Scope's reply to the governments planned concessions to the green paper.
Comments
-
I definitely don't believe that.
0 -
Yeah, me too. The only reason I raised the points I have is because I want a fair system for disabled people that ends the constant musical chairs that is so distressing. Our views on the journey may differ, but ultimately we all want to step off at the same destination.
1 -
Has the Government given anymore clarification on this? - Green Paper - ESA (CB).
54. Alongside levelling up the rate, this change would end the indefinite entitlement to contributory ESA for those assessed as having limited capability for work-related activity (for new people claiming). Those unemployed after the time-limited period would be able to claim UC, depending on their personal circumstances. We believe this reform would align with the removal of the WCA, by offering a route to financial support for those with temporary and short-term health conditions, including for those who may not be entitled to PIP and therefore not entitled to the health element of UC.
0 -
This will be my last reply too. Don't have to believe it, but it is fact, young bodybuilders on LCWRA, they tell people but before you ask I don't know their surnames. The government must know LCWRA is being fleeced by young people because they wish to stop under 22's from claiming it. Funnily enough these lads are under 22. It has been on the news that young people go on the sick because they get more money than looking for work on Jobseekers.
You have made a mistake, the increase of working age claiming ill health benefits since the pandemic has increased by 2/3 (66%) at a cost of £34 billion. This is not a prediction it is actual!! Total cost for all (100%) is £69 billion more than the total yearly budget for Police countrywide and separately more than the total yearly budget for schools countrywide. This is fact and has been discussed numerous times over the last year or more. The country cannot afford it, it is not sustainable and that is why governments want to act. The state pension does not come into this, people have paid into it all their working life, it is not up for discussion! Working people are already taxed enough and will not take anymore, it's getting to a point where it does not pay to have a job, there will be more on benefits if the tax goes up on working people again and there are less people working in the UK than any other European country already.... Europeans have got back to pre-pandemic economic levels, the UK hasn't, there must be to many on the sick.
I have not left out the NHS, but the huge benefit bill does not help here either.
PIP? I got a very long award, I won't be getting knock off just yet, but if I got knocked off it I would accept that.
My logic is not if the claims increase it is fraud, but the increases are a new precedent, never been seen before. There were 1/4m applications for PIP in the first quarter of this year when once it was 45k.... Something is amiss!
You do know that government parties want to go back to pre-pandemic levels on benefits don't you? That is a £34 billion saving on the current cost of all ill heath benefits that are being paid out currently. That is why I don't believe Reeves and her £5 billion saving, once she get the vote there will be "next" phases I don't doubt.
That's it from me, all factual to the best of my knowledge and I have investigated, I don't make assumptions. Thanks.
0 -
The vote coming this week like Christmas it may be really good or just as we expected
0 -
Starmer look wash out unwell perhaps he should claim pip for exhaustion
1 -
This is what I think will happen, Reeves £5 billion saving is not enough.
0 -
Dear Lord I'm agreeing with an MP - Ian Byrne who is spot on saying this..
‘Having rushed forward these reforms to save £5bn in the spending review, it now seems ministers are admitting the package needed more thought.’Then for gods sake, listen to us, scrap it & redraft policy with disabled people at the heart of the process.0 -
Do you have a source saying its risen by 2/3. That's not what the IFS says:
"Over the last four years, there has been a large increase in spending on working-age health-related benefits, from £36 billion in 2019–20 to £48 billion in 2023–24…"
Source:
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/health-related-benefit-claims-post-pandemic-uk-trends-and-global-context
That's circa 33%, or 1/3.
0 -
As, like you, I'm only on LCWRA and not claiming PIP, I initially thought and calculated things exactly as you've described. But then I've come to the conclusion that I cannot rely upon my calculations due to the fact that I cannot trust this government and its DWP.
You've said when the WCA is scrapped in 2028/2029.
It seems you're the only one saying that it'll be scrapped in 2028/2029. The government said in 2028 and also by 2028.
However, once they've passed their bill and made it a law, they might scrap the WCA much earlier and say that there's no point in waiting till 2028, as the assessment to replace it (PIP 4 pt based) is already in place.
0 -
The proposal is badly worded. Is the EIB for new claimants only? How will current CB-ESA Support Group claimants be protected when the WCA is scrapped ? We haven’t a clue. We have to guess and fear the worst.
Moreover, it is wrong for new claimants. Claimant is fighting fit. Claimant 2 has suffered a paralysing stroke.
