Keir Starmer's Cruelty Is Costing Him Everything

Right, so Keir Starmer’s idea of compassion when it comes to disability and his rancid reforms to it, is like offering you a life jacket with a hole in it—graciously handed to you just after pushing you off a cliff. That’s an entirely fitting analogy. His changes to his plans in light of a sizable potential rebellion though, is to keep the lifejackets with the holes in for all future claimants instead. That is basically it from the disabled person’s perspective. But with great fanfare, the Labour leader and the loyal mainstream media has declared victory over his own party’s rebellion, that these are massive concessions, claiming to have “listened” to concerns over disability benefit cuts. But scratch beneath the surface and what you find isn’t compromise—it’s catastrophe. The so-called “climbdown” isn’t a retreat from cruelty; it’s simply cruelty with an eligibility date. Starmer’s new plan creates a bureaucratic Hunger Games for the disabled: if you’re lucky enough to be sick today - and think about that phrase in and of itself - you survive, you keep the money you are eligible to. If you fall ill tomorrow, tough luck—less money, fewer rights, and not much of a lifeline, even if you have the same issues as someone else who was just claiming at the right time. Welcome to the future of welfare under a man who once called such cuts “morally reprehensible” but now calls them policy instead. What would Starmer’s disabled mother think of him now?
Right, so Keir Starmer wants you to believe he has listened, that he has made a grand concession on his party's appalling plans to slash disability benefits. The headlines scream "Labour U-turn", "massive climbdown", and "rebels pacified" or words to those effects in the mainstream news. But dig just an inch beneath the PR gloss and you'll discover a policy still reeking of cruelty, discrimination, and economic illiteracy. Far from abandoning his assault on the disabled, Starmer has merely repackaged it. What we are now witnessing is not a compromise, but a con. A sleight of hand that introduces a two-tier system in which the disabled are pitted against each other depending on when they fall ill or become disabled and this is something we should all be mindful of – you might not be sick or disabled today, but any of could become so through no fault of our own in future. This is austerity wrapped in spin, a sham dressed up as reform, and a betrayal of the very principles Labour once claimed to stand for, supposedly there for working class people, whether in work or not and many of those affected will be people in work, these changes may even put them out of work.
At the heart of Starmer's latest proposal is a timeline. From November 2026, new claimants of the health element of Universal Credit (UC) and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) will face tighter eligibility criteria and potentially receive less financial support than current claimants. Those already on PIP or receiving health-related UC will be spared—for now. But this supposed concession is no act of mercy. It is a calculated creation of a discriminatory, two-tier system where the date you become ill determines your right, in effect, to a dignified life. As The Scotsman has noted, Labour's policy "creates a two-tier disability system" that defies basic fairness and justice.
Imagine two people with the same disability, the same medical history, the same barriers to work—one gets full support because they fell ill in 2025, while the other, who becomes sick a year later, gets less. One might be able to get enough PIP to stay in work, the other not. This is not reform. This is discrimination, based on a timeline, not on need, plain and simple. The cruelty is not merely in the proposed cuts, but in the design that structurally embeds injustice into the welfare state. If passed, the plan could see thousands of newly disabled people receive as much as £6,000 less per year than someone in identical circumstances who simply became disabled a year earlier.
To deflect criticism, Labour has promised a "ministerial review" of the PIP reforms. But this is not an independent inquiry. This is Labour grading their own cruelty, and it would surprise nobody if they turned around and gave themselves an A. As Disability News Service (DNS) reports, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) under both Tory and Labour leadership has a dismal record of transparency and trustworthiness. Any meaningful review must be independent and robust, not handed over to the very ministers proposing the cuts. The DWP’s refusal to publish reports linking welfare reform to deaths of disabled people has not changed. The only thing that has changed is the colour of the rosette of the politicians overseeing it.
Stephen Timms, the Labour DWP minister, misled Parliament by claiming greater transparency had been brought in under Labour. In reality, the department continues to shield data related to deaths and harm from public scrutiny. The promise of review is meaningless when those conducting it are the same ones with every interest in validating the policy.
Starmer’s team is attempting to soften the blow with a £1 billion employment support package, supposedly to help people into work. But we’re not talking about working age means tested benefits here, what’s being cut here, in the case of PIP certainly, you can claim no matter what you earn it’s not means tested you get it based on additional needs which come at additional costs: many new claimants of disability benefits cannot work, but for those that can, these cuts could put them out of work, placing a barrier to work in front of them instead of actually helping them continue to access work. These employment costs are related to their conditions—it can cover the costs of transport, carers, therapy, and accessible equipment. Cutting it makes access to work harder, not easier. So who, exactly, is this £1 billion supposed to benefit? Not the disabled. Certainly not the newly disabled. It's likely to be funnelled into schemes that ignore the structural barriers disabled people face, just as past DWP job support schemes have been slammed for being unfit for purpose.
Originally, Labour's reforms aimed to save £5 billion. With the so-called climbdown, savings now amount to around £1 billion, so in savings terms this is a big cut, these are concessions in that strict sense, but only because this is the sort of thing you can’t keep cutting and these figures bear that out. But even this diminished goal is a false economy. Cutting benefits reduces spending power among the poorest people—people who spend what they get in local economies. The government’s own figures show that disabled people are more likely to spend their benefits on essentials—rent, food, transport, getting to work if they can—keeping money circulating in local high streets as that does. Starmer’s policy strips this economic activity out of local areas, weakening already struggling communities.
