As The Guardian notes this morning:
Disability benefit cuts planned by the UK government will disproportionately impact the lives of people in Wales, campaigners have said.
Research released by the data analytics company Policy in Practice last week estimated that 190,000 people – 6% of the population – could have their incomes slashed by up to 60% by the end of this parliament if eligibility for personal independence payments (Pip) is tightened as proposed in a March green paper.
They add:
The proposals, which are still at the consultation stage, would further compound poverty and exclusion for disabled people in Wales, according to the chief executive of Disability Wales, Rhian Davies.
He then added:
“It's not just individuals who will be out of pocket, entire communities will be affected. Our survey of members showed that people are angry and terrified and some reported suicidal thoughts, which is very concerning,” she said.
“We must address the systemic failures that keep disabled people out of work and public life before we start looking at reforming the benefits system.”
This, I think, is correct.
Rachel Reeves will, this week, focus on numbers and techniques.
She will make grand claims about sums to be invested. We have no idea whether that will be true or not.
She will talk about forcing pension funds into private equity investment, as if increasing speculative risk that has no relationship with actual wealth generation is of value.
And she will claim that the country cannot afford more than a few more missiles and a little extra for the NHS, precisely because she has never bothered to find out how the economy actually works.
Meanwhile, to return to the Guardian article:
About 900,000 people, or 27% of Wales' population, live with a disability, according to Public Health Network Cymru – higher than the UK average of 22% – and 11% of working-age people, compared with 7% in England.
If they are not better off this week, and if children are not better off, and if those who care for children and those with disabilities are not better off, then Reform will exploit Labour's failure, even though we known full well that there is nothing that they would do about solving any known issue.
This is the reality of what Labour will do this week and what it will face as a consequence. If it does not care, and all the signs are that it will not, then it faces electoral humiliation, and we have the prospect of neo-fascist government at least as bad as that which Trump is pursuing in the US, and maybe worse.
Do I think Reeves cares?
No.
I don't think she cares about Labour.
Nor do I think she cares about people who are suffering in the UK, wherever they might be. There is not a hint that she does. She gets her kicks from managing funds. The reality of life is not for her. And that is why, as an extreme centrist, she is a profound threat to us all.
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!
“She gets her kicks from mismanaging funds.” There, sorted.
On a related note & in keeping with the thrust of the blog (people suffering … & no housing):
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/08/labour-housebuilding-plan-england
Mr Harris once again, telling it the way it is. And the “it is” is so bleedin obvious it leaves one wondering about LINO: stupid, incompetant, blind, willfully blind, congnitive dissonance running rampant?. Its got to be something like that. Or maybe it is a gov of sadists?
One year of omnishambles – only 4 to go.
(I did like the line that the building companies like foreign workers – no unions and chuck em out when the job is finished? – what is not to like?)
John Harris is right
Spot on
Spot on?
It’s worse than that. Much worse.
The temporary accommodation is what is draining local authority general funds and propelling them towards bankruptcy. Already, people are being housed into the few new units (direct matching they call it) from temporary accommodation to save the general fund, jumping over the waiting lists of people who have been waiting longest to get an affordable home, making them wait longer.
And what sort of people are being offered these homes by direct matching? Most likely from what I have seen, people who have more recently been accepted by immigration under their rules who have fled to here from elsewhere. What hay do you think Reform and the Tories would make of that? What do you think local communities are seeing and thinking when these ‘foreigners’ turn up in these new houses whilst family members moulder on waiting lists? Lets us face facts here. It is not a good look, ripe for fascist exploitation and that is my concern, not a prejudice. Direct matching is actually wrong and flies in the face of any pre-supposed fairness in the system and cuts its throat – effectively undermines it if and when the public find out (and they can see what is happening).
We have people living in accommodation that is deemed unfit under the 1985 Housing Act whom we cannot move out – nor can we demolish and rebuild – because of this need to stop bankruptcy – the Council is having to break its own rules and maybe housing law to survive.
If a council has gone bankrupt it has probably done so by sticking to the rules. It is those councils breaking rules that will survive a little longer.
So, let’s be clear, your general fund (council tax!) has to pay for temporary housing – not the Housing Revenue Account that pays for the management and maintenance of affordable/council housing.
Now, who made that rule up eh (clue: somewhere in London)? Why is that so?
Sorry for the post but I am so fucking angry about this. They managed to get rid of the Heygate Estate in London eventually I see through neglect and the Tories since 2010 have made things much worse (my local authority has lost over thousand affordable units since they made RTB easier and we had a huge number of applications as Labour half-heartedly closed the door but also left the door open) but what are Labour doing about it to stem the loss?
