Could the Government’s Welfare Reforms Be a Public Opinion & PR Gamble?

This week, the government unveiled its much-hyped welfare reforms, with Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendall setting out a series of proposed changes to Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payments (PIP).

While much of the political and media focus has been on the policy itself, polling from More in Common suggests there’s another story unfolding: public opinion may be far less supportive than ministers hope. In fact, they may once again have misjudged the public mood.

Indeed, it appears that Labour's rebellious back-benchers are far closer to public opinion than the government is itself. The Conservatives have backed the proposals as have Reform, so they're likely to be successful - but the real political cost would most likely be paid by the government.

In this blog, I’m breaking down what PIP actually is, who’s eligible, what the proposed cuts will mean, and what More in Common’s excellent research tells us about how the public feels.

What is PIP?

You’d be forgiven for thinking that PIP is a “sickness” or “unemployment” benefit. In reality, Personal Independence Payment is not linked to employment and it isn’t paid to people who are simply “ill”.

It’s a benefit paid to people with severe disabilities to help offset the £1,000 per month in additional costs that disabled people incur—on top of usual household expenses. That’s £12,000 per year in additional financial pressure according to excellent research from disability charity Scope.

PIP does not cover all of these costs. But it makes an important and often life-changing contribution—making daily life more manageable and work more affordable.

Who Can Claim PIP?

The definition of disability is legally specific: a condition that is long-term, persistent, and has a daily impact on a person’s life. This means general, temporary, ill health (such as conditions typically managed by a GP) is not eligible. On top of that, the legislation and regulations over current entitlement are tough, with many disabled people already ineligible.

The bar for receiving PIP is already incredibly high. It is only available to people with the most severe and enduring conditions—think blind people, partially sighted, severe arthritis, wheelchair users with conditions such as spina bifida, people with Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, cerebal palsy, dementia, and epilepsy. It also covers people with serious mental health conditions like psychosis or long-term illnesses such as cancer and stroke recovery.

PIP is not easy to claim. It requires extensive medical evidence, not from your GP, but from hospital consultants, and may include supporting assessments from physiotherapists, occupational therapists, or psychiatrists. This is all in additional to a medical assessment by health professional employed by DWP and repeated reviews (particularly ironic for me as a blind person!).

And PIP is a “gateway benefit”. It unlocks access to other support—including the (paid for) disabled person's railcard, blue badge scheme (also paid for), bus passes, social care support (though availability is dire), Access to Work (also being cut), Carer’s Allowance, Housing Benefit, and Universal Credit.

So losing PIP could not mean losing not just one benefit, but nearly all of your income and access to the support that makes independent living or employment possible.

PIP So Far

Political parties and governments of all stripes have long leaned on tired narratives about the “undeserving disabled”, invoking language of scroungers and the work-shy in their political and media strategies. The Department for Work and Pensions has returned to those tropes to justify this latest round of cuts.

But this isn’t new. Previous cuts targeted people with autism, learning disabilities and cognitive conditions—raising the bar and removing eligibility from thousands.

PIP is currently awarded based on a cumulative points system across a range of “descriptors”, these are aspects of daily life such as using the toilet, washing, and getting dressed. You need 12 points to qualify for PIP now. Each activity carries a maximum of 4 points—for example:

• 2 points if you need grab rails to use the toilet and clean yourself

• 4 points if you need someone to physically help you use the toilet and clean yourself

  
  

Who Is Likely to Be Affected by the Proposed Cuts?

The government plans to tighten eligibility through a new “4-point rule”, meaning you would need to score 4 points in a single descriptor, rather than a cumulative 12 across several.

This may sound technical, but the impact is severe. If your disability affects you in multiple ways but doesn’t meet the higher threshold in one area, you will no longer qualify—even if your overall impairment is significant.

Imagine someone who’s had a stroke:

• Needs someone nearby while showering (2 points)

• Needs grab rails to use the toilet (2 points)

• Has blurred vision and can’t read printed materials (2 points)

• Has needs across other descriptors like food preparation and dressing gaining a further 6 points

  
  

These people with real needs currently qualify. Under the new system, they would lose eligibility, despite needing daily support and facing significant barriers to independence. This will do nothing to improve the lives of disabled people with the government's own impact assessment suggesting it will affect 1.2 million disabled people.

In reality, this means that someone who cannot wash the bottom half of their own bodies will no longer be eligible for PIP. What will that do to someone's dignity and independence? Let alone, their employment prospects.

