While today’s ACM is talking about the Spring Mini-Budget, aka the Spring Statement (March 26th 2025) in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer (think of the Treasury Secretary) set out the government’s economic priorities for the year as well as its sister document from the Department of Works and Pensions discussing the impacts of the Spring Budget changes on recipients of benefits for disabled people: the non-means tested Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and a means-tested benefit Universal Credit Health Component (UC-H, my abbreviation). What Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall have put forward is a two-fold attack on disabled people making it harder to access PIP daily living component and lowering and freezing the amount of UCH.
“According to Anthony Lane:
- Accessing PIP is are going to be much harder, as they are changing the manner in which the daily living portion is determined; as of 2026, it will require scores of 4 in one daily living activity (previous criteria enabled combining these activities over several groupings). While this is supposed to focus support on where it is needed for those with more significant needs, but will probably leave disabled people without resources and it makes getting the daily living allowance of PIP much more difficult. It will hit new people applying for PIP and those already on it will face the new criteria when they are reassessed or there is a renewal. This will affect those with moderate impairments much harder.
- It is estimated that rather than the 250,000 losing benefits estimated by the government, the numbers that could lose PIP daily living will actually be 800,000. This means less support for care, machinery, extra living expenses, etc.
- If the person you are caring for loses PIP, family carers will lose carers’ allowance despite their continuing to provide support and assistance for family members with impairments. Also endangered is the carer element of UC; not all family carers get the carer’s allowance or UC carer’s element already.
- Young disabled people are especially hurt losing funding just as they enter adulthood. They will also face stricter rules to get PIP daily living and even though DLA continues for longer; they cannot get Universal Credit — Health Component until they are 22.
- The changes are creating stress and concern for disabled people which will impact their medical and mental health conditions.
- Finally, those with more significant and severe impairments already get far support; what are the gains from these new proposals?”
One really important point (thank you to Gail Ward who caught some errors) that is not often discussed is that the way the changes have been done, if you lose UC-Health, you will lose Housing Benefit, prescriptions, and Council Tax relief (those on benefits get some percent relief from council tax; this will be lost if you are not on UC. Finally, a new form of Unemployment Insurance will be created through the merger of Employment Support Allowance (ESA)and Job-Seekers Allowance (JSA) (which are contributory benefits) taken as part of National Insurance and are meant to be relating to short or medium term health conditions. This new unemployment insurance is slated to begin in 2028-29 and this new unemployment insurance would only exist for a limited period and will be at the higher rates of ESA (£138/wk). When it ends, those on it either will migrate onto UC if they are eligible or they will not be eligible for support.
From Pathways to Work … :
53. Unemployment insurance would be a new non-means tested entitlement for people who have contributed into the system. It would be created by replacing contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) with a new single entitlement, paid at the current ESA rate (currently £138pw) and will be time-limited. This would provide stronger income protection during periods of unemployment for those with a recent work record, while revitalising the ‘something-for-something’ contributory principle in the working-age system. People claiming this would be expected to actively seek work, with easements for those with work-limiting health conditions.
54. Alongside levelling up the rate, this change would end the indefinite entitlement to contributory ESA for those assessed as having limited capability for work-related activity (for new people claiming). Those unemployed after the time-limited period would be able to claim UC, depending on their personal circumstances. We believe this reform would align with the removal of the WCA, by offering a route to financial support for those with temporary and short-term health conditions, including for those who may not be entitled to PIP and therefore not entitled to the health element of UC.
It is important to note that this is not a dated discussion there is an ongoing “consultation” on some of the proposals relating to changes in benefits for disabled people, but not on all of the proposals (see Annex A for what is being consulted on and what is not and Annex B for further explanations of benefits available for disabled people). The “consultation” ends on 30th of June 2025 and many disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) like DPAC and Crips Against Cuts are protesting around the country.
