Good News: Our Grandchildren Will Starve, Not Our Children
The most extreme climate scenarios are off, according to scientists in the conservative IPCC. However, the Godfather of Climate Science says otherwise.
Good news from The Times: our grandchildren will starve to death rather than our children. The new worst case is just 3.5C. Phew.
Firstly, let’s remember what a 3.5C world actually means.
Mass food system collapse, particularly in the Global South.
Vast areas of Africa, South and West Asia will become uninhabitable within the lifetimes of people already born. Translation: billions will die from impending poverty and disaster.
That is what this headline is supposedly reassuring us of.
Secondly, this report is not telling the truth about the science because it is based on outdated models. Even Trump jumped on it to advance his end-times fascist agenda.
To understand why both Trump and the Times are deeply wrong about where we are heading, let’s turn to the godfather of climate science, James Hansen, and look at one of his latest papers on climate sensitivity.
In May 2025, Hansen published a paper on Earth’s albedo (the reflectivity of solar radiation bounced back into space). Over the past 25 years of precise satellite data, Earth’s albedo has declined by 0.5%, leading to an increase of 1.7 watts per square metre of absorbed solar energy. Hansen describes this as a BFD (Big Fucking Deal), and he is right. That single number, in forcing terms, is equivalent to an additional 138 parts per million of CO2.
Clouds reflect sunlight back into space. Fewer clouds, or thinner clouds, means more solar energy reaches the surface and stays there. As the planet warms, evidence now shows that cloud cover is decreasing and, crucially, that this decrease is itself a response to warming. In other words, warming reduces clouds, which in turn cause more warming, which further reduces clouds. This is what climate scientists mean by a feedback loop, and this one is a fucking big one.
And a big cloud feedback means the planet is far more sensitive to CO2 than the IPCC’s standard figures suggest. The IPCC’s best estimate for climate sensitivity — the amount of warming you get from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 — is 3°C. Hansen’s three independent lines of evidence (of which the albedo data is one), all point to 4.5°C. The difference between 3°C and 4.5°C is the difference between devastation and extinction.
The corporate media has barely engaged with this work, and when it has, it has often cast doubt on its truth. At the end of the climate sensitivity paper, Hansen notes:
“Criticisms of the Acceleration paper in the media did not address the physics in our three assessments of climate sensitivity. Instead, criticisms were largely ad hoc opinions, even ad hominem attacks. How can science reporting have descended to this level? Climate science is now so complex, with many sub-disciplines, that the media must rely on opinions of climate experts. Although there are thousands of capable scientists in these disciplines, the media have come to depend on a handful of scientists, a clique of climate scientists who are willing, or even eager, to be the voice of the climate science community. But are they representative of the total community, of capable scientists who focus on climate science?”
The Problem of Fragmented Science
A key problem of scientific understanding is that it requires slicing reality into manageable chunks. Take “the doubling of CO2.” The slice aids understanding but paradoxically kills it too. Attending to the part deflects attention from the whole. Space. Time. The full arc of what’s coming.
So when Hansen and colleagues write that climate sensitivity for doubled CO2 is 4.5°C, and that sensitivity as low as 3°C is excluded with greater than 99 percent confidence — they stop there. Slice completed. No return to the whole. No wonder the media shrugs. So what.
Here’s the whole.
Doubling CO2 means going from 280ppm to 560ppm. We’re at 420ppm now. At current trajectory — roughly 40ppm additional per decade — we hit 560ppm around 2055. That’s 4.5°C by roughly 2060. Not 2100. 2060. Hansen also shows Earth’s albedo has already darkened by 0.5%, an extra 1.7 W/m² of absorbed solar energy. The system is already running hotter than the models admit.
Time doesn’t stop at 2060. At those temperatures, natural feedbacks (clouds, ice, permafrost) accelerate. There is no equilibrium, only continuation.
Above 5°C, effective human extinction is locked in. We are on that path.
Facts alone don’t move humans. Emotion does. We are human, after all. So the headline that would actually communicate the whole truth? “We are all going to die, you fucking idiots.”
In my recent paper with the 4 Billion Dead team, we examine what an All Systems Approach could look like to counter this fragmented thinking.
