Democide by Design? The Human Toll of Britain's Welfare Cuts

 The Human Cost of Welfare Cuts: A Case for Accountability

The recent welfare cuts announced in Britain have sparked widespread outrage and concern, particularly among advocates for the sick and disabled. These cuts, which disproportionately affect the most vulnerable members of society, raise serious ethical and legal questions. Some argue that these measures amount to a form of democide—a deliberate act by a government to harm or eliminate a segment of its population. While the term "democide" is often reserved for more overt acts of violence, the systemic neglect and deprivation caused by these welfare cuts warrant a closer examination of their intent and impact.

The Impact on the Vulnerable

Welfare programs exist to provide a safety net for those who cannot fully support themselves due to illness, disability, or other life circumstances. By slashing these programs, the government is effectively stripping away this safety net, leaving many individuals without access to essential resources such as healthcare, housing, and food. For the sick and disabled, these cuts are not merely an inconvenience—they are a matter of life and death. Without adequate support, many will face deteriorating health, homelessness, and even premature death.

Intent vs. Consequence

Critics of the welfare cuts argue that the government's actions are not merely negligent but premeditated. The decision to target programs that serve the sick and disabled suggests a calculated effort to reduce costs at the expense of human lives. While the government may not explicitly intend to cause harm, the foreseeable consequences of these cuts—suffering and death—cannot be ignored. This raises the question: at what point does negligence become culpability? When a government knowingly implements policies that will harm its citizens, can it be held accountable for the resulting deaths?

A Call for Justice

Labelling these welfare cuts as "democide" may seem extreme, but it serves to highlight the severity of the situation. The term forces us to confront the moral implications of policies that prioritize financial savings over human lives. It challenges us to hold governments accountable for the well-being of their citizens and to demand policies that uphold the principles of justice and compassion.

In conclusion, the recent welfare cuts in Britain represent more than just a policy failure—they are a moral failure. By neglecting the needs of the sick and disabled, the government is undermining the very foundation of a just and equitable society. Whether or not we choose to label these actions as democide, one thing is clear: they are a betrayal of the social contract and a call to action for all who value human dignity.

---

 

There are serious questions about Labour and poverty

By Tom Clark

prospectmagazine.co.uk

4 min

March 27, 2025

Rachel Reeves delivering the Spring Statement. Image: House of Commons.

If you had to boil the image that the Starmer-Reeves Labour party wants to project down to one word it would surely be “serious”. Underlying so many of its favourite phrases—from “power, not protest” to “iron-clad fiscal rules”—is the claim to this one quality, something Labour’s leaders imagine distinguishes them from the likes of both Jeremy Corbyn and Liz Truss. And, sure enough, amid bubbling discontent about the decision to impose deep benefit cuts, one loyal government lieutenant briefed that it would be “unserious” to countenance higher taxes instead, so soon after the last National Insurance rise.

Unfortunately, there is no sign of any serious resolve in relation to the gravest problem afflicting British society: a deepening crisis of penury. On Thursday morning, I worked my way through an alarming release of the official poverty statistics, which recorded—among other things—surging recourse to foodbanks, and the tally of poor British children hitting 4.5m for the first time.

These terrible numbers reflected not Labour policy, but Labour’s inheritance. Its manifesto last year decried “mass dependence on emergency food parcels” as “a moral scar on our society” which it said it wanted to “end”. And yet on Wednesday night, I had sat up with a team of economists at the Resolution Foundation thinktank, where I am principal editor, as they crunched their way towards their conclusion: the government’s tax and benefit decisions to date would depress lower-middle incomes three times more than those at the very top.

The link to all the Spring Statement numbers is in the paragraph above for interested readers. Rather than barrage you with more data, however, I’d like to ask a whole lot of questions about whether the government’s unfolding poverty strategy—or perhaps lack of strategy—is serious.

In the spirit of seriousness, I will acknowledge that the government has made a few useful individual moves. In particular, it has strengthened employment protections for part-time and shift workers, very modestly raised the basic rate of Universal Credit, and pushed ahead with renters’ rights reforms that had stalled under the Conservatives. The big worry is that any good that these steps might do will soon be overwhelmed by neglect—and now cuts—in Britain’s far from generous safety net.

