Watered-Down Welfare Bill: A Betrayal of Sick and Disabled People

My Reaction

I feel profound disappointment and frustration. Even in its watered-down form, the bill still carves out cuts that will leave future claimants—especially those with fluctuating or emerging health needs—struggling to survive with dignity. For sick and disabled people, this isn’t abstract policy; it’s the difference between accessing essential care and sliding into crisis.

Why This Matters

• The government has pledged not to tighten PIP eligibility until after a ministerial review concludes in autumn 2026, and even then only for new claimants.
• Yet those who lose their Personal Independence Payment or fall into that “new claimant” bucket face a two-tier system that undermines equity and long-term security.
• Universal Credit health top-ups will still be cut for anyone making a fresh claim after April 2026, halving vital support from around £97 to £50 a week.

Broader Implications

By passing the bill 336 votes to 242, MPs have signalled that even minimal safeguards for current recipients weren’t enough to mollify wider cuts. The underlying narrative remains: some lives are more “claim-worthy” than others. That toxic framing all too often translates into real-world harm—mental-health breakdowns, mounting debt, homelessness.

Looking Ahead

A genuine, co-produced review of PIP assessments is overdue, but it can’t simply rubber-stamp future cuts. Real accountability means: • Publishing clear timelines and stakeholder-led benchmarks for the PIP review
• Ensuring any new rules strengthen, rather than erode, basic rights to independent living
• Mobilizing cross-party support for an independent oversight body that includes disabled people at every level

What would you like to see happen next? How can communities and allies ensure this “watered-down” bill doesn’t become a slippery slope to further dismantling of essential support?

Urgent Call for Scrutiny of the Department for Work and Pensions

The sweeping cuts to welfare provision—ranging from tightened eligibility for Employment and Support Allowance to the controversial sanctioning regime under Universal Credit—have stripped countless sick, disabled and low-income households of the bare minimum they need to survive. These measures don’t emerge in a vacuum: they thrive in a climate saturated with inflammatory rhetoric and scapegoating, where any hint of vulnerability is recast as fraud or fecklessness.

Policing that toxic atmosphere falls squarely to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), yet the department has repeatedly abdicated this responsibility. On social media platforms and in press briefings, disparaging commentary from high-profile figures—most notably Sarah Vine’s demeaning attacks on claimants—go unchecked, lending official imprimatur to abusive narratives.

Worse still, the DWP has a documented pattern of feeding “benefit cheat” stories directly to sympathetic media outlets, ensuring those narratives dominate the news cycle. From chequered-shirt sting operations to overblown human-interest exposés, these spin campaigns reinforce public hostility and make lifesaving support politically untenable.

Given the human cost—measurable in increasing destitution, spiralling mental-health crises and avoidable fatalities—the DWP’s conduct demands immediate, independent investigation. Only a thorough inquiry can expose how policy, media manipulation and social-media neglect combine to endanger the most vulnerable.

---

Key Areas for Investigation

• Examination of DWP’s social-media guidelines and failure to moderate disparaging content
• Analysis of internal processes for liaising with tabloids and broadsheets on “benefit cheat” stories
• Audit of sanctioning procedures and their real-world impact on claimant health and mortality
• Recommendations for independent oversight to ensure transparency, accountability and claimant dignity

Are there welfare assessments in the United States that have driven welfare recipients to suicide like in Britain?

 

Welfare Assessments in the U.S. and Suicide Risk

In the United Kingdom, mandatory face-to-face “Work Capability Assessments” for disability benefits have been repeatedly implicated in distress, including reports of self-harm and suicide among claimants. In the United States, though benefit programs require periodic reviews and work-or-job-search verifications, there is no clear evidence of a similarly direct link between U.S. welfare assessments and recipient suicides on a systematic scale.

---

1. Key Differences in U.S. Welfare Assessments

• Decentralized System
  Benefits—such as SNAP (food stamps), TANF (cash assistance), Medicaid, SSI/SSDI (disability insurance)—are administered by states or the Social Security Administration (SSA), each with distinct review procedures.

• Types of Assessments

  1. Work-Ability Reviews (SSI/SSDI): Medical documentation and consultative exams determine continued eligibility.
  2. Recertification Interviews (SNAP, TANF): Verification of income, work hours, job search logs.
  3. Medicaid Work Requirements (in some states): Periodic proof of employment or exemptions for participation in coverage.

• Private Contractors vs. In-House
  The SSA conducts disability reviews largely in-house, with independent medical consultants; few states outsource welfare case-management, and those contractors are less uniform than U.K. providers.

---

2. Research on Mental Health and Work Requirements

While there is abundant literature on the mental-health impact of poverty and benefit sanctions, no peer-reviewed U.S. study isolates benefit-assessment processes as a causal driver of suicide.

• A 2017 study found increased psychological distress among Medicaid recipients facing work requirements, but did not report increased suicide rates.
• Analyses of TANF sanctions show heightened financial stress and depression, yet none attribute completed suicides directly to welfare interviews or denials.

---

3. Suicide Data in Context

Although the U.S. records over 49,000 suicide deaths annually (CDC 2023 data), suicide is multifactorial, involving housing instability, mental-health access, substance use, social isolation, and economic hardship. No national surveillance system tracks “assessment-driven” suicides tied to welfare recertification.

---

4. Anecdotal vs. Systemic Evidence

• Anecdotes: Individual journalists and advocates have highlighted tragic cases—such as disabled veterans or single parents in crisis—but these remain isolated reports, lacking the cluster pattern seen in U.K. Welfare reforms.
• Systemic Reviews: No federal inquiry or state-level commission has concluded that U.S. benefit assessments themselves precipitate suicides.

---

5. Why the U.K. Scandal Didn’t Mirror the U.S.

1. Uniform National Program (ESA): The U.K.’s Employment and Support Allowance is delivered by a handful of private contractors under identical criteria.
2. Rigidity of Sanctions: U.K. rules for missed assessments often led to immediate benefit cessation, with single standardized appeal channels.
3. Media and Parliamentary Attention: Widespread press investigations and parliamentary inquiries amplified individual tragedies into a social-policy crisis.

In contrast, the U.S. system’s fragmentation, varied state-level policies, and less draconian sanction timelines have prevented a comparable pattern of harm.

---

6. What’s Been Done Stateside

• Suicide Prevention Integration: Many state welfare and disability offices now screen for suicide risk—referring distressed clients to crisis lines and local behavioral health providers.
• Modified Work Requirements: Some states have paused or eased Medicaid work requirements under demonstration waivers, in part to reduce stress on low-income populations.
• Continuous Eligibility Policies: Especially for children’s Medicaid and SNAP, to limit churn and repeated bureaucratic burden.

---

Bottom Line

No published research or government review in the United States has established that routine welfare assessments are driving benefit recipients to suicide at the scale documented in Britain. Policy discussions in the U.S. focus instead on mitigating stress—through streamlined recertification, integrated mental-health supports, and targeted outreach—rather than overhauling assessment frameworks.

---

Further Reading and Related Topics

• The impact of housing instability on mental health and suicide risk.
• Comparative analysis of work requirements in Medicaid demonstrations.
• Strategies for integrating suicide prevention into social-service delivery.
• Recent state-level experiments with “continuous eligibility” to reduce administrative burden.

Motability Mockery: Could Sarah Vine Face Hate Crime Charges? (A Copilot response)

 

Understanding Disability Hate Crime in the UK

Disability hate crime combines a criminal offence with hostility or prejudice against a person’s disability. Under the OSCE’s definition, it occurs when “an incident/crime is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s disability or perceived disability”. In UK law, disability is a protected characteristic under both the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and amendments to the Public Order Act 1986.

---

Does Sarah Vine’s Tweet Meet the Criteria?

