Despite warning of dire social unrest, Nigel Farage has said benefits cuts must go ahead (Image: Getty)
Nigel Farage has vowed to wage “war” on Britain’s benefits culture, warning he is prepared to face down riots, strikes and protests to slash the welfare bill if Reform UK wins power at the next election.
In an interview on Wednesday, the Reform UK leader said a “massive change of thought” was needed on welfare to make it affordable and tackle growing resentment among working people about the scale of handouts.
“Attitudes are going to have to harden. There’s a massive, massive change of thought needed on benefits – that’s going to be the biggest war of them all,” he said.
“I’m sorry, but mild anxiety is not a reason to be on disability benefit – it just isn’t. We can’t afford it, it can’t continue.
“And there’ll be riots, and there’ll be strikes and there’ll be protests, and we know all of that, but that’s what we’re going to have to do – it has to be done. We just can’t afford it now.”
What are Reform’s welfare plans?
Detailed proposals costing tens of billions of pounds from the welfare budget are being finalised ahead of publication after the local elections, with the plans expected to push millions of currently inactive people back into the jobs market. Farage claimed Reform was now becoming the “party of working people.”
“I now believe there’s one big divide in British society… those that work and those that don’t,” he said.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
A conversation with a Clacton constituent captured, in Farage’s telling to the Daily Mail, the raw frustration driving his welfare agenda. The man had grown weary of grafting seven days a week only to find himself financially level with neighbours who stayed at home on benefits.
The man told Farage: “The b******s next door, they get up at midday, Deliveroo brings their lunch. They smoke dope all afternoon. They’re as well–off as I am.”
Farage added: “He actually summed up how huge numbers of people feel. And yes, on the economy, we can incentivise those in business, but we equally can’t go on paying an ever bigger (welfare) bill. Socially, this will be the biggest battle that we face.”
What does Farage say about Britain’s attitude to success?
Farage also pledged to lead a cultural shift in attitudes towards work and success, accusing Chancellor Rachel Reeves of presiding over “an assault on private enterprise, an assault on business and, even worse, an assault on savings.”
“We’ve got a country now where it’s almost like if you poll public opinion, they want to punish anybody that’s done well. Well, actually, we have to fight back against that,” he said.
How big is Britain’s welfare bill?
The nation’s welfare bill is on course to breach £400billion annually before the decade is out — a rise of £70billion on current spending. Sickness benefits are driving much of the surge, with the bill in that category alone projected to leap from £83billion last year to £109billion by 2030 — a real-terms increase of more than 30 per cent.
What other welfare policies has Reform announced?
Earlier this month Farage committed to keeping the pensions triple lock, saying it would be funded by “the biggest cuts to the benefits bill ever seen in the history of this country.” He has also reversed his position on the two-child benefit cap, saying a Reform government would scrap Labour’s £3billion decision to extend payments to thousands of jobless families.
Farage has set his sights on Personal Independence Payments, announcing plans to remove the benefit from hundreds of thousands of claimants with mild mental health conditions — a move the party says could generate savings of £9billion over time.
A further £9billion is projected to come from barring foreign nationals, including EU citizens, from accessing the benefits system, though independent experts have challenged that estimate.
Nigel Farage Declares War on Benefits Britain: “There’ll Be Riots”
Nigel Farage has warned that major reforms to Britain’s welfare system could trigger riots, strikes and protests, as the Reform UK leader argues that the country can no longer afford the current level of benefits spending.
Speaking to the Daily Mail in April 2026, Farage said a “massive change of thought” was required over welfare and described the issue as potentially the “biggest war” his party would face. He specifically argued that mild anxiety should not, in his view, qualify someone for disability benefits and said he expected opposition to any major reduction in welfare spending.
His remarks placed welfare reform alongside immigration and taxation as one of the central issues in Reform UK’s political programme. They also highlighted one of the most difficult questions facing any government attempting to reduce welfare spending: how to distinguish between people who could return to employment and those who genuinely require long-term financial support.
Farage’s warning about unrest
Farage’s reference to riots was not a prediction that riots would definitely occur. Rather, he was warning that substantial welfare reductions could generate protests and industrial action.
“I’m sorry, but mild anxiety is not a reason to be on disability benefit,” Farage said in the interview. He argued that Britain could not continue to finance what he regarded as an increasingly expensive welfare system. He added that there would be “riots”, “strikes” and “protests”, but insisted that reform would nevertheless be necessary.
The comments immediately attracted attention because welfare policy affects millions of households, including people with disabilities, long-term illnesses and caring responsibilities.
They also came at a time when governments across Britain were debating how to control rising spending on sickness and disability benefits.
Farage’s argument is that the welfare system should operate primarily as a safety net rather than becoming a long-term alternative to employment for people who are capable of working.
Reform’s welfare programme
Reform UK subsequently published a much more detailed welfare programme in August 2026.
The party said it wanted to reduce welfare spending by £50 billion a year. Its proposals include replacing existing disability-payment arrangements with a new health security allowance for people described as “gravely ill and severely challenged”.
Under the proposals, existing claimants would be reassessed over a three- to four-year period. Reform said it estimated that 2.16 million people would retain their existing cash entitlement in full, while 2.89 million would see their payments modified or withdrawn.
Those figures illustrate the scale of the proposed reform.
Reform is not proposing a minor administrative adjustment. Its programme would substantially change how disability-related welfare is assessed and delivered.
The party says its intention is to protect people with severe disabilities while reducing payments to people it believes can work or whose conditions do not justify continuing cash payments under the existing system.
Personal Independence Payment at the centre
Personal Independence Payment, commonly known as PIP, is one of the most politically sensitive elements of the debate.