Leeds and York DPAC Protest: 6th of May 2025
Some Economic and Ideology to Chew On: Employment, Growth and Productivity
What is important as well as there is something that is no longer alluded to as previously, but is openly stated by this Labour Party government. That is not their fixation with economic growth; every government has been harping on that since the 2007-8 economic crisis due to the fact that economies are stagnant in the advanced capitalist world despite continuing austerity from the Tories under David Cameron up until (and including) this Labour Party Government. While the Tory party complained about the lack of productivity of the British working class; refusing to recognise that the problem was due to insufficient capital investment and not something inherently “unproductive” about British workers (which is what the Tories said over and over again). Of course, it could never be the fault of “the Wealth Creators” (the capitalist ruling class, term loved by doyens of capitalism); it had to be the fault of the working class.
What we are seeing relating to productivity is one of the impacts of the neoliberal policy of driving down workers’ wages and conditions of work. This “race to the bottom” stagnated real and money wages and led to the destruction of working conditions – on their own, these policies will undermine workers’ productivity. Moreover, it will mean that capitalists will invest less in machinery and technology as wages are so cheap, which also reduces workers’ productivity (this is the process of capitalist competition at work). This is a wonderful “Catch 22” that neoliberalism has created for working people.
Every recent British government has harped on the level of non-participation of members of the working class as a problem behind economic stagnation, despite how absurd this argument is. According to this economic fairy tale, stagnation in the British economy is the fault of disabled people and family carers for childcare as well as care for disabled people and elderly people. That there is an insufficient amount and quality of social support and assistance to for disabled people (much of it has been privatised) and insufficient levels of affordable childcare (again see privatisation) is the reason why women (it is predominantly women as we saw during the covid pandemic) who fulfil the role of family carers. Yet, it is the fault of those who are unable to do their role to sell their ability to labour rather than trickle-down economic policies, rather than lack of wealth taxation, privatisation of social care and nurseries, and insufficient government investment in social care (and a coherent social care policy itself).
DPAC Poster
The Labour government has claimed to be supporting all workers in paid employment, so they have increased wages especially of those in the public sector (this was long overdue, they were stagnant for a very long period and there were extended strikes as well). But they are quite literal in whom they are helping; specifically those currently in paid employment. This includes many, if not all, on universal credit (UC) benefits. These people are in paid employment and earn low wages; this does include some, but not all, disabled people. People on UC benefits face sanctions if they do not fulfil their work-related activities. So, there is an attempt to deal with part of the productivity issue (low wages), the government have also said that they will eliminate involuntary zero-hours contracts , which are part of the attack on worker’s working conditions. Another example of the destruction of working conditions in both the UK and US is the forced self-employment so that employers do not have to pay national insurance (social security), benefits and holidays.
Universal credit (UC) benefits are means-tested, but their limit is £6000 for those unable to work and £16,000 who who can work. Universal credit in many senses is a subsidy to employers who can continue to pay low wages with overall income being topped up by UC. Productivity relating to increased introduction of technology or machinery to “assist” labour being productive, is not being addressed. So, the government cannot force capitalists to invest in machinery and technology in the production of goods and services; working class people are bearing the burden of low productivity and low wage incomes in a period of inflationary pressures.
So, this is an attempt by the government to increase employment in paid labour so as to increase output by forcing disabled people and family carers into work. As Marxists would say, this move by Labour to create capitalist growth is concerned with the production of absolute surplus value rather than relative surplus value.
Jeremy Bentham
There is a very strong ideological basis to this argument and it comes from the late 18th century thanks to Jeremy Bentham (who seems to be the last capitalist ideologue to openly say this). It derives from an understanding of class and the role of those who cannot survive on their wealth or those without wealth (i.e., the working class) to contribute to the “society” through selling their ability to labour.
What has become clear about the Labour Party and its policies is the continuation if the attacks against people they think are not contributing to the country; this ridiculous ideological perspective fundamentally is based on the idea that those without wealth must contribute to the country by providing their ability to labour. A discussion of what work is and people’s contributions to society is desperately needed as we are blaming people for being unable to live up to an argument written in the late 18th century and which is still in use to define social policy in the 21st century.