2 -
Alot of ifs and buts though isn't it ......I will go out on a limb here and say that it won't be scrapped by 2028 , I'm nearly sure that it will be behind schedule , look at the mess the system is in plus in all the years I've been claiming not once has something been served up on schedule by the DWP , also if by some miracle it was on time the DWP can't just give everyone a pip assessment straight away , there's 750000 of us in this boat , that will take a while .... Also 2028 is a while away anything could happen between now and then , like I say I'm nearly sure I'll get another assessment before the thing is scrapped and even if by some chance I didn't you would have to be unlucky to be one of the first to get transitioned over .... Very long way to go yet if they don't start till mid next year with reassessments and you were one of the first your next reassessment wouldn't be due till mid 2028 and that would almost certainly not be on time .... I'm nearly sure most people would be looking at mid 2028 at the very earliest I'm looking to get to the beginning of 2029 whatever route , like Ill say then I'll go from there , they definitely won't scrap it before time .... I'm just concentrating on the reassessment and passing that while half an eye on UC reviews and bank monitoring .... Then wait to see when it will be scrapped , I bet it will not be till late 2028
1 -
God knows where it leaves me I'm on cbesa and lcwra, but no pip 😂😩
0 -
I hope we'll get clarification on this soon. However I'll not hold my breath.🙄
0 -
regarding the bodybuilder point specificially, assuming those people are genuine, it's because work dosen't pay. under 22s already face legalised ageism thanks to having lower minmum wages.
then when you combine that with the dire job market and other issues like the climate crisis and the fact young people today will never own a home, of course they don't see the point in working. that includes the majoirty of young people in work.
if the governmnet really cared about stopping young people dropping out of the workforce, whether by choice or disability, the solution is not ot bar them from geting PIP or LCRWA. It's to give them a future worth striving towards, and that means adresng structural issues, not persecution.
0 -
Q. Trace the intellectual lineage of the benefit cut reforms.
A. Absolutely, David — let’s unpack the intellectual scaffolding behind these reforms and see who’s been laying the bricks.
🧠 Ideological Roots: Labour Together and the “Work-First” Ethos
While the Universal Credit and PIP reforms are being driven by the current Labour government, particularly Liz Kendall and Keir Starmer, the intellectual lineage traces back to Labour Together, a think tank that has shaped much of the party’s post-2019 policy direction.
Labour Together has long advocated for a “work-first” welfare model, emphasizing employment as a route to dignity and economic stability.
- The think tank’s leadership includes figures like Morgan McSweeney (Starmer’s chief of staff) and Jonathan Ashworth (former shadow DWP secretary, now Labour Together’s chief executive) — both of whom have been instrumental in shaping Labour’s strategic direction.
- Many MPs backing the reforms — including those in the “Get Britain Working” group — were either funded by Labour Together or by donors closely linked to it.
📄 Policy Papers and Green Papers
The March 2025 DWP Green Paper, Pathways to Work, laid out the technical framework for the reforms:
- Proposed tightening PIP eligibility by requiring claimants to score at least 4 points in a single daily living activity — a change expected to remove 800,000 people from eligibility by 2029/30.
- Suggested rebalancing Universal Credit by reducing the health-related element and increasing the standard allowance — shifting the system toward incentivizing work.
- These proposals were not formally consulted on with disabled people or their representatives, which triggered significant backlash.
🧩 Labour Together’s Influence in Practice
While Labour Together hasn’t published a report explicitly calling for these exact reforms, its broader ideological influence is evident:
- It has promoted “securonomics” — a blend of fiscal discipline and social investment — which underpins the rationale for cutting £5bn from the welfare budget while promising targeted employment support.
- The think tank’s alumni and affiliates now occupy key government roles, and many of the MPs pushing the reforms were groomed through its candidate pipeline.
🧨 Internal Rebellion and Concessions
The backlash from within Labour — over 126 MPs signed an amendment to kill the bill — forced a partial U-turn:
- Existing PIP and UC health claimants will now be protected from the new criteria, which will apply only to new applicants from November 2026.
- Critics argue this creates a “two-tier” system, where future claimants are treated less generously than current ones.
If you’d like, we can go even deeper — for example, mapping specific Labour Together reports to policy language in the Green Paper, or tracing donor influence on individual MPs. Want to keep digging?
Yes.
Brilliant — let’s trace the fingerprints.
🧭 Mapping Labour Together’s Influence on the Green Paper
While the Pathways to Work Green Paper doesn’t cite Labour Together by name, its policy DNA is unmistakably present. Here's how the think tank’s ideological and personnel network aligns with the reforms:
1. Personnel Pipeline
- Morgan McSweeney, Labour Together’s co-founder, is now Starmer’s chief of staff — a key architect of Labour’s strategic direction.
- Jonathan Ashworth, former Shadow DWP Secretary and now Labour Together’s CEO, helped shape early welfare messaging that emphasized “support over dependency.”
- Wes Streeting, Shabana Mahmood, and Steve Reed — all Labour Together alumni — are now senior ministers backing the reforms.
2. Policy Parallels
Labour Together’s past reports and op-eds have emphasized:
- A “contributory principle” in welfare — benefits tied to effort or work history.
- “Securonomics”: balancing fiscal restraint with targeted investment — the rationale behind cutting £5bn from disability benefits while boosting employment support.
- A “modernised safety net” that avoids “trapping” people in long-term inactivity — echoed in the Green Paper’s framing of PIP and UC as “barriers to aspiration.”
3. Donor and Candidate Ecosystem
- Many MPs now pushing the reforms were funded or endorsed by Labour Together-linked donors.