Article by Stephen Prager republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
Displaced Palestinians, including many children, wait in long queues to receive hot meals distributed by a charitable organization in Gaza City, Gaza, Palestine on June 7, 2026. (Photo by Moiz Salhi/Anadolu via Getty Images)
“Aid is not a political tool and should not be weaponized in this way,” said an advocate at Save the Children. “The survival and needs of children in Gaza should not have to answer to airstrikes elsewhere.”
In an act described as “collective punishment” against two million Palestinians, Israel announced that it would close off the main entry points for humanitarian aid into Gaza indefinitely in retaliation for strikes launched this weekend by Iran.
Iran launched missiles at Israel on Sunday in response to Israel’s bombing of a densely populated Beirut suburb, which killed civilians and violated a June 1 agreement not to bomb Lebanon’s capital.
In addition to retaliating with new strikes on Iran, Israel’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) said on Sunday that “a number of necessary security measures have been implemented” following the missile fire, “including the closure of the crossings into the Gaza Strip, among them the Kerem Shalom Crossing and the Rafah Crossing, until further notice.”
COGAT claimed that closing the crossings “will not affect the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip” because “the substantial quantities of food that have entered the strip since the beginning of the ceasefire significantly exceed the nutritional needs of the population, according to [United Nations] methodologies.”
Contrary to this statement from COGAT, the UN report at this link https://t.co/2VNcUn8cBA shows clearly that the supply of food and water is precarious indeed.#Israel is responding to being restrained from killing Iranians by killing more civilians in #Gaza. https://t.co/ncjG2DR4bP
That is not what actual UN reports say. The World Food Program (WFP) estimated in June that about 1.6 million people living in Gaza, more than three-quarters of the population, were “facing high levels of acute food insecurity” despite the entry of food parcels and other aid since the October 2025 “ceasefire” between Israel and Hamas.
In the first half of May, UN workersidentified more than 2,000 cases of acute malnutrition among young children, according to a June report from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
That same OCHA report said about 678,000 hot meals were delivered in May, down from 1.5 million per day in mid-March as a result of underfunding and due to Israel’s closures and restrictions at certain entry points. The number of people receiving food parcels in May also dropped to about 820,000, down from 1.1 million in March. The rations that were distributed in May covered only about 75% of the average person’s minimum daily caloric needs, while those distributed in March covered about 50%.
While the amount of aid entering the strip has increased since the ceasefire went into effect, UN data has never suggested that the amount entering “exceeds” the needs of Palestinians. Since the truce began, reports haveconsistentlysaid the amount of aid entering the strip was only reaching part of the population, and that aid packages only contained part of the needed nutritional value, which did not meet the terms of the agreement.
Israel, which has been accused of using starvation as a “weapon of war” against Gaza by UN bodies and major human rights groups, previously closed all crossings into the strip at the start of its military assault against Iran in late February.
This not only halted the entry of food and medical aid but also blocked medical evacuations for sick and injured Palestinians, which were desperately needed due to Israel’s destruction of Gaza’s medical system. Even as entry points reopened in the following weeks, aid entry never returned to previous levels.
COGAT said on Monday that “the crossings will be reopened gradually, subject to an ongoing operational assessment and under security restrictions designed to ensure the safety of all personnel present at the crossings on both sides,” though it provided no clear timeframe or indication of how much aid would be allowed in.
“Aid is not a political tool and should not be weaponized in this way. The survival and needs of children in Gaza should not have to answer to airstrikes elsewhere,” said Ahmad Alhendawi, Save the Children’s regional director for the Middle East, North Africa, and Eastern Europe in a statement on Monday.
“For nearly three years, Gaza has been pummelled so hard by Israeli airstrikes that nothing can grow there and people have been reliant on the already small amount of aid crossing the border—aid that was never enough and is now totally out of reach,” he added. “Children in Gaza have already been starved by design. They should not now be denied water, medicine, shelter, and the other essentials needed to survive. The Israeli authorities must re-open these crossings immediately, lift the siege, and facilitate the safe delivery of humanitarian aid at scale.”
BREAKING: Israel has closed all crossings into Gaza and halted the entry of humanitarian aid following the Iranian missile strikes on Israel.
Why do Palestinians in Gaza have to pay the price for Iranian missiles?
With Israeli leaders openly stating their goal in recent weeks to expand the nation’s occupation of Gaza despite the ceasefire, international observers have suggested that Israel was using the escalation of hostilities with Iran as an excuse to ramp up its brutal treatment of Palestinians, nearly 1,000 of whom have been killed in the strip since the ceasefire went into effect.
