Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch. (Image: Getty)

The Conservatives are pledging to cut back disability and sickness benefits and to reinstate the two-child benefit cap as part of plans to slash billions from the welfare bill, as its weight is “crushing our economy”. Party leader Kemi Badenoch had already announced plans to cut £36.1 billion per year in benefits at the Conservative Party conference last month, but at an event on Tuesday, the party is now expected to set out further details on how it would get there.

The cuts are to include £13.7 billion from reforms to disability and sickness benefits, including scrapping payments for mild mental health conditions and routine back and joint pain. The Conservative leader also said the welfare bill is “more than the entire GDP of Ukraine” and argued that many people facing challenges can contribute, citing double amputees who run marathons and autistic people running some of the world’s biggest tech companies.

Kemi Badenoch Reveals Bombshell £36bn Plan to Slash Welfare Bill ‘Crushing Our Economy’

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has unveiled an ambitious £36 billion welfare-cutting programme, promising to overhaul Britain’s benefits system and reduce the financial burden on taxpayers. The proposals represent one of the most significant attempts by the Conservatives to redefine their economic and social policies as they seek to challenge Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s Labour government.

Badenoch argues that Britain’s welfare system has become financially unsustainable, with billions of pounds being spent on benefits for people who could potentially return to employment. She believes the current system discourages personal responsibility, reduces economic productivity and places an increasingly heavy burden on working households.

Her proposals include major changes to sickness and disability benefits, restrictions on benefit eligibility for certain foreign nationals, the restoration of the two-child benefit cap and tougher measures against fraud.

The Conservative leader has described the welfare burden as something that is “crushing our economy”, warning that the country cannot continue spending at its current rate without creating further financial difficulties.

However, the proposals have already attracted fierce criticism from Labour, disability campaigners and anti-poverty organisations. Critics argue that the suggested cuts could leave vulnerable people without adequate financial support and increase pressure on other public services.

The debate therefore raises an important question about Britain’s economic future: can the government reduce welfare spending while protecting people who genuinely need assistance?

Kemi Badenoch Announces £36 Billion Welfare Reform Programme

On 10 November 2026, Badenoch presented the Conservatives’ detailed welfare reform proposals, explaining how the party intended to save approximately £36 billion annually if it entered government.

The announcement followed her initial commitment to reduce welfare spending at the Conservative Party conference in October.

The new proposals were published in a detailed policy document setting out how the party believed the savings could be achieved.

Badenoch argued that Britain was spending more than £180 billion annually on working-age welfare benefits.

She compared this figure with spending on defence, education and policing, arguing that the benefits system was consuming resources that could otherwise be directed towards national priorities.

She also highlighted the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast that total welfare expenditure could reach £431 billion by the 2031–32 financial year.

The Conservative leader believes that reducing welfare expenditure would help control government borrowing, ease pressure on taxpayers and create additional room for investment in defence.

Her central argument is that the welfare system should provide essential protection for people who cannot work while encouraging those who are capable of employment to become economically active.

She has also insisted that her party does not intend to abandon people with serious disabilities or genuine medical conditions.

Instead, she wants to change the criteria used to determine who qualifies for financial assistance.

Disability and Sickness Benefits Face the Biggest Changes

The most significant part of Badenoch’s programme concerns disability and sickness benefits.

The Conservatives estimate that approximately £13.7 billion could be saved through changes to the eligibility rules for disability-related support.

The proposals would particularly affect people claiming benefits because of what the party describes as milder mental health conditions and routine physical problems, including back and joint pain.

Conditions such as anxiety, depression and ADHD have featured prominently in the political debate.

Badenoch argues that having a medical condition should not automatically prevent someone from participating in employment or contributing to society.

During her speech, she pointed to examples of people overcoming significant physical and psychological challenges.

She said that double amputees compete in marathons, people who are housebound can undertake creative work from home, and individuals with autism can achieve considerable success in business and technology.

Her argument is that the welfare system should assess what people are capable of doing rather than focusing exclusively on their limitations.

However, disability organisations have questioned whether the proposed distinction between mild and serious conditions can be applied fairly.

Mental health conditions do not affect everyone in the same way. Someone with anxiety or ADHD may be capable of working in one environment but unable to maintain employment in another.

Similarly, back pain and joint problems can range from relatively minor discomfort to severe conditions that substantially restrict everyday activities.

Critics therefore argue that changing eligibility rules could leave people without adequate support simply because their conditions do not fit a narrow definition of disability.