According to this argument, the working class have no other value to the society as a whole; if this sounds a bit old-fashioned, it is because the argument was originally put forward by Jeremy Bentham in his critique of the 1795-7 Poor Law Amendments which ensured that people would receive support from their parish appropriate to the size of the family and the price of bread which was an attempt to relieve rural poverty as agricultural labourers did not work the whole year (Speenhamland system). Bentham (one of the fathers of Classical Liberalism) opposed this system because he believed that the contribution of the poor was to provide their labour and giving them support rather than forcing them to work was a bad policy. When you hear arguments that work is good for people, that it contributes to their health as well as the assumption that people are lazy and dissolute and need to be forced to work to contribute to society, you can thank Bentham.
While Bentham had argued that disabled people and children were entitled to social support (he specifically said social support), he concluded that if they could work in workhouses, they would learn useful skills and contribute to society. When this ideology becomes part of social policy, it is an attack on disabled people and those “not contributing” to the society (read as capitalism). This is a clear example of the role of class in capitalist society; what the working class’s role is, and what it must do to be considered as contributing to the system.
A grotesque corollary to this argument is that “disabled people live off the hard work and wealth of society created by others, but don’t contribute anything themselves.” When said in this way, people with basic levels of morality correctly get uncomfortable as it is reminiscent of eugenics arguments about people that are “weakening our societies and bringing our societies down.” Remembering forced sterilisation of disabled people in the US (and elsewhere) and the murders of disabled people by the Nazis throughout WWII should make us stop and think. A revival of eugenic is a very dangerous thing for any society and we must fight against it.
The Social and Policies of the current Labour Party: Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall
From its campaign for the election and throughout its time in power, the Labour Party has been fixated with bringing economic growth to Britain (as though it has taken a holiday for some reason or didn’t like the climate). The reason why the economy is stagnant according to Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves (who supposedly is an economist, but has yet to read Keynes despite including the obviously Keynesian Joan Robinson in her book The Women who made Modern Economics … maybe Keynes is too liberal for her) is not due to the neoliberal and nonsensical trickle-down economic policies of successive British governments, but rather due to the fact that there are people in the country that are not contributing to the economy by working. They believe that the more people in work, the higher the level of economic growth.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves
Somehow, the economic policy makers in the Labour Party seem to have forgotten that Say’s Law (i.e., that saving determine investment in the capital markets or what is produced will be consumed in classical economic theory) doesn’t hold in the real world. Say’s Law assumes the realisation of profits; again, there is no evidence for in the real world either in the short, medium or long-term (this relates to the problems of uncertainty in production and realisation of profits and economic growth … but, we can pretend that doesn’t exist). Even if everyone was in employment, there is no guarantee that what is produced will be what is needed and demand sufficient so as to realise the potential profit contained in the output’s price, hence that will be reinvested, and that there will be economic growth (let’s ignore the NAIRU and natural rates of unemployment, blah, blah blah … again not important). Hurrah, let there be growth! Growth in the British economy has increased by 0.7% in the first quarter of 2025 unexpectedly … with all commensurate applause from the MSM (the EU grew by 0.3% ) – honestly this is evidence that we are talking about both the UK and the EU as essentially stagnant economies.
But that doesn’t deter Liz Kendall (the Secretary of State for Works and Pensions) and Rachel Reeves who have decided that for Britain to grow that they need to get everyone physically capable of working into paid employment. Thankfully, they do recognise that some disabled people are not physically or mentally capable of working; this is a relief as we already have a country where members of the government are in the second phase of preparing an assisted suicide bill and where eugenics had a clear link to the disproportional number of deaths of disabled people (especially women with impairments) during the covid pandemic.
People with mental health problems seem to be especially responsible somehow and unlike physically disabled people, they can actually do gig work. ln October 2024, Liz Kendall raised sending job counsellors into mental health institutions, there was some backlash … honestly, this is really not what you need when you are recovering from a mental health crisis and are sectioned. On the 17th of March 2025, Wes Streeting (Secretary of Health and Social Care) declared that mental health conditions are being over-diagnosed echoing a Tory party trope which many hoped we had seen the last of when the Tories lost the election … it seems not.
