A protest in London last month against changes to benefits. The government says the severe conditions criteria will provide ‘peace of mind’. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing/Getty Images
Exclusive: Charities say planned universal credit changes fail to account for progressive or fluctuating conditions
“Huge swathes” of severely disabled people will be hit by the planned universal credit cuts, contrary to government claims that they will be protected, charities say.
Organisations including Scope, Z2K and the MS Society say the legislation, which is due to be voted on again by MPs on Wednesday, fails to account for disabilities if they are progressive or fluctuating.
The clause in the bill said to shield the most severely disabled and ill people from reassessment and the new lower benefit rate – known as the severe conditions criteria (SCC) – will only do so if a claimant meets a number of strict requirements, including that a health condition must be constant.
It means people with severe illnesses that vary with symptoms day to day, such as Parkinson’s, bipolar and multiple sclerosis, could be put on to the reduced universal credit rate despite being too ill to seek employment.
“Contrary to government claims, we have real fears that many disabled people with lifelong conditions that severely impact their daily lives will not in fact be protected from the cuts,” said Ayla Ozmen, the director of policy and campaigns at the anti-poverty charity Z2K.
“The protections have a very narrow definition – as drafted, they will only apply where someone is seriously affected by their condition at all times. Based on our experience, this will likely exclude huge swathes of disabled people, including those who have fluctuating conditions but who everyone would agree have high support needs. We’re calling on the government to drop these damaging cuts and go back to the drawing board.”
Keir Starmer says that the Labour Party under his leadership all feel a small part of Scunthorpe.Keir Starmer confirms that he’s proud to be a red Tory continuing austerity and targeting poor and disabled scum.
Exhausted from a long campaign but buoyed by an extraordinary victory, Keir Starmer stood on the steps of Downing Street just over one year ago to deliver his victory speech. “Your government,” the new prime minister said, “should treat every single person in this country with respect.”
This message of respect resonated strongly in the year leading up to the campaign, coming as close as anything to providing a central argument to Labour’s case for government. And, according to polling and focus groups that my team at UCL Policy Lab designed along with polling company More in Common, it seemed to work.
As our research at the time showed, voters felt that “respecting ordinary people” was the most important attribute that any politician could have, more important than having ideas for the future, managing effectively or having real experience. And they thought Starmer was the leader who displayed that respect most.
A year later, the picture looks quite different. In new polling, we asked a representative sample of over 7,000 people to evaluate the government one year on. On respect, the judgement has not been good.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
During the general election campaign, 41% of the electorate said that they believed that Starmer “respected people like them”. One year on, that stands at only 24%. At the same time, the number who say that he does not respect them has risen from 32% to 63%. Starmer is now outstripped on that question by Nigel Farage – 33% say the Reform UK leader respects people like them.
Losing support
This view has had crucial political consequences. Of those who voted for Labour in the general election, only 60% of our respondents say they would vote for the party in an election held tomorrow.
And that is not because some other political party is suddenly swooping in for their supporters. Labour’s voters are defecting in a host of different directions: 11% say they would vote Reform; 8% would vote Liberal Democrat; 4% would vote Green and 4% would vote Conservative. A further one in ten say they simply don’t know how they would vote.
Labour’s losses have been most dramatic among their first-time voters. Of those who voted for Labour in 2024 but not in any other general election since 2010, barely a third still support the party, while a fifth would vote for Reform UK.
These political failures, our report contends, are directly related to the declining sense of respect. The top reason voters gave for turning away from Labour are the broken promises and U-turns made by Labour in government, followed by the party’s failure to reduce the cost of living and changes to the winter fuel payment.
The idea of “respect” being key to the public’s sense of whether a government is on their side or not has been growing for many years now, both in academia and in politics itself. Since at least the 2007/8 financial crisis there has been a sense that large swathes of the public feel neglected, overlooked and even disdained by those who govern them.
When people talk about wanting to see “change” in Britain, this is often what they mean. It was a theme I touched on recently in two books, Out of the Ordinary and, with my co-author Tom Baldwin, England.
