Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · 13d

Government won't get there in one leap - think it's helpful to set out the goal, but also suggestions for a pathway of steps to get there.

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · 14d

Agree the evidence shows ultimately, UC's standard allowance is woefully inadequate - which is why we want an Essentials Guarantee - and the benefit cap should be scrapped. But we've suggested that completing a protected minimum floor would be a significant and quickly implementable first step.

1

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · 14d

Agree, the evidence shows ultimately, UC's standard allowance is woefully inadequate - which is why we want an Essentials Guarantee - and the benefit cap should be scrapped. But we've suggested that completing a protected minimum floor would be a significant and quickly implementable first step.

1 1

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · 15d

Introducing a protected minimum floor together with ending the two-child limit would lift 500,000 children out of poverty by the end of the parliament and reduce the depth of poverty for a further 1 million. 6/6

Read more here: www.jrf.org.uk/child-povert...

Three policies to reduce child poverty this parliament

This briefing sets out which children are at greatest risk of such severe and acute poverty, and what a child poverty strategy must include to address it.

www.jrf.org.uk

11 22

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · 15d

At @jrf-uk.bsky.social we are calling for the Government to complete a protected minimum floor 15% below Universal Credit's standard allowance. This would limit all reductions, including from the benefit cap, to this level and would be a low-cost step towards an Essentials Guarantee. 5/6

2 1 7

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · 15d

The benefit cap also interacts with the two-child limit. Scrapping the two-child limit without addressing this will see more families impacted by the benefit cap.

The Government must tackle these policies in its upcoming child poverty strategy. 4/6

1 2 8

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · 15d

The benefit cap disproportionately hits families already at high risk of poverty. Of families with children affected:

- around 5 in 6 are single-parent families
- over half have 3 or more children
- over half have a youngest child under 5 years old

3/6

Image of DWP chart showing number of capped UC single parent households by age of youngest child at May 2025. Of single-parent UC capped households, 48,000 (61%) have at least one child aged under 5 years at May 2025. In the same month there were 23,000 (29%) of single-parent UC capped households having a child aged under 2 years.

1 3 9

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · 15d

On average, families saw £59 a week deducted from their Universal Credit because of the benefit cap, a huge amount to lose for families facing deep hardship. But over 7,000 families saw over £150 week deducted. 2/6

1 2

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · 15d

New DWP data today shows 123,000 families – including 103,000 (over 4 in 5) with children – had their Universal Credit reduced by the benefit cap in May 2025.

This eats into UC’s already inadequate basic rate, pulling it further below what’s needed to afford life's essentials. 1/6

Image of DWP chart showing proportion of UC capped households by number of children, Great Britain, May 2025. It shows households with 2 or 3 children are the most common family sizes (34% and 27% respectively). The least common family sizes are 5 or more children (7%) and one child (9%). There were 18% of households capped in UC without children.

2 24 32

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · Jul 29

For more on the hardship facing disabled people receiving Universal Credit and the reforms that are really needed to fix this see: jrf.org.uk/work/unlocki...

For more on the need for an Essentials Guarantee in Universal Credit see: jrf.org.uk/social-secur... 5/5

Unlocking benefits: Tackling barriers for disabled people wanting to work

Reforms are needed to unlock work for people receiving work-related disability benefits, as informed by research with disabled people in partnership with Scope.

jrf.org.uk

1 9

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · Jul 29

But the Committee also welcomes desperately needed increases to Universal Credit's basic rate, recommending Govt considers going further than the small rise in the Bill.
@jrf-uk.bsky.social @trusselluk.bsky.social Essentials Guarantee work shows how far short of cost of essentials this falls 4/5

This chart shows the level of Universal Credit’s standard allowance (basic rate) compared to the cost of essentials including food and basic household bills. For a single adult aged 25 or older, Universal Credit’s standard allowance is currently £92 a week, but the cost of essentials is around £120 a week, leaving a gap of around £30 a week. For a couple where at least one member is aged 25 or older, the standard allowance is £145 a week, but the cost of essentials is around £205 a week, leaving a gap of £60 a week. The gaps are even larger for young people under the age of 25: a shortfall of almost £50 a week for a single young person and a shortfall of £90 a week for a young couple.

1 8

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · Jul 29

The Committee agrees with our analysis of the Govt’s own final impact assessment that around 50,000 people will be pulled into poverty by the remaining cuts in the Universal Credit Bill: 3/5 bsky.app/profile/iain...

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · Jul 8

Actually around 50,000 people will be pulled into poverty by remaining cuts in Bill - based on Govt’s impact assessments. @jrf-uk.bsky.social previously showed how DWP sleight of hand underplayed true poverty impact – same applies to this latest publication. 🧵1/3

www.theguardian.com/society/2025...

Welfare bill will now lift 50,000 out of poverty after U-turns, assessment finds

Revised bill passed after UK government rowed back on cuts will mean fewer rather than more people in relative poverty in 2030

www.theguardian.com

1 2 8

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · Jul 29

People currently receiving UC’s health element experience disproportionate and unacceptably high levels of hardship. Cutting it will just make disabled people poorer and make it harder for people trying to recover from ill health or move towards work. 2/5

This chart shows different indicators of hardship for people receiving health-related Universal Credit, compared to people receiving non-health-related Universal Credit, compared to all working-age people. Indicators include, for each of those groups: % of working-age adults who are in a household that had to use a food bank in the last 12 months; % who could not afford to keep their house warm; % experiencing material deprivation; % in a food insecure household; % in a household with 'very low food security'; and % who could not afford to keep up to date with bills. Overall the chart shows these hardship indicators to be very high for people receiving non-health-related Universal Credit, but even higher still for people receiving health-related Universal Credit. Both groups show much higher levels of hardship than found for all working-age adults in the population.

