A group of academics from Northern universities and health services have calculated how much income each Westminster parliamentary constituency may lose as a result of personal independence (PIP) cuts.  Labour constituencies take 92 of the top 100 biggest losers places, with the North East and North West hardest hit, suggesting that PIP cuts are aimed squarely at Labour’s own voters.

The, report was funded and produced by Health Equity North and carried out by academics from the universities of Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield, along with the Northern Health Service Alliance.

Researchers looked at how many PIP claimants in each constituency did not score four points or more for any daily living activity. They then calculated what the loss of PIP for those claimants would mean in total for each constituency as well as what the loss per head of working age population would be.

Researchers found that:

  • The ten worst-hit constituencies are all Labour-held, and in “Red Wall” areas
  • The impacts will disproportionately affect the constituencies which already have the lowest life expectancies in England.
  • They found that the average loss per working age adult in England is £176
  • The changes are set to have the greatest effect on regions such as the North East (£269 per working-age person on average), the North West (£231), Yorkshire and The Humber (£206), the West Midlands (£191) and the East Midlands (£185)
  • The worst-hit constituencies are in Easington (£409 per working-age person), Liverpool Walton (£403) and Knowsley (£389)
  • These three constituencies alone could lose an estimated total of £23.8m, £26.2m and £23.4m respectively per year by 2029/30

In fact, because these calculations did not take into account the possible loss of other linked benefits and the loss of additional elements in other benefits, the actual figures could be very considerably higher.

One of the report’s authors, Professor Clare Bambra, said:

“Those areas that will lose most from this proposal were already decimated by austerity, COVID and the cost of living crisis. They have worse health than other regions and their local services and economies are already struggling. Losses of this magnitude risk worsening the situation for everyone living in these deprived constituencies.

“Parliament cannot risk rushing proposals like these through without fully considering how they affect local areas that are already struggling. We hope that research such as ours gives MPs more context, so they can make the most informed, forward-thinking and economical decision.”

Readers with a Labour MP, in particular, might want to drop them an email drawing attention to this report.

You can read more and download a copy of Local Economic Impact of the Proposed Changes to Personal Independence Payments (PIP) by Parliamentary Constituency

 

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 4 hours ago
    It's suicide. Suicide for the Labour party, suicide for people who will be expected to live on £5k per annum. Labour campaigners reported that on every doorstep people were angry about removing the WFA and PIP changes, but Keir's answer is to do more of the same.

    Now thanks to Labour we are looking at being governed by fascists
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    Probably will  be some sort of loophole/exemption from the cuts for his prefered demographic.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    Why are you not putting my comments on your site that i put on  
    They are not rude just stating facts that the labour party are incompetent .
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    If the goal is Britain's recovery and saving the Labour Party from drowning, then the current government's policy must change and shift towards a policy similar to that of Jeremy Corbyn. This is not a joke, it's a fact and urgent. However, stubbornness and insistence on the same strict austerity policy towards the poor and middle classes, the destruction of social care and welfare... and what's next? Must avoiding the pursuit of populist policies to appease Reform Party voters means a disastrous failure for the politicians in government today and the ruin of the Labour Party, ending in a deep sleep for many long years due to a lack of confidence in it in future, (((WE NEVER HOPE FOR THIS... BUT..))), from which the extreme right is gaining more and more.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Neal
      "If the goal is Britain's recovery and saving the Labour Party from drowning, then the current government's policy must change and shift towards a policy similar to that of Jeremy Corbyn."

      The Labour right, who now control the Labour party, would rather have a hard right Tory government than a left wing Labour govenment. They literally tried to sabotage Labour's chances in 2017 and 2019 and were actually gutted when Corbyn did much better than expected in 2017. One of the MPs who defected to Change UK (remember them?) later said that he was perfectly happy to have the Tories back in power under Johnson because that prevented a Corbyn government. 

      The Labour right are politically much closer to the Tories (and Reform) than the left of their own party. That's why fighting the left is the only thing they do with any conviction. They've now stitched things up to such an extent that it will be virtually impossible for the left to ever regain control of the party. As a vehicle for progressive, left wing politics the Labour party is dead. Morgan McSweeney and co are convinced that progressive voters will come back to Labour at the next general election no matter what Labour does in government. I think they're in for one hell of a shock on that score.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    Starmer is writing his own disaster movie based on the titanic, where the icebergs are policy choices to be navigated , and where the ship itself is full of pensioners and the ill and disabled, and we know where it’s heading if he doesn’t change course.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    Good serves them right! They started their downfall all by themselves! Firstly with the farmers inheritance tax, then the pensioners winter fuel allowance, then DWP reforms. Starmer, Reeves, Kendall, along with her dreadfully awful her DWP ministers,  McGovern, Western, Timms, Torsten, Bell. Where was The Taxes promised on the super wealthy to millionaires all the way through to multi billionaires? Where is the improved NHS Dentists? Where is the improved GP appointments? Where is the waiting time cuts drastically for NHS patients to see specialist doctors and nurses? Is hardly anything implemented into law that Labour promised was in their manifesto ironically titled "Change"? 

    How can one of the UKs main two-party system political party that was in opposition for over 14 years win a landslide on the United Kingdom July 4 2024 General Election of 411 seats (reduced to 409 is it now? (with defectors and the recent by election) in the last general election The 2025 local elections most probably my reasons at the start along with many others! 

