Economic inactivity: welfare and long-term sickness Oral evidence live 3pm 12/11/24
Tomorrow - 12 November at 3pm - Oral evidence will be given at a Parliamentary Committee meeting on welfare and long term sickness benefits. The meeting can be viewed live via the following link. Thought it useful for our Community to know - keeping informed is empowering.
Best wishes
https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/83561351-68a6-4793-8704-fd3aaa2339c4
Comments
-
Thanks for sharing the link @JonnycJonny I'll certainly be tuning in. 😊
0 -
0
-
link to complete committee video if anyone wants to watch
(I really don’t want to listen and report back on 2 hrs of this stuff - I know a lot of this stuff is not easy to understand but any member can watch the below link and write down the time stamp to any part that they need explaining, clarifying or an second opinion on because what’s been said has worried you) - I always feel compelled to do it as so much misinformation is posted on scope and I know that I will try and find the direct source rather than a media report
https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a3b3d338-fd31-4b72-ab5f-e5c926544e32
1 -
nearest to a summary that I could find without listening to the whole video - screenshots from twitter
0 -
well done yet again the only information i read or take notice of
0 -
Let's remember that his comments on this information are opinion and speculation.
1 -
i make nothing of it i will have forgot what i have read by tomorrow no good fretting over what could or could not happen till it happens
0 -
I’m only an hr in, got another hr to listen to on and off the rest of this evening
I’ll post timestamps corresponding to specific topics later
I will say that I think I’m going to have to play devils advocate later on if this committee continues down the same tone the last hour.
I don’t think many people on the scope forum are looking at the bigger long term picture of all this
Some Members begged the rest of us to blindly vote Labour regardless of the risk of a huge majority and now are less willing to take the consequences
the reality is that if the kemikaze/stride ticket last till the next Ge they have a good chance of winning (and/or reform could make huge gains) as Labour have upset 100’s of thousands of voters with the autumn budget and 1st 100 days and honestly I don’t know if they be forgiven by the next GE
There is one thing I’m 100% - a kemikaze/stride and/or farage gov will threaten the lives of countless disabled ppl and make starmer/reeves/kendall viewpoints and policy look like child’s play imo
In my mind as things stand political party current leadership wise the disabled will still be better off next ge with a Labour gov or Labour/lib Dem(+greens) coalition
But Labour need to win back the trust of voters and that’s probably coming down to 3 controversial areas they need to improve if they have any chance:
- the migrant/boat situation needs to significantly lower
- The nhs needs to improve and run properly (and still free of use for the most part)
- the welfare bill needs to go significantly down
now Many of the public want disabled to be hit with massive benefit cuts and/or kicked off altogether and unfortunately many papers are stirring up this blood spiting viewpoint as huge amounts of those in work suffered from the autumn budget but on paper it looks like those on welfare (those claiming to be ‘disabled’) got off stock free (though we know the truth is our time is coming and we weren’t forgotten at all) - which isn’t ‘fair’ as all uk citizens should be equally miserable
the question is can Labour come up with a way to lower the welfare bill without threatening mass poverty, ill health or worse?It comes down to what price is each disabled person willing to pay to keep the Tory’s/reform out at the next GE in 2028/29 and actually have a chance of an okay existence?
Reading around the forum I do think many scope posters are being unrealistic in saying there’s zero they can contribute to society (but still want to receive welfare no q’s asked) and unwilling to recognise the moments when what a politican is saying may have truth in it and may be perceived as reasonable if carry out the ‘right’ way
I’ll comment on the whole video once I’ve viewed it all but I do think the disabled community needs to figure out where to compromise, what asks from Kendall & co could be possible under the right circumstances and what battles we need to direct our energies to2 -
So i have watched half and they are NOT going ahead with torie proposals they are making there own
0 -
Well liz kendall says they are making there own she actually seems like a nice person i don't know why every 1 is saying she is evil
0 -
They are but also remember for a decade or so it is well known Liz Kendall thinks like this, her opinion is of no one should be written of and everyone should be making an effort to get back into employment, she also has a similar mindset to Tories in its down to the individual to improve themselves.
WCA/ESA reform is coming, that bit is not speculation, the guy has obviously been putting pieces together to draw a logical conclusion on what is coming, there is nothing wrong with that.
He is very likely right the issue with Labour is they are not happy with so many people not engaging with the DWP. Kendall's predecessor gave a public quote saying the same thing only 2 winters ago.
The problem with the DWP is they think support means mandating activities, so "inviting" people to engage, making things voluntarily would require a culture shift from them.
I wont comment on what I think the possibilities are though as its my opinion based on what I heard. Just leaving at that changes are coming that will be aimed at reducing LCWRA exemption.
Kendall is also still refusing to meet up with charities or any claimants individually (unless its a charity that supports her mindset, or affiliated with the Labour party), another sign something unpopular is coming.1 -
What's horrifying is that they don't already have that. A department that's literally responsible for keeping millions of people alive and yet has no responsibility to ensure it doesn't accidentally or by design starve some of them to death.
What I want to see are some systems to tackle sadistic work coaches who target vulnerable people for sanctions. We know from much anecdotal evidence that many of them target the mentally ill with impossible conditionality to fulfil sanctions targets. It would be a good place to hide a serial killer...
3 -
If the government wants disabled people to work, why can't it make them healthy first?
3 -
Thats too hard for them, instead they activate the cheat mode, and just pretend they fit and healthy.