• Hostile Language
  Her wording ridicules people with genuine impairments (“constipation” and “food intolerances”), casting them as undeserving “freeloaders.” This expresses clear prejudice.

• Targeting a Protected Group
  By mocking disabled claimants collectively, the tweet addresses a protected class and conveys contempt.

• Harassment, Alarm or Distress
  Under the Public Order Act, using “threatening or abusive” words targeting a protected characteristic can be an offence if it’s likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

However, for criminal prosecution the Crown Prosecution Service must determine it meets the statutory threshold of “harassment, alarm or distress” with evidence of hostility. Many insults, while hateful, fall short of actionable offences.

---

Broader Context and Reporting

• Stigma and Misinformation
  False or sensationalist claims about welfare schemes fuel prejudice and social exclusion, even if not prosecuted.

• Low Prosecution Rates
  Disability hate crimes are vastly under-reported and under-prosecuted. Only around 1.2% of recorded disability hate incidents lead to a charge or summons in England and Wales.

---

Conclusion

Sarah Vine’s column undeniably spreads hostile, misleading stereotypes about people with disabilities and meets the OSCE’s hate-crime definition in principle. Whether it qualifies as a criminal disability hate offence depends on prosecutorial judgment—most public insults, however harmful, do not end up in court.

From DWP to Deficit: Why Britain Won’t Force Employers to Hire the Disabled

 

Back when Ian Duncan Smith was running the Department for Work & Pensions, I spoke to Vox Political and asked a simple question: why aren’t there penalties for employers who refuse to hire disabled candidates? I pointed out that US federal contractors must meet a minimum disability-employment quota and urged the UK to adopt the same approach. To date, no such sanctions have been introduced.

I now suspect the reluctance stems from a deeper fear: that tougher business regulations and the prospect of higher taxes would prompt companies—and wealth—to flee our shores. Does that explanation ring true?

Copilot response: 

Why the UK Has No Mandatory Disabled-Hiring Quotas

Many countries steer clear of hard employment quotas—especially the UK. Here’s what’s at play:

1. Business-friendliness and Competitiveness

• Since the 1980s, UK policy has prioritized “light-touch” regulation to attract foreign investment.
• Ministers worry that binding targets (and heavy fines) could push companies to relocate HQs or operations to lower-cost jurisdictions.
• This fear of capital flight isn’t just rhetoric: surveys of CFOs regularly rank regulatory burden among the top relocation drivers.

---

2. Reliance on Voluntary Schemes

• Instead of quotas, the UK launched “Disability Confident,” encouraging employers to pledge support and report on accessibility.
• This keeps administrative costs low and avoids the legal complexity of mandatory enforcement.

---

3. Historical Hesitation Around Quotas

• A government consultation in 2005 on compulsory disability employment targets was shelved after small-business lobby groups highlighted compliance costs.
• Unlike the US’s Section 503 (7% goal on federal contracts), UK political consensus has viewed quotas as potentially punitive rather than empowering.

---

4. Broader Political Trade-Offs

• Imposing mandatory quotas on employers would clash with other priorities—tax cuts, trade liberalization, pension reforms.
• Politicians often opt to protect headline-grabbing corporate tax cuts over introducing new business levies or sanctions.

---

Does Fear of Capital Flight Explain It?

Yes, it’s credible. When MPs debate new business regulations—be it higher corporation tax, stricter environmental rules, or workplace quotas—concerns about investment outflows routinely surface. In practice, UK governments balance social goals against potential GDP impacts, and sharp penalties on hiring could tip that balance toward voluntary schemes.

---

What’s Next?

• Watch whether Labour’s upcoming review of the Equality Act will consider any tightening of enforcement.
• Voluntary measures may be bolstered by stronger transparency requirements, rather than compulsory quotas.

Would you like to dive into how other European nations tackle disabled employment, or explore specific policy designs that balance both social impact and business competitiveness?

 

Copilot responds to blacklisting accusations of John Pring's Disability News Service by the Government

 

There is documented evidence that John Pring, editor of Disability News Service (DNS), has faced institutional pushback—particularly from the UK government’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)—but claims of a broader media-wide blacklisting are more nuanced.

🛑 Government Blacklisting by the DWP

• In 2015, the DWP refused to respond to any questions from John Pring or DNS, effectively blacklisting him from official comment. This was reportedly due to his persistent investigations into benefit-related deaths and the department’s internal reviews.
• The National reported that Pring had uncovered the first suicide case directly linked to welfare cuts and that the DWP ceased communication after he published stories without their delayed responses.
• A coalition of disability rights groups and public figures—including MPs and academics—publicly condemned the DWP’s actions, calling them discriminatory and a threat to press freedom.

📰 Mainstream Media Coverage

• While Pring’s work is widely respected in disability rights circles, mainstream British media outlets have rarely featured his investigations. This absence has been noted by disability activists, especially given the gravity of the issues he covers—such as deaths linked to welfare assessments and systemic discrimination.
• For example, The Mirror launched a disability-focused series in 2022 that included Pring’s contributions, but later published a controversial column undermining disabled benefit claimants. This led to criticism that the platform was tokenizing disabled voices while allowing harmful narratives to persist.

📚 Broader Context

• Pring’s recent book The Department compiles years of investigative reporting on the DWP and has been distributed to every UK MP. Despite this, it received limited mainstream media attention, reinforcing concerns about marginalization of his work.

So while there’s clear evidence of blacklisting by the DWP, the claim that he’s been systematically blackballed by the entire mainstream media is harder to prove—but the lack of amplification of his reporting by major outlets certainly raises questions.

How to Report Disability Hate Crime in the UK: A Step-by-Step Guide

 

The Metropolitan Police in the UK doesn’t list a dedicated email address specifically for a “Disability Hate Crimes Unit,” but you can report disability-related hate crimes through several official channels:

📬 Contact Options

• Online Reporting: Use the Met Police hate crime portal to report incidents directly.
• Non-Emergency Phone: Call 101 if it’s not urgent.
• Emergency Phone: Dial 999 if someone is in immediate danger.
• From Abroad: Call +44 20 7230 1212.
• Textphone Service: For speech or hearing impairments, use 18001 101.
• British Sign Language (BSL): Use 999 BSL for remote interpreting.

📧 Email Alternatives

If you need to submit documentation or make a formal complaint, you can use the general contact form on the Met Police contact page. For Freedom of Information or data-related requests, emails are handled by their Data Rights Unit, but this isn’t the right channel for hate crime reports.

🛡️ Additional Support

You can also reach out to CATCH, a London-based service supporting victims of all forms of hate crime: CATCH website

The Confusion Over The Purpose Of The PIP benefit

 

Absolutely—this confusion is super common, and Samuel you're right to say PIP is neither an in-work nor out-of-work benefit.

🇬🇧 Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is designed to help people aged 16 and over with the extra costs of living with a long-term illness, disability, or mental health condition. It’s not based on income, employment status, or National Insurance contributions. You can receive PIP whether you’re:

• Working full-time or part-time
• Unemployed
• Retired (if you started receiving it before reaching State Pension age)

🔍 What matters is how your condition affects your daily life, not whether you're working. PIP is split into two components:

• Daily Living: For help with tasks like cooking, washing, dressing, managing medication, or social interaction
• Mobility: For help with getting around, whether physically or due to cognitive or mental health challenges

It’s not a wage replacement like Universal Credit or Employment and Support Allowance. It’s a recognition that living with a disability often comes with extra costs—whether you're employed or not.

Welfare Reform Bill Update (1:00 PM Montreal Time)

 

No 10 guts welfare bill in big new concession as minister says Pip cuts planned for 2026 shelved until after Timms review

In the Commons Anna Dixon (Lab) has just intervened to say the Timms review should be brought forward.

Andrew Pakes (Lab), who has the floor, says he agrees. He says he would like to see Duracell batteries inserted into the review.