Conditions likely to be affected include:

• Severe arthritis

• Asthma

• Blindness or visual impairment

• Chronic pain conditions

• Musculoskeletal conditions (e.g. MS)

• Cardiovascular disease

• Severe mental health conditions

• Stroke recovery

• Cancer

• Epilepsy

• Cerebral palsy

  
  

These are, in many cases, the very conditions the public most commonly associate with disability and which polling suggests are those who most deserve support.

The Public Does Back Reform—But Within Limits

It’s true that most Britons support the principle of welfare reform. More in Common found that 68% believe the government should do more to help people into work, with just 15% disagreeing.

But crucially, the public doesn’t believe the rise in welfare spending is due to over-generosity or system abuse. The leading cause, in their view? The rising cost of living.

That distinction matters. It shows that while reform is supported in theory, cuts to essential support like PIP are seen as a step too far.

Disability Benefit Cuts Could Be a Red Line

More in Common’s polling reveals deep discomfort with the planned cuts to PIP:

• 45% think the cuts should be reversed

• Just 21% disagree

• Even Conservative and Reform voters are more likely to oppose than support them

• Among Labour voters, 52% want the cuts reversed, with only 20% opposed

That’s not political debate. That’s cross-party resistance. Today's rebellion should be a clear warning to the government that this is not an issue to be taken lightly.

The Public’s View of Disability Is More Generous Than Government Policy

More in Common also tested public attitudes to specific eligibility criteria. The findings are stark:

• 74% say needing help to wash below the waist should qualify for PIP

• 72% say the same for dressing

• 70% say assistance to get in or out of the bath or shower should be enough

  
  

This is a public that recognises disability—and the extra costs it brings—when it sees it.

This Isn’t Just a Policy Debate. It’s Personal.

Opposition to these cuts is grounded in experience. Many people know someone affected:

• 34% know someone on disability-related benefits

• 37% know someone on other welfare support

  
  

And for me, it’s personal too. I’m blind. I rely on PIP to fund a range of costs that help me stay in work and live independently.

• I pay for taxis—because rush hour Tube travel isn’t safe for blind people or guide dogs.

• I pay for laundry because I can’t sort, iron or fold clothes.

• I buy expensive adapted equipment—a talking microwave, a colour-recognition pen, and cover ongoing vet costs for my guide dog.

• I don’t receive social care support

• Access to Work support is non-existent because I’m self-employed.

  
  

When I’m not working, PIP is my only income and shocker, blind people can't get a bar job to make ends meet between contracts.

Will It Help Disabled People Into Work?

Here's the thing, over 50% of disabled people claiming PIP are in work. Now, imagine those people losing the PIP payment which helps them stay in work, whether that's laundry costs, travel costs, extra physio to manage the physical impact, informal care costs to help them in getting washed and dressed. Losing this cash will force people out of work not drive them into it - would you be able to employ someone who isn't able to wash their own body in a front line customer role?

Sadly, there is a vast amount of evidence - including vast swathes of DWP's own research - showing that disabled people face huge barriers just getting into work. Employment rates in the UK are about 76% for the general population. For disabled people, it’s 51%. For blind or partially-sighted people? It's a mere 27%. Sadly, that’s not a typo and it's not because disabled people don't want to work.

There are some eye-watering and deeply alarming stats that show the real-world barriers to employment, none of which the government is seeking to address. Just focusing on sight loss for a moment:

• 23% of employers illegally admitting they wouldn’t make reasonable adjustments for blind candidates

• 61% say their managers don’t know how to support blind or partially-sighted staff

So, with such obvious barriers to the workplace, how will cutting PIP help those trying to work or trying to stay in work?

Westminster vs the Real World

MPs are expected to vote on the Bill in the coming weeks. But, as More in Common’s data makes clear, policy decisions in Whitehall don’t always reflect the lived experience—or the public’s expectations.

If these reforms go ahead in their current form, the real backlash may not play out in the chamber, but on doorsteps, in local papers, and at the ballot box.

The Runcorn and Helsby by-election sat amidst the swathe of local authority losses should be a warning to Labour and the Conservatives. Disabled people voted in all of those constituencies.

This is more than a policy gamble. It’s a test of trust. And that trust, once lost, is hard to rebuild.

Source: All data in this post is drawn from research conducted by More in Common, used with full acknowledgement.