Housing is England’s trauma zone right now because of government incompetence, private sector greed, public greed (I’m sorry but it has to be said that Council housing is soft touch for corruption from people already living here and incomers from abroad). It is totally fucked up beyond all recognition.
There is no strategic control of housing supply in this country – period. And this is what you get.
Anyone who ever voted for Thatcher – up yours! You must be very proud.
I understand your anger.
Its clearly possible that we could witness the collapse of the two major political parties in the UK.
The suggestion is that the Conservatives could be replaced in the political ‘ecology’ by Reform but who might replace Labour?
No one, right now.
To a limited, but worrying degree, it’s Reform again. 4% of Labour voters are believed to have switched to Reform, and in some seats it’s 7% to 15%.
My information suggests that in sone areas – like South Wales – it may be much higher. Labour is now a memory for many because it has so obviously abandoned people. The idea that they had nowhere else to go has spectacularly backfired on McSweeney.
Rachel from accounts can only offer balancing the household budget and subsidising the City.
She seems intent on being a mini Trump and slash funding to those that need it most.
The concept of helping the UK population appears beyond her.
I can’t abide the right wing and idiotic Reeves, however people using the descriptor “Rachel from accounts” very quickly lose my attention due to its misogynistic overtones.
It is not misogynistic.
It started as Colin from accounts.
Get over it. She’s rubbish because of her economics. It has nothing at all to do with her being a woman.
At what point will her basic “household” economic model be challenged, seriously challenged, in MSM, torn apart by Sophie Ridge, Laura Kuensberg, Helia Ebrahimi, Joel Hills, Emma Barnett or Nick Robinson?
Given the salaries they get, it is ridiculous that time after time, interview after interview, none of them dare say, “but the government CAN’T run out of money, it can only run out of things to spend it on”.
Given the instability of the global picture, her neoliberal budget-balancing abacus must be about to burst into flames. But the model never gets seriously questioned on MSM by the senior economic journalists. They are a disgrace!
I talk to some of them, but they believe they can’t do that.
Why do they believe such a thing? Did you ask them?
See reply to another comment
And why do they feel they cant put those questions to the powers that be?
They beieve that their editors will tell them that is not what the world wants to hear: the claims will be too confusing. I have directly discussed this with one on that list.
I cant seem to reply to your response but I would challenge the ‘editors tell them its not what they want to hear:the claims would be confusing. In what way?
There are a lot of people on this blog who get it and want something different coming from the corporate media.
I think the’ editor ‘ doesnt want to upset anyone or threaten his job.
We need a ‘Network’ moment.
The way we support disabled people in the UK right now – especially through things like PIP – just doesn’t work for a lot of people. It’s often stressful, demeaning, and full of hoops to jump through. You’ve got people with lifelong conditions being constantly reassessed as if they might suddenly get better, and far too many are being turned down when they really need help. The system seems more focused on keeping costs down than making sure people can live with dignity.
A better approach would start with trust, not suspicion. Imagine a system where everyone gets a basic level of income security, and then those who need more – because of disability-related costs – get extra support, without needing to constantly prove themselves. Support could come in cash or services, depending on what actually helps the person. Decisions would be made locally, by people who know the community, not by remote bureaucracies. And crucially, disabled people would help design the system, so it actually fits real lives, not some tick-box criteria. It’s not rocket science – just treating people like human beings.
That all makes sense Cliff, although some evidence would be necessary, I think. Abuse does happen, afree all.
But, you face the problem that our society is built on the logic that ’what is mine is mine, and you can’t have it’ without ever appreciating that no one earns almost anything without cooperating with others.
Of course any system needs to stop fraud — but that doesn’t mean treating everyone like a criminal. Right now, too many disabled people are being put through the wringer just to prove they’re not lying. It’s cruel, and for what? The official fraud rate for PIP is less than 1%.
A better approach would be to start from trust. Use proper medical evidence from doctors or social workers who actually know the person, rather than dragging people through endless tick-box assessments by someone they’ve never met. Focus the serious checks where there’s a clear reason — not on people who’ve had the same condition for years. And make better use of joined-up data to quietly flag anything suspicious, instead of hassling everyone.
Most people just want a fair chance to live with dignity. The fraud problem is tiny — the harm done by the current system is massive. We can do better.
I agree with your opening para.
I think the same is true on tax – not every tax error is a sign of deliberate fraud and yet some of the penalties are utterly draconian.
