any surprise? Conservatives (which labour literally are) have always pandered and wanted to enrich the lives of the older generation at the expense of the young. Why do you think young people are now turning to the far right? Because no one in the centre or left are offering them a credible alternative.
Thanks
We have Cats and Children, and we used to have chickens.
Now you can go and get books that tell you how to look after them – I can send anyone who wants a copy of my new book ‘parenting with cable ties & gaffer tape if you want it.
We also have two cars that get a main dealer service so they benefit from service manuals and regular updates issued my the Manufacturer that pick up on any issues that are discovered.
So what about some sort of Government ‘Good Practice’ manual on how to keep people healthy? If I want to propose a new bit of legislation I can check what I want to do against its recommendations and perhaps get more detailed advice once I have produced the draft?
Trouble is though as todays Guardian letters point out
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/11/economic-growth-for-its-own-sake-is-ruining-britain
everything thats happened since the 70’s hasnt helped human welfare its making it worse
Ever since they connived at excluding the only group of politicians who offered any substantial alternative, I have found it very difficult to take The Guardian’s bleatings seriously. They are as neoliberal as the rest, it’s just their target market that’s different.
The Guardian just posted this
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/12/peers-working-for-city-firms-dominate-lords-panel-scrutinising-financial-sector
How very strange. I am amazed. And Prem Siika is excluded. Also, how very odd.
What are the politicians going to do?
They will enable the markets to solve the problem – that’s what they will do.
1. Drugs
2. More private counsellors that you cannot afford.
3. More dreams to sell – things to buy, retail therapy, all based on easy to get/hard to pay down credit.
4. Manufactured threats to keep you occupied.
5. Exploiting human weaknesses to make us feel ashamed at not ‘keeping up’.
I’m sure others could add to the list.
Another source of stress for many people is the unreliability, fragility and unrepairability of many modern devices and appliances. In the old days, if your car or your washing machine broke down you could probably fix it yourself for the price of a new part. Nowadays, you can’t even diagnose it without access to specialised equipment, so every fault is a major expense. And many smartphones can’t even be fixed by most independent professionals. As a result, people suffer permanent ‘check engine’ lights, cracked screens, washing machines with unreliable buttons, etc.
Just one more aspect of life where ‘efficiency’ is loading costs and stress onto everyone but the original supply chains.
I bought a secondhand recon Samsung ) for #199 from a reputable company. There was a tiny crack in the screen. Professional screen repair? #225. Typical!
I’m surprised that so many qualify for mental health disability benefits. About 15 years ago when I was referred to a GP by an occupational therapist, qualification required serious brain damage, no humour or slight intended. Points were awarded over about a dozen criteria and a threshold had to be exceded. The criteria included the inability to perform a simple task with written instructions and the inability to find a location in town with written directions. Catch 22 – anyone capable of applying wouldn’t qualify. A GP may sign someone off for a week with stress, but they won’t get benefits.
I’ve been unemployed for about twenty years with no benefits or pension, unable to perform ordinary daily tasks. I’ve unsuccessfully sought help from GPs, both primary & secondary mental health care, occupational therapists, Talking Therapy, Samaritans, various other mental health dispensers, regular & MIS adult social care, enablement, dentists, job centres, WorkingWell, job support (Talking Therapy) & Citizens’ Advice. The only assistance received was the council threatening me with an ASBO for an overgrown garden (which gave focus). Now in my 60s, I have various physical limitations, making me unsuitable for manual labour, etc.
My main regret is being unable to assist my elderly mother when she became infirm. But with considerable help from a friend, I gave her a good funeral.
Thanks for sharing Mike, and much to agree with
“All pervasive neoliberalism and a healthy population are incompatible. It is really that simple.”
I agree. Health has many aspects, including access to nice, unpolluted places.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/12/changes-to-bathing-water-status-test-will-deny-rivers-protection-say-critics
The privatised water companies are neolibtardism incarnate & deliver the result one would expect. It is clear that the LINO gov, Starmer and his controller, the Irishman McSweeney, have no interest in cleaning up the UK’s rivers and by extension offering people a healthy and safe place to enjoy. One supposes that McSweeney takes the attitude – well go aboad (e.g. France..or Ireland) if you want clean rivers.
Gentle readers are encouraged to read the book “Get in” to understand the malign influence of McSweeney and “the boys” (there is a whole crew of them). Small factlet: did you know McSweeney had a long dinner with Michael Gove in 2024 – Gove recognised that the tories would lose (well duh!) and was passing the reigns – apparently they both have similar views wrt the UK establishment and the need for “reform” natch this does not cover a health environment, healthy people and clean rivers.
This begs the question: why is an Irishman sitting at the heart of the Uk government? (do the Irish have Brits at the heart of theirs?………….bursts out with laughter at the very thought). BTW I’m not anti-Irish – one of my collaborators is Irish – & he agrees with the points I have made.