The US-brokered ceasefire agreement signed by Israel and Hamas in October required the “full entry of humanitarian aid and relief” into the strip.
“The guarantors of the ceasefire must step in and force Israel to reopen the crossings, resume and triple the aid amounts, and totally stop any attacks on Gaza now,” said Palestinian journalist Abubaker Abed. “This is their job. And they must uphold the ceasefire agreement.”
Article by Stephen Prager republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
Keir Starmer explains that UK is actively supporting Israel’s genocidal expansion and repeats his previous quotation that he supports Zionism “without qualification”. Keir Starmer said “I said it loud and clear – and meant it – that I support Zionism without qualification.” here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/keir-starmer-interview-i-will-work-to-eradicate-antisemitism-from-day-one/Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.Orcas discuss Genocide-supporting and complicit Zionists. Donald Trump, Keith Starmer, David Lammy, Rachel Reeves, Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting are acknowledged as evil genocide-complicit and supporting cnuts.
Protesters march to the US Embassy in solidarity with the Palestinian people in London on 15 February 2025. WIktor Szymanowicz/NurPhoto
Palestine is on the ballot.
Over half of former Labour voters who intend to back other centre or leftwing parties in the next general election cite the Labour government’s handling of the ongoing genocide in Gaza as either a factor or a major factor in their decision, new polling shows.
Of 700 UK adults surveyed in the new poll from Opinium, 53% said the government’s position on Gaza influenced their decision to switch their vote from Labour, with 21% saying it influenced them a great deal and 31% saying it influenced them somewhat.
Labour’s record on Gaza was found to be particularly significant for younger voters and Green party supporters, and backing for the UK to take decisive action against Israel polled as widespread.
Commissioned by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the polling was conducted between 29 May and 2 June among people who previously voted Labour in either the 2019 or 2024 general election, and now intend to vote Green, Lib Dem, Scottish National Party (SNP), Plaid Cymru or other – or for independent candidates.
PSC told Novara Media the polling “confirms that Palestine was on the ballot for millions of progressive voters” during May’s local elections, where Labour lost 58% of the seats it was defending in England and lost almost four times as many voters to the Greens than to Reform UK.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone object to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities, mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.Vote Labour for Genocide.Orcas discuss Genocide-supporting and complicit Zionists. Donald Trump, Keith Starmer, David Lammy, Rachel Reeves, Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting are acknowledged as evil genocide-complicit and supporting cnuts.
Kicking out Palantir, experts warn, may not solve the problems its Federated Data Platform has created.
NHS England’s Federated Data Platform, run primarily by controversial US military contractor Palantir, would give a future UK government the ability to use patients’ healthcare data to unleash unprecedented mass surveillance, experts and technologists have warned openDemocracy.
“We have already seen in the US how Palantir’s reach into so many different areas of government has allowed it to build a system that provides detailed profiles of people to enable ICE raids,” said Duncan McCann of the Good Law Project, referring to how President Donald Trump’s mass deportation programme has used Palantir’s tools. “The exact same thing is being enabled by the integration of Palantir into the UK public sector.”
This risk is only exacerbated by the fact that nearly three years after Palantir was awarded the £330m contract to run the FDP, it remains unclear what patient data it gathers, on what basis and to what end. Despite this, 69% of regional NHS Trusts have already adopted the platform, which provides the health service with a new operating system intended to link up otherwise unconnected databases and disparate software across different NHS services and regions.
This lack of clarity was laid bare this week, when the UK’s cross-party Science, Innovation and Technology Committee urged the government to break the NHS’s contract with Palantir. Its report contained a stark recommendation to the government: reveal “the exact nature of Palantir’s access to identifiable and non-identifiable patient data, on what statutory basis this was authorised, when, and by whom.”
McCann and the Good Law Project are part of an unusually wide coalition demanding the UK cut ties with Palantir, but technologists who have worked closely on the FDP warn that the genie is now out of the bottle; kicking the US giant out of the NHS may not be enough to solve the data privacy problems its Federated Data Platform has created.
“You know you could pull Palantir out,” Tom Bartlett, an NHS technologist who worked on the FDP and has spoken publicly in favour of the project, told openDemocracy. “But the danger remains.”
“You still might get a government that says, ‘We need to have the data from the NHS and the data from the Home Office connected, and we want to use it for the purpose of denying people healthcare or deporting people or whatever’.”