A successful reform would need to recognise individual circumstances rather than rely exclusively on medical labels.

Ending Benefits for Certain Foreign Nationals

Another controversial element of the Conservative programme involves restricting access to welfare payments for foreign nationals.

The party estimates that approximately £9.5 billion could be saved by ending benefit eligibility for foreign nationals who do not possess EU settled status.

The proposal forms part of Badenoch’s broader argument that access to British taxpayer-funded benefits should be more closely connected to immigration status and contribution to the economy.

Supporters of tighter eligibility rules argue that public resources should prioritise British citizens and people with established rights to live and work in the country.

However, the proposal also raises important legal and practical questions.

Britain has international obligations and existing immigration arrangements that protect the rights of certain residents. Any changes would therefore need to respect those obligations and distinguish between different immigration categories.

Critics also warn that restricting access to benefits could increase financial hardship among families who are already living and working in Britain.

The government would need to consider the potential consequences for children, employment and local authorities before introducing such changes.

Bringing Back the Two-Child Benefit Cap

One of the most politically sensitive proposals is the Conservatives’ intention to restore the two-child benefit cap.

The policy previously restricted certain families from receiving additional Universal Credit child elements or child tax credit payments for children born after April 2017, subject to exceptions.

Labour removed the restriction in 2025, arguing that doing so would help reduce child poverty.

Badenoch now wants to reverse that decision.

The Conservatives estimate that restoring the restriction could save approximately £3.1 billion annually.

Supporters argue that the policy would reduce public expenditure and reinforce the principle that families should consider their financial circumstances when deciding to have children.

However, anti-poverty organisations strongly oppose the proposal.

They argue that children should not experience poverty because of decisions made by their parents and that restricting benefits could place additional pressure on families already struggling with housing, food and energy costs.

The Child Poverty Action Group has warned that the proposed changes could produce a substantial increase in child poverty.

This disagreement illustrates the fundamental difference between the two political approaches.

Badenoch prioritises reducing welfare expenditure and encouraging employment, while Labour argues that financial support is necessary to protect children and vulnerable households.

Neither position removes the need to examine the practical consequences for families affected by any changes.

Further Cuts to Child Disability Payments and Welfare Fraud

The Conservative programme also proposes changing how financial assistance is provided to children with certain learning and behavioural difficulties.

The party estimates that approximately £2.8 billion could be saved by replacing some direct cash payments through Child Disability Living Allowance with non-cash support.

This would apply to children with conditions that the Conservatives classify as mild learning and behavioural difficulties.

The intention is to provide assistance through services and targeted support rather than automatically providing additional cash payments.

However, disability campaigners have questioned whether services would be sufficiently available to replace the financial assistance families currently receive.

Parents may face additional costs associated with caring for children with disabilities, including transport, specialist equipment and additional supervision.

A system that provides services but fails to address these everyday expenses could create additional difficulties for families.

Another £1 billion is expected to come from tackling welfare fraud and administrative errors.

The Conservatives argue that stronger verification procedures and better enforcement would prevent public money from being paid incorrectly.

Although reducing fraud and administrative mistakes is a widely recognised objective, the precise amount that could realistically be saved would depend on the effectiveness and cost of implementing the new measures.

Where Will the £36 Billion Come From?

The Conservatives have identified several major areas in which they believe spending can be reduced.

Figures are Conservative Party estimates. The measures listed above do not individually account for the entire £36bn target; the wider programme includes additional proposals.

The party’s overall target is approximately £36 billion in annual savings.

However, an important qualification is necessary: these are opposition policy estimates, not independently verified savings. The Office for Budget Responsibility has not certified that the proposals would deliver the full amount.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has also questioned whether some of the projected savings, particularly those involving disability benefits, could realistically be achieved.

This means that the financial impact would depend heavily on the final legislation, implementation costs and how people affected by the changes respond.

Badenoch Accuses Andy Burnham of Failing to Control Welfare Spending

Badenoch has used the announcement to launch a direct political attack on Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

She accused Labour of lacking the political determination to reform the welfare system, arguing that the government had failed to confront the underlying causes of rising benefit expenditure.

During her speech, she claimed that Labour’s approach was to give people more money whenever they encountered difficulties rather than helping them return to work.

She also criticised Burnham’s comments suggesting that severe welfare cuts could push vulnerable people into crisis and increase pressure on hospitals, police forces and the criminal justice system.