2 10 26

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · Jul 29

Govt dropped cuts to PIP, but today's Committee report highlights MPs' concerns that many disabled people will be pushed into poverty by remaining cuts to Universal Credit's health element. In evidence to the inquiry I warned of the hardship this will cause. 1/5

www.theguardian.com/politics/202...

Tens of thousands at risk of poverty despite Labour’s benefit U-turn, MPs warn

Changes to welfare reforms not enough to protect newly sick and disabled people from financial hardship

www.theguardian.com

3 52 78

Reposted by Iain Porter

Sam Tims @sam-tims.bsky.social · Jul 10

Over 1.6m children are now impacted by the Two-Child Limit - 11.6% of all children

This is a cruel policy that unnecessarily drags children into deeper levels of hardship

It needs to go, and the longer it is kept, the greater the scarring effects on children's health and education will be

A graph showing the increase in the number of children impacted by the Two-Child Limit since April 2018

24 37

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · Jul 8

So best estimate we currently have of remaining impact of Bill (combined deep cut to UC-health and small uplift to UC basic rate) is from Govt's original impact assessment Table B3 (50,000 net rise in poverty) - see previous explanation here: 3/3 bsky.app/profile/iain...

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · Mar 26

DWP is using a sleight of hand in its disability benefit cuts impact assessment: Actual increase in poverty is closer to 400,000, not the 250,000 in the impact assessment.

Quick thread explaining why. 🧵1/7

1 8

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · Jul 8

Govt's new assessment again offsets deep cuts to health-related Universal Credit against poverty 'reduction' from reversing previous Govt’s planned changes to Work Capability Assessment (WCA) descriptors, which never happened (was just in OBR's books): 2/3 www.gov.uk/government/p...

Spring statement social security changes – updated impact on poverty levels in Great Britain, July 2025

This ad hoc analysis provides estimates of the impact of changes to Universal Credit on poverty levels following revisions to the previously announced policy.

www.gov.uk

1 2 7

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · Jul 8

Actually around 50,000 people will be pulled into poverty by remaining cuts in Bill - based on Govt’s impact assessments. @jrf-uk.bsky.social previously showed how DWP sleight of hand underplayed true poverty impact – same applies to this latest publication. 🧵1/3

www.theguardian.com/society/2025...

Welfare bill will now lift 50,000 out of poverty after U-turns, assessment finds

Revised bill passed after UK government rowed back on cuts will mean fewer rather than more people in relative poverty in 2030

www.theguardian.com

1 19 34

Reposted by Iain Porter

Joseph Rowntree Foundation @jrf-uk.bsky.social · Jul 1

Today MPs will vote on the amended welfare bill.

MPs who choose to walk through the lobby and support this bill are paving the way for at least 150,000 people to be pulled into poverty.

Here are just 3 reasons why they should oppose this bill from @katieschmuecker.bsky.social 🔽

50 56

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · Jun 30

Final point: Turns out Govt's concessions worth ~£600 million less than widely reported last week. Details now show that while current UC-health recipients (& new claimants with 'severe conditions') are protected, they'll no longer benefit from small rise in UC’s basic rate. 7/7

2 5

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · Jun 30

The Timms review isn’t the only one Govt isn’t waiting for: its review (led by former John Lewis boss Sir Charlie Mayfield) of what employers and govt can do to increase employment of disabled people also doesn’t report until autumn. Again after MPs must vote on cuts. 6/7

1 3 6

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · Jun 30

Govt says it's about helping people into work, but can't even provide an employment impact estimate, that'll have to wait for OBR in autumn. So MPs still voting for cuts in the dark. This suggests only 3% of those facing original cuts would find work: www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications... 5/7

No workaround • Resolution Foundation

In March, the Government released its Pathways to Work Green Paper, setting out a package of welfare reforms that amounted to a net reduction in spending of £4.8 billion in 2029-30. On the Government’...

www.resolutionfoundation.org

1 2 6

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · Jun 30

MPs are still being asked to vote the arbitrary new ‘4-point rule’ cutting PIP into law, before the Timms review of PIP (which is not new, was promised in the green paper) gets off the ground. 4/7

1 1 6

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · Jun 30

From next year, new claimants will be £’000s worse off than current claimants: 400,000 disabled people newly claiming PIP and 700,000 newly claiming UC-health will lose out by 2029, and this will increase in the following years. 3/7

1 2 4

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · Jun 30

Govt admits remaining cuts will pull at least 150,000 people into poverty by 2029. But its new impact assessment is again misleading – it could be more like 250,000. (Same reason as why Govt’s previous poverty assessment understated the impact – see: bsky.app/profile/iain...) 2/7

Iain Porter @iainkporter.bsky.social · Mar 26

DWP is using a sleight of hand in its disability benefit cuts impact assessment: Actual increase in poverty is closer to 400,000, not the 250,000 in the impact assessment.

Quick thread explaining why. 🧵1/7

1 3 3