Social security is the original form of the “securonomics” Reeves used to talk about. It was always going to be extremely difficult to make good on her rhetoric without giving it a positive role. Even with money tight, however, one might hope for an evidence-led discussion about what sort of progress might be achievable within tight budget constraints. But does the government seriously imagine the way to foster such a discussion about the tricky subject of disability benefit reform is by releasing dodgy statistics to the press, grossly exaggerating the real rise in disability-related benefit spending? Was it serious to rush out “reforms” and hail the huge savings they would achieve, only for the bean counters at the Office for Budget Responsibility to judge that they would actually save far less, leading to further hasty retrenchments?

More fundamentally, is it serious to imagine that disabled people—who face many additional costs of living, and mostly start out with modest income—can absorb annual reductions in income of, for some households, around £4,000, £6,000, £10,000 or even £12,000? Is it serious economics to insist that the burden of fiscal adjustment should be so heavily concentrated on a relatively small group of claimants who are concentrated in Britain’s most depressed local economies?

Is it serious to introduce the promised build-up of employment support so slowly that painful cuts will have bitten before many get any help? Is it serious to bat away every suggestion that any benefit cuts will ramp up poverty, a clear conclusion of the Department for Work and Pensions’ own analysis, using cheery clichés such as “the best route out of poverty is to get into work”? Will employment support really come good for everyone, when those set to lose out will include—under the plan to raise the so-called “points” required to secure entitlement—people able to wash the top, but not the lower, half of their own body? And if the most effective workfare schemes you can point to really can raise the employment rate by 10 percentage points, that is worthwhile and impressive. But the question remains: what is the plan for the rest of the caseload?

Is there anything—anywhere—serious to suggest that impoverishment can be an effective jolt into better health or employment? Has the whole scholarly literature of public health—which elucidates the ways in which deprivation gets under the skin, causing conditions from ischemic heart disease to panic attacks that retard employability—simply got it wrong?

Instead of straight answers to any of these questions, I half-expect to hear a mumbled response that anyone who asks them doesn’t understand the seriousness of budgetary pressures, or the concerns of swing voters in marginal seats who suspect many benefit claimants are trying it on.

But from Attlee’s socialist commonwealth to Wilson’s “moral crusade” to the Blair-Brown mission to end child poverty, exorcising the demon of want has been the most serious purpose of Labour in power. Should this Labour government forget that this remains the unifying dream of its own political tribe then I would venture that, before too long, it will have a serious political problem.

In the meantime, we’ll all be left with a divided and uneasy country. And the only future for many poor families and communities in Britain will be to become poorer again.

Government refuses to back Labour MP's bill to nationalise polluting water companies, citing potential £200bn cost.

The government has refused to support Labour MP Clive Lewis's bill to nationalise polluting water companies, citing a potential cost of £200bn.

A proposed law aimed at taking failing water companies back into public ownership if they repeatedly pollute Britain's waterways has been blocked, according to PA Media. The government did not back Clive Lewis's water bill, which included measures to tackle water pollution, such as nationalising repeat offenders. The bill proposed that firms responsible for three major sewage spills would have their licenses terminated and be nationalised without compensation. It also included provisions to ensure water affordability, including free water where appropriate.

Environment Minister Emma Hardy argued that renationalising the water industry would cost over £200bn. However, she emphasized the government's commitment to improving water quality and the broader industry. MPs debated the bill for over four hours, but Lewis requested an adjournment until July 4 after failing to secure government backing.

Hardy stated that the Labour Party was elected on a manifesto for change and has a duty to serve working people and the working class. She mentioned that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estimated costs of £99bn to acquire capital assets and £104bn for already-announced investments in the water system.

Lewis introduced his bill by criticizing the legacy of private ownership, proposing reforms that would send failing owners "into the sunset without a penny in compensation." He explained that under the bill, water companies breaching their licenses with major sewage discharges would face severe consequences. After three strikes, their licenses would be terminated, and they would be nationalized without compensation. Lewis described these companies as "price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing, vulture-capitalist outfits."

Adapting to AI: The Case for Universal Basic Income Over Welfare

 

Universal Basic Income (UBI) has become a pressing topic of discussion in the context of rapid technological advancements and societal shifts, as highlighted by recent remarks from Bill Gates regarding the transformative impact of artificial intelligence (AI). Gates’ assertion that humans may not be needed “for most things” paints a future where AI assumes responsibilities that once required human labor. Coupled with ongoing welfare cuts, these changes underscore the urgency of reimagining our social safety nets. Replacing traditional welfare benefits with UBI presents an opportunity to address systemic inequality, promote economic stability, and prepare for a world profoundly shaped by automation.