And to plug the shrinking fiscal gap, Labour whispers about borrowing or cuts elsewhere as to how they’ll have to get around this. What remains permanently off the table though? What is the answer to all of this, removing any need for talk of disability cuts? A wealth tax. Labour’s refusal, even now, to consider taxing Britain’s wealthiest individuals—despite widespread public support—shows exactly where its priorities lie: not with the many, but the few.
PIP fraud is effectively zero. According to the DWP’s own figures, the rate of fraud in PIP is just 0%. Yet Labour continues to frame its reforms as addressing a supposed abuse of the system. This narrative is not only dishonest—it’s dangerous. It feeds ableist tropes that see disabled people as lazy or malingering. I know such and such and he’s on the take we read in social media or hear on the high street. There’s apparently a massive shortage of assessors for PIP right now, if only they could recruit all of these learned judges within our societies eh? It’s a nonsense and they need to stop reading the Daily Mail or watching the BBC. And as much as I bash mainstream media, the Independent has done a good piece actually, noting that Labour is weaponising stereotypes about neurodivergent and mentally ill people to justify cuts. This is social policy based on suspicion, not fact.
What makes this betrayal particularly grotesque is Starmer’s own history. His mother lived with Still’s disease, a rare and disabling condition. His brother was also disabled. He has spoken publicly about the challenges his family faced. And yet he now uses those experiences as rhetorical shields, justifying his attack on disability support by claiming personal understanding. This is political theatre that rivals David Cameron invoking his late son Ivan to defend Tory austerity in the years before as well. If they choose to weaponise such personal stories, that should elicit sympathy in these cases, they should be slammed for their brazen shamelessness.
In 2016, Starmer stood in Parliament and called Tory disability cuts “morally reprehensible.” But in 2025, he is doing the same thing—only worse. At least the Tories made no pretence of compassion, that is the Tory way. Starmer being the Labour right, wants to be cruel and be congratulated for it instead.
The reaction from advocacy organisations has been damning. Scope, Disability Rights UK, and Citizens Advice have all condemned the reforms. They highlight the disproportionate impact the changes will have on younger disabled people, particularly those turning 18 and being moved from Disability Living Allowance (DLA), which is what disabled children currently claim to PIP. No matter how severe their condition, these young adults could face reduced support simply for reaching adulthood.
The economic, social, and emotional cost of these reforms will be profound. For many, PIP is the difference between isolation and inclusion, between stability and crisis. The revised plan still risks plunging tens of thousands into poverty, the entire plan stinks.
Starmer’s U-turn was designed to head off a Labour backbench revolt. And to some extent, it worked—MP Meg Hillier has withdrawn her reasoned amendment, and some MPs appear to have been mollified, fools every last one of them. Nevertheless, dissatisfaction remains high. Over 120 Labour MPs had initially signalled their willingness to rebel. Many are now under pressure to reconsider, especially as new analysis makes clear that the fundamental structure of the bill is unchanged. For others the whips are now apparently resorting to shouting at MPs demanding they back it, even in one instance apparently reducing an MP to tears. The Labour right are the very vilest people I’ve ever encountered.
But there is still a pathway to defeating the bill, if enough MPs recognise that this isn’t a meaningful climbdown but a cynical repackaging of austerity that will still harm the lives of thousands of people. If the bill fails, Starmer could face a no-confidence motion. There is open speculation about regime change needed within the party, with some calling for the removal of Morgan McSweeney, Labour’s controversial campaign chief and Starmer’s string puller.
Above all else, this policy is rooted in ableism from start to finish therefore it violates humanitarian law. It punishes people not for what they do, but for when they fall ill. It institutionalises inequality. It says that the newly disabled are less deserving of support than those already receiving help. This is not only unjust—it is a breach of human rights. Voting for this bill, in any form, is an endorsement of an ableist policy. Every MP who does so must be held accountable therefore for their ableism.
And the cruelty doesn’t stop with new claimants. Current PIP recipients are reassessed regularly. If they lose eligibility, even temporarily, and reapply after November 2026, will they then be treated as new claimants under the new rules? That’s not been made clear. Thus, even those protected today could be thrown into the lower tier in the near future.
This bill must be pulled in its entirety. It is not salvageable. No amount of tweaks or concessions can erase the fact that it is built on cruelty, discrimination, and deceit. If Labour wants to genuinely support disabled people, it should fund services adequately, ensure assessments are fair, and, crucially, tax the rich to pay for a humane welfare state.
If you are reading this and think it doesn’t concern you, think again. Disability is not rare. One accident, one illness, one twist of fate can make anyone reliant on the very system Starmer now seeks to dismantle. If numbers are rising that £1 billion spend might be better used to address the reasons for that and deal with them. But if we don’t defend the rights of the disabled today, it could be us tomorrow and that safety net may not be there for us should we be unfortunate enough to need it.
This is not about savings. This is not even about work. This is about who we are as a society. And right now, the message from Keir Starmer is loud and clear: if you’re sick, if you’re disabled, if you’re poor—you’re on your own.
For more on how this could be a fatal mistake for Keir Starmer career-wise, check out this video recommendation here as your suggested next watch.
Please do also hit like, share and subscribe if you haven’t done so already so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new daily content as well as spreading the word and helping to support the channel at the same time which is very much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working class people and I will hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks.