Let’s start with the numbers. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), in 2019 the UK’s spending on working-age health-related benefits (disability + incapacity) was around 1.3% of GDP — whereas the OECD average was about 1.6% of GDP. Institute for Fiscal Studies+2Office for Budget Responsibility+2
In other words, even before the pandemic and cost-of-living explosion, the UK was already spending less than many comparable nations on the very supports disabled people depend on.
A separate piece of research from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) shows that by 2019 the UK ranked among the worst in the OECD for “welfare generosity” (measured as benefit replacement-rate and spending as a proportion of average wages). Canary+1
So it’s not just about how many people claim benefits — it’s also about how much support each claimant receives. The UK’s floor is low.
Then: since 2020, claimant numbers for disability and incapacity benefits have soared in the UK. IFS data show the caseload rose by ~39% for disability benefits from 2019-20 to 2023-24. Institute for Fiscal Studies
And yet: even with more people needing help, the support levels per person have not seen commensurate increases.
Which leads to the grim conclusion: we are seeing rising need + low generosity = many disabled people falling through the cracks.
Why the media narrative misses the point (and the people)
What you’ll commonly hear in the media:
- “Welfare spending is out of control.”
- “Cutting benefits will push people into work and ease the burden.”
- “Fraud and abuse among benefit-claimants is rampant.”
What you’ll rarely hear:
- “People with disabilities have extra costs that push them well beyond what benefit rates cover.”
- “Compared with other countries, the UK gives less support to people who can’t work because of illness or disability.”
- “The system treats sick and disabled people as an expense to be minimised, rather than a human right to be honoured.”
This narrative is convenient: it allows the government to say “Look, we are tough on welfare spending” while never admitting that the baseline for disabled people is unacceptable.
Take for example the case of extra living costs. The Scope disability charity estimates that the “disability price-tag” in the UK is already over £1,000/month and could rise further. Yet benefit awards often fall far short. The Guardian
So when the media reports “We’re reforming PIP assessments to save money”, what the public doesn’t hear is: but those disabled people were already under-supported.
By focusing on cuts, fraud, “dependency”, the narrative shifts blame onto the sick and disabled — instead of revealing the real injustice: that the government has never provided a sufficient scaffold of support.
Comparisons matter: the “least generous” claim holds up
Let’s dig deeper into comparative facts. Although the UK spend on non-pensioner cash benefits was “close to the OECD average” at 3.7% of GDP in 2019, within that the share going to incapacity-related benefits (1.3%) was slightly below the OECD average (1.6%). Office for Budget Responsibility+1
Also, the NIESR report flags that the UK’s benefit system ranks third-lowest in “replacement rate” among 37 OECD countries — worse only than the USA and Australia. Canary
In sum: yes, the UK is not (yet) the absolute lowest everywhere, but it is decidedly near the bottom when it comes to supporting disabled people — especially compared with the narrative of “we’re welfare-heavy”.
And let’s call it what it is: if you are disabled in the UK, you are more likely to face a system that gives you less than your counterparts elsewhere, while you also face higher costs of living and reduced ability to work.
The moral dimension: rights, not charity
What the system lacks is a rights-based frame. The media and government speak of welfare as charity or handout; what needs emphasising is that for disabled people, it is a matter of survival, dignity and equality.
When the government says “We’ll target support for those who really need it”, what that often means is “We’ll cut costs for those we define as ‘too many’”. Meanwhile, the voices of those with genuine, often lifelong disability — who cannot engage in full employment, or whose extra costs are enormous — remain muted in the mainstream narrative.
Media coverage rarely gives space to the lived reality:
- having to choose between heating or medication;
- extra mobility/hygiene/care expenses;
- being kept on minimal support while waiting months for an assessment;
- the emotional toll of being seen as a burden rather than a citizen with rights.
A rights-based system would treat disabled people not as a budget line to be squeezed, but as full participants in society who deserve adequate support to live with dignity.
Why the UK system design worsens the problem
There are multiple design flaws that amplify the injustice:
- Assessment and eligibility thresholds – The move from DLA to PIP and the tightening of criteria means many people who were previously supported are now facing rejection or lower awards.
- Delayed uprating and inflation mismatch – Even when awards rise, they lag inflation and rising costs, meaning the real value declines.
- Extra costs of disability ignored – The benefit calculations rarely factor in properly the extra monthly costs of being disabled (equipment, care, energy, transport). Scope’s figures show this gap is growing. The Guardian
- Media framing of “costs to the taxpayer” over “needs of the person” – The narrative drives political will to reduce spending rather than ensure adequacy.
- Comparative neglect – The fact that the UK is near the bottom of the OECD for generosity gets little airtime. That omission hides the depth of the problem.
When the government, via the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), introduces “reforms” aimed at reducing the caseload or cutting awards, the justified talk is about sustainability. But in practice, the missing piece is: will disabled people be able to live and participate with dignity? The answer increasingly looks like “no”.
Media complicity: who gets heard and who is invisible?