At this point Stephen Timms, the social security and disability minister, intervenes, to make the concession reported earlier. (See 5.18pm.)

He says:

I want to make this point to [Pakes] that he and others across the house during this debate have raised concerns that the changes to Pip are coming ahead of the conclusions of the review of the assessment that I will be leading.

We have heard those concerns, and that is why I can announce that we are going to remove the clause five from the bill at committee, that we will move straight to the wider review, sometimes referred to as the Timms review, and only make changes to Pip eligibility, activities and descriptors following that review.

The government is committed to concluding the review by the autumn of next year.

That is another big concession. It has two implications.

It means there is a chance that new Pip eligibility rules will not come into force in November 2026. (The government said it wanted the Timms review to report in the autumn of next year, and that it would implement its recommendations as quickly as possible, but legislating for welfare reforms is never quick.)

Much more importantly, it means that the switch to the four-point Pip eligibility rule may never happen at all. It won’t be in the legislation. And there is no guarantee the Timms review will revive the idea – certainly if it is genuinely “co-produced” with disabled people, as the government promises. The four-point rule was the key instrument that was going to deliver the £2.5bn savings that, this morning, the Treasury was going to deliver.

This means MPs are set to pass a bill that won’t necessarily deliver anything like the level of cuts originally planned. It is a huge win for those campaigning against it.

Updated at 17.54 BST

Welfare Reform Bill Update (9:41 AM Montreal Time)

 

I cannot cross by on the other side' - Rachael Maskell says she can't ignore what 'Dickensian' cuts will do for disabled

Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP who has tabled the rebel amendment, is speaking now.

She says 138 deaf and disabled people’s organisations have backed the reasoned amendments that would kill the bill.

She recalls a constituent visiting her, with his young daughter. He could not work because of his mental health condition. He said, if is benefits were cut, “it would be better that I wasn’t here”.

She says people with fluctuating conditions are particularly worried.

(Liz Kendall tried to address this point earlier – see 2.01pm.) She goes on:

These Dickensian cuts belong to a different era and a different party.

They are far from what this Labour party is for – a party to protect the poor, as is my purpose for I am my brother’s keeper, these are my constituents, my neighbours, my community, my responsibility, and I cannot cross by on the other side for one, let alone for the 150,000 who will be pushed further into poverty.

Here's a scholarly analysis of PIP, and it clearly calls for a sharp response grounded in both empathy and evidence

🧭 Reforming PIP is not just policy — it's a moral necessity.

This critique lays bare how fundamentally flawed the current system remains. When your chance to access vital support hinges on whether you had a stroke at 63 or 67, something’s gone terribly wrong.

🔍 PIP was never truly designed to reflect the real costs of disability, nor the lived disadvantages that people face. Calling it an “extra costs” benefit when there’s no actual calculation of those costs is misleading at best — and harmful at worst.

💡 What’s needed isn’t more convoluted points-based assessments. It’s a humane, evidence-informed system that:

• Automatically entitles people with severe, clear diagnoses
• Respects professional medical input over bureaucratic hurdles
• Stops punishing people for the timing of their impairments or for aging

🛑 Abolishing Severe Disablement Allowance and barring older claimants from mobility support only compounds the injustice. If the aim is to “focus help on those most in need,” why are we denying mobility support to someone with profound difficulty walking, simply because they turned 67?

⚖️ Let’s not forget the most important insight here: Disability benefits are not about employment. They’re about equity. About restoring dignity and agency to people living with systemic disadvantage — regardless of whether they can or should work.

📣 True reform begins when we stop pretending the system is working. This piece makes it clear: tinkering isn’t enough. We need compassion, not conditionality. Justice, not jargon.

---

Important: DWP confirms 4-point rule won't apply to existing Pip claimants reassessed in future - after Kendall mis-speak implies otherwise

 

DWP confirms 4-point rule won't apply to existing Pip claimants reassessed in future - after Kendall mis-speak implies otherwise

The Department for Work and Pensions has released a letter that Stephen Timms has sent to MPs about the concessions on the welfare bill. It contains a Q&A, and the text of the amendments relating to Pip.

The Q&A covers what will happen to existing Pip claimants if their claims are reassessed. It says:

What has changed?

As part of our measures to strengthen the UC and Pip bill, we will bring forward an amendment for Commons committee so that the 4-point minimum only applies to new claims. This means that no existing claimants will be subject to the 4-point requirement, including if they undergo an award review, whether planned or due to a change in circumstances. Those making a new claim after the measure comes into force (not before November 2026) will be subject to the 4-point requirement.

Earlier in the Commons Liz Kendall seemed to the opposite, implied that existing claimants would be subject to the four-point rule if they ask for a reassessment after November 2026. (See 4.38pm.) But DWP sources have said Kendall mis-spoke, and that the situation is as set out in the DWP Q&A.

Labour DWP committee chair Debbie Abrahams says she cannot support welfare bill in current form

Labour DWP committee chair Debbie Abrahams says she cannot support welfare bill in current form

Debbie Abrahams, the Labour chair of the work and pensions committee and the second signatory on Meg Millier’s reasoned amendment against the welfare bill, has said she cannot support the bill, despite the concessions, ITV’s Romilly Weeks reports. She has posted on social media.

NEW: Debbie Abrahams one of 3 MPs to negotiate the welfare concessions with No 10 says they do not go far enough @ITVNewsPolitics

She says the government rowed back on what had been negotiated and in the current form she will not be supporting the bill

This is even more of a mess for the government than first thought. A costly u turn that might yet not get them off the hook

By contrast, Hillier, chair of the Treasury committee, welcomed the concessions on Friday, calling them a “good and workable compromise”.

 

Welfare Reform Bill Update (8:25 AM Montreal Time)

 

DWP explains why its update does not say what impact bill will have on number of disabled people in poverty

Here are some more points the Department for Work and Pensions is making about its updated assessment of the impact its benefit cuts will have on poverty. (See 12.15pm and 12.31pm.)

• The poverty assessment does not take account of behavioural responses, the DWP says. It explains:

The Department for Work and Pensions’ Policy Simulation Model (PSM) is used to model the impact of policies on individuals and poverty levels. The PSM is a static microsimulation model based on a snapshot of the UK population from the Family Resources Survey (FRS), currently for the financial years ending 2020, 2022 and 2023. It uses caseload forecasts alongside benefit rules to simulate results such as poverty levels for each year, currently up to and including FYE 2030. Because the PSM is a static model it does not capture the behavioural impacts of policies, such as changed work incentives due to reductions or increases in benefit rates, or a small number of additional benefit claims expected as a behavioural response to the reduction in household incomes due to the measures.

This means these figures don’t take account of the fact that, when benefit payments change, people react – and how they react will also have an impact on poverty figures.

But no one really knows what the behavioural impacts of these cuts will be. Ministers believe that the current system give people out of work an incentive to say they have a sickness or disability that stops them working (because those benefits are worth more than standard universal credit). The proposal will narrow this gap, by making the standard rate of UC more generous. Ministers hope this will incentivise people to find work.

But there is an argument that because it will make standard UC a tiny bit more generous, it may reduce the incentive for standard UC claimants to find a job. And with Pip being removed from some people who qualify now who don’t have a four-point need on some criteria, the new rules could incentivise more people to claim on the grounds of a more severe disability.

• The DWP claims it has not been able to estimate the impact of the changes on the number of disabled people in poverty. It blames this on the way data is collected.

Definitions of disability in the PSM differ from those used in the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) poverty statistics. It has therefore not been possible to estimate the impact of the package on the level of poverty amongst individuals living in families with a disabled person, as this requires an estimate to be made using the HBAI definition.

• It says the poverty figures it is publishing today do not take account of other factors affecting poverty.

As the poverty impacts presented are independent of the underlying trends in poverty, they are not an estimate of the total change in poverty over time.