Coalition of Resistance
To understand how deeply Palantir is enmeshed in the UK’s public sector, consider the coalition opposed to it.
NHS data analysts and chief data and analytical officers have spoken out against the FDP. The British Medical Association, a union representing doctors and medical students, has urged GPs to reject it. The Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board, which oversees NHS services for 2.8 million people, has refused to sign up to the platform, claiming outstanding security risks haven’t been addressed, and that it has better technology in-house.
It’s not just the NHS, either. London’s mayor has blocked a £50m Palantir contract with the Metropolitan Police, arguing that it was improperly awarded. The housing ministry replaced a Palantir system to match British hosts with Ukrainian refugees with its own technology. In Coventry, local politicians and unions are protesting the renewal of a £750,000 Palantir contract with the council’s children’s services department. Financial Conduct Authority employees are seeking to orchestrate a cross-union campaign against a 12-week trial contract with Palantir that they fear could expose the UK’s sensitive financial data to US law enforcement authorities.
“Our pilot with Palantir allows the Met for the first time to bring together data it already lawfully holds in one place to identify potential standards, welfare or cultural concerns,” said a spokesperson for The Met over email. “It also allows us to identify early issues so we can act more fairly and consistently, ensuring officers receive support or face appropriate action before problems escalate.” In April, Met officers expressed outrage at the “intrusive” use of Palantir’s technology to assess them for misconduct.
The Financial Conduct Authority’s contract with Palantir involves testing an AI search tool for its data. “The data used in the trial will be fully encrypted and under our control,” wrote a spokesperson for the regulator over email. “No-one is able to access the unencrypted data without our authorisation.”
Coventry City Council did not respond to questions about its Palantir contract.
He co-founded the company with $2 million from the venture capital arm of the CIA in the early 2000s, when the failure to prevent 9/11 was being debated across Washington and Silicon Valley. It was suspected, and would be confirmed by the public report a year later, that the CIA, the FBI, and the National Security Agency had separately held the data required to have foreseen the terror attacks, but had “failed to connect the dots”.
That finding has since been the basis of much of Palantir’s success. It argues that governments, militaries, law enforcement authorities and businesses already have much of the data they need to make decisions, but that it is not readily available in the forms needed.
Palantir, it tells them, is the solution.
“The actual thing that’s difficult is organising all your data together,” Alex Bores, a member of the New York State Assembly and a former Palantir employee turned critic, told The New York Times. “That requires hard work, and there’s no magic to do that yet. The software, plus engineers going on site and doing a lot of that hard work to do the manual hookups, was always going to be the true source of value.”
Databasing the Nation
In the NHS, Palantir’s work involves organising, hooking up, and streamlining vast troves of patient data currently scattered across, by one count, 44,000 healthcare IT systems in 26,000 organisations. “The fragmentation is absolutely massive,” said Bartlett, who helped build the FDP. “There’s all this information, and it’s all sat in different pockets.”
Palantir’s solution has two layers. Bartlett describes one layer as an “operating system” analogous to the software that runs your iPhone, which will allow NHS Trusts and third-party developers to create applications (or what Palantir calls “products”) that allow for efficiency gains. An ambulance crew, for example, could input information about an accident victim to a product that would pass it onto the hospital, so that “the A&E department could prepare, rather than being sort of hit in the face” with information when the ambulance arrives, he said.
Yet, much like how your iPhone decisively locks you into the ecosystem of Apple products, running this system efficiently requires as much of the NHS as possible to sign on to the Palantir system – something experts call “vendor lock-in” – and to draw on a staggering library of data held across the health service.
The FDP’s public documentation reveals that the platform is already in the process of ingesting several hundred databases, covering a vast array of variables that include mental healthcare contact activity, mortality, flu vaccination status, covid vaccination status, emergency services data, race and ethnicity, aggregated data for persons held in secure mental health facilities in adult prisons and immigration removal centres, and much more.
As the cross-party committee of MPs noted in their report last week, there is little clarity around exactly what data will make it into the FDP, and how it will be accessed. The debate around patient data held by GP practices offers a useful illustration.
Back in 2023, the then secretary of state for health and social care, Victoria Atkins, told the House of Commons: “No new data will be collected, and GP data will not be part of the national platform.” However, an NHS FAQ page last updated in April 2026 admits that “some of the data” in the FDP “may have been sourced from GP records”, and GP data lawfully shared with NHS trusts that use the FDP could end up on the platform.
