Spring Statement Discussion (link to documents here)
Comments
-
-
ever since reading earlier that they’re reassessing people on UC I just feel completely terrified. I haven’t spoken to my doctor at length since august 2023 when they sent me to be assessed for autism and adhd because there’s basically nothing they can do for me. I’m scared to death I’m going to be reassessed soon and have my LCWRA taken away from me even though things aren’t any better than they were 5 years ago when I was last assessed. Last time I had a face to face assessment in 2019 it gave me PTSD that lasted over a year my memory stopped working and I had a nervous breakdown. I’m going to sleep every night with my heart beating out of my chest and waking up the same way, waking up every hour in the night and exhausted all the time. Sleeping 3/4 hours in the day most days. Just sick of all of this just want to be left alone
2 -
This is the part that has me concerned "The Government will reintroduce reassessments for claimants placed in the LCWRA group prior to April 2026 with certain short-term prognoses (such as high-risk pregnancies or cancer treatment) or who, without LCWRA, faced substantial risk to their physical or mental health.
I won my tribunal with maximum points awarded due to "substantial risk". I'm currently waiting on being reassesd. Surely this will need to be passed by law before being implemented?.
0 -
Does reassessment include New style ESA support group?
0 -
It doesn't feel much like "our" country, does it? Small wonder there have always been spies for foreign powers.
0 -
Witnessing recent events, it is evident that the Labour government is not on a mission to “reform” but rather to marginalise the most vulnerable and disabled members of society, viewing them as a financial burden. Their actions will have devastating consequences.
4 -
When they say "support" they mean Work Programme. Which can last for multiple years where you sit on a computer and look for work. Some make you go in everyday. That will cost you travel costs etc. You will have even less money to live on. And if you do not attend you know what will happen.
I don't mean to scare people or put a downer but the is what they are intending and this is the reality of it.
3 -
Definitely a bigger picture. This has been planned for ages.. even before Starmer came into power. They are not Labour politicians at all. As you say they are a cabal of like minded globalists. The country is not being run in a left of centre way anymore. It’s like something Peter Thiel would come up with and he’s an extreme Libertarian!
7 -
Hi! I have just started the process of WCA (2 fit notes submitted, 3rd around 19th April). I received the UC50 form on Monday, yet to fill out. Does this mean that when I get my WCA which could be months away possibly by end of the year and hopefully awarded lrwca. Will I only get the lower rate or will I get the current £416. 00 rate but it will be reduced by 50% in April 2026?
I haven't even attempted PIP. Is it worth me trying? I am 64 with long-term issues, I always worked or volunteered but it's only recently I started down the health WCA route. So I won't be a new claim as such (as in 2026-2029) but as yet I am not a sickness/disability claimant either, (only a basic universal credit no earnings claimant). Once I get my WCA however long that takes I likely won't be awarded lrwca (if I pass) until later in the year due to all the backlogs. So I'm sort of in the middle area.
0 -
From "The I" this afternoon:
Labour cannot bring itself to be honestThere are other approaches that Reeves could take
Opinion
Ian Dunt
The i Paper columnist
26th March 2025 3:47 PM
Rachel Reeves's caution could create further problems for her (Photo: Andrew Aitchison/In pictures via Getty Images)
If you listen to her critics, Rachel Reeves is obviously some kind of demon. She delights in robbing disabled people of their dignity. She’s damaged the economy due to her cynical political point scoring. She’s prepared to return us to austerity in order to preserve a discredited fiscal rule.
The reality is entirely different. Reeves is following a cautious approach to the predicament she’s in. Most of her actions are the result of perfectly sensible decisions. But as today’s Spring Statement showed, caution carries its own set of risks. At its worst, it can trap us in a state of economic desolation. And that’s what seems to be happening here.
The situation Reeves finds herself in is not her fault. As the Chancellor delivered the Spring Statement today, the Conservatives were incandescent with rage. They spluttered with indignation. But in fact it was their decisions which brought us to this point.
During austerity, George Osborne chose to ignore the low interest rates available to him – a market basically begging him to borrow – and instead cut departmental spending to the bone, mutilating the British economic landscape.