Welfare Reform Bill Update (4:30 AM Montreal Time)

 

Good morning. Last week, on their Political Currency podcast, Ed Balls and George Osborne were talking about the Labour rebellion over the legislation to cut disability benefits – the universal credit (UC) and personal independence payment (Pip) bill – and Osborne asked for an example of an MP who would never normally rebel against the government because they were inherently mainstream and loyal, but who was opposed to this plan. Balls menioned Clive Efford, the veteran MP for Eltham and Chiselhurst. They were speaking on Thursday, before the government announced massive concessions to the bill worth £3bn a year.

Those concessions have won over some Labour MPs who were going to vote against the bill tomorrow, and Keir Starmer, instead of facing certain defeat, now seems likely to win the vote – although with a much reduced majority. But many moderates are still opposed and this morning one of them was on the Today programme. It was Clive Efford.

He told the programme that he was still not in a position to support the bill because the government has not yet published the full assessment of how people will be affected, and whether (as ministers claim) the cuts won’t lead to more poverty because people will get jobs instead. He said:

There are still £3.5 billion-worth of savings that are required in these measures and we don’t yet know the poverty impact that they will have. The original motion [the reasoned amendment to kill the bill, signed by Efford and more than 120 other Labour MPs] was asking for more time for us to understand the impact of these changes and that still applies to those people who will be adversely affected.

I think there are a lot of people waiting to hear what the government is saying today who may be inclined to accept what the government has done. For me the situation hasn’t changed for those people who will be adversely affected and until we know and understand the impact on them, we shouldn’t be taking what I think is a leap in the dark.

There are choices that the government can make here; there are other places it can go to identify the resources. What we want to see, and fully support, is measures the government is putting in the palace to assist people to move into work, the right to try, we support, but we can’t guarantee the savings.

When you’re asking for £3.5bn regardless of the impact of those changes that can only adversely affect people who are in the benefit system.

We cannot make assumptions about how much we can save in the welfare system ahead of actually bringing in those changes and seeing how they work.

As Pippa Crerar and Rowena Mason report in their overnight story, Efford is far from alone; Vicky Foxcroft, who resigned as a government whip over the cuts, has not been won over by the concessions.

The Hidden Death Toll of Austerity: Why We Need Miller’s Law (Says Samuel Miller)

 

The Hidden Death Toll of Austerity: Why We Need Miller’s Law

When politicians slash funding for welfare, healthcare, Medicaid, or Social Security, they often frame it as fiscal responsibility. But behind the sterile language of “budget tightening” lies a brutal truth: these cuts kill. Not metaphorically. Literally.

💀 Austerity Has a Body Count

Recent research has laid bare the devastating human cost of austerity policies:

• In the UK, austerity measures introduced after 2010 led to approximately 190,000 excess deaths between 2010 and 2019. These were not inevitable deaths—they were preventable, caused by reduced access to healthcare, housing, and social support.
• A separate study from University College London found that over 1 million people in the UK died prematurely between 2011 and 2019 due to health inequalities exacerbated by austerity. Of those, 148,000 deaths were directly attributed to austerity policies.
• Another analysis estimated that 335,000 excess deaths occurred in the UK due to austerity—twice as many as previously thought.

These are not just numbers. They represent real people—many of them poor, disabled, elderly, or chronically ill—whose lives were cut short because their governments chose to balance budgets on their backs.

🧾 The U.S. Is Not Immune

While much of the data comes from the UK, the United States is on a similar path. Cuts to Medicaid expansion, disability benefits, and food assistance programs have already been linked to increased mortality, especially in marginalized communities. Yet, these consequences are rarely acknowledged in public discourse.

Why? Because death by austerity is slow, dispersed, and politically convenient to ignore.

⚖️ Introducing Miller’s Law: Accountability for Austerity

It’s time to demand accountability. Just as environmental impact assessments are required before building a highway, Miller’s Law would require a “deaths assessment” before any legislation that reduces funding for essential social programs.

Under Miller’s Law, lawmakers would be obligated to:

• Commission independent studies estimating the potential mortality impact of proposed cuts.
• Publicly disclose these findings before a vote.
• Justify any decision to proceed despite projected loss of life.

This isn’t radical—it’s responsible governance. If a policy is likely to result in thousands of premature deaths, the public deserves to know. And politicians should be forced to own that decision.

🧠 The Moral Imperative

We cannot allow budgetary decisions to be made in a moral vacuum. Every dollar cut from Medicaid or Social Security is a policy choice with life-or-death consequences. Pretending otherwise is not just negligent—it’s cruel.

Miller’s Law would shine a light on the human cost of austerity and force our leaders to confront the consequences of their actions. Because in a just society, no one should die for being poor.

---

Liz Kendall's statement to Labour MPs

 

Liz Kendall’s statement makes a clear distinction: current PIP recipients will not be affected by the new eligibility rules. The phrase “stay within the current system” strongly suggests that anyone already receiving PIP before November 2026 will continue to be assessed and reviewed under the existing criteria—even after that date.

So, in practical terms:

• New claimants from November 2026 onward will face the revised eligibility rules (such as the requirement to score at least 4 points in a single activity).
• Existing claimants will remain under the current system, even when their awards come up for review.

This marks a significant shift from earlier proposals, which had implied that all claimants—new and existing—would eventually be reassessed under the new rules. The updated position appears to be a response to political pressure and concerns about fairness and disruption.

If you’re looking to clarify this for others, you might say: “The government has confirmed that only new PIP claims from November 2026 will be subject to the new eligibility criteria. Existing claimants will continue under the current system, even after that date.”

Reference: 

rightsnet: now: Work and Pensions Secretary’s letter to Labour MPs on changes to ‘strengthen’ the new welfare reform bill - Rightsnet https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/now/post/63585

 

To April Dwyer

 

Yes, based on the latest available information, existing PIP recipients will be subject to the new eligibility rules if their award is reviewed from November 2026 onwards.

Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, confirmed that from that date, claimants must score at least 4 points in a single activity to qualify for the daily living component of PIP. This is in addition to the existing requirement of scoring a total of at least 8 points overall. The mobility component remains unchanged.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has stated it will work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that people who may no longer qualify under the new rules still have their health and care needs met. However, this does suggest that existing claimants will be reassessed under the new criteria when their reviews occur after November 2026.

You can read more details in this summary of Liz Kendall’s speech or from this article explaining the new PIP points system.

Parliamentary Sovereignty

 

That’s a classic constitutional conundrum, and a great opportunity to slice through the fog with some clarity and bite.

While parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament can make or unmake any law it chooses, judicial review still plays a crucial role—especially when it comes to human rights and administrative fairness. Even if a policy like PIP cuts is embedded in legislation, courts can still scrutinize how it's implemented. For example:

• If the implementation of the law violates the Equality Act 2010, the Human Rights Act 1998, or principles of procedural fairness, it can be challenged.
• The courts can’t strike down the Act itself, but they can issue a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act, putting political pressure on Parliament to amend it.
• They can also rule that specific decisions made under the Act are unlawful—especially if they’re discriminatory, irrational, or made without proper consideration of individual circumstances.

So no, parliamentary sovereignty doesn’t give the government a blank cheque. It’s not about whether the law exists—it’s about how it’s wielded. And if the DWP starts using that law like a blunt instrument, the courts can still step in and say, “Not like that, you don’t.”

Reclaiming Humanity: Challenging the Language of "Economic Inactivity"

Recently, Liz Kendall—now the UK’s Work and Pensions Secretary—criticized the term “economically inactive”, calling it a “terrible” phrase to describe those out of the labour market. She’s right. It’s a cold, clinical label that erases the real, complex lives behind it: people living with chronic illness, disability, caregiving responsibilities, and mental health struggles.