2 -
Thank you for taking the time, not only to watch all that, but to write it out to keep the community up to date @apple85. I know the effort it takes to watch through those committees sometimes, and to take notes.
I remain hopeful, especially with some of the other signs like actually safeguarding vulnerable clients (why that wasn't already a thing baffles me). If they do follow through with what they are saying and helping, but not forcing, people get healthy enough that they can work that doesn't sound too bad to me. Of course, what they say and what they propose could be quite different. I'll judge the proposals when we finally get to see them.
2 -
I spent the last few days listening to this. I am not sure if I understand it correctly but to be honest, I found it unnerving. The Lords ( I think they all were) asking the questions from the 3 people who seemed to work for dwp or researchers about long term sick / economically inactive, seemed to have a really negative point a view and a biased view of long term sick and disabled people, judging from the questions they asked.
They asked the question, in different ways, if these people who studied the statistics, if UC claimants saw they could make more money off claiming to be long term sick /disabled as the UC take home amount was a lot less( 400) and would be left alone, if this was why WCA / LWCA claims numbers had gone up so high. They seemed to think this was happening even though the statistics didnt prove this.
They also asked about how many young people claim for mental health issues and long term sick/disabled and they were told it was mainly over 50s - 60s, which they were told was to be expected, that after life long working etc…and the lords didnt seem to like the answer and kept going back to suggesting if they made disability less "financially incentivising" by drastically reducing and making harder to qualify, and put up the UC money to put people off claiming or when they were checking old claims make it harder to qualify if that would help.
They also seemed to think the GP fit note didnt work as they see this as a "self referral" and that a person could say " I have a sore back" and GP writes a sick note and therefore you off forever. They didnt seem to get it that most of these people could be classed as near state pension age. I wondered why they wanted to get rid of the GP fit note now that is the reason. Which is weird cause it is never like that, well I never have experienced that.
I found the whole enquiry into long term inactivity very disheartening. Very out of touch to how we feel and if anything all about money and how much we cost not about people.
Am I understanding this correctly? I am really confused as well as sad that we are seen in a bad light. No one chooses what life throws at them young or old when it comes to long term sick/disabled.
How much of this will influence the governments decisions going forward? What does it mean ? Does anyone know?
3 -
I agree - if these are the experts whose research Liz Kendall et al are leaning on to help formulate goverment policy then it is all pretty unnerving.
The Lords themselves appeared to have a very poor grasp of the application process for UC out of work ill health benefits and PIP - often confusing or conflating the two. They will eventually rubber stamp what ever happens in the Commons.
It was a disheartening Committee meeting to say the least.
2 -
0
-
I have seen quotes from a couple of people who were tasked by Kendall to look for solutions, and they admitted their remit is to find solutions to cut the numbers, which is likely why we seeing such one sided stuff, as its not a generic research, its something that by design has to lead to a fixed end goal. They are tasked to find something to justify polices that lead to that end goal. Those of us with memories long enough will remember when ESA was launched by a Labour government, they were boasting it concentrates on what people can do, the same words that are coming out now.
It is akin to a commercial company paying someone to test their products or funding numerous polls (one poll will hit the right result to be published eventually), knowing with confidence it will have favourable results for the advertising campaign.What they probably should just be doing is cutting everyone's weekly amount by XX pounds with the size of the cut higher on higher awards, it would be an honest up front cut that at least doesnt remove anyone from the safety net, however politically it would be very damaging, so they will be looking for a way to implement a cut that gives an impression they still supporting all the right people, and the pretence that those who are no longer in the safety net shouldnt have been there in the first place. Seen it with DLA to PIP, IB to ESA, it will be a tweak of the eligibility.
I had another look at what the Tories proposals were for the WCA, and it was not as bad as I initially thought it would be (although still against my principle of kicking people out of the safety net), physical side of substantial risk was actually going to be left untouched, with a comment to catch those who fall through the mobility safety net, it was clear they were targeting mental health. But we now have a different government so my feeling is anything can happen at this point, all we know is the WCA will be changed, and there is the possibility LCWRA will get work related activity obligations. The priority is to cut the numbers who have no work related obligations.
If Kendall had anyone proper advising her, she would have been told it is possible the DWP can engage and support people without a threat regime, support does not need to be mandatory activity and sanctions, it doesnt need to cut financial support, I seen a comment in the UC migration thread about the DWP charging forward like a bull, and these upcoming reforms, gives me that feeling, they will be targeting something that gives sharp quick results to whatever metrics they want changing.2 -
not sure where you get your information from but they get and can claim a tad more than that per day who would hold the government accountable if they were disbanded
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 16.4K Start here and say hello!
- 7.7K Coffee lounge
- 140 Games den
- 1.8K People power
- 199 Announcements and information
- 25.8K Talk about life
- 6.2K Everyday life
- 438 Current affairs
- 2.5K Families and carers
- 897 Education and skills
- 2.1K Work
- 629 Money and bills
- 3.8K Housing and independent living
- 1.2K Transport and travel
- 677 Relationships
- 1.6K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.6K Talk about your impairment
- 885 Rare, invisible, & undiagnosed conditions
- 947 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.3K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.3K Autism and neurodiversity
- 41.6K Talk about your benefits
- 6.2K Employment & Support Allowance (ESA)
- 20.6K PIP, DLA, ADP & AA
- 9.4K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.4K Benefits and income