Then came Brexit, then Liz Truss, then the endlessly unresolved public-sector strikes, the pointless cancellation of HS2, the announcement of unaffordable tax cuts. On and on it went. Vandalism upon vandalism upon vandalism.
This is why the bond markets are so jittery – because Britain has been in an economic malaise for a long time and it is struggling to lift itself out from it. Reeves is responding to that market anxiety by clinging closely to her fiscal rules in a bid to demonstrate determination.
Labour’s position is understandable. But the basic reality is this: it is not being honest with the public.
It was not honest about the need for tax rises during the election. And now it cannot be honest about them in government. Almost everyone can see that they’re inevitable, but it cannot bring itself to say so.
It is not being honest about Donald Trump either. The President’s threats of tariffs are paralysing the world economy and posing specific risks to British industries. His loyalty towards Russia over Ukraine is an existential threat to European security, which demands an urgent levelling-up of the continent’s defence capacity.
Other governments, including Canada and Germany, are speaking openly about what is happening. This has won the Liberal government political support in Canada and the Christian Democrat government economic support in Germany. But Labour feels unable to do likewise.
On the Today programme this morning, the Defence Secretary John Healey told listeners that the economic picture reflected the fact that “the world has changed” but he was unable to say why the world had changed, because that would involve admitting that the US President is a man of chaos and ruin.
These are the two great truths which Reeves cannot say out loud: that Trump has created a crisis and that taxes will have to go up. So instead, she battens down the hatches and hopes for the best.
The Chancellor did just enough to stay within her fiscal rules while moving a few small pieces around the board. Spending cuts got Reeves to the point where the borrowing rule was met by £9.9bn in 2029-30 – precisely the same amount as she proposed in last autumn’s Budget.
A couple of billion was taken from the aid budget to give to defence. Growth forecasts for 2026-29 were revised up, but it was still depressing – at no point did the Office for Budget Responsibility expect it to go above 2 per cent before the end of the decade.
Reeves is basically just cracking on with the existing policy, then hoping that Labour’s pro-growth policies, reduced inflation and the expected lowering of the interest rate will help bring about a cyclical swing toward growth.
This could very well happen. But equally, her caution could create further problems for her. Today’s statement saw her finding little bits of spending here and there to restore her headroom.
Another completely bog-standard revision in economic expectations could easily wipe away that headroom and force her to go through the whole godforsaken pantomime all over again. How does that reassure the markets?
Even her reticence over tax rises is dangerous. The expectation of their coming rise is so widespread that consumers may well spend the summer restraining spending out of uncertainty about what’ll be in the autumn Budget.
There are other approaches that Labour could take.
It could be honest: honest about Trump and honest about taxes. It could state clearly that Europe is now alone, without American support. We therefore have to rearm at a much faster pace than we were previously willing to contemplate. This means we must raise taxes as part of a patriotic effort in which everyone is expected to do their part.
This response would require a much closer relationship with Europe than Labour is prepared to admit. Moving closer to the EU would boost our trading prospects, our growth, our military procurement, our domestic producers and our shared defence. It would mean encouraging the American knowledge base to come to the UK – speaking directly to the experts currently being targeted by Elon Musk in US universities and public bodies and telling them to move to Britain.
In short, it means embracing the upsides of this crisis. But we can only do that once we’re honest about the fact that it is a crisis and why it is happening.
It’s not Labour’s fault that we’re here. But it will be Labour’s fault if it fails to grasp the opportunities currently being presented to it. Caution carries its own set of risks. And they can be far more debilitating than those which come from excess ambition.
2 -
I'm disabled, and in so much pain most days that I won't be able to travel....I'm terrified of what will become of me.
0 -
A user called Cyberpunk posted this on the Benefits and Work comments section, what are the opinions of all of this?
# Analysis of Government Paper on Universal Credit Health Element Changes
## Legal and Human Rights Concerns
### Disproportionate Impact on Persons with Disabilities The most significant concern is the clearly disproportionate impact on persons with disabilities:- 96% of families negatively affected have someone with a disability- An estimated 3.1 million families with disabilities will lose out, compared to just 0.1 million families without disabilities- These represent 20% of all families reporting a disability member
This raises serious concerns under several legal frameworks:
1. **UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)** - Article 28 guarantees the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living - The proposed changes may constitute retrogressive measures that undermine this right.
