Majority of Tory and Reform voters do not back cuts to disability benefits, survey finds

Original article by Patrick Butler Social policy editor

There is little appetite for cuts to disability benefits even among Conservative and Reform voters, and proposals to reduce spending could prove politically risky, according to an authoritative national survey.

The British Social Attitudes (BSA) report found that while support for welfare spending as a whole had dipped sharply in recent years, just 7% of respondents backed cuts to disability benefits – and 49% said they should be increased.

Two government-commissioned reviews – of the personal independence payment (Pip) benefit, and support for jobless youngsters – are expected imminently, amid speculation they will seek to restrict spending on disability benefits.

The BSA report notes that any ministerial proposals to axe disability benefits would carry little support among Labour voters, of whom just 5% favoured reduced spending and 57% backed more generous spending.

Support for spending on disabled people remained high among Tory and Reform UK voters of whom 40% supported more spending on claimants who could not work, and just 10% supported less spending.

The report’s co-author Robert de Vries, a senior lecturer at the University of Kent, said: “Despite growing political divisions on welfare, support for disability benefits remains remarkably strong.

“Very few people favour cuts, disabled people are seen as among the most deserving recipients of support, and proposals to reduce disability benefits appear politically risky across the political spectrum.”

However, the report acknowledges it was difficult to be precise about public support for disability benefits, some of which depends on respondents’ subjective ideas of whether claimants were “deserving” or “genuinely” unable to work.

It was possible that there was support for cuts to specific groups of disabled people, with some conditions such as depression and anxiety ranking relatively low in an informal public hierarchy of “deserving cases” compared with, say, people who use a wheelchair.

Equally, the report added that initial public support for proposed cuts can change when it becomes clearer precisely who will be affected, and what the consequences are in terms of numbers of claimants pushed into hardship.

“We … cannot say in advance whether a particular cut to disability benefits will be supported or opposed by the public, but it is clear that this is very challenging terrain for a government to be confident of taking the public with them,” the report said.

The survey interviewed 4,656 people across the UK between August and October 2025. It has tracked British public attitudes since 1983 on a range of issues from immigration and taxation, to marriage and sexuality.

Last year the government was forced to U-turn on £5bn of disability benefit cuts in the face of public opposition and a Labour backbench rebellion over plans that would have pushed hundreds of thousands of disabled people into poverty.

It subsequently launched a review of Pip headed by the former welfare minister Sir Stephen Timms. Its initial findings, published in July, found that Pip, which is claimed by nearly 4 million people in England and Wales, should be overhauled. However, it said changes would have to be financially sustainable.

A separate review by the former Labour MP Alan Milburn into how to support nearly 1 million young people aged 16-24 who are not in education, employment or training (Neets) has led to concerns that benefit support for youngsters claiming Pip or the health element of universal credit may be cut.

Both the Conservatives, who launched a review to save £23bn, and Reform UK, which claims drastic cuts to Pip could help save up to £50bn, are keen to bring down what they characterise as out of control disability benefits spending.

The BSA report notes that while disability benefit spending has risen in recent years, overall levels of welfare spending have remained flat, suggesting that media and political claims of an unsustainable system are overstated.