Which voices dominate media coverage? Often: ministers, officials, think-tanks talking about “costs”, “fraud prevention”, “incentivising work”. Almost never: long-term disabled people, families bearing life-changing costs, the extra burdens of being disabled in a system designed for the non-disabled.
It reminds me of corporate PR tricks: imagine if a CEO of a large company talked about “cutting costs across the business” while never showing the people laid off, or the decline in service. The spotlight stays on the “business case”, not the human cost.
In our context: disabled people are that human cost. They are the ones paying for the “reform”. But the media gives them little voice. The public hears about “outs-of-control benefit spending” rather than “people with disabilities cannot live on the awards we give them”.
We get: “we will protect the most vulnerable” — yet in practice the most vulnerable (disabled people) are the ones being squeezed hardest.
What change needs to happen — and soon
For Forgotten Rights readers, this is not abstract. Here are concrete demands and what we can push for:
- Benchmark benefit awards to the actual extra cost of disability. It’s not enough to say “we will increase by x%”. The baseline must reflect the reality of being disabled in 2025: mobility aids, heating, specialist transport, care hours, etc.
- Transparent comparisons with peer countries. Why is the UK near the bottom of OECD generosity for disabled people? Make that known. Demand accountability.
- Media must shift narrative — from “welfare bill” to “right to live”. Encourage stories that centre disabled people, their costs, their lives, not just the budget line.
- Focus on living income, not just work-incentives. Many disabled people cannot engage in full employment. They still deserve full participation. The system must reflect that, not punish.
- End the blame culture. The “fraudulent claimant” trope is a distraction. The vast majority of benefit claimants are legitimately unwell or disabled. The system should treat them with dignity, not suspicion.
- Prevention and support, not just restriction. If eligibility criteria are so tight that many fall out of support entirely, we are storing up long-term human and financial cost (poor health, social exclusion, worse outcomes).
- Amplify disabled voices. Give media space to those living the experience — let them speak about the gap between the support they receive and the costs they bear.
Why I say the buck never stops where it should
The government likes to talk about “the most vulnerable” and “fairness for taxpayers”. The media repeats phrases like “we must discourage dependency”. But what we seldom hear is: the system is already designed such that disabled people are let down from the start, before any “dependency” is even in question.
They intentionally shift the narrative: Why can’t you work? rather than What do you need to live with dignity?
They ask: How do we make the safety net smaller? rather than How do we raise the net to where people need it to be?
In the media, when “cuts” happen, we hear ‘someone must pay’ — but rarely do we hear: ‘the people already paying have nothing left to give.’
In short, the buck stops everywhere except where it matters: the sick and disabled. They are left, once again, to carry the cost of political choices while the narrative keeps telling the public they are the problem.
Conclusion: the story we must tell
If the UK wants a fair society, then supporting disabled people isn’t optional — it’s central. The fact that the UK ranks so poorly for generosity towards the disabled isn’t just a policy failure — it’s a moral failure.
And yet the media lets the government get away with talking about “sustainability” and “incentives” without ever focussing on the real numbers and the human consequences. For Forgotten Rights, we must keep shining the light: yes, the government gives the least (or among the least) to sick and disabled people compared with other countries; and yes, the media narrative passes the buck, never admitting that the ones who have are the only ones who matter.
We must hold the line: disability support is not a cost to be minimised — it is a right to be honoured. We must demand the floor be raised, the stories be told, the system be held to account.
It’s not charity. It’s dignity. And right now, the UK is failing.
Forgotten Rights will not forget.
📚 Sources and Further Reading
- Scope – Cost of Disability Report
- Joseph Rowntree Foundation – Poverty and Disability Data
- The Guardian – Disability Coverage
- Inclusion London – Campaigns and Briefings
- Privacy & Accessibility
- Disclaimer & Legal
✊ Forgotten Rights is powered by readers ✊
The government ignores us. The media silences us. This blog exists to scream back.
If you value this fight — help keep it alive.
Recommended Resources
(Some links are affiliate — I may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you.)
Forgotten Rights is an independent UK-based blog dedicated to highlighting the treatment of sick and disabled people, government policy, and social justice issues. All opinions expressed are those of the author(s) unless stated otherwise.
1. General Information Only
The content published on Forgotten Rights is provided for general information and discussion purposes only. It reflects personal views, lived experiences, and public reporting on UK disability and welfare issues.
Nothing on this site should be taken as legal, medical, or financial advice. Readers should always seek independent professional guidance before acting on any information contained here.
2. Accuracy of Information
We make every effort to ensure the accuracy of our posts at the time of publication, using trusted news outlets, government documents, and verified data sources. However, policies and regulations can change without notice. We cannot guarantee that all information remains current, complete, or error-free.
Forgotten Rights assumes no responsibility for loss, harm, or damage arising from reliance on material published on this site.
3. External Links
Our articles often link to external websites for reference, context, or additional reading. These links are provided for convenience only. We do not control or endorse the content, privacy practices, or accessibility of third-party sites.
