I’m thrilled to sit down with Donald Gainsborough, a political savant and leader in policy and legislation, who heads Government Curated. With his deep expertise in social welfare systems, Donald offers invaluable insights into the controversial welfare reforms unfolding in both the UK and the US. In this interview, we dive into the specifics of the UK’s new welfare bill, exploring its impact on disability benefits and poverty levels, while also drawing comparisons to the sweeping cuts proposed in the US through the GOP’s latest legislative package. We’ll unpack the public and political backlash, the potential human cost of these policies, and the broader implications for social equity. Join us for a thought-provoking conversation on the future of welfare systems in these two nations.
Can you walk us through the core elements of the UK’s new welfare bill and what it aims to achieve?
Certainly, Ethan. The UK’s new welfare bill, recently passed after much debate, focuses on reducing costs tied to two major programs: Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payments, or PIP. Universal Credit is a means-tested benefit that supports unemployed or low-income individuals by combining various aids like housing and income support. PIP, on the other hand, helps working-age people with disabilities cover living and working costs. The bill’s primary aim is to cut government spending by altering these programs—starting in April 2026, new claimants of Universal Credit will receive roughly half the current amount, about £217 a month, without adjustments for inflation. For PIP, eligibility criteria are being tightened, making it harder to qualify. The government argues this is about fiscal responsibility and encouraging employment, but critics see it as a harsh rollback of essential support.
How are these changes expected to impact the financial support people rely on, especially over the long term?
The financial impact is significant and, frankly, concerning. With Universal Credit payments slashed to £217 a month and not tied to inflation, the real value of this support will erode over time as living costs rise. Imagine trying to cover basic needs with a shrinking safety net—it’s a recipe for hardship. For PIP, the stricter eligibility rules mean fewer people with disabilities will get the help they need to live independently or maintain employment. This isn’t just about numbers; it’s about people’s ability to afford food, housing, and medical needs. Over the long term, we’re likely to see a growing gap between what people receive and what they actually need to survive.
What’s been the public and political reaction to these welfare cuts in the UK?
The reaction has been intense and largely negative. Several Members of Parliament, even within the ruling Labour Party, have rebelled against the bill, with some calling the cuts “Dickensian” due to their perceived cruelty and potential to drive poverty. Disability rights groups are up in arms, arguing that these changes scapegoat vulnerable populations while leaving wealthier groups untouched. For instance, voices like Labour MP Marie Tidball have emphasized that PIP is crucial for enabling disabled people to live independently, not just survive. Similarly, Linda Burnip from Disabled People Against Cuts has accused the government of pushing disabled individuals into destitution. It’s clear there’s a deep rift between the policy’s intent and how it’s being received by those it affects most.
Can you elaborate on how this bill might influence poverty levels in the UK, based on current data and projections?
Absolutely. Currently, about 14.3 million people—21% of the UK population—live in poverty, based on 2022-2023 figures. The government initially estimated that this bill could push an additional 250,000 into poverty, including a significant number of children, though they later revised that to 150,000 after some concessions. However, independent groups like the Resolution Foundation argue these numbers are too conservative, estimating up to 300,000 more could be affected, with 700,000 already poor families sinking even deeper. Children and low-income families are especially at risk, as they often rely heavily on these benefits for basic survival. The fear is that we’re not just increasing poverty but entrenching it for generations.
Shifting gears to the US, how does the GOP’s proposed ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ compare to the UK’s welfare reforms in terms of their overarching goals?
There are striking parallels between the two, despite the different political contexts. Both the UK bill and the US proposal aim to slash welfare spending and tighten eligibility, particularly around health-related support. In the US, the focus is on deep cuts to Medicaid, which provides healthcare for low-income individuals, and SNAP, the food assistance program. The overarching goal in both cases seems to be reducing government expenditure, framed as fiscal responsibility. Both governments also use similar rhetoric—phrases like ‘back to work’ in the US and ‘right to try’ in the UK—to suggest these cuts will motivate self-reliance. However, the pushback in both nations highlights a shared concern: that these policies prioritize budgets over people’s well-being.
What are some of the key differences between the scope and financial implications of these two bills?
While there are similarities, the differences are stark. The US bill is much broader and more aggressive, targeting millions through cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, alongside tax breaks for the wealthy and increased military spending. This could add trillions to the national deficit, ironically undercutting the fiscal responsibility argument. The UK bill, by contrast, is narrower, focusing primarily on disability benefits like PIP and Universal Credit, with an initial promise of saving £5 billion annually by 2030—though late concessions may reduce that to nearly zero. So, while the UK’s impact is more targeted, the US proposal risks a far larger human and financial toll due to its sweeping scope.
What do you foresee as the long-term consequences of these welfare reforms on social inequality in both countries?
I’m deeply worried about the trajectory here. In both the UK and the US, these reforms are likely to widen the gap between the haves and have-nots. Cutting essential support for the most vulnerable—whether it’s disability benefits in the UK or healthcare and food assistance in the US—doesn’t just affect individuals; it destabilizes communities and perpetuates cycles of poverty. We’re already seeing inequality grow, and these policies could accelerate that trend, creating societies where access to basic rights like health and food becomes a privilege, not a guarantee. Future leaders might use the resulting deficits or economic strain as justification for even harsher cuts, which is a dangerous spiral. Without resistance and a reimagining of social policy as a tool for equity, we risk normalizing systemic neglect.
What’s your forecast for the future of welfare systems in these countries if these trends continue?
If these trends persist, I foresee welfare systems in both the UK and US becoming increasingly skeletal, offering minimal support that fails to meet real needs. In the UK, the erosion of benefits like Universal Credit and PIP could lead to a system that’s more punitive than protective, pushing more people into poverty or precarious work. In the US, the broader cuts could dismantle key safety nets like Medicaid and SNAP, leaving millions without basic support and exacerbating health and hunger crises. My forecast is grim unless there’s a significant push from policymakers, advocates, and communities to prioritize equitable social policies over short-term budget goals. We need to shift the narrative to see welfare as an investment in societal resilience, not a cost to be cut.