Addressing Inefficiencies in Welfare Systems

Traditional welfare systems are often fragmented, bureaucratic, and stigmatizing. Recipients must navigate complex eligibility requirements, creating barriers for those most in need. Welfare benefits, as they currently stand, often fail to account for the dynamic nature of modern challenges, such as technological displacement or gig economy volatility. Universal Basic Income, a model where all citizens receive a fixed amount of money regardless of employment status, simplifies this system. It eliminates the administrative burden of determining eligibility and allows individuals to allocate resources in a manner that best suits their circumstances. By replacing welfare benefits with UBI, governments can streamline support, reduce overhead costs, and empower individuals to achieve financial independence.

Mitigating Economic Displacement in the Age of AI

AI and automation are poised to disrupt traditional labor markets on an unprecedented scale. As machines outperform humans in efficiency and cost-effectiveness, entire industries may shrink or disappear, leaving millions unemployed. Welfare systems, designed for a different era, are ill-equipped to address such widespread and systemic displacement. UBI, however, offers a proactive solution by providing individuals with a financial cushion as they adapt to changing economic landscapes. It supports reskilling initiatives, entrepreneurial endeavors, or creative pursuits, fostering a society that values human potential beyond traditional notions of productivity.

Combating Poverty and Inequality

One of the most compelling arguments for UBI is its potential to eradicate extreme poverty. Current welfare benefits are often insufficient to meet the basic needs of recipients, leaving many trapped in cycles of deprivation. By ensuring a guaranteed income floor for everyone, UBI can provide financial security and reduce income inequality. Research suggests that UBI can improve access to education, healthcare, and nutritious food, leading to better long-term outcomes for individuals and communities. Additionally, a universal approach avoids the stigmatization associated with welfare and fosters a sense of shared responsibility and solidarity.

Preparing for a Post-Work Society

As AI continues to advance, societal conceptions of work and value are shifting. In a future where machines perform most tasks, traditional employment may no longer be the primary means of distributing wealth. UBI presents a paradigm shift: it delinks income from employment, allowing individuals to pursue meaningful activities such as caregiving, volunteering, or artistic expression. This approach not only adapts to the realities of a post-work society but also recognizes the intrinsic value of contributions that do not fit within conventional economic frameworks.

Conclusion

Universal Basic Income represents a forward-looking solution to the challenges posed by technological disruption, economic inequality, and outdated welfare systems. By providing a safety net that is inclusive, efficient, and adaptable, UBI can empower individuals to thrive in an era defined by AI and automation. As we navigate the profound changes ahead, embracing UBI is not just a matter of economic necessity—it is a moral imperative to ensure a more equitable and resilient future for all.

Canadian Samuel Miller Advocates for UN Oversight of the DWP to Protect Britons at Risk

The recent announcement by the Labour government to implement £5 billion in welfare cuts has sent shockwaves through Britain, particularly among its most vulnerable citizens. These cuts, targeting the sick and disabled, threaten to dismantle the fragile safety net that many rely on for survival. The consequences are not merely financial; they are deeply human, with lives hanging in the balance.

 

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), tasked with administering welfare, has long been criticized for its handling of benefits and its treatment of claimants. With these new cuts, the situation risks spiraling into a humanitarian crisis. Vulnerable Britons, already struggling to navigate a system fraught with bureaucracy and inefficiency, may find themselves pushed to the brink—both financially and emotionally.

 

In light of this dire situation, Canadian advocate Samuel Miller has proposed a bold and unprecedented solution: the intervention of the United Nations or an international human rights organization to take control of the DWP. Such a move, while extraordinary, underscores the severity of the crisis. It reflects a growing recognition that the welfare of Britain's most vulnerable cannot be left to chance or political expediency.

 

International oversight could bring much-needed accountability and transparency to the DWP, ensuring that policies prioritize human dignity and survival. It would also send a powerful message that the rights of the sick and disabled are not negotiable and that the global community stands in solidarity with those who are marginalized. 