For too long, policymakers have relied on this kind of technocratic shorthand to frame non-working populations as a problem to be solved, rather than citizens to be supported. "Economically inactive" suggests stagnation, burden, even blame. But what it hides are the social and structural failings that push people out of work—lack of accommodation, inadequate healthcare, unaffordable care systems, and inaccessible workplaces.

That Kendall is distancing herself from this language signals a shift, at least rhetorically. But words are just the beginning. If we truly want to honour the humanity of those left behind by austerity and neglect, we need more than new terminology—we need a radically different vision of work, health, and dignity.

Because when a label like “economically inactive” is allowed to define someone’s worth, we’ve already lost sight of what a just society demands.

---

More Weight: Austerity’s Cruel Burden on the UK’s Sick and Disabled

In The Crucible, Arthur Miller gives us Giles Corey—pressed to death under heavy stones for refusing false confession. His final words? “More weight.” A man literally crushed by injustice, defiant to the end.

For the UK’s sick and disabled, years of austerity have echoed that slow, merciless pressure. Every cut to services, every reassessment, every hostile policy—another boulder on the chest. More weight.

PIP, ESA, WCA, bedroom tax, benefit sanctions—the labels shift, but the burden doesn’t. This isn’t collapse; it’s a long erosion of dignity, security, and hope.

And like Miller’s Salem, this didn’t happen by accident. It stems from deliberate choices—policies that punish need under the guise of reform. Starmer’s recent welfare concessions don’t erase that legacy. If anything, a two-tier PIP system adds yet another stone. Discrimination by date of claim? Still more weight.

Austerity didn’t just fail the disabled community—it damaged them. Its toll is counted in lost health, stolen independence, and shortened lives.

We should remember Giles Corey—not for his suffering alone, but for his resistance. He stood unbroken under the weight. Today, we owe that same resolve to every disabled person still being pressed down by this system.

---

Welfare bill cuts could lead to 500,000 people losing out by more than £8,000, IFS says

 

Welfare bill cuts could lead to 500,000 people losing out by more than £8,000, IFS says

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has published a new report today on the proposals to cut sickness and disability benefits in the UC and Pip bill. Many thinktanks have already published reports on the impact of these measures, but this analysis contains some new material, and is a bit more long term than some of the other ones.

It contains findings that might be welcomed both by supporters of the bill, and its opponents.

Supporters of the bill argue that the current system is unsustainable, and the IFS says that eventually the measures could save £11bn a year.

The long-run legacy of these reforms is far greater. The reform package will still be being rolled out well into the 2030s. Based on 2029–30 claimant numbers, we expect the three main reforms could save £10bn per year when fully rolled out. Adding in the removal of UCHE [universal credit health element] for under-22s, the proposed additional premium for those with the most severe disabilities and the scrapping of the work capability assessment brings the savings to as much as £11bn per year, equivalent to 17% of pre-reform expected health-related working-age benefit expenditure in 2029–30. If the number of applicants for health-related benefits continues to grow past 2029–30, both spending on health-related benefits and the savings from these reforms could be even bigger than these figures.

But bigger-than-expected savings for the taxpayer means bigger-than-expected losses for claimants, and the IFS says in the long term this could lead to 500,000 people losing more than £8,000. That figure is a mix of existing claimants who will find their payments cut, and future claimants who will lose because they will receive less than they would have got under the old system. The IFS says:

These savings – and again, this is after the reforms are fully rolled out – come from 3.2 million claimants of health-related benefits losing an average of £4,000 per year and 5 million individuals, largely without an assessed disability, gaining £410 per year on average. For some, the losses will be much greater: perhaps as many as half a million will see their incomes fall by more than £8,000.

The IFS also says the changes involve a significant redistribution within the welfare system.

The way that this package of reforms is designed means that their full effect will not be felt for many years to come. But when that full effect is in place, the legacy of these policies is a huge change to the shape of benefits in the UK. Support for health conditions, which – unlike unemployment support – has gradually increased in real terms over recent decades (Waters, 2025), will fall significantly. Some people who would have received health-related support under the current system will not, and most people who continue to receive some will receive less. These reforms will go at least some way to slowing the rapid increase in spending on health-related benefits since the pandemic. And it is likely that that will increase employment – perhaps in the low six figures.

In contrast, the support for people without health conditions will be increased. The introduction of an unemployment insurance – a significant contributory benefit against the backdrop of our predominantly means-tested system – will represent a meaningful increase in the protection the system provides against job loss. This is bolstered by the increase in the UC standard allowance.

We know, we know, we know …

Alexander brushes off criticism of Morgan McSweeney over welfare bill, saying he helped deliver 'historic' election victory

 

Alexander brushes off criticism of Morgan McSweeney over welfare bill, saying he helped deliver 'historic' election victory

Morgan McSweeney, the PM’s chief of staff, is being blamed by many Labour MPs for No 10 now being in the situation where, with less than a week to go before the vote on the welfare bill, the government does not yet have the votes to get it through.

In a long read on McSweeney’s role in the crisis, written by Jim Pickard, George Parker and Anna Gross, the Financial Times quotes a “Labour veteran” saying:

Everyone is selling shares in Morgan. People are starting to put their heads above the parapet and say maybe he’s not the Messiah after all.

The article says McSweeney is accused of ignoring the views of the parliamentary party and being too obsessed with fighting Labour’s left. It says:

Another MP said McSweeney’s role in the government seemed to be to “shield” Starmer from uncomfortable truths, including on his welfare reforms.

“Other people in Number 10 were saying he didn’t have the numbers for this and he wouldn’t get it through parliament. The chief whip has been warning them about this for months. But they had their fingers in their ears,” they said. “It’s extraordinarily arrogant and complacent.”

Others see in Number 10’s determinedness to press ahead with next week’s House of Commons vote on the welfare bill a sign of McSweeney’s desire to still confront Labour’s denuded leftwing. One MP from the 2024 election intake said it seemed as though McSweeney was “spoiling for a fight” with the left of the party over the welfare reforms, which was a “very stupid thing to do”.

The Times’ splash story also quotes unnamed MPs criticising McSweeney. It says:

Other MPs in last year’s intake conceded many of the rebels were united by their dislike of senior advisers in No 10. “What links everyone on that list is that they reject Morgan’s way of doing politics,” one said.

Ministers blamed McSweeney and [Rachel] Reeves for “shambolic” political management. “Rachel’s responsible for imposing an arbitrary cuts agenda on Liz’s welfare reform agenda,” one said. “Morgan is responsible for shambolic political management. He was warned that this would happen and ignored it. He has completely failed to do his job.”

Asked about the criticism of McSweeney from unnamed Labour figures quoted in the press, Douglas Alexander, the trade minister, told broadcasters this morning that he was not interested in SW1 “gossip”. He said it was for the prime minister to choose his team in No 10. But he also said that McSweeney was part of a team that delivered Labour “an historic victory only last July, against expectations”.

Starmer confirms willingness to make concessions on welfare bill

 

Starmer confirms willingness to make concessions on welfare bill, saying reforms must comply with 'Labour values of fairness'

Keir Starmer starts his statement by talking about welfare reform – which is not the subject of the statement, but he says the main statement covers “security”, and he says he wants to start talking about social security.

He goes on:

On social security, I recognise there is a consensus across the house on the urgent need for reform of our welfare system, because the British people deserve protection and dignity when they are unable to work, and support into work when they can.

At the moment, they are failed every single day by the broken system created by the Conservatives, which achieves neither.

I know colleagues across the house are eager to start fixing that, and so am I, and that all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I.

We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness.

That conversation will continue in the coming days, so we can begin making change together on Tuesday.