I have an Irish passport – and have had for many decades
This is a good question
Erm…nudge nudge, wink wink, that Irish passport – how can I get one please?
Have a lot of Irish relatives….
Would anyone with an Irish passport mind marrying me so I can get one too? I’m housetrained, a good cook and incredibly untidy. Also very grumpy in the mornings.
I’m happily committed.
I would put good money on the fact that some smart arse will post a comment here about how people are faking mental illness as disability benefits are more generous, and easier to stay on than unemployment benefits. This may well be true, (although doctors are pretty good at spotting fakers, it’s their job) but if it is the case, if people are willing to ‘fake’ mental illness rather than join the workforce, then that still shows us that something is fundamentally wrong with our economy.
And no, pre-empting another typical argument, removing benefits will not entice people back to work. There was no benefits system in Victorian England, and there were still unemployed people back then, living in desperate poverty.
I’ve definitely seen that sentiment expressed. My daughter has FND, and sometimes she can do things but cannot predict when she’ll have a seizure or tics or other symptoms, and therefore cannot be independent as she cannot travel on her own safely, for example.
I’d widen that definition to variable and invisible disabilities. If you’re sometimes able to cope or someone can’t easily see the cause of the difficulties, some people assume it is fake or exaggerated at other times.
There have been a small number who fake illness, but that’s very much the minority. Far more don’t claim the benefits to which they’re entitled, partially because the system is seen as so adversarial to make a claim or go through a review. Unless fraudulent benefits claims come anywhere close to unpaid entitlement amounts, we need to be steering the focus towards compassion and support, countering the regular misinformation and hyperbole about ‘unnecessary’ claims.
Are young adults much less well in terms of mental health? It appears so. They have less job security. Jobs for life are mostly gone. They don’t expect a decent retirement as final salary pensions are largely gone. It’s harder to get on the career ladder. They’ll enter the workforce with far greater debts than most previously. They were going through exam stress alongside Covid, and often combined a key stress point with losing one or more family members.
Meanwhile, mental health support is on its knees and as outlined with going from DLA to PIP, support breaks when you become an adult, so many who were struggling suddenly find themselves cast adrift. Sometimes the parents simply cannot afford to keep providing the same support as other financial elements end and if they own the family home then there’s no access to housing benefit or anything to help either.
I work alongside a complex care company. They see some packages where things have to transition from one department to another when the person becomes an adult. There can be issues getting budgets signed off just to continue the care package that has already been carefully worked out as necessary to meet the patient’s needs, simply because things get held up transferring from one funding pot to another. No wonder young adults with mental health and other issues end up stuck – at the point when they need additional help to transition from a child’s arrangements to an adult’s service provision often comes to a halt, at least in places.
Thanks, David and much to agree with
My area is facing the fast track ‘devolution plans’ which will abolish multiple local district councils but no really plausible explanation has been offered as to the reasons why.
My question is whether these plans are in readiness for SEZ?
The plans will combine East and West Sussex plus Brighton&Hove into Unitary Authories under the control of a mayor with direct input from Westminster. It will also include a number of small ports and Gatwick which has been recommended to expand.
I share your concern.
Anthing is possible with Labour. I trust them less than the Tories.
For a comprehensive review of exactly how this works, I suggest this book: https://www.newsfromnowhere.co.uk/page/detail/The-myth-of-normal/?K=BDZ0050458220.
Thanks, Kirsten.
“ Many in our society are increasingly aware that our economy essentially exists to exploit them. It deliberately promotes inequality, ….. Is it surprising that mental ill health has risen in that case?” – Exactly!
Some of the social consequences of inequality were explored in Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson’s ‘The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better’ (Allen Lane 2009), and the mental health consequences of inequality were shown in a follow-up volume: ‘The Inner Level: How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Wellbeing’ (Penguin Books, 2018). I also note and commend a follow up ‘The Spirit Level at 15 (https://equalitytrust.org.uk/evidence-base/the-spirit-level-at-15/ ) produced by the equality trust (https://equalitytrust.org.uk/)
Each year, the happier societies in the ‘world happiness index’ are the social democratic societies with low inequality. I’m sure this will be true again, in this year’s report, soon to be launched on Thursday 20 March – https://worldhappiness.report/news/join-us-for-the-launch-of-world-happiness-report-2025/
Thanks, Paul.
But if tax exists to withdraw surplus (government-created) money from the economy, and a good social purpose of tax would be to reduce inequality (good in that this improves social well-being and mental health) — along with other purposes such as ensuring material, environmental and other resources a utilised in the best way (not for luxury yachts and private planes for the uber-wealthy) — then wealth inequality is a problem of insufficient taxation of the uber-wealthy.