More worryingly, the FDP uses all this data to create detailed profiles of individual patients that it calls the ‘Person Ontology’. To quote from an NHS Data Protection Impact Assessment: “The Person Ontology serves as the single source of the truth for pseudonymised patient level datasets”.
Elsewhere, the document says that “the Person Ontology currently holds activity data for citizens in different care settings”, explaining that the platform assigns individual patients a unique ID that can be cross-referenced across multiple databases.
The NHS says that as the data held in the FDP is pseudonymised, it does not directly identify individuals. But pseudonymisation, as has been pointed out by the Information Commissioner’s Office, the UK’s data protection watchdog, is a reversible process. “Take care not to confuse pseudonymisation with anonymisation,” the ICO warns.
A person’s healthcare data is their “most intimate information,” said a spokesperson and legal officer at Privacy International, a UK-based charity focusing on technology and rights. “We’re talking about the breadth of the data, how personal it is, and the severity of what could be done with it if it were to land in the wrong hands.”
Big Data Means Big Brother
Consolidating so much data brings very real risks of surveillance, say those familiar with the platform, particularly since Palantir also holds contracts with police forces in the UK. In principle, all that’s stopping the Home Office from accessing NHS data are legal safeguards that can be reversed.
Here in the UK, Palantir UK CEO Louis Mosley has said that if Nigel Farage’s Reform comes into power, the company will follow the party’s professed directives to use NHS data to target individuals based on their immigration status.
Such a scenario played out in the US when Trump first became president in 2016, as Bores, the former Palantir employee, told The New York Times.
“Palantir had signed a contract with a department within ICE called HSI, Homeland Security Investigations. During the Obama administration, it was focused on anti-human trafficking, anti-drug trafficking, sometimes counterfeiting,” Bores said. “Then, when Trump comes in in 2017, they try to change the nature of that work. They try to get another part of ICE called ERO, Enforcement and Removal Operations – the part that everyone thinks of as ICE – to get access to the software and to use it for deportations.”
In the US, Palantir already uses data from the Department of Health and Human Services to track people targeted for deportation by ICE. Here in the UK, junior doctor Rhiannon Mihranian Osborne, who is organising against Palantir in the NHS with health justice organisation Medact, described what she said was a disturbing pattern: “Reform’s policy ‘Operation Restoring Justice’ wants to create a powerful immigration surveillance system by mining data from health, police and financial databases. Louis Mosley said his company would comply with this.
“Palantir’s police contracts in the UK include collating highly sensitive information on victims of crime, including sexual orientation and trade union membership. The home secretary says she wants to create a panopticon of state surveillance. The synergy between Palantir and governments who use data to abuse human rights is deeply alarming, and a sign of what could be coming in the UK.”
This is a real risk, conceded Bartlett. “Let’s take [a] Reform government and the immigration question coming in, I do worry about that scenario,” he said – but he questioned whether that means the NHS doesn’t need a Federated Data Platform. “So is the answer to that bad scenario playing out to keep the data in such a bad state that nobody could ever use it at all for good or bad?”
Palantir, NHS England, the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and Social Care and The Reform Party did not respond to requests for comment.
Critics of the FDP, however, have pushed back against what they see as a narrative that the NHS’s systems are so hopelessly complex and tangled that the only way to solve them is with a mass surveillance tool built by Palantir.
“There’s no magic here,” Sam Smith, a technologist with patient rights organisation medConfidential, said of the FDP. “It’s not like Palantir is doing anything that other people can’t do… They’re just doing the thing because they have the mythos that they can do the thing.”
Andrew Holway, the founder of UK-based medical software startup Darwinist, told the cross-party committee that “the primary barrier to NHS innovation” is mega contracts with companies such as Palantir. These, he said, hold the NHS “hostage, preventing the implementation of modern productivity tools that could save tens of billions of pounds”.
Some in the NHS have also questioned whether the service has tried different approaches that are less intrusive and data-centric. The NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board, for instance, uses its own Analytics and Data Science Platform because it believes it offers better technology and access to better data.
“Public trust isn’t a side issue for the Federated Data Platform,” wrote Matt Hennessey, the chief data and analytics officer at Manchester Integrated Care Board, in a post on LinkedIn. He outlined the “effect that ethical concern, moral unease or perceived opacity has on trust–and, in turn, on participation.”