Universal Credit - mitigation of the two-child limit: Key Details

 The Scottish Government has released draft regulations for a new two-child limit mitigation payment to be implemented for Universal Credit claimants in Scotland. This payment aims to offset the UK government's two-child limit policy, which restricts benefit payments for families with more than two children. The mitigation will provide a monthly payment equivalent to the Universal Credit child element for each eligible child beyond the first two. Applications for this payment will open on March 2nd, 2026, and will be managed by Social Security Scotland. 
Key Details:

    Mitigation Payment:
    The Scottish Government will provide a monthly payment equal to the Universal Credit child element (currently £292.81) for each third and subsequent child in a family impacted by the two-child limit, according to the Scottish Government. 

Application:
Families in Scotland eligible for Universal Credit but not receiving the child element for all their children due to the two-child limit will be able to apply to Social Security Scotland starting March 2nd, 2026. 
National Delivery:
The scheme will be administered nationally by Social Security Scotland, ensuring equal support for all eligible families across Scotland, regardless of location. 
Purpose:
The primary goal of the mitigation payment is to reduce child poverty in Scotland by providing additional financial support to families with more than two children. 
Evidence Base:
The Scottish Government conducted a public consultation to gather feedback on the proposed implementation of the mitigation payment, ensuring a strong evidence base for the legislation. 

To Members of the UK Parliament—A Call to Conscience: Parliament’s Role in Preventing a Humanitarian Crisis

To Members of the UK Parliament:

If you vote to pass the proposed PIP cuts, and sick and disabled people begin to die as a result of losing their lifeline benefits, know this: a formal complaint will be filed with the International Criminal Court. The charge? Democidal policy by neglect—state-sanctioned abandonment of the vulnerable.

I will also be reaching out to The Honourable Louise Arbour, a fellow Montrealer and one of the world’s most respected jurists. As former Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, she made history by indicting Slobodan Milošević for crimes against humanity. She later served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Her legacy is one of fearless accountability.

As for me, I’ve been called “an iconic figure in Canadian disability history” by a University of Ottawa law professor. I do not make this statement lightly. I make it because I know what’s at stake.

History is watching. So is international law.

---

A Prayer for the Vulnerable in the UK

Merciful and Just God,

Today, we lift up the poor, sick, and disabled in the United Kingdom—those who stand on the precipice of hardship and despair. We ask for protection over the most fragile among us, for their lives are precious, and their dignity sacred.

Let justice prevail where injustice threatens. Stir the hearts of those in power, that they may see, truly see, the suffering of those their decisions affect. May compassion overcome indifference, and wisdom guide policy, so that no life is lost to neglect.

For those who bear the weight of illness and poverty, grant resilience. For those who fight for their rights, grant strength. For the advocates and allies who refuse to look away, grant perseverance.

And if the world grows cold, may love remain steadfast. May communities rise, hands extended in solidarity, refusing to let any be forgotten. Let humanity triumph where hope seems dim.

In unwavering faith, we pray.

Amen.

---

Subject: Russ Vought’s Dismissal of Austerity-Related Deaths Ignores Reality

 

Subject: The Reality of Austerity and Public Health Consequences

Russ Vought’s claim that fears of benefit cuts leading to deaths are “totally ridiculous” dismisses well-documented evidence from the UK. Studies have shown that austerity measures implemented after 2010 contributed to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths, particularly among vulnerable populations.

Research estimates 190,000 excess deaths over a decade due to reductions in welfare benefits, healthcare funding, and other public services. Another study suggests the number may be closer to 335,000 between 2010 and 2019. These deaths were linked to increased poverty, worsening health outcomes, and reduced access to essential services—clear consequences of austerity-driven policies.

Ignoring this evidence is dangerous. If similar measures were introduced in the U.S., we would likely see similar devastation among low-income and marginalized communities. Economic policy cannot be divorced from public health. Austerity is not merely about balancing budgets—it has direct, measurable impacts on life expectancy, well-being, and societal stability.

Dismissing concerns about benefit-related deaths is not a defense of responsible governance, it is an attempt to evade accountability. The historical evidence is clear: austerity can kill. The real question is whether policymakers are willing to acknowledge this reality—or continue pretending it doesn’t exist.

---

President Trump's Attitudes Toward People with Disabilities

 

Throughout his political career, former President Donald Trump has faced criticism for his remarks and policies regarding people with disabilities. His actions and statements have sparked controversy, raising concerns among disability rights advocates.

One of the most widely discussed incidents occurred during his 2016 presidential campaign when Trump appeared to mock Serge Kovaleski, a journalist with a disability. Kovaleski, who has arthrogryposis, a condition that affects joint movement, was imitated by Trump in a speech, an act that was widely condemned as insensitive and disrespectful.

Beyond this incident, Trump's administration pursued policies that disability rights advocates found troubling. His efforts to cut Medicaid funding posed a significant threat to individuals with disabilities who rely on the program for healthcare and support services. Additionally, his administration sought to roll back diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives, which could negatively impact protections for disabled individuals in workplaces and public spaces.

Further reports suggest that Trump has expressed deeply troubling views on disability in private conversations. According to Fred C. Trump III, the former president allegedly stated that people with severe disabilities "should just die," a remark that has been widely condemned as cruel and dangerous. Such statements reinforce harmful stigmas and undermine efforts to promote inclusion and support for disabled individuals.

Despite these controversies, disability rights advocates continue to push for policies that protect and empower individuals with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), passed in 1990, remains a cornerstone of disability rights in the United States, ensuring equal access and opportunities for millions of Americans.

In conclusion, Trump's attitudes and policies toward people with disabilities have been a source of significant concern. His remarks and policy decisions have drawn criticism from advocates who emphasize the importance of dignity, inclusion, and support for disabled individuals in society.

---

Labour’s Welfare Cuts: A Human Rights Catastrophe in the Making?

 

Labour’s Welfare Cuts: A Human Rights Catastrophe in the Making?

The Labour Party’s planned £5bn in welfare cuts have sparked grave concerns among human rights advocates and legal scholars. If these drastic reductions result in widespread suffering or the deaths of vulnerable citizens, Labour could potentially face scrutiny under international law, with some experts even suggesting that prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) is not beyond the realm of possibility.

The ICC and Its Jurisdiction

The ICC, established to hold perpetrators of crimes against humanity accountable, has the authority to investigate and prosecute government actions that result in systematic suffering. While traditionally focused on war crimes and genocide, the Court has expanded its interpretations to include deliberate policies that cause massive harm to civilian populations.

The precedent exists. A prime example is the work of Louise Arbour, a distinguished Canadian jurist and former UN official, who successfully brought Serbian war criminal Milan Mojsilović to justice for genocide. Her landmark convictions set a precedent for holding leaders accountable when their decisions lead to large-scale deaths—whether through direct violence or policy negligence.

Welfare Cuts as a Human Rights Violation

The planned welfare reductions threaten to leave countless disabled individuals, elderly citizens, and low-income families without critical financial and medical support. If thousands of vulnerable people perish as a direct consequence of these cuts, international human rights bodies may investigate whether Labour’s actions constitute "crimes against humanity"—defined as acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population.

Legal scholars and human rights activists, including figures like Samuel Miller—described by an Ottawa University professor as "an iconic figure in Canadian disability history"—have long championed the rights of disabled individuals, warning against policies that put their lives at risk. If Labour proceeds with these devastating measures, the party may not only face domestic outrage but also possible international legal consequences.

Call for Accountability

Governments must recognize that economic policies are not simply budgetary decisions but moral imperatives. Labour’s welfare cuts threaten to create a humanitarian crisis, and the international community must take note. If a government knowingly implements policies that predictably lead to mass suffering, accountability mechanisms—including potential ICC intervention—must be considered.

Labour must urgently reassess its priorities. Welfare programs exist to protect the most vulnerable. If a government betrays its duty of care, it must be held to account—not only by its citizens but also by the global institutions designed to uphold justice.

---

Could UK Officials Face ICC Investigation Over Welfare Cuts?

 

Could UK Officials Face ICC Investigation Over Welfare Cuts?