While I understand that a ‘wealth tax’ is difficult to collect (wealth being difficult to evaluate and easy to hide), and so not the best approach given easier approaches (which you explain, such as limiting government support for pension tax relief to basic rate, etc.), would you say this is a correct evaluation of the macroeconomics of inequality and taxation?
I look forwards to a book to explains some of the intricacies of MMT – such as this one, which Amazon says is being published in July! 🙂
https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-will-you-pay-Government/dp/1119913004/ref=sr_1_2?crid=1QKXVNESH67B4&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.fGF5acuykwNPt4PVxOwg1YA1RUha_idobdhF-eGbb4HfP-0zGES0rtDIp5TN3IpZ8Q6KIFsqX5ucNRVuIHJvitf49gJw2Td9gWpvDDrxacylCfq7U9YxMTSg_fRooCk2gyZAN8-0QAHH9lrhVoX6grZL5hpBC7canda4E7n7RZok45qrjanpXePwqQLhcCoIgAt8XhBB05x4XNzhPir3xBva5n7Wtf1GEFmgPEyk66U.BdK24Ktmok9B6Uf-mC6_Sdmjr0z5BQiT7Ef4Vyjd8DQ&dib_tag=se&keywords=Richard+Murphy&qid=1741838856&sprefix=richard+murphy%2Caps%2C145&sr=8-2
That book never happened – I wish they would delist it.
It was a victim of my long Covid and I naver returned to it.
About 7 chapters exist, very unedited.
The DWP secretary will probably announce a new poor law and introduce workhouses so that those looking for benefits will have to work for them, oh and if they have a house that will have to be sold to offset benefit costs.!
There’s much research to support the assertion that capitalism and neoliberal capitalism in particular is toxic to humanity (and all life on earth) in all ways, not only mentally. The research is most interesting, particularly with regards to those people who think of themselves as neoliberal, and live neoliberally. The outcome is misery, anxiety, alienation, isolation, predictably all the ways in which people may be harmed mentally, neoliberalism does it. It’s hard to think of anything that has been more harmful to more people than the ideas that form neoliberalism. I really do think that organised change is no longer possible – despite decades of critiques of neoliberalism from (before) the outset, none seem to have crossed the path of any politician, and they seem oblivious to the manifold horrors that neoliberalism has unleashed. I do wonder, at what point, those who, for instance, no longer support Labour because they have now fully succumbed to neoliberalism, will shift to no longer support the system that allows political parties to act with impunity over entire populations, since that seems to be the real danger (WFA cuts, upcoming disability benefit cuts, austerity, privatisation, regressive tax policies, the list is endless – see Prem Sikka’s articles on Left Foot Forward for the death count over the last 15 years, over a million and counting). I cannot support a system that allows a tiny minority to enact what the UN has described as policies of social murder, which now includes Labour. We don’t just need a change in political parties, we need system change, it is too dangerous to allow a tiny government to wield such power. We need a massive expansion in the numbers and plurality of those involved in decision-making.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8145185/
https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1015-60462015000100001
https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/selfish-capitalism-and-mental-illness
https://neweconomics.org/2020/10/this-is-your-brain-on-neoliberalism
https://mronline.org/2021/10/06/does-capitalism-make-us-crazy/
https://www.redpepper.org.uk/society/health/a-mad-world-capitalism-and-the-rise-of-mental-illness/
https://medium.com/reason-in-revolt/capitalism-is-dangerous-for-your-mental-health-b02fd8f56dfe
Thanks
[…] By Richard Murphy, Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School and a director of the Corporate Accountability Network. Originally published at Funding the Future […]
There seems to be a broad feeling – a sense, if you like – in the industry within which I work (I’m an IFA) that there will be, sooner or later, the requirement for individuals to become more “self-reliant” by purchasing state subsidized insurance products.
William Pitt in 1799 saw the value of life assurance, which at that time only paid a benefit on the death of the life assured, by allowing income tax relief to be claimed on life assurance premiums paid. as no income tax was payable between 1842 and 1853 the tax relief was not possible. From 1853 until 1979 income tax relief of varying amounts was allowed in respect of certain policies.
In more modern times, we had “Life Assurance Premium Relief” (LAPR), because the state recognised the value of life assurance in the past by allowing tax relief on life assurance premiums and not taxing the benefit when payable. In 1968 certain conditions had to be met to gain income tax relief on premiums and in 1979 to enable non taxpayers to enjoy relief, income tax relief was changed to premium relief by direct deduction from premiums to be paid. Although in 1984 this relief was withdrawn for new policyholders, LAPR continued for the dwindling number of existing policies until 2015, when the relief was abolished.
Back in the 1970s and 80s, there was an army of insurance salesmen (they were nearly all men back then) flogging unnecessary policies to the population. Things like mortgage endowments, etc. However, regulation has virtually eliminated “Direct Salesforces” and with modern technology simple insurance products are easily sourced on-line or through an IFA like me.