The Labour Party seems to have decided that the way to ensure growth is to find out why some people are not working in different areas of England and has tasked governments in local areas to find out what jobs exist and what skills are needed, and then to try to get disabled people, their family support and assistance, and those not working to care for their children into paid work. While the government has promised more available childcare so women can work; their plans on ensuring it as it will be done by the private sector is questionable. They argue that if these areas are then aggregated across the country, this then will mean that there will be economic growth as the number of people employed in each area has risen (you cannot make this up).
According to both Liz Kendall and Rachel Reeves benefits for disabled people are too easy to obtain and that disabled people who are out of paid employment are desperate to be in work and that somehow the benefit system is preventing them. Liz Kendall actually refused to apologise for misleading Members of Parliament introducing her Pathways to Work paper when she actually said that cuts to PIP are being done to get people into work; PIP is open to those in and out of work. Moreover, neither of them seems to understand that many disabled people are in paid employment and that their PIP benefits enable them to actually be in work. Making it harder to get PIP will mean that some disabled people in work will lose their ability to work.
Somehow, Reeves has convinced herself that the Labour Party’s concerns are for working class people in paid employment, but not for working class people that are not in paid employment due to their age (changes to the Winter Fuel Allowance and on WASPI women demanding compensation for Tories forcing them to work longer and no way to supplement their pension; the Labour Party said too bad), if they have impairments (they are disabled by the society), if they are caring (offering support and assistance) for their family members that have impairments or if that are caring for their children.
Let me be clear, if disabled people want to be in work, I am happy for the government to ensure that this is possible by forcing employers to make reasonable adjustments (which are required by law if you are hiring disabled people). I also do think that the proposal that disabled people can try to work and will not lose benefits if they decide that it is not something they can do without difficulties is a good one. But one problem with the “race to the bottom” (that is lowering wages and destroying working conditions) is that wages are so low that it is actually more expensive to hire disabled people who may not be as productive and will cost employers more.
Secretary of State for Works and Pensions, Liz Kendall
On the 28th of March, Liz Kendall introduced her ideas for reforming benefits to get people into work. This was to support the Green Paper consultation introduced by Reeves as the Spring Statement where already the amount for those that received Universal Credit Health component had already been frozen at £97/pw for those on it and reduced (£47p/w) for those that are new applicants; both amounts are frozen until 2029. This component is given as a means-tested benefit for disabled people (see the section on reforms and getting people into work). For those on standard UC, benefits (remember they must be fulfilling a work agreement to avoid sanctions), they will increase the amount received to £106/pw and it will be linked to inflation in the future. So yes, if you work in the land of the current Labour Party, you will be treated better than those who are not working. However, this is creating divisions among benefits claimants with different treatment depending on whether you are in work or not.
Some conclusions on a nightmare
As said above, Reeves and Kendall’s reforms actually make the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) daily support component harder to get (as you need to score higher than what was required previously) and has even greater impact, since having PIP is a requirement for getting carer’s allowance. If you lose PIP, your financial assistance for family support is discontinued (so carer’s allowance is gone despite your family still providing support and assistance). Younger people not being able to get UC-H until they are 22 and having to be enrolled in Youth training in education, work, or training will impact disabled young people. Even more, many disabled people who are in paid employment use their PIP to be in employment. Making it harder to obtain means rather than staying in paid employment, they will have to leave it. This punishment of those on PIP and newer claimants applying for UC-H (receiving half the amount of those already on it) means that incomes are not secure if the education, training and work youth initiative just doesn’t work for young disabled people from 18-21. Moreover, if these young disabled people lose the UC-H, they also lose housing benefits, prescriptions and council tax relief.
What has become clear about the Labour Party and its policies is the continuation if the attacks against people they think are not contributing to the country; this ridiculous ideological perspective fundamentally is based on the idea that those without wealth must contribute to the country by providing their ability to labour. It is long past time that a re-evaluation of the definition of work needs to be done. We need also to talk about what contribution to our society actually means. Both of these terms are loaded with capitalist meaning and are buried in class divisions and class warfare and relate to class societies like capitalism. We must do better, this way brings despair, alienation and non-acknowledgement of the worth of all people. Our society must be greater than the capitalist economic system and its values.