Just over a year ago, a happier Starmer delivers his victory speech. Shutterstock
But respect is not just an abstract idea. People appear to judge whether they are respected by those who govern them or not primarily on the basis of whether the government stands up for them against powerful vested interests.
Our earlier research demonstrated that there is a widespread sense among the British public that certain groups have had it too easy for too long. This is either because they have been able to intimidate the government, or because government ministers and advisers have themselves been recruited from among these groups.
In our new report, therefore, we see that the new government’s most popular act was their willingness to raise the minimum wage by £1,400 in April, against the objections of some in business who suggested that such a move was too burdensome on them.
Changes to the winter fuel allowance and proposed changes to the disability benefits system, on the other hand, registered poorly. They suggest that the interests of ordinary and vulnerable people count for too little in decision-making.
These judgements currently shape the mood of the country and probably top the list of issues that the government now needs to address. There is still time for the government to rebuild its appeal, of course. Indeed, our respondents who said they would vote for Labour said they would do so because the party needs more time to fix the problems they inherited.
But as it seeks to do so, voters will want to know who this government stands for. Whose interests does it put first? What kind of people does it respect?
Much of the electorate thought they knew the answer to these questions one year ago. Now they’re not so sure.
Marc Stears, Director of UCL Policy Lab and Professor of Political Science, UCL
Keir Starmer says that the Labour Party under his leadership all feel a small part of Scunthorpe.Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone obect 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.Keir Starmer chases Nigel Farage’s racist bigot vote.
The government’s landmark bill on welfare reform passed by 335 to 260 votes on Tuesday evening, after staving off a major rebellion from Labour MPs. To win over backbench MPs who had opposed the bill, the government made a series of concessions, including a last-minute compromise agreeing that any changes to personal independence payment (Pip) will not be introduced until the outcome of a review.
In March, the government introduced the universal credit and personal independence bill. The aim was to create a sustainable welfare system in response to changing demographics and population health.
In recent years, the UK has seen an increase in people claiming benefits for long-term health conditions, with one in ten people of working age claiming a sickness or disability benefit. Welfare expenditure has increased, and is projected to be £70 billion a year by the end of the parliament.
Recalibrating the welfare system is not an easy task. The government has said reform is needed to support those with highest needs and assist more people into work. However, critics of the bill, raised concerns that it would result in an overly restrictive disability benefits system and push more people into poverty.
Here’s what’s the bill initially proposed and what was changed ahead of the vote.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Personal independence payment
The bill initially proposed significant changes to personal independence payments (Pip) from November 2026. Pip is a working-age benefit to help people with the costs associated with a long-term health condition or disability. It has two elements, a daily living component and a mobility component.
A points-based system is used to assess eligibility for Pip. Currently, to qualify for the daily living component a claimant must have limited ability in relation to a range of ten activities. These include washing and bathing, dressing and undressing, eating and drinking and managing medication or therapy.
Eight to 11 points leads to qualification for the standard rate and over 12 points for the enhanced rate. On the current system, a claimant can score one or two points across a range of activities, it doesn’t matter how the points are made up.
In March, the government announced that from November 2026, claimants will need to score at least four points on at least one of the ten activities to qualify. The amount of points available ranges from zero to 12, depending on the activity.
Critics argued that this places the bar at too high a level, making it more difficult for people whose health problems are spread across a range of activities, rather than meeting the criteria in one.
Needing assistance managing medication is one area where Pip points are measured. Yuri A/Shutterstock
Concerns were raised that this change could disproportionately affect people with mental health problems. Research shows that previous changes to Pip have caused uncertainty and anxiety for many people with mental health problems.
Typically if the help required relates to being reminded or encouraged to compete a task, only two points are awarded. This can be a common way for people with mental health problems to qualify for Pip, including those with severe conditions such as bipolar disorder. It is estimated that between 800,000 and 1.2 million people would have lost entitlement to Pip under the four-point proposal.
After it became clear that dozens of Labour MPs planned to vote against the bill, the work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, announced a concession on the Pip proposals. First, that four-point rule should only apply to new claimants, with people already in receipt of Pip remaining within the current rules. Second, there will be a review of the Pip assessment led by Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability, alongside people with disabilities and representative organisations.