If this sense of “self-insurance is coming” ever comes to pass it would have to be done very carefully. There should be a clear hierarchy of insurance solutions – disability/sickness insurance first, critical illness insurance second, and life insurance third, for instance.
Although I would say this, it is true that there are some excellent products on today’s market, certainly compared to when I started out in the late 1980s.
Much to agree with, Mark. Thank you.
My particular concern would income protection insurance (IPI), remembering that only around 3% of life insurance policies become a claim because everyone else survives. Here isn’t the place to go into all of the technical details of such contracts but, in brief, such policies provide a regular income to replace that which the policyholder may no longer be able to earn due to temporary illness or permanent disability. Such benefits are particularly important for the self-employed, but IPI should also be a given for employed persons whose employers do not provide a group insurance scheme. Such policies are offered by both life insurers and friendly societies.
Unlike the past, where the definitions of sickness/disability allowed insurers too much “wriggle room”, good contracts available today offer cover on an ‘own job’ basis. I think that these contracts should be effected by the majority of wage-earners at a young age when premiums are affordable and cover should run to state pension age. Because those in receipt of insured benefits simply would not need to claim PIP or the suchlike, they should be bribed to do so by generous tax relief of, say 30%. A cynic might say that the insurers would simply hike premiums by 30% but I rather doubt they would because the market is very competitive.
I had such a policy for the last 25 years.
Thanks for expressing your concerns.
Great Blog and comments as usual. Emile Durkheim I think demonstrated that suicide was a social phenomenon not just a personal one. The UK rate has been rising since 2019 but is better than others eg Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark. As for UK health the last I looked we were not as good as some European countries but better than others. However we are deteriorating it seems in that we are no longer progressing in the way we were. So Richard though I instinctively agree with your comments the global data I’ve seen says UK is middle of the pack. Is that comforting? Well sort of I suppose. Leaving aside the data my personal experience of the last few years tells me day to day life and the prospects for the future are getting worse. My walk through Huntingdon town this morning powerfully reminded me of the transformation this one Market town has gone through in the last 40 years. Apparently more affluent than ever in the stats but more people health issues all to evident too.
Agreed
You just have to sit and look around you, don’t you. I don’t mind admitting that I sometimes think (because of my job) “She will pay a lot extra for life insurance” or “He will get a bigger pension” because of obvious morbidity and mortality issues. It’s certainly an education, for all the wrong reasons.
My wife puts it differently.
She says “they will not make old bones” and implied in that is her wish, based on knowledge, that they could but that the world is conspiring against them.
As I understand it the government is worried about the social security cost because it is very high, so they want to reduce it. I don’t understand that attitude.
We have social security (in theory) to ensure that everyone has the financial ability to live in safety. So somewhere warm and dry to live, food to eat, access to education, healthcare and to society, etc etc. Social security should cost what is needed to ensure that. So if it costs someone £100 per week to be able to survive, and it costs £200 per week for them to live in relative comfort, I can understand a debate about the right figure between £100 and £200. I cannot understand deciding on a figure of £75 because that is all the country can afford. The country can afford what is needed to maitain our armed forces and defence. The country can afford whatever it wants to afford.
Agreed
The “facts” about disability benefits are nothing of the kind. The Government, ably assisted by the media, is peddling a narrative which is not only untrue, but also unbelievably cruel.
Contrary to what one may hear, it is impossible to be awarded PIP by simply saying, for example, “I have a mental illness”. A doctor has to give a formal diagnosis; a claimant is required to provide additional evidence; that is sent to the DWP. An initial paper assessment is done by the DWP, and at that point, 51% of claims are refused. For the remaining claimants, the DWP passes the cases to DWP assessors, who are “healthcare professionals” – that includes nurses, physios, occupational therapists, etc, so someone with severe depression might well be assessed by a physio. A claimant is then interviewed; during COVID, that was done remotely, but now about 50% are being seen face to face. The assessment lasts at least an hour, and is both degrading and humiliating. The DWP assessors used to be given targets of how many claims they were required to deny. The assessors watch claimants arrive, to see if someone can, for example, get out of a car or use the stairs.
IF the assessor decides someone actually does qualify for PIP, they tell the DWP, who then decide how much money a claimant receives. If they’re very lucky, they might get PIP for 2 years, then have to go through it all again.
So this narrative of “we don’t believe these people are ill” in other words are lying – is utter crap. It implies that doctors are being conned or are conniving; that the DWP itself is failing in its assessments, and that sick people are not sick.
Thanks
Oh, and the percentage rate of fraud in PIP?
Zero.
DWP figure.
Zero.
Unsurprising given that it is so hard to claim.