2. **Equality Act 2010** - The Public Sector Equality Duty requires public authorities to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity - The disproportionate impact on disabled people likely constitutes indirect discrimination - The scale of the disparity (96% of those affected having disabilities) suggests an inadequate consideration of this duty
3. **Human Rights Act 1998** - Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read with Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property) - Social security benefits are considered "possessions" under human rights law - The discriminatory impact may violate these provisions
### Gender-Based Discrimination The assessment notes that single females (1.4m) are more likely to lose out than single males (1.1m), raising concerns about:- Gender-based discrimination under the Equality Act 2010- Potential violations of international commitments under CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women)
### Child Poverty Impact The projection that 50,000 additional children will fall into relative poverty raises concerns regarding:- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child- Child Poverty Act 2010 (as amended)- The government's legal duty to consider the best interests of children
## Specific Policy Concerns
### PIP Assessment Changes Requiring a minimum of 4 points in at least one activity to qualify for a daily living award could:- Exclude individuals with multiple less severe conditions that cumulatively cause significant disability- Create arbitrary thresholds that don't reflect real-world disability experiences
### Universal Credit Health Element Reduction- 50% reduction for new claimants creates a two-tier system- Freezing rates until 2029-30 represents a significant real-terms cut due to inflation
## Broader Legal Considerations
### Proportionality A key question is whether these measures are proportionate to their aims:- The government's savings targets must be balanced against the severe impact on vulnerable populations- The financial burden is being placed predominantly on persons with disabilities rather than being spread more evenly
### Progressive Realization Under international human rights law, there is an obligation of progressive realization of economic and social rights:- These measures appear retrogressive rather than progressive- Such retrogression requires exceptional justification during economic constraints
## Conclusion The proposed changes raise serious legal concerns regarding discrimination and human rights protections, particularly for persons with disabilities. The disproportionate impact (96% of affected families having disabilities) suggests these measures may fail legal tests of proportionality and non-discrimination under both domestic and international law.5 -
It is cruel and unnecessary for disabled people.
0 -
0
-
this id cauding me do much aniety
2 -
I found this on the Spring Statement that’s been published on the government website:
Seems to imply that reassessments are to be started from 2026 — or am I reading it wrong?
3 -
This is causing my anxiety to spiral. I Have have had a very rough 8mths with feeling suicidal due to being bedbound/housebound. I would love nothing more to be able to work or have some sort of social life. This is Absolutly shameful it really is. What can be done about this. We all need to fight this ad its just gone to far now!!
2 -
Nothing has changed yet and it has to go through a vote then the Lords , could take months .
2 -
Hi @LazyLump I'm so sorry to read the effect this is having on your anxiety. As @sarah_lea12 has said, it's not going to change overnight and people are fighting against this. Do you have a support network you can lean on when things get bad? 💛
3 -
Wait I'm a bit confused so - they are planning on reducing UC health element by 50% for new claimants - does that also include those migrating from ESA to UC? I suppose it does if it counts as a "new claim"??? How does that work with the TP in place?
Not sure how any of it works. I haven't yet had the letter to migrate but all of this has me really confused (and worried out of my mind!)
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 16K Start here and say hello!
- 7.5K Coffee lounge
- 113 Games den
- 1.8K People power
- 160 Announcements and information
- 25.3K Talk about life
- 6.1K Everyday life
- 402 Current affairs
- 2.5K Families and carers
- 881 Education and skills
- 2K Work
- 591 Money and bills
- 3.8K Housing and independent living
- 1.2K Transport and travel
- 657 Relationships
- 1.6K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 881 Rare, invisible, & undiagnosed conditions
- 942 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.2K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.3K Autism and neurodiversity
- 41.1K Talk about your benefits
- 6.2K Employment & Support Allowance (ESA)
- 20.4K PIP, DLA, ADP & AA
- 9.2K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.3K Benefits and income