Full Analysis Summary
Welfare cuts and spending
An Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) analysis concludes that cuts to non-health welfare between 2010 and 2019 likely pushed a significant number of people onto health-related disability benefits.
The IFS estimates this shift raised disability spending by about £900 million over that period and describes the figure as a back-of-the-envelope calculation explaining roughly 13% of the £7 billion rise in disability spending that decade.
The research links policy changes between 2008 and 2018 to the £900 million estimate and stresses the result is a partial explanation situated within broader spending trends rather than a sole cause.
Coverage Differences
tone/emphasis
The i Paper (Western Mainstream) presents the IFS analysis in technical and measured terms, emphasising the methodological caveat that the £900m is a "back-of-the-envelope" estimate and only part of the rise; The Mirror (Western Tabloid) frames the finding as a warning about austerity's human impact and highlights policy implications and charity calls to "take the research seriously"; Bristol Live (Local Western) echoes the technical caveat but foregrounds comments from IFS researcher Eduin Latimer and local political timing around government reforms.
Welfare cuts and disability spending
The IFS identifies two mechanisms by which cuts to non-health benefits can increase disability spending.
First, lower incomes may worsen physical and mental health, increasing people’s eligibility for disability support.
Second, reductions in housing or out-of-work benefits can change incentives so marginal claimants decide to apply for disability support.
The report examines four major welfare reforms, including the 2011 reduction in Local Housing Allowance for private renters and an increase in the state pension age.
For example, affected households lost on average £667 a year in housing benefit two years after the 2011 LHA cut (a 3.3% drop in income), while disability receipts in that group rose from 221,000 to 229,000 (a 3.5% increase), implying an income elasticity of about -1.1.
Coverage Differences
narrative/detail
The i Paper (Western Mainstream) provides detailed mechanisms and a numeric example including the £667 average housing loss and an implied income elasticity; The Mirror (Western Tabloid) emphasises the same policy examples but stresses the unintended long-term consequences and political relevance (and notes Joseph Rowntree Foundation funding); Bristol Live (Local Western) lists the bundle of specific reforms (2011 housing cuts, state pension age, 2016 benefit cap, single-parent conditionality) and quotes an IFS researcher on spillover effects.
Media coverage of findings
The findings have clear political and policy implications noted differently across outlets.
The Mirror says the research 'complicates government plans to revive reforms of health-related benefits'.
The Mirror also notes that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation helped fund the work and urged policymakers to take it seriously, framing the study as a direct challenge to planned reforms.
Bristol Live stresses the timeliness given ministers had previously abandoned plans to tighten PIP eligibility after opposition from Labour backbenchers.
Bristol Live also quotes calls to treat social security as an investment in public health.
The i Paper reiterates the technical limits of the estimate and situates the result amid broader spending patterns, making its coverage more analytical than overtly political.
Coverage Differences
political framing
The Mirror (Western Tabloid) frames the IFS result as politically consequential and as a complication for government reform plans, Bristol Live (Local Western) emphasises local political context and charity calls for social security as investment, while The i Paper (Western Mainstream) stresses methodological caveats and places the finding within broader spending trends rather than using it as a direct political attack.
Limits of £900m estimate
All three sources and the IFS highlight uncertainties and limits in the calculation.
The £900m figure is described as a rough, 'back-of-the-envelope' estimate that explains only a small part of the overall increase in disability spending.
The IFS warns the estimate cannot account for the sharp post-pandemic rise in claims because aggregate benefit generosity has not fallen substantially since 2019.
The Mirror and Bristol Live repeat this caveat and point to post-2022 cost-of-living pressures as a more likely cause of the later rise in claims.
They stress the spillover effect is only one part of a more complex picture.
Coverage Differences
uncertainty/emphasis on causes
The i Paper (Western Mainstream) and Bristol Live (Local Western) explicitly cite the IFS caveat that the estimate is a "back-of-the-envelope" calculation and cannot account for post‑pandemic increases, while The Mirror (Western Tabloid) reiterates those caveats but also foregrounds the role of cost‑of‑living pressures since 2022 as a more likely explanation for the later rise in claims.