Visiting external links is at your own discretion and risk. We are not liable for any issues that arise from third-party websites.
4. User Contributions & Comments
Comments (if enabled) are moderated to maintain a respectful environment. We reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain discrimination, hate speech, spam, or defamation.
By submitting a comment or message, you grant us a non-exclusive licence to display, reproduce, and moderate that content on our site. Do not post personal, medical, or confidential information that you would not wish to appear publicly.
5. Intellectual Property
Unless otherwise credited, all original text, graphics, and images on Forgotten Rights are © 2025 Forgotten Rights. You may quote short excerpts for non-commercial use provided you give full attribution and a working link to the original article.
Content may not be republished, sold, or substantially reproduced without written permission from the author(s).
If you believe your intellectual property has been used on this site without permission, please contact us at forgottenrightsblog[at]gmail.com and we will investigate immediately.
6. Donations & Affiliate Links
Forgotten Rights may include voluntary donation links via Ko-fi or Patreon to support our independent journalism. These platforms are operated by third parties under their own terms and privacy policies.
We do not collect or store any payment information ourselves. Any contribution made is entirely voluntary and non-refundable.
7. Limitation of Liability
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Forgotten Rights and its authors disclaim all liability for damages or losses arising from use of this website or reliance on any information provided herein.
This disclaimer applies to all forms of liability, including negligence, except where excluded by UK consumer or data-protection law.
8. Governing Law
This website is operated from the United Kingdom. Any disputes arising from or relating to the use of this site will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales.
9. Accessibility Statement
We aim to ensure that all content on Forgotten Rights is accessible to every reader. If you experience difficulty accessing our articles, please email [email protected] so we can improve your experience.
10. Contact
Questions regarding this Disclaimer & Legal Notice can be sent to:
Email: forgottenrightsblog[at]gmail.com (replace [at] with @)
Location: United Kingdom
By using this website, you agree to this Disclaimer & Legal Notice.
— title: “Terms of Use” slug: terms-of-use date: 2025-10-30 —Terms of Use
Last updated: 30 October 2025
Welcome to Forgotten Rights — an independent UK blog highlighting issues affecting sick and disabled people under government policy. By using this website, you agree to comply with and be bound by the following Terms of Use. If you do not agree with any part of these terms, please do not use this site.
1. Acceptance of Terms
Your access to and use of Forgotten Rights (the “Site”) constitutes your acceptance of these Terms, our Privacy & Accessibility Policy, and our Disclaimer & Legal Notice. These may be updated at any time without prior notice.
2. Purpose of the Site
This website provides news commentary, personal opinion, and analysis relating to disability rights, welfare policy, and social justice. It is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. It does not provide legal, medical, or financial advice.
3. Use of Content
All original articles, text, graphics, and images are © 2025 Forgotten Rights unless otherwise stated.
- You may quote short excerpts for non-commercial purposes with full attribution and a visible link back to the original post.
- You may not reproduce, republish, or distribute our content in full without written permission.
- Commercial or media use requires prior consent from the author(s).
Where we share external images, press excerpts, or data, copyright remains with the original creators under fair-use exceptions for reporting and commentary.
4. User Conduct
When interacting with this website (via comments, forms, or emails), you agree that you will not:
- Post defamatory, discriminatory, or abusive material.
- Upload or share content that violates any law or third-party rights.
- Attempt to hack, disrupt, or damage the website or its infrastructure.
We reserve the right to remove or block any comments or users who breach these terms.
5. Donations and Support
Forgotten Rights may include voluntary donation links (e.g. Ko-fi or Patreon) to help fund our independent journalism. These are entirely optional and processed securely through third-party platforms under their own terms and privacy policies.
We do not store or process any payment information directly. All contributions are considered voluntary and non-refundable.
6. External Links
This website contains links to third-party websites. We are not responsible for their content, accuracy, or privacy practices. Following external links is at your own risk.
7. Data Protection
Your privacy is governed by our Privacy & Accessibility Policy. By using this site, you consent to the collection and use of data in accordance with that policy.
8. Accessibility
We are committed to making Forgotten Rights accessible to all users. If you experience barriers, please contact us at [email protected] and we will do our best to resolve them.
9. Disclaimer of Warranties
All information on this website is provided “as is” and without warranties of any kind. We make no representations about the accuracy or completeness of the content and accept no liability for errors or omissions.
10. Limitation of Liability
To the fullest extent permitted by UK law, Forgotten Rights and its authors will not be liable for any damages arising from the use or inability to use this website or reliance on any information provided herein.
11. Governing Law
These Terms of Use are governed by the laws of England and Wales. Any disputes will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
12. Changes to These Terms
We may revise these Terms of Use periodically. The updated version will be published on this page with the date of revision at the top. Continued use of the site after any changes means you accept those changes.
13. Contact
Questions about these Terms of Use can be sent to:
Email: forgottenrightsblog[at]gmail.com (replace [at] with @)
Location: United Kingdom
By continuing to use this website, you confirm that you have read, understood, and agree to these Terms of Use.