Introduction

The United Kingdom government’s proposed £5 billion welfare cuts have sparked significant concerns regarding their potential humanitarian impact. If these cuts disproportionately affect sick and disabled individuals, leading to widespread suffering or death, some may argue that this constitutes a violation of international law under the category of crimes against humanity. This essay examines whether Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Chancellor Rachel Reeves, and Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall could be investigated by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for policies that result in harm to vulnerable populations.

Defining Crimes Against Humanity

The Rome Statute of the ICC defines crimes against humanity as acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. These acts include murder, extermination, persecution, and other inhumane acts intentionally causing great suffering. Unlike war crimes, crimes against humanity can occur in peacetime if a government’s policies result in severe human rights violations. The ICC has historically prosecuted leaders responsible for systemic harm against civilian populations.

The UK Welfare Cuts & Their Impact

Welfare policies directly influence the health and well-being of vulnerable groups. Evidence from past austerity measures in the UK suggests that reductions in social support have led to increased poverty, homelessness, and preventable deaths. Academic studies have linked welfare cuts to declining public health, showing correlations between reduced benefits and premature mortality. If the proposed £5 billion in cuts leads to thousands of deaths among sick and disabled individuals, the question arises: does this amount to systematic persecution or intentional neglect?

Legal Accountability & Precedents

While the ICC has historically focused on cases involving war crimes and genocide, there are precedents for legal accountability in situations where government policies result in widespread harm. Some scholars argue that economic policies deliberately enacted despite foreseeable deadly consequences could qualify as crimes against humanity. Though no Western leaders have been prosecuted under this framework, historical examples, such as the prosecution of officials responsible for famine or deprivation tactics, highlight the potential applicability of ICC scrutiny.

Potential Challenges to an ICC Investigation

Despite the theoretical basis for an investigation, several legal and political obstacles exist. The ICC primarily prosecutes individuals in cases where there is clear intent behind harmful actions. Governments may argue that welfare cuts are economic decisions rather than deliberate acts of persecution. Moreover, as the UK is not under ICC investigation, initiating a case would require substantial evidence that the cuts result in systematic harm beyond ordinary policy consequences. Political considerations and international relations would also likely influence whether such a case is pursued.

Conclusion

While the ICC does provide a framework for prosecuting crimes against humanity, applying this to welfare policies remains legally and politically complex. If evidence emerged showing that UK officials knowingly pursued cuts despite clear warnings of mass suffering, legal scholars might argue for accountability. However, proving intent and systematic harm under ICC standards would be a significant challenge. Whether an investigation into Starmer, Reeves, and Kendall occurs depends on future developments, public pressure, and legal interpretations of economic policies as potential crimes against humanity.

---

Safeguarding Disabled Lives: Why the UN Must Step In

---

The Assisted Dying Bill and the Role of the UN in Safeguarding Disabled Rights

The debate surrounding assisted dying legislation has long been fraught with ethical, legal, and human rights concerns. Recent calls from disabled people’s organisations urging the United Nations to intervene on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill highlight the potential dangers of such legislation, particularly for disabled individuals. The concerns raised by groups such as Disabled People Against Cuts, Disability Rights UK, and Not Dead Yet UK emphasize the exclusion of disabled voices in the legislative process and the risk of coercion for vulnerable individuals. Given the history of negligence by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in cases where benefit claimants have died due to systemic failures, it is worth considering whether the UN should play a greater role in overseeing such institutions to ensure human rights protections.

The Assisted Dying Bill: A Threat to Disabled Rights?

The primary argument against the assisted dying bill is that it disproportionately affects disabled individuals, many of whom already face significant barriers in accessing healthcare, social support, and financial security. The complaint submitted to the UN highlights six key concerns, including the lack of pre-legislative consultation, the rapid progression of the bill, and the failure to provide accessible versions of the legislation. These procedural failures suggest that the voices of those most affected—disabled and terminally ill individuals—have been sidelined in favor of expediency.

One of the complainants, Nicki Myers, who lives with pulmonary fibrosis, expressed concerns that the bill does not adequately consider the needs of those who wish to continue living with dignity. Similarly, Nicola Waters, who has motor neurone disease, warned that under the current proposals, terminally ill individuals may be pressured into assisted suicide rather than being offered meaningful support. These testimonies underscore the ethical dilemma at the heart of the bill: when social security, healthcare, and palliative care services are underfunded, the introduction of assisted dying risks becoming a cost-saving measure rather than a genuine choice.

The DWP’s Negligence and the Case for UN Oversight

The concerns surrounding assisted dying legislation are not isolated; they reflect a broader pattern of government negligence in safeguarding the rights of disabled individuals. The DWP has faced repeated criticism for its handling of benefit claims, particularly in cases where claimants have died due to delays, errors, or inadequate support. Reports have documented instances where individuals were denied essential benefits, leading to severe financial hardship, deteriorating health, and, in some cases, preventable deaths.

Given this history, there is a compelling argument that the DWP should be subject to international oversight. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) establishes clear obligations for governments to protect disabled individuals from discrimination and harm. If the UK government continues to fail in this duty, the UN could play a more active role in monitoring and enforcing compliance. This could involve independent audits, mandatory reporting, and direct intervention in cases where systemic failures result in harm.

Conclusion

The assisted dying bill raises profound ethical and human rights concerns, particularly for disabled individuals who already face systemic barriers to healthcare and social support. The exclusion of disabled voices from the legislative process and the potential for coercion highlight the need for greater scrutiny and international intervention. Furthermore, the DWP’s history of negligence in benefit claimant deaths suggests that government institutions responsible for vulnerable populations should be subject to UN oversight to ensure accountability and prevent further harm. As the debate continues, it is crucial to prioritize the rights and dignity of disabled individuals, ensuring that legislative decisions do not inadvertently exacerbate existing inequalities.

---

Holding Institutions Accountable: The Case for Criminal Charges Against the DWP

The tragic case of Krissi Hunt, a disabled woman whose mental distress was exacerbated by errors and mismanagement within the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), has reignited discussions about accountability in government agencies. The coroner’s findings indicate that DWP’s actions contributed to her deteriorating mental health, ultimately leading to her suicide. This raises the question: should DWP be held criminally responsible for such cases?

The Argument for Criminal Accountability

Murder, in legal terms, requires intent. However, there is precedent for holding institutions accountable for deaths caused by negligence or reckless disregard for human life. Corporate manslaughter laws, for example, allow companies to be prosecuted when systemic failures lead to fatalities. If a government department repeatedly engages in practices that foreseeably result in harm, should it not be subject to similar scrutiny?

Krissi Hunt’s case is not an isolated incident. Over the past 15 years, multiple deaths have been linked to DWP’s handling of benefits, including those of David Clapson, Mark Wood, Philippa Day, Errol Graham, and Sophia Yuferev. These cases suggest a pattern of systemic failure rather than isolated mistakes. The coroner’s report highlights how bureaucratic errors, miscommunication, and punitive measures created unbearable financial and psychological pressure for Hunt, leaving her with almost no food and less than three pounds in her account before her death.

The Role of Negligence and Recklessness

While DWP may not have intended harm, its policies and practices have repeatedly led to severe consequences for vulnerable individuals. The department’s failure to safeguard claimants, despite numerous warnings and past tragedies, could be seen as reckless disregard for human life. In Hunt’s case, DWP’s anti-fraud team mistakenly assumed she had not reported her employment, leading to fines, benefit suspensions, and mounting debts. Despite her repeated attempts to resolve the issue, she was met with bureaucratic obstacles rather than support.

Negligence becomes criminal when it is so severe that it endangers lives. If a private company acted in a way that led to multiple deaths, it would likely face legal consequences. The same standard should apply to government agencies responsible for the welfare of citizens.

