The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has received a clear message from voters to reduce Personal Independence Payment (PIP) allocations for the unemployed, while safeguarding support for disabled claimants. A recent British Social Attitudes survey reveals that 49 per cent of the public support increased spending on benefits for disabled people who cannot work, with only 7 per cent opposing such measures.
According to the survey, 63 per cent of respondents prioritise additional funding for disability benefits within social welfare spending. Meanwhile, 60 per cent of Conservative and Reform Party supporters express a preference for reducing expenditure on unemployment benefits specifically.
Interestingly, only 11 per cent of Reform Party supporters and 7 per cent of Conservative voters favour cuts to PIP disability benefits. Dr Robert de Vries from the University of Kent, co-author of the report, noted a distinct lack of enthusiasm for across-the-board reductions in disability benefits. He cautioned that attempts to reform these benefits might become politically sensitive, stating, “support for disability benefits remains remarkably strong despite increasing political divisions over welfare.”
READ MORE: Bus fare cap in England to be lowered three months early by Andy Burnham
“Very few people favour cuts; disabled individuals are viewed as some of the most deserving recipients of government support,” Dr de Vries added. He suggested that proposals to reduce disability benefits carry significant political risks for parties across the spectrum.
The research investigated whether changes in public attitudes stem from shifting welfare spending levels, perceptions of the deservingness of disabled beneficiaries, or political polarisation over welfare issues. Notably, support for increasing expenditure on “welfare benefits for the poor” is comparatively low, with opposition exceeding support by 15 percentage points.
Supporters of left-leaning parties are only slightly, by six points, more likely than those backing right-leaning parties to endorse higher spending on disabled individuals unable to work. Currently, this gap stands at 25 points.
Danielle Jefferies of the King’s Fund, another author of the analysis, remarked that the government cannot simply replicate the previous Labour administration’s approach to welfare reform. She pointed out that even Labour’s gradual turnaround in public satisfaction-from 34 per cent to 70 per cent-took 13 years and was neither straightforward nor easy.
Ms Jefferies emphasised that the present government faces a considerably more challenging task in addressing these complex welfare issues.