PIP is intended to help people with long-term physical or mental health conditions who have difficulties with daily living or mobility. Eligibility is determined through an assessment of how a condition affects an individual’s ability to perform specific activities, rather than simply by the existence of a particular diagnosis.
Reform has proposed replacing the existing system with a different model.
The party says low-level conditions would no longer automatically result in the same type of cash support and that disability support accounts could instead help people pay for equipment, adaptations, transport and personal assistance.
The distinction is significant.
A change in the form of assistance does not necessarily mean that every claimant would simply lose all support. However, people who currently depend on cash payments could experience substantial changes in how that support is delivered.
That is why welfare reform has generated strong reactions from disability organisations and other campaign groups.
The £50 billion question
Reform says its programme could save £50 billion annually.
The figure has been challenged by political opponents.
The Conservatives have promoted their own welfare reforms, while Labour has criticised Reform’s calculations and argued that the proposed savings are not sufficiently credible. ITV reported that Labour described Reform’s £50 billion claim as “fantasy economics”, while the Conservatives argued that Reform had previously been inconsistent on some welfare policies.
These competing claims should be distinguished from independently established facts.
The size of any eventual saving would depend on how many people lost or reduced payments, how many returned to employment, the costs of administering new assessments and whether additional costs appeared elsewhere in the public sector.
For example, someone who loses a disability benefit but cannot find employment might require support through another programme or could face greater financial pressure on their household.
Consequently, the gross reduction in welfare payments would not necessarily be identical to the government’s eventual net saving.
Reform’s argument about work
Farage has framed the issue around the relationship between employment and welfare.
He has repeatedly argued that Britain should become a society where work is financially attractive and where people who are capable of employment are expected to participate in the labour market.
Reform’s August programme states that there are 6.6 million working-age people claiming out-of-work benefits and says too many could work or should be looking for employment. The party says its policies would seek to move 241,000 British nationals back into work.
The party also proposes changes affecting foreign nationals.
Its published policy says that, under a Reform government, only British citizens would be entitled to welfare benefits, while foreign nationals would no longer qualify for welfare payments. The party makes an exception for state pensions where foreign nationals have acquired entitlement through sufficient National Insurance contributions.
This is another area likely to generate legal and political debate, particularly concerning people with existing immigration status and rights acquired under previous arrangements.
Critics warn about poverty
Critics of the Reform programme argue that welfare reductions could have consequences extending beyond individual claimants.
The Guardian reported that campaigners had warned the proposals could increase child poverty and argued that some households with health problems could experience substantial reductions in income.
The debate is particularly relevant because disability benefits are not limited to people who are completely unable to work.
Some claimants can work but may require additional financial support because of mobility difficulties, chronic illness or other barriers.
That creates a difficult policy question.
A government can attempt to increase employment by changing financial incentives, but it must also determine whether suitable jobs, workplace adjustments and employment support are available for people leaving the benefits system.
The economic argument
There is a straightforward economic reason why welfare spending has become such a major political issue.
Government spending on benefits represents a substantial portion of public expenditure, while the number of people receiving sickness and disability-related support has increased significantly since the pandemic.
Reform argues that the existing trajectory is unsustainable and that failing to reduce spending would place additional pressure on taxpayers and public finances.
The party’s welfare document argues that its proposals would protect the long-term future of the welfare state by concentrating support on people it regards as most vulnerable.
Critics take a different view. They argue that reducing payments can transfer costs from the welfare budget to families, local authorities, charities and other public services.
Both possibilities would need to be measured through evidence rather than political rhetoric.
Why the issue could become politically difficult
Farage’s warning about riots reveals how contentious welfare reform can become.
Previous attempts by governments to reduce disability-related benefits have generated significant political opposition. The Guardian noted that Labour’s earlier proposals to cut disability spending by approximately £5 billion a year were abandoned after opposition from Labour MPs and concerns about their effects on households.
That experience provides an indication of the political challenge facing Reform.
Changing eligibility rules can produce immediate and highly visible consequences for individual families, while the financial benefits to the Treasury may take longer to materialise.
The people affected are also not a single political group. Welfare recipients include pensioners, disabled people, working families and people temporarily unable to work.
A broader debate about the welfare state
At its heart, the argument is about what the British welfare state should provide and who should qualify for support.
Farage and Reform argue that the system should be substantially smaller, more tightly targeted and more strongly focused on encouraging employment.
Critics argue that the proposed reductions risk placing too much financial pressure on people whose health or personal circumstances make employment difficult.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about a single benefit.
It concerns the balance between personal responsibility, taxpayer contributions, social protection and the government’s responsibility towards people who cannot support themselves through work.
What happens next?
Reform’s proposals remain political commitments rather than an implemented welfare system.
If the party eventually formed a government, the plans would have to be translated into legislation and detailed regulations. Eligibility criteria would need to be defined, reassessments organised and appeals procedures established.
The financial assumptions would also face scrutiny.
The central test would be whether the reforms actually produced the promised savings while increasing employment without leaving people with severe disabilities without adequate support.
Farage has already acknowledged that the process would be politically difficult. His warning that there could be riots, strikes and protests underlines the scale of the confrontation he believes would accompany major welfare reform.
For supporters of Reform’s approach, the issue is about making the welfare system financially sustainable and strengthening incentives to work.
For opponents, the central concern is whether large-scale reductions would place vulnerable households under unacceptable financial pressure.
Those competing arguments are likely to remain at the centre of Britain’s political debate as the parties develop their welfare policies.
What is clear is that Farage does not regard welfare reform as a peripheral issue. He has described it as one of the biggest battles facing Reform UK, while the party’s subsequent £50 billion proposal demonstrates that the changes under discussion could affect millions of people and reshape one of the country’s most important areas of public policy.