The Labour Party is facing mounting fury over proposed cuts to welfare, particularly those affecting disabled people. The anger is not only from those who rely on welfare but also from Labour supporters, long-time voters, and MPs who feel betrayed by the leadership’s approach.
While Labour leaders initially seemed surprised by the backlash, they have since walked back slightly on some of their proposals. Reports suggest that Personal Independence Payments (PIP) will not be frozen, yet the overall cuts remain firmly on the table.
For many, this is not the Labour Party they voted for. The party’s commitment to social justice and protecting the most vulnerable appears to be wavering, and the consequences—both political and social—could be severe.
Cuts to PIP: A devastating blow to disabled people
Despite some media reports suggesting a U-turn, Labour’s planned changes to PIP would still see 620,000 disabled people lose £675 per month. For anyone relying on benefits, this is a huge financial loss, and for disabled people who often face higher living costs, it could be catastrophic.
The leadership has failed to justify these cuts convincingly. On the one hand, they claim that getting more disabled people into work will be beneficial, yet they also argue that this plan will save the government £9 billion.
However, the reality is that supporting disabled people into sustainable, rewarding employment requires investment. This includes funding for training, therapy, workplace adaptations, and childcare—all of which cost money. In the short term, this approach would increase spending, not reduce it.
The only way to achieve the savings the government wants is by simply forcing people to live on less. This isn’t about improving employment opportunities for disabled people—it’s about cutting costs, regardless of the human impact.
A ‘moral’ choice? No one believes that
One of the most outrageous justifications for these cuts is the claim that reducing benefits for disabled people is the “moral choice”. This argument is not only deeply flawed, but also offensive.
In what world is slashing financial support for the most vulnerable a moral decision? Even those who hold negative views about welfare recipients would struggle to see this as anything other than cruel and unnecessary.
It raises serious questions about Labour’s priorities. Time and again, when the leadership needs money, they seem to target the most vulnerable—whether it’s older people, struggling families, or now, disabled people.
Yet whenever the idea of a wealth tax is suggested, the same politicians recoil in horror. This exposes an uncomfortable truth: rather than making fair economic choices, Labour appears to be taking the easiest political route—one that hurts those least able to fight back.
The false promise of work opportunities
Another key issue with Labour’s plan is the lack of viable job opportunities for disabled people.
While there are sectors with labour shortages, such as social care and seasonal agriculture, these are typically minimum wage jobs with demanding physical requirements—not suitable for many disabled individuals.
Moreover, employers do not always accommodate people with disabilities, particularly those with mental health conditions or fluctuating illnesses. Expecting businesses to embrace flexible, intermittent working patterns for employees with chronic health conditions is unrealistic.
Labour’s proposals suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the challenges disabled people face in the workplace. Simply cutting benefits and expecting people to find work is not a solution—it’s a dangerous gamble that will push thousands further into poverty and despair.
A political mistake that could cost Labour dearly
As Labour presses ahead with these plans, concern within the party is growing. Some MPs are reportedly questioning Starmer’s advisers, wondering whether he is being pushed into deeply unpopular policies that will ultimately damage Labour’s electoral prospects.
Recent history offers a warning. The decision to cut winter fuel allowances saved very little money, yet was hugely unpopular—especially with pensioners, a group that votes in large numbers. Now, targeting disabled people risks further alienating Labour’s core supporters.
Former Labour MP Ed Balls summed up the feeling within the party:
“This is just not a Labour thing to do.”
More Read
A betrayal of labour values
Labour’s traditional support base has long stood by the party, trusting it to defend the rights of working-class and vulnerable people. Yet these latest welfare cuts challenge that loyalty.
In upcoming local elections and by-elections, there is a real danger that Labour voters will stay at home—or worse, switch to another party.
In different parts of the country, that alternative may be the Green Party, Independent candidates, or even Reform UK. While their policies may vary, the driving force behind such defections will be the same: a belief that Labour has abandoned its principles.
The reality of life on welfare
Supporters of welfare cuts often claim that benefits are a “lifestyle choice”. This misconception fuels much of the hostility towards claimants.
However, anyone who has actually experienced life on benefits knows the truth:
- Struggling to afford basic necessities
- Facing stigma and discrimination
- Enduring the constant stress of navigating the benefits system
No one chooses this life. It is not a choice—it is survival.
The Labour movement must resist
Labour was founded to protect the interests of working people and the most vulnerable in society. Cutting welfare—especially for disabled people—undermines everything the party stands for.
These cuts will hurt the poorest and most disadvantaged. That is why Labour members, MPs, and supporters must fight them to the very end.
Because a Labour Party that takes money from disabled people is not the party people voted for—and unless it changes course, it may soon find that those voters are no longer there.