See the criteria for the Adult Disability Payment – the Scottish analogue of PIP – for something along the lines of what you suggest.
Part of me wonders whether McSweeney and the incompetent Kamikazi Badenoch are behaving in this way so that the only choice is Richard Tice and Nigel Farage’s Reform party? Its not such a stretch because as David Cameron said “we are all in this together” (before he started stuffing money in his pockets from left, right and centre)
Abuse on disability benefits?
Really? Sure, the MSM, the telegrapgh did a disgusting piece last week would have you believe so but…
Its zero because its so hard to get PIP in the first place. You have to have a lot of medical evidence from doctors, consultants etc. Then you have to go through a demeaning medical by people employed by DWP. Then you probably get refused it anyway and have to go to a tribunal.
And if you do manage to get it – you may recieve it for a couple of years then have it reviewed to go through the whole process again!
Of course there is almost no abuse now, because it is so hard to get it.
But if the system was, appropriately, made less hostile checks and balances would be needed still. Let’s be realistic.
@PSR
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/06/09/does-reeves-care-abiut-real-people-who-are-suffering/comment-page-1/#comment-1024830
The omnibus passengers here are still applauding that response. That is the reality. It captures both the injustice and the way the right exploit it.
FUBAR finance for housing reapirs.
FUBAR finance for building social housing.
FUBAR financing of temporary accommodation.
FUBAR system for allocating housing to those who need it.
FUBAR Fascist politicians making hay with real local anger.
Worst of all, no strategic courageous plan to put things right from any political party, all together now for the big lie… “BECAUSE WE CAN’T AFFORD IT!!!”
(Actually, because the politicians in the STP lack both the compassion, the courage, and the commitment to promote a solution, hamstring by their “household economics” that can’t even house our population fairly, safely znd affordably.)
Labour had plenty of time to prepare for this, but it wasn’t a priority and they don’t care anyway.
Our experience of this? A son (now dead) who was in temporary emergency privately owned accommodation for 18 months and saw all this going on around him.
…….and then there are the people who administrate the system and the effect on their mental health in being part of what is, after all, a fraud.
Talking to a team leader the other day, they agreed with all my points that I laid out above. It is really hard, but temporary accommodation is a priority.
So Labour are failing on a number of fronts:- the provision of affordable housing (for which there is not enough subsidy for land or build) and helping councils cope with temporary accommodation in their general fund budgets – the overspill effect of failure to provide housing. On the latter Labour could have announced emergency aid for Councils. And then there are the consequences of high interest rates, also under control of Labour who pretend the BoE is ‘independent’.
I was on a section 106 site a month ago, and there were units that were standing empty because the registered social landlord and had just pulled out of purchase for a shared ownership scheme because of interest rates. This also put huge strain on the site’s finances for the developer. And we have queues out the door for housing.
Labour’s housing strategy is the equivalent of 2 + 2 = fish. A complete nonsense.
Report here from The Fabian Society
https://fabians.org.uk/publication/better-off-2/
@John Boxall
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/06/09/does-reeves-care-abiut-real-people-who-are-suffering/comment-page-1/#comment-1024850
that is a very good analysis of the effect of reduced living standards, and also proposes new ways of cutting the Treasury pie into different portions to the way it is cut nowadays, and introducing some accountability for the results of doing so, but nowhere (after a speed read) do I see it challenge the fundamental problem – the neoliberal macro-economic lie that the size of the pie is fixed by the amount of ingredients supplied by taxation, ie: the household analogy governing the Treasury economic model for government spending.
So that’s a fail from me I’m afraid for the Fabian Society. (again)
I abandoned them as extreme centrists a very long time ago.
Please, please, note this is not just about poverty but people not getting the care they need. If Reeves, or anyone, read the PIP form to get the middle rate care you actually need someone to help you do something to get the benefit eg if you have clinical depression (also part of bipolar disorder) self care can be impossible – You won’t get out of bed, wash, or eat. You might not take your medication… this means encouragement is necessary to do these things which will only get 2 points not the 4 points they are changing the criteria to…suicide for this population is high already; without help it will be higher. Without PIP there is no carers allowance. There will be no help, unless given by family and friends freely! How are they meant to live? Ha! Maybe this is the grand plan – to lower the numbers who use the NHS by killing those who use the services.
This is a deeply concerning and thought-provoking piece that raises crucial questions about the priorities of political figures when it comes to supporting vulnerable populations. Richard Murphy’s direct challenge to Rachel Reeves regarding the proposed disability benefit cuts and their severe impact on real people, particularly in Wales, is incredibly important.