Burnham had argued that cutting benefits without considering the wider consequences could create additional public expenditure elsewhere.

His concern is that people who lose financial support might require emergency accommodation, healthcare or other government assistance.

Badenoch rejected this argument, claiming that it demonstrated Labour’s unwillingness to challenge the existing system.

The disagreement reflects two different approaches to public spending.

The Conservatives believe that substantial reductions in welfare expenditure are necessary to improve Britain’s economic position.

Labour argues that reforms must be carefully designed to avoid creating additional social problems and costs.

The political dispute is therefore likely to become an important issue in future parliamentary debates.

Labour Accuses the Conservatives of Creating the Welfare Crisis

Labour has strongly rejected Badenoch’s proposals.

A Labour spokesperson argued that the Conservatives had overseen the expansion of welfare spending during their 14 years in government and could not now present themselves as the solution to problems they helped create.

Labour also highlighted the increase in welfare expenditure during the Conservatives’ final year in office.

The government says it is pursuing a different approach, focusing on improving medical assessments, providing personalised employment support and helping young people enter the workforce.

Labour’s argument is that the welfare system needs reform, but that reducing payments alone will not solve the underlying problems.

The government has also pointed towards the reviews led by Stephen Timms and Alan Milburn, which examine disability benefits and the difficulties facing young people who are not in employment, education or training.

These reviews are expected to inform further government decisions.

The disagreement demonstrates that both major parties recognise the financial pressures surrounding welfare, but they differ considerably over how to address them.

Could the £36 Billion Plan Actually Work?

The biggest question surrounding Badenoch’s announcement is whether the Conservatives could realistically deliver £36 billion in annual savings.

Reducing welfare expenditure on paper is not necessarily the same as reducing the government’s overall financial burden.

If people lose benefits but cannot find employment, they may require support from other public services.

Similarly, restricting disability payments could increase financial pressure on families and charities, while changes to child benefits could affect poverty levels.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has raised concerns about the reliability of some projected savings.

There is also a practical question about employment opportunities. Encouraging people to return to work requires employers willing to recruit them, appropriate workplace adjustments and effective training programmes.

For people with disabilities, simply removing financial support does not automatically create suitable employment.

The Conservatives will therefore need to explain how their proposals would be implemented, how vulnerable people would be protected and how the claimed savings would be independently assessed.

The success of any welfare reform should ultimately be measured by more than the reduction in government expenditure. Employment, living standards, health outcomes and the financial security of vulnerable households also matter.

Conclusion: A Major Political Battle Over Britain’s Welfare State

Kemi Badenoch’s £36 billion welfare reform programme represents a significant attempt to establish a new Conservative economic agenda.

Her proposals seek to reduce public expenditure, tighten disability benefit eligibility, restrict access to certain benefits for foreign nationals, restore the two-child cap and tackle fraud.

For Badenoch, the central argument is that Britain’s welfare system has become too expensive and is preventing the economy from reaching its full potential.

For Labour, the concern is that substantial cuts could push vulnerable people into poverty and create additional pressure on already stretched public services.

The disagreement is likely to become one of the defining political arguments between the Conservatives and Andy Burnham’s government.

Ultimately, the question is not simply whether Britain spends too much on welfare. It is how the country can build a system that protects people who genuinely need assistance while encouraging employment, economic independence and responsible use of taxpayers’ money.

Badenoch has now put a £36 billion figure at the centre of the political debate. The real test will be whether the Conservatives can demonstrate that these savings are achievable without leaving millions of vulnerable people facing greater financial insecurity.

While acknowledging that there must be a safety net for those who “genuinely cannot work,” she also will say the weight of the welfare burden is “crushing our economy”. She will add: “But the reality is that millions of people can and do contribute – to our economy, to their families, to their communities – even when they face serious challenges.

“Double amputees run marathons. People who are housebound do wonderful creative work from home. People with autism run some of the biggest tech companies in the world. If you tell a young person that their ADHD means they are defective and will never amount to anything, that mindset is likely to be more destructive to their future than the condition itself.

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts it will rise to £431 billion by the 2031-32 financial year, largely driven by health-related and pensioner benefits.

Reviews into disability benefits and getting more of the 45% of young people who are not in employment, education or training (NEETs), led by Stephen Timms and Alan Milburn respectively, are expected to report in the coming weeks.

Mrs Badenoch will say the weight of the weight of the the welfare burden is ‘crushing our economy’ (Image: Getty)