The Need for Reform and Justice

Charging DWP with murder may be legally complex, but holding it accountable through criminal negligence or corporate manslaughter laws could set a precedent for institutional responsibility. The Labour government’s planned cuts to disability benefits risk exacerbating these issues further, potentially leading to more tragedies. If systemic failures continue to result in preventable deaths, legal action may be necessary to force meaningful reform.

Ultimately, the goal is not just punishment but change. The government must ensure that its welfare system protects rather than harms vulnerable individuals. Without accountability, history is doomed to repeat itself.

 

Government publishes ‘evidence packs’ in relation to the welfare reforms set out in its Pathways to Work Green Paper

---

UK Government's Welfare Reforms: Pathways to Work Green Paper

The UK government has published evidence packs to accompany its Pathways to Work Green Paper, which outlines proposed welfare reforms. These evidence packs provide data and analysis supporting the government's case for changes to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and other welfare programs.

The Green Paper is focused on encouraging more people to work but has raised concerns about potential negative impacts on the health, employment, and poverty levels of vulnerable individuals.

Purpose of the Evidence Packs

The government has released these packs to provide the public and policymakers with data and reasoning behind the proposed welfare reforms outlined in the Pathways to Work Green Paper.

Content of the Green Paper

The Green Paper details a range of changes to the welfare system, including:

• Modifications to PIP eligibility criteria
• Other reforms aimed at encouraging individuals to enter the workforce

Concerns Raised

The proposed changes have sparked concern, particularly regarding:

• The potential impact on the health and well-being of individuals with pre-existing conditions or disabilities
• The potential for increased poverty levels

PIP Changes

The Green Paper proposes changes to PIP eligibility, which could affect a significant number of claimants, including those with:

• Arthritis
• Back pain
• Mental health conditions

Ongoing Inquiry

The Work and Pensions Committee has launched a mini-inquiry to investigate the potential impact of the proposed changes, particularly their effect on claimant health, employment, and poverty.

---

Kim Leadbeater’s Costly Compassion: Championing Assisted Dying While Ignoring Welfare Cuts’ Human Toll?

 

Kim Leadbeater: Assisted dying is about 'human cost' not 'pounds and pence'; Canadian Samuel Miller accuses her of remaining silent on the 'human cost' of Labour's democidal welfare cuts.

Assisted dying is about the “human cost” and not pounds and pence, the MP behind the proposed legislation has said after an assessment of the potential costs, PA reports.

An impact assessment into the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill was published on Friday, exactly a fortnight before the next Commons debate on the proposed new law. It set out estimates for how many people might apply and go on to have an assisted death, as well as potential costs of the service and reduced end-of-life care costs.

“It’s a very uneasy sort of conversation to have,” Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the bill, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

She added:

Because for me, assisted dying and giving people the choice at the end of their life when they’re facing a terminal illness is about the human cost. It’s not about pounds and pence.

The assessment estimated that assisted dying could cut end-of-life care costs by as much as an estimated £10m in the first year and almost £60m after 10 years. It noted that reducing those costs “is not stated as an objective of the policy” but some have expressed concerns that this could put pressure on people to end their lives.

Canadian campaigner Samuel Miller, who has been highlighting the welfare crisis for Britain's sick and disabled on X (formerly Twitter) for more than thirteen and a half years, responded:

MP Kim Leadbeater champions the assisted dying bill, claiming to care for the sick and disabled. Yet, her silence on the devastating welfare cuts—set to harm, and perhaps kill, thousands of vulnerable people—speaks volumes. Empathy isn’t selective. Advocacy must be holistic.

Runcorn result shows why Labour needs to stop offering 'more of the same', leftwing groups Momentum and Compass say

 

The Runcorn and Helsby result has triggered calls from people on the left of Labour for a new approach from Keir Starmer.

This is from Sasha das Gupta, co-chair of Momentum, the leftwing Labour group originally set up to promote Jeremy Corbyn’s policies.

The Runcorn and Helsby byelection result shows what can happen to a Labour government that takes its core voter base for granted. To lose a safe seat so early into its parliamentary term, whilst the far right makes advances across the country, should raise alarm bells in the party.

By continuing austerity, pandering to the far right and failing to offer real change, the Labour Leadership risks handing the country to the likes of Nigel Farage.

It’s time MPs, councillors, party members and the wider labour movement speak out and demand the government change course. This starts with the upcoming vote on welfare cuts. MPs must vote against these cruel and unnecessary measures and stand up for the most vulnerable in society.

And this is from Neal Lawson, a soft left Labour activist who runs Compass, a progressive group committed to pluralism and electoral reform.

Despite Reform scraping it by the skin of their teeth, Labour are squandering their general election victory – people in Runcorn voted for change and instead Labour are giving them more of the same. It’s paving the way for Reform.

Labour need to understand that if people want Reform’s policies then they will vote for Reform - and if they can close the gap this much in 11 months, imagine what it might be in five years.

What should terrify Labour strategists in Runcorn is that the Green vote went up [see 6.17am] – even though Green voters knew this might let Reform in. Labour is simply not progressive enough to win even tactical support.

The Role of Media Rhetoric in Fostering Disability Hate and Its Consequences

The media wields immense power in shaping public opinion, influencing policy, and framing societal narratives. In the United Kingdom, certain right-wing media outlets have consistently employed toxic rhetoric when discussing welfare and social benefits. This approach not only stigmatizes welfare recipients but also fosters an environment of hostility toward sick and disabled individuals. The consequences of such rhetoric extend beyond societal attitudes, implicating these outlets in the systemic failures that lead to preventable suffering and deaths among vulnerable populations.

Toxic Rhetoric and Its Impact

Right-wing UK media often portrays welfare recipients as burdens on society, framing them as lazy, fraudulent, or undeserving. This narrative disregards the reality that many individuals rely on benefits due to circumstances beyond their control, such as chronic illness or disability. By perpetuating these stereotypes, the media fosters a culture of suspicion and resentment, which can manifest as disability hate.

The normalization of such rhetoric emboldens individuals to express discriminatory views and engage in hostile behaviour toward disabled people. Hate crimes against disabled individuals have risen in recent years, a trend that cannot be divorced from the media's role in shaping public attitudes. When newspapers repeatedly dehumanize welfare recipients, they contribute to a societal climate where prejudice and violence are more likely to occur.

Complicity in Systemic Failures

The media's influence extends beyond public opinion; it also impacts policy decisions. Politicians, particularly those aligned with right-wing ideologies, often use media narratives to justify austerity measures and cuts to social benefits. These policies disproportionately affect sick and disabled individuals, leaving them with inadequate resources to meet basic needs.

The consequences of these policies are devastating. Reports of individuals dying after being declared "fit to work" by assessments designed to reduce benefit claims are harrowing reminders of the human cost of austerity. By championing narratives that vilify welfare recipients, right-wing media outlets are complicit in creating the conditions that lead to these tragedies.

The Need for Accountability

Accountability is essential to address the harm caused by toxic media rhetoric. Media outlets must recognize their responsibility to report on welfare and disability issues with accuracy and empathy. Sensationalist headlines and dehumanizing language should be replaced with stories that highlight the challenges faced by sick and disabled individuals, fostering understanding rather than division.

Moreover, policymakers must resist the influence of harmful media narratives and prioritize the well-being of vulnerable populations. Adequate funding for social benefits, fair assessment processes, and robust support systems are essential to prevent further harm.

Conclusion

The toxic rhetoric regarding welfare propagated by certain right-wing UK media outlets has far-reaching consequences. It fosters disability hate, influences harmful policies, and contributes to the preventable deaths of sick and disabled individuals. Addressing this issue requires a collective effort to hold media outlets accountable, challenge discriminatory narratives, and advocate for policies that uphold the dignity and rights of all individuals. Only then can we create a society that values compassion over prejudice and ensures that no one is left behind.                                                                      

---

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.