The Chancellor's latest Budget was a study in political optics: while headlines screamed about tax freezes, the cold, hard fiscal truth lies in a confirmed, aggressive plan to achieve £4.8 billion in welfare savings by the end of the decade. This article cuts through the complexity to analyse the government's strategy—using a compromised 'Review' to justify pre-determined austerity—and outlines the devastating consequences for disabled people across the UK.

1. The £4.8 Billion Welfare Savings Hammer

The government's determination to reduce public spending is driven by the rapidly rising cost of working-age sickness and disability benefits. The OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook (EFO) – November 2025 has officially costed the necessary savings required to plug the hole in the nation's finances.

The Political Rhetoric vs. Reality

What we know is that both Labour and the Conservatives, along with Reform, share the political rhetoric that "work pays." They have repeatedly stated their goal is to cut PIP and Universal Credit (UC) benefits to drive more people into work.

The reality, which they consistently fail to mention, is that the majority of people on Universal Credit are working, but their wages are simply not enough to meet basic needs.

Cuts Confirmed, Consultation Ignored

The headline figure confirms the total package of reforms is designed to deliver £4.8 billion in welfare savings by 2029-30.

This saving is not achieved through better support, but through tighter eligibility rules that will restrict benefits for hundreds of thousands of people.

Crucially, the independent Timms Review into Personal Independence Payment (PIP)—which is supposed to determine the specific framework for these tighter eligibility rules—is yet to formally begin or conclude its work. This announcement suggests that, despite creating a retrospective review, the government plans to push through significant changes to the PIP claim process regardless of what the Review finds. This leaves many who rely on PIP to cover essential, disability-linked costs in a state of profound insecurity.

Addressing the Taxpayer Argument

A constant reply on my recent TikTok videos on this matter has been, "But I work, why should my taxes pay for their PIP benefits?"

This comment fundamentally ignores the purpose of social security, which was established to ensure people do not fall into poverty. A disabled person or someone living with an impairment did not ask for the significant financial impact of being disabled. PIP is designed to meet the extra costs of disability, not to fund a lifestyle.

A Drop in the Ocean

While the removal of the two-child benefit cap is a welcome step, it feels like a drop in the ocean compared to the deep cuts elsewhere. Benefits have again not risen with inflation, meaning disabled people are facing higher costs every day without a corresponding increase in payments. Meanwhile, those on the State Pension did see a raise, thanks to the triple lock. This isn't a cry of one group being more deserving than the other—it's a cry of hypocrisy in how different groups are treated under the same economic pressure. We cannot allow this clear double standard to stand, nor can we allow the government to use a compromised 'Review' to justify pre-determined austerity measures.

2. The Compromised Review: When Consultation Doesn't Lead to Change

The commitment to £4.8 billion in savings effectively pulls the rug out from under the entire Timms Review before it even starts. The primary question we must ask is: What is the point of an independent review when the outcome a significant financial saving via eligibility restriction is already mandated by the Treasury?

The government's actions suggest the Review is merely a political theatre designed to rubber-stamp pre-determined cuts, not a genuine consultation leading to co-produced policy.

Lived Experience Side-lined

If the government were serious about listening, the process would be robust, transparent, and built on trust. Instead, we have seen misstep after misstep proving the opposite:

• The Restrictive NDA: The initial attempt to recruit lived experience members for the Review steering group required applicants to sign a highly restrictive Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). This demand immediately created an adversarial relationship, placing unnecessary legal barriers in front of the very disabled people whose expertise is supposedly being sought. The delay and subsequent public pushback required to fix this issue clearly demonstrate a fundamental failure of understanding when it comes to true co-production.

• The Secondary Network: Furthermore, those of us who applied to the panel and were unsuccessful were signposted to give feedback through the Regional Stakeholder Network (RSN). While the RSN, an unpaid, quarterly-meeting voluntary network is a valuable entity, relying on it as the secondary, reactive channel for policy input is an insult. The government chose to fix the £4.8 billion savings target in the Budget before genuinely engaging with established channels like the RSN chairs, who meet directly with the Minister for Social Security and Disability (Rt Hon Sir Stephen Timms).

The Real-World Impact of a Hollow Review

When a review is guaranteed not to lead to policy changes that benefit claimants, the consequences are disastrous. The financial anxiety over losing a core benefit like PIP only heightens the mental health crisis already facing the disabled community.

A compromised review means the government is prepared to:

1. Ignore Expertise: Discard the evidence and advice of disabled people's organisations and panel members if it doesn't align with the predetermined austerity goals.

2. Increase Poverty: Force hundreds of thousands of people who rely on PIP's extra-costs funding further into financial precarity, fundamentally undermining the social security net.

We need to demand that the Timms Review either be given a genuinely neutral mandate—free from the Chancellor’s pre-fixed savings targets—or be exposed as the political sham it appears to be. A review that is restricted by such a narrow, mandatory scope cannot fully provide meaningful impact or honest policy recommendations.