As The Guardian notes in an email news alert this morning:
Keir Starmer will unveil drastic cuts to disability benefits on Tuesday, despite deep opposition from Labour MPs and poverty campaigners, and warnings from economists against making kneejerk savings to hit fiscal targets. The changes are expected to affect some of the UK's most severely disabled people.
In another email this morning, from Roy Lilley in his daily NHS commentary, he notes:
When governments make substantial policy changes it is good practice to subject the plans to an impact analysis.
In fact, HM Treasury's Green Book sets out how policies, programmes and projects should be assessed. It recommends a cost-benefit analysis and a distributional impact assessment…
... but does not mandate them.
And as Roy adds:
The Department for Work and Pensions Best Practice tells us major welfare changes will typically include an impact assessment, especially when they affect vulnerable groups.
No formal impact assessment of their PIP changes has been published.
HMG may have conducted internal assessments, but not making them publicly available is an error.
He also notes:
By way of contrast;
- The transition from Disability Living Allowance to PIP under the Welfare Reform Act 2012, were accompanied by detailed impact assessments.
- The Department for Work and Pensions published an impact assessment in May 2012, outlining the expected effects of the DLA reform and the introduction of PIP.
By not publishing an impact assessment HMG faces Judicial Review and the courts may well block or delay the policy.
And then he rightly suggests:
Without understanding the impact, the public will become unsure which side of the argument to land. Who to believe… adding fuel to controversy…
... and HMG will have to deal with …
… the unintended consequences that may increase costs elsewhere. For instance more strain on the NHS, homelessness, or reliance on other welfare.
I agree with Roy. I trust he will forgive me for plugging what he has to say: we are a bit of a mutual fan club, and on this he is spot on.
The overwhelming impression left by all this is that the DWP is making a change not justified by evidence to support a demand for cuts from HM Treasury that cannot be supported by estimated beneficial evidence of gains resulting from the action.
This is austerity, in other words, imposed by choice on - as The Guardian describes them - some of the UK's most severely disabled people.
I hope that judicial review is brought. I'll be chipping in towards the costs if it happens. Bullies picking on the most vulnerable deserve to be challenged.
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!
Yet again, austerity will prove to be eyewateringly expensive.
As a previously very able bodied person who can no longer walk, it’s really a difficult to put into words the feeling that the government pronouncements give me. It seems that, in the eyes of these unempathetic politicians, the day MS robbed me of my mobility, I ceased to be a person of any value. A burden on society, despite working all my life and contributing to that society.
I am so sorry
But it does seem that they want you to feel that way
And you might have noticed that I am a little bit angry about that
Janet this is so hard to hear. My uncle had MS from a young age. During Covid our local Church delivered food parcels from the food bank, one of the lovely young men was recently diagnosed with MS, he lost his job, his marriage broke down, he was placed in a two bedroomed unfurnished flat two floors up, no carpets or flooring and looked after his 3 children half of the week. His first and second attempt at benefits(PIP) were denied…. until he received an amazing mentor from an MS charity who he said was a life saver. There are some amazing people in the world but unfortunately we now have a government that doesn’t value compassion and justice for ALL.
Thanks
I’ve posted it before (probably) but will do it again
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014/
It was said of MacMillan that his biggest political aim was to prevent him & his class being strung up on lamp posts. An aim modern politicians seem to have discarded, possibly unwisely
Thank you, John.
I’m glad that you have highlighted as my parents and I have observed in professional lives.
When my parents arrived from Mauritius in 1964, their superiors were often upper middle class, had served in WW2, were somewhat paternalist and had a sense of being concerned about the welfare of staff. In some, but not all, cases, the superiors had locally made money. A generation later, I noticed the old City family firms* giving way to transnational behemoths and transactional relationships and managers no longer caring about employee welfare. At the same time, the PMC and a deracinated elite whose money was made and even managed overseas emerge. We could and even should compare them to the passing of the Tory Wets as the timing was in parallel and there were connections.
*This child of immigrants often found it easier to get on with the toffs and was assisted by them. My parents similarly. Neither my parents nor I suggest that Britain goes back to those days, but something has been lost. Put it this way, we would happily vote for Ian Gilmour**, MP for next door Amersham. **Former chairman of Medical Aid for Palestine and whose children still raise money for this worthy cause by hosting an annual classical music week-end on their small Buckinghamshire estate.