The platform’s “main problem is that it isn’t clear what it actually is,” he wrote. “Where trust is eroded, people disengage, patients opt out, and clinicians become cautious about involvement.”
Ultimately, as Osborne said, “any NHS data system must be built on public trust, buy-in from staff, and most importantly, protection from abuse by private corporations and governments themselves”.
A general view of staff on a NHS hospital ward at Ealing Hospital in London
Campaigners slam conflict of interest over top health official’s Palantir ties at time of NHS bidding
HEALTH campaigners demanded the government put an end to the “dizzying revolving door of corruption” after it was revealed today that a top health official had close ties with Palantir while it was bidding for a £330 million contract with the NHS.
Samantha Jones, the Department of Health and Social Care’s most senior civil servant, was an adviser to a partner of the controversial US surveillance tech firm at the time of the patient record contract.
A permanent secretary at the DHSC, Ms Jones was also acting as an adviser to health consultancy Carnall Farrar, which is part of a consortium with Palantir, according to the Financial Times.
Keep Our NHS Public co-chairman Dr Tony O’Sullivan slammed the government, saying: “The revolving door of official corruption is dizzying.”
“It is important to expose it,” he told the Morning Star. “The links — between public servants, consultancies who advise both Palantir and government at the same time — stink of legal corruption.
“The stables must be swept clean, unethical links exposed, the Palantir contract ended, and a change of direction established to invest wholly and ethically in the publicly provided NHS.”
VICTIM BLAMING: Former health secretary Alan Milburn speaks to the media on the publication of the interim Milburn Report into Young People and Work, at West Library Youth Employment Hub, north London
The Milburn review presents itself as a plan to help young people into work, but Dr DYLAN MURPHY argues it is laying the groundwork for a harsher benefits regime
THE publication of the interim report of the Milburn review into young people and work represents a sinister milestone in the ongoing neoliberal assault on the British welfare state.
Framed as a “discovery phase” to address the rising numbers of young people who are not in education, employment, or training (Neet), the report is a highly ideological document. It does not seek to understand or alleviate the profound, systemic barriers that keep sick and disabled young people out of the labor market. Instead, it serves as the vanguard for a punitive campaign of benefit cuts, increased conditionality, and state-sponsored coercion.
As a disabled person who has first-hand experience of the relentless hostility of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) towards disabled people claiming benefits, I find the contents of this report both terrifying and entirely predictable.
Rather than addressing the catastrophic collapse of the National Health Service, the sparsity of youth mental health services, or the structural refusal of employers to accommodate disabled workers, Alan Milburn has chosen to blame the victims. The report is a masterclass in political distraction, designed to prepare the public for a brutal tightening of the screws on some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
Redefining PIP: disability support as labour market discipline
One of the most alarming aspects of the Milburn review is its aggressive attempt to redefine the purpose of the personal independence payment (PIP). Since its inception as the replacement for the disability living allowance (DLA), PIP has been understood as a non-means-tested benefit designed to help disabled people meet the extra costs of living with a long-term health condition or disability.
It was never intended as an out-of-work benefit; it is paid regardless of employment status, because disabled people face additional costs whether they work or not.
Yet, Milburn laments this design as a systemic failure. He complains bitterly: “At no point in a young person’s application or journey on PIP are they asked about, or supported to, work. This is not an accident of delivery. It is how PIP is designed.”
By framing the lack of work-focus in PIP as a “design flaw,” Milburn is paving the way for the benefit to be subjected to conditionality. If the state begins to demand “work-focused” outcomes as a condition for receiving PIP, it will destroy the benefit’s role as a financial safety net, leaving millions of disabled youth in poverty.
The concept of PIP as an “investment” for which there must be a “return” is a recurring theme throughout the report. Milburn complains that the state spends £8 billion a year on PIP and universal credit (UC) for young people, yet “for that investment, claimants are getting worse outcomes.”
This is the barbaric language of venture capitalism applied to human survival. To demand a financial “return” on the money spent to keep disabled people alive is the height of neoliberal depravity.
Keir Starmer says that the Labour Party under his leadership is intensely relaxed about assaulting those least able to defend themselves – the very poorest and most vulnerable.
A general view of staff on a NHS hospital ward at Ealing Hospital in London
