If you’d followed some of the political fallout of Iain Duncan Smith’s resignation over the weekend, you’d be forgiven for thinking the main casualty of his time in office was now David Cameron’s pride, and the hopes of the Remain campaign. While the former work and pensions secretary said he was resigning as he could no longer inflict cuts on the poor, disabled people, young families and anyone who isn’t comfortably wealthy, few commentators believed he’d actually found his conscience at long last.

In addition to heightening the gap between rich and poor, the now-abandoned plans to cut personal independence payments (PIP) and other welfare benefits would have also increased geographical inequalities. A new book, People and Places: A 21st Century Atlas of the UK by geographers Bethan Thomas and Danny Dorling, maps the UK using census data, statistics from the Labour Force Survey and the Office for National Statistics to construct a portrait of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland today. According to the atlas, we feel less healthy now than we did in 2001. Between 2009 and 2013, the number of people completely satisfied with their health fell from 12.7% to 9.3%; the number of people completely dissatisfied with their health rose from 4.1% in 2009 to 5.4% in 2013. The areas with the lowest reported falls in health satisfaction include Kensington and Chelsea, the city of London, Oxford and Richmond-upon-Thames. Places with spikes in reported ill health include Glasgow, and vast swaths of south Wales: former industrial and mining areas dominate.

The list of areas with the highest rate of people reporting that their day-to-day activities were “limited a lot” by disability or illness is practically identical to a list of the most economically deprived areas: in Neath, Port Talbot and Merthyr Tydfil, 16% of people report being limited substantially; in Belfast, 15%. Conversely, the areas with the lowest rates of limiting disabilities are also the wealthiest: “having day-to-day activities limited by illness or disability is least common in London and the home counties,” says Thomas. In Kensington and Chelsea, for instance, 58% of people report their health is very good.

People don’t suddenly become ill as a national trend for no reason: Dorling feels “the jump is so high that increased anxiety due to the changing economic and political situation might have played a part”. Stress and anxiety, from precarity at work, in housing and in terms of income from benefits, don’t just affect a person’s emotional wellbeing, they manifest physically. High blood pressure as a result of stress causes long-term health problems and physical ailments are compounded by stress, as cortisol limits the body’s ability to repair itself, and increases the risk of heart disease, sleep and digestive problems.

The statistics appear to show that austerity affects both physical and mental health, often exacerbating the other. In pursuing cuts to employment support allowance (ESA), forcing through the bedroom tax and ramping up the number and severity of sanctions meted out to jobseekers, Duncan Smith waved through policies that actively harm health. No 10’s back-pedalling on cuts to PIP is welcome, but won’t undo the damage done so far – and the ESA cuts are still on the table. Economics doesn’t exist in a bubble that affects only stock markets and share prices: fiscal policy can kill, and regularly does harm people’s bodies and minds. Thomas points out the healthiest areas “were places least affected by the 2008 economic crisis, or where financiers were most aided by the government bailout of 2008/09”

The less your income is cut, the less likely you are to fall ill. But the research also shows yet again how austerity is poor economics: people who become ill need more healthcare, social care, and are less likely to find a job. Rather than forcing people into work, Osborne’s austerity policies are decreasing the likelihood of many people finding a job, and costing the NHS more. The lifetime Isa and Help to Save initiatives in Osborne’s budget won’t help people who have next to nothing: whereas austeritywill cost far more down the line than is saved in the short term. So much for a long-term economic plan.