Ian Gilmour was a thinker – and a very able one.
The Labour Party and the media should apologise to all disabled people and carers who’s mental and physical health has suffered for weeks because of their leaks, misreporting and rhetoric . It’s a disgrace that they are ignoring the UN and pushing for cuts to support.
We are better than this, Labour should be better than this and I suspect parties like the greens and Lib Dem’s are going to have many more votes next election. Big mistake
During the time I was running a foodbank (2012-17) the DWP tended to actively suppress evidence about the actual details of welfare policies. Either impact assessments were not done or gov refused to publish them.
During May’s minority government Corbyn’s Labour were sometimes able to use parliamentary manoeuvres (humble address etc.) to force publication and the facts did not support the rhetoric that Ministers used to impose their draconian welfare policies. They don’t support the choices Reeves is making today to prioritise tax relief for the very wealthy over life-sustaining (and affordable) support for the disabled and poor.
Ministers still in post at the end of today will have made their moral choice, to be on the side of the powerful and wealthy and to leave the vulnerable voiceless.
Tanni Grey Thomson is speaking out today in protest, making the point that many who feeling desperate may choose “assisted dying”.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/welfare-cuts-will-push-disabled-people-to-end-their-lives-ptgbf75df
Maybe that’s the plan.
I fear it is
The coincidence (or lack of it) of these happening at the same time is horrible
I heard this somewhere else but think it worth considering:
A big problem for employers wanting to employ someone with “problems” is reliability.
The employer worries about the cost of replacing them while they are unable to work.
What if the government paid the employer when the employee was off, so they could hire a temporary replacement?
Like an insurance policy for the employer to encourage them to employ someone who will need time off when they are not able to work.
Ok – it would not work for every job. And it would be easy to claim fraudulently.
But it could work….
It could
An uplift to statutry sick pay, in effect
Apparently after the last financial crash, an organisation began called US Uncut (also UK Uncut), aimed at tax avoidance and supposedly resulting in cuts to public services.
See: “UK Uncut protests over Starbucks ‘tax avoidance'” (BBC News, 2011)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20650945
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Uncut
Not surprisingly, the Institute of Economic Affairs was not happy.
https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/uk-uncut-unravelled-web-publication
UK Uncut relied heavily on my data, as did the Occupy movement.
Thank you, Richard.
Speaking of Occupy, that nice and cuddly Obama had the feds unleashed on it. As John S Warren wrote last year, “The rocky road to Trump began with Obama’s betrayal of Main Street.”
I remember how the City, using the Church of England management as proxy, had Occupy the City harassed. Visiting the camp next to St Paul’s did not do Andy Haldane’s hopes of becoming governor any good.
I spoke there, several times.
I am particularly impressed by the lying spokespeople who claim that this disgraceful set of cuts is not about money but about the moral imperative to fix a broken welfare system.
“The prime minister’s spokesperson denied the notion that reforms are being introduced because of the UK’s fiscal backdrop, instead saying the government has “a duty to fix the broken system that is letting millions of people in this country down”. (BBC)
Liz Kendall says it is about fairness.
If the social security system is broken, it should be fixed. It should be fixed by ensuring people have access to the right healthcare so that they are well enough to work. It should be fixed so that everyone has the right educational opportunities so that they can be gainfully employed. It should be fixed so that those who are permanently unable to work are permanently able to live comfortable and decent lives. It should be fixed so that people’s mental health is not adversely affected by insecure housing, and inadequate resources.
A Labour government would know that.
Agreed
I note that Wes Streeting commented that there is an “overdiagnosis” of some mental health conditions. It’s amazing that he can do that without any medical training (he studied history at university) and without knowing the details of any of the patients. Another case of making “gut feeling” pronouncements without evidence or assessment.
I’d just like some politicians who are competent and evidence based. There appears to be a severe dearth of such people at the moment.
Comments made by disabled people to the BBC and Chanel 4 say there are extremely distressed and any cut in their benefits will be disastrous as they are already struggling to manage on in their existing benefits.
The welfare system, I still refuse to call it the benefit system, has been dismantled virtually since it was born. It appears to mirror the decline in our democratic, political and social systems all in tune with neoliberal doctrine.
The Guardian reports this morning that Britain has just 50 families with a net worth of £500 billion, the equivalent to 33 million people in Britain yet it is the majority who must suffer from government cuts.