    Look how well reform done in the local elections with mayorals, councils and councillors. Reform a right-wing political party compared to the supposedly center-left Labour Party. 

    So where is this "Change"?  I'll tell them where their so called "Change" will be after nearly ten months in government the "Change" will be the electorate, voting against. May 1st 2025 local elections was a clear warning to Labour that English voters are understandably unhappy perhaps that's an understatement! No it most probably certainly is! 

    Of course people vote differently in local elections than they do vote in general elections taking into account and considering local issues. 


    Keir Starmer isn't changing his course of direction. Well h

    abyss a


  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    C'mon everyone. No matter where I turn, nobody is talking about the things that I see. Nobody is talking about the fact that DWP are robbing points from everyone in various activities. This is what will stop labour in their tracks. Labour will either back down on the 4 point rule or be forced to make DWP give everyone the correct amount of points in various activities. Starmer knows that he has all by the short and curlies from both angles in terms of point in various activities. Lets absolutely crush labour by playing them at their own game. Roooaaarrr.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    I don't understand how the numbers are so low, a few hundred per year? Most are looking at halving their yearly income!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Sam
      Yet again, some of my comment went AWOL.

      Absolutely. Making a mole hill out of a mountain. Had those figures been per week, it would be more believable. The writers of the report must be living in the same cloud cuckoo land as Labour. 

      Failing to include ESA/UC claimants who are not receiving PIP also adds to the report's invalidity.

      Annual loss for Boston and Skegness is £281.15. I could easily cope with losing that over an entire year. Not so £9880, which is the reality.

      Pity the methodology wasn't asking benefits claimants.

      Here’s an one question survey that will give a more accurate reflection of yearly monetary loss:

      How much roughly per year are other commenters set to lose?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @Sam Absolutely. Making a mole hill out of a mountain. Had 

      Failing to include ESA/UC claimants who are not receiving PIP also adds to the report's invalidity.

      Annual loss for Boston and Skegness is £281.15. I could easily cope with losing that over an entire year. Not so £9880, which is the reality.

      Pity the methodology wasn't asking benefits claimants.

      Here’s an one question survey that will give a more accurate reflection of yearly monetary loss:

      How much roughly per year are other commenters set to lose?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @Sam I think they’re dividing the total loss by the total number of working age adults In England, not just by the number of benefit recipients, so of course the amount per benefit recipient is much higher. For me and fam it’s around £12k per year 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @Sam In the calculation they probably shared the total loss in benefits by the total  number of people who work (not the total number of people who work and receive benefits).
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @Sam If I lose PIP, I will also lose higher rate UC. that is 2/3s of my income gone. I will also lose Council tax benefit. Well I am not going to sit idly by and watch Labour crucify me like this. I am defending myself even if it kills me because if Starmer gets his way, this will also kill me.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    We must be aware of a very serious matter: the votes that went to the Reform Party yesterday would have traditionally gone to the Labour Party. However, due to the Starmer government's severe cuts to social welfare for large segments of traditional Labour voters, in retaliation for the Starmer government's inhumane policies, their votes have become a punishment for the Starmer government's harsh policies against them and have gone to the extremist Reform Party, rather than a passion for the policies of Nigel Farage. 

    (((However, the danger lies in the fact that there are no guarantees that these votes will return to Labour in the future. Rather, they may become entrenched in the Reform Party vote, increasing the influence of the far right, as is the case in the United States and Western Europe))).
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Neal The evidence on this suggests that Reform is getting the bulk of its votes from former Tories and people who previously did not vote. It also suggests that Labour is losing far more votes to its left than its right - yet they're doubling down on chasing the votes of right wingers who will never vote for them anyway while not giving a stuff about the fact that their core vote is deserting them for the likes of the Greens and the SNP. It's insane.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 10 hours ago
    In ten months, and single handedly, Starmer has opened the door to the prospect of a reform government, because of his political choices so far. God help the ill and disabled if they get power. Even after Thursday’s drubbing he says “ the changes will have to be made faster”. His own party, and people canvassed on their own doorsteps have told him it’s the changes that are the problem.  He’s taking labour to the abyss.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 10 hours ago
    Starmer has to go. Simple fact.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Peeved I completely agree.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Leprechaun Sir Keir Starmer and his Neo-Nasty cabinet all have to go, this isn't what we voted for. Take heed Mr Starmer we have long memories and we'll never let you forget.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @Leprechaun He certainly does have to go
      Iv never been a conservative voter but labour I have in the past 
      The last election I couldn’t vote but I have to be honest I would of voted labour if I could of 
      This is the worse labour government I have ever known, what happened to the labour that were for the working class people and looking after pensioners and sick and disabled people 
      To me it seem to be that there against everything that they once stood for 
      When I switched on the tv to see who had won the election and saw it was labour I was so happy to see the conservatives go. 
      I can not believe this is a labour government 
      To me it as if they punishing disabled and sick people and our pensioners they have thrown out in the cold to.
      I would of been retired at 66 now I have to wait another 6 months and it’s going up again 
      I doubt I will reach retirement but are they hoping people will die of before they collect there pension and have no retirement after yrs of working 
      Shame on them 
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.