Skip to main content
False economies in Labour’s Budget
The economic value of disability benefits far outweighs their cost, argues Dr DYLAN MURPHY
UTTER REJECTION: A contingent od disabled protesters move towards Parliament Square, London, to repudiate Rachel Reeves spring statement last Wednesday

LAST Wednesday our economically illiterate Chancellor announced £5 billion worth of cuts to spending on disability benefits which the Department for Work and Pensions admits will drive at least 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, deeper into poverty.

In defending these killer cuts, Rachel Reeves arrogantly proclaimed: “I am absolutely certain that our reforms, instead of pushing people into poverty, are going to get people into work. And we know that if you move from welfare into work, you are much less likely to be in poverty.”

Reeves ignores the TUC research which reveals that non-disabled workers have higher pay on average to the tune of 17 per cent over disabled workers, which amounts to over £4,300 a year.

The 95th Anniversary Appeal
Support the Morning Star
You have reached the free limit.
Subscribe to continue reading.
Similar stories
TORY 2015/LABOUR 2025 SPOT THE DIFFERENCE: (Above) Workers a
Features / 26 March 2025
26 March 2025
DR DYLAN MURPHY asks why Labour is continuing the Tory war on the disabled, when viable alternatives have been spelt out in detail
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall outside Downing Stre
Features / 13 March 2025
13 March 2025
Both Conservative and Labour administrations have now refused to release research showing PIP payments are vital for disabled people’s survival, exposing the ideological nature of planned welfare ‘reforms,’ writes Dr DYLAN MURPHY
‘TAKING THE MICKEY’: Secretary of State for Work and Pen
Features / 16 February 2025
16 February 2025
Social security is lagging further and further behind inflation and our government quite simply does not care, argues Dr DYLAN MURPHY
DWP chief Liz Kendall
Features / 9 February 2025
9 February 2025
DR DYLAN MURPHY challenges the idea that social security places an economic burden on the public