But for some MPs and campaigners, this raised the spectre of a two-tier system which protects existing claimants but not future ones. Two hours before the Commons vote, Timms announced that no changes would be made to Pip eligibility before the review. The bill passed without any changes to Pip.
Universal credit
What remains in the bill are changes to universal credit, the UK’s main means-tested benefit, primarily for claimants who are unfit for work.
Over 3 million claimants (out of a total of over 7 million) are not required to look for work as a result of a health condition. They receive an additional health-related payment of more than £400 per month. The bill reduces the health element for new claims from £97 to £50 per week from April 2026 and restricts payment to claimants over the age of 22.
Under original proposals, the higher health-related rate was to be frozen for existing claimants. This will now be increased every year for the rest of the parliament, at least in line with inflation.
A £1 billion back-to-work support package, originally scheduled to be introduced in 2029, will be accelerated.
The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that 730,000 future universal credit claimants will lose an average of £3000 per year compared to current claimants.
Labour minister Pat McFadden has ruled out raising income tax, VAT or national insurance, but questions remain on how these concessions will be paid for.
The government technically won the vote on welfare reform, but was unable to push through its most significant reforms. The debate over the future of the welfare system will continue (and probably intensify) as the Timms review begins.
Keir Starmer says that the Labour Party under his leadership all feel a small part of Scunthorpe.Keir Starmer confirms that he’s proud to be a red Tory continuing austerity and targeting poor and disabled scum.
Keir Starmer won Commons backing for his welfare Bill this evening after making further concessions to Labour rebels which leave the legislation eviscerated.
MPs rejected an amendment to sink the bill by 328 votes to 149 after an impassioned debate, suggesting a significant backbench revolt.
A further vote on approving the Bill was passed by 335 votes to 260, with the Tories voting against, cutting the government’s majority in half. It is believed 42 Labour MPs voted against the whip on the amendment.
Still facing defeat after earlier retreats that left benefits to disabled people already claiming Personal Independence Payments (PIP) untouched but threatened cuts for future claimants, Starmer backed down further at the eleventh hour.
Changes to PIP payments for future disabled claimants will now be paused until the conclusion of a review by Welfare Minister Stephen Timms, rather than being imposed from November 2026.
The latest retreat leaves the Bill bereft of most of its original purpose and without the £5 billion savings Chancellor Rachel Reeves was eager for.
And it leaves the Prime Minister’s authority radically diminished after bruising criticisms from normally loyal Labour MPs.
Keir Starmer in The Hague on Wednesday, where he called the rebellion over the welfare bill ‘noises off’. Photograph: Kin Cheung/Reuters
MPs describe receiving veiled deselection threats as No 10 sought to quash revolt before finally backing down
…
MPs say they received a litany of threats, including the possibility of a general election. Those on the right of the party were warned their actions could bring about a leadership challenge that would be won by Angela Rayner. The same threat was made to those on the left, but with Wes Streeting as the looming spectre.
Others say they have received veiled threats of deselection, or that their funding for the next general election would be decided on the basis of whether or not they toed the line. One party official allegedly rang a rebellious MP’s husband in order to get her to back down.
“I don’t even think some of this is sanctioned by No 10,” one MP said. “Until Wednesday they had their fingers in their ears. But those who are responsible for party management have been absolutely losing it.”
…
Yet the number of rebels continued to grow, and No 10 finally bowed to the inevitable. On Thursday morning, the prime minister used a Commons statement ostensibly about international affairs to promise a welfare rethink.
Until that point, Starmer had seemed oddly detached from the issue, surfacing intermittently at summits to bat away questions about the revolt – or “noises off” as he termed it – as a distraction from the vital task of transforming welfare.
Some MPs view this as indicative of a prime minister more than usually disconnected from the everyday grid of parliamentary business, as illustrated by the statistic that since winning the election he has voted in the Commons just seven times.
A few have begun to openly speculate about what the situation means for Starmer’s leadership. “It is very bad for Keir. It is one in four of his MPs [that intended to rebel]. He is toast,” one MP said.
Keir Starmer