 

As the world watches, the question remains: will Britain rise to the challenge of protecting its most vulnerable, or will it allow them to be swept aside in the name of austerity? The answer will not only define the nation's character but also set a precedent for how societies treat their most vulnerable members in times of crisis.

The Human Cost of Welfare Cuts in the UK — A letter to Pierre Poilievre and Mark Carney

Dear Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Carney, Subject: The Human Cost of Welfare Cuts in the UK – A Call for Awareness and Action I am writing to you as a Canadian citizen with cerebral palsy, a lifelong advocate for disability rights, and a specialist in Disability Studies. My journey has been one of resilience and advocacy, from spearheading two groundbreaking student referendums at McGill University to raise $60,000–$80,000 for disabled student services, to publishing an internationally recognized literary magazine for writers with disabilities during the International Year of Disabled Persons in 1981. Today, I am compelled to bring to your attention the devastating impact of £5 billion in welfare cuts in the United Kingdom, which have disproportionately affected the sick and disabled. It is estimated that austerity measures have contributed to the deaths of over 300,000 individuals—a staggering and tragic toll. Alarmingly, the Labour government’s proposed policies may exacerbate this crisis, potentially surpassing the harm caused under Chancellor George Osborne’s tenure. As someone who has spent over 13 years campaigning daily on X (formerly Twitter) to highlight the welfare crisis, and who continues to engage with the United Nations Human Rights Office in Geneva on this issue, I urge you to consider the lessons from the UK’s experience. The erosion of social safety nets not only undermines the dignity and well-being of vulnerable populations but also poses a moral and ethical challenge to societies that value equity and compassion. I believe Canada has an opportunity to lead by example, ensuring that our policies prioritize the rights and needs of all citizens, including those with disabilities. I would be honored to provide further insights or collaborate on initiatives that promote inclusivity and social justice. Thank you for your time and attention to this critical matter. I look forward to the possibility of discussing this further. Yours sincerely, Samuel Miller. (Montreal, Quebec)

The Extra Costs of Being Disabled. Our research found that on average life costs £975 more for disabled households, Including expensive equipment and higher energy bills.

The "extra costs of being disabled," as highlighted by organizations like Scope, encompass the additional expenses faced by people with disabilities, including medical supplies, assistive devices, personal support, and home/vehicle modifications, which are crucial for well-being and social inclusion but are not covered by standard poverty measures. Here's a more detailed breakdown: What are the extra costs? Medical Supplies and Equipment: People with disabilities often require specialized medical supplies, equipment, and medications that can be expensive. Assistive Devices: Assistive technology, such as wheelchairs, hearing aids, or mobility aids, can be essential but costly. Personal Support: Many individuals with disabilities need assistance with daily tasks, requiring personal support workers or caregivers, which incurs significant costs. Home and Vehicle Modifications: Accessibility modifications to homes and vehicles, like ramps, wider doorways, or adapted vehicles, can be necessary but expensive. Therapy and Support Services: Regular therapy and support services can be crucial for managing a disability and improving quality of life, but these can be expensive. Higher Energy Bills: Some disabilities necessitate the use of energy-intensive equipment, leading to higher energy bills. Specialized Food: Some individuals with disabilities require specialized diets, which can be more expensive than standard food options. Why are these costs important? Standard Poverty Measures Fail to Capture Them: Current poverty measures often don't account for the extra costs of disability, leading to a skewed perception of the true financial situation of disabled people. Impact on Financial Security: These extra costs can significantly impact the financial security and well-being of individuals with disabilities and their families. Barriers to Social Inclusion: The inability to afford necessary equipment, support, and modifications can create barriers to social inclusion and participation. Scope's Role: Advocacy: Scope, a UK-based disability charity, campaigns for increased awareness and action to address the extra costs of disability. Research and Data: Scope conducts research and collects data to quantify the extra costs of disability and inform policy recommendations. Extra Costs Commission: Scope established an Extra Costs Commission to promote understanding of the social and market drivers of these costs and develop recommendations for driving them down. Disability Price Tag: Scope's "Disability Price Tag" study found that the extra costs of disability can be equivalent to 67% of household income after housing costs. Financial Security: Scope is determined to change the financial future for disabled people and believes that all disabled people should have the opportunity to work if they want to and have the right to a decent standard of living.