Thank you to Richard and others BTL.
Did Richard and readers notice, yesterday, how the BBC deployed Nixon and that nice and cuddly Clinton’s “southern strategy” to undermine the case against the welfare cuts? Two welfare recipients, both of South Asian origin, were interviewed. That plays to a view of welfare as something abused, exploited etc. by immigrants. It happens often, so have whatever the media elite, not just the BBC, considers bad embodied by someone of immigrant origin. Undeserving poor and all that. Job done.
It’s not just Tim Davie. Much of the media elite is on board with this sort of thing. It’s why Johnson* got and Farage gets so much air time. Without Have I Got News For You and Ian Hislop in particular, Johnson would have been just another Tory backbencher.
I agree judicial review must be brought.
One can only conclude from the failure of HMG to publish an impact assessment (or any other supporting evidence) for these cuts is eirher;
they have none,
or IMO more likely,
what they do have shows just how devastating these cuts will be for some people.
For their sakes this needs to be challenged – count me in.
This live broadcast from this labour bint has drawn a line, her ranting Tory blaming shouting and adversarial tone is reminiscent of the Trump. No matter how much that bint liz Kendal rants and spews her rhetoric is damaging and my heart bleeds for all us disabled.
I have no words for this bulls&it that I have just witnessed. This is new depths for labour. I am disabled and I now as of this broadcast now live in fear of what this means for me. This is not something I would say under a labour government.
My mental health has been damaged by this government and my employment that is supposedly to make me miraculously better is in fact making it worse and my life and that of my close familiy is about to get very destitute, very bleak and
Fearful.
I don’t know what I feel I’m just numb. It’s like watching a train wreck you are compelled to watch but just can’t.
I don’t like the word bint
I am ignoring it as the message is important
Good luck
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/mar/18/disability-benefits-cuts-pip-liz-kendall-labour-kemi-badenoch-conservatives-uk-politics-latest-updates-news?page=with%3Ablock-67d970438f08f54ebc7f025e#block-67d970438f08f54ebc7f025e
According to Liz Kendall, health improvements, worth £5bn are going to occur in the workforce (we used to call them “people”) by 2028. I suppose that will be due to the improvements in mental health brought about by Dr. Wes Streeting’s diagnostic skills.
Moving away from la-la-land and back into reality, I missed any reference as to why so many people are so ill in the first place, but it seems to be because their benefits are too high. So taking £5bn away from them will make them better. Simples!
I have a question.
Why don’t the massive subsidies we give to the well off (eg: pension tax relief), make THEM ill? It is a puzzle isn’t it? On that logic, most members of the House of Lords should be dead by next week.
Much to agree with
Labour will not carry out any impact assessments, because impact assessments are too ‘woke’ for the people it needs to please keep them in power.
Probably true
Accountability was so twentieth century
and re impending destruction of NHSE (which by the way I wont mourn) see Robert Francis mid-Staffs report recommendation 286:
Impact and risk assessments should be made public, and debated publicly, before a proposal for any major structural change to the healthcare system is accepted. Such assessments should cover at least the following issues:
1. What is the precise issue or concern in respect of which change is necessary?
2. Can the policy objective identified be achieved by modifications within the existing structure?
3. How are the successful aspects of the existing system to be incorporated and continued in the new system?
4. How are the existing skills which are relevant to the new system to be transferred to it?
5. How is the existing corporate and individual knowledge base to be preserved, transferred and exploited?
6. How is flexibility to meet new circumstances and to respond to experience built into the new system to avoid the need for further structural change?
7. How are necessary functions to be performed effectively during any transitional period?
8. What are the respective risks and benefits to service users and the public and, in particular, are there any risks to safety or welfare?
Very good
And thank you
And of course, this is totally ignored
Imagine if a clinician ignores a guideline? He’ll breaks loose. If Wes Streeting does, no consequences.
I was r-d , contracted HIV, I self harm and I have bulimia, I have complex mental health needs which also mean I can’t be alone with people or dealing with strangers , I have bad days and VERY bad days , I’d be an absolute liability for any employer
Thanks to Kendal and these cuts , I’m broken -as are millions other up and down this country
I won’t be able to go on much longer
Gary
They have not happened yet.
There may be changes.
I hear your despair.
Try to find help. Go well. There are people who care.
Richard