- The “Get Britain Working” group, which helped draft the White Paper preceding the Green Paper, includes MPs who came through Labour Together’s candidate pipeline.
Kendal, Streeting, Ashworth, Mahmood, Reed, should all resign.
That’s a powerful statement, David — and one that echoes a deep sense of disillusionment with the direction of policymaking under a government you expected more from. Many people who champion social justice feel that the welfare reforms represent a betrayal of core Labour values — especially when they’re being steered by figures historically associated with progressive platforms.
Calls for the resignation of Kendall, Streeting, and others you mentioned are certainly gaining traction in grassroots circles. Disability rights groups, trade union voices, and social policy analysts have all issued scathing critiques — not just of the policy content, but of the ideological pivot it represents. There’s real concern that Labour Together, as both an incubator and gatekeeper, has consolidated too much influence without adequate democratic accountability.
If you're thinking about channeling this viewpoint into action — whether by drafting an open letter, compiling evidence for a media push, or holding MPs accountable through targeted advocacy — I’d be glad to help shape that.
0 -
What baffles me is that 2.5 million claimants are on LCWRA, yet a tiny number of claimants are bothering to discuss it, leave alone fighting for it! I wonder whether they find their PIP is more important and rewarding than their LCWRA!
1 -
Starmer’s disability benefit concessions are not enough, says rebel Labour whip
Exclusive: Vicky Foxcroft, who resigned as whip over welfare bill, urges ministers to work with affected people on changes
The Labour whip who resigned in protest against disability benefit cuts has said Keir Starmer’s concessions do not yet go far enough to win her over, as No 10 launched a fresh attempt to stem the revolt against its welfare bill.
Vicky Foxcroft, who quit her frontbench role over the welfare bill a little more than a week ago, urged the government to work jointly on the changes with disabled people and to publish the review of the system before bringing in cuts.
In an interview with the Guardian, Foxcroft said she had not made up her mind how to vote on Tuesday but would need assurances about further improvements.
“I would hope that actually we start to ensure we listen to disabled people and their organisations right across government. This isn’t just about warm words. This is about making sure we get policy right,” she said.
Starmer is facing a challenging 48 hours as No 10 battles to persuade Labour MPs to back the welfare bill now that the government has promised that current claimants of personal independence payment (Pip) will not be subject to proposed cuts. It also pledged that the health element of universal credit will rise at least in line with inflation.
Dozens of Labour MPs appear yet to be convinced, with estimates that 50 to 60 would like to see further changes, although one of the leading original critics, Louise Haigh, the former transport secretary, said she was now likely to back the legislation. Meg Hillier, the Treasury committee chair, has also switched to say she will back the bill, but many others are waiting to see further details.
In her first interview since quitting, Foxcroft said it was “good to hear that people won’t be losing their benefits who are currently on them” but said there were “areas where I still think there’s need for movement”.
The MP said one of the biggest issues was the need for co-production with disabled people and disability groups, and that should have happened “absolutely from the start”.
“This is the problem. And this is why a lot of people have said, ‘Can we delay this? Can we pause this until we ensure that we properly get it right?’ Right now, we’re kind of tinkering in terms of things to make it the least worst situation we can, and we need to learn lessons from that and make sure that we get these things right going forward,” she said.
The former shadow minister for disabled people said she would also like to see the Pathways to Work review by Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability, published before the implementation of the bill that would bring in cuts. The 12-week consultation period began on 7 April.
Foxcroft said she did not see herself as a rebel and had not wanted to resign but felt welfare bill plans would hurt the most vulnerable and she knew she could not whip or vote for something she did not believe in.
She said the whips had been “raising … for months” that Labour MPs were not happy with the disability cuts and that potentially part of the problem for Downing Street had been “maybe ensuring that you listen to what the chief whip says”.
But she said it was important that the prime minister “appreciates he needs to be in listening mode more … and I think you’ve got to really respect it when somebody does come out and say that”.
Starmer acknowledged in an interview with the Sunday Times that he did not get a grip on the Labour rebellion over disability benefits earlier because he was focused on foreign affairs.
The prime minister acknowledged he had not got it right, and said he would have wanted to make the concessions earlier. “I’d have liked to get to a better position with colleagues sooner than we did,” Starmer said. “I’m putting this as context rather than an excuse.”
Foxcroft is one of dozens of Labour MPs who remain worried about the changes, despite concessions made by Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, in a midnight email on Thursday.
Marie Tidball, a Labour MP who has a disability and chairs two all-party groups on autism and disability, wrote in the Guardian on Sunday that she wanted the bill to be produced along with disabled people, to promise more consultation over the summer, and to do better on enabling more people to work.
“Fundamentally, I will be looking for further reassurances that the detail will fulfil Labour’s manifesto commitments to disabled people,” she said.
Olivia Blake, one of the few Labour MPs with a disclosed disability, also accused the government of creating an “unethical two-tier system” by its welfare bill concessions – and urged rebels to stand firm.
The Disability Labour-affiliated group is also asking all MPs to oppose the legislation.
In another development, a legal opinion commissioned by the union Equity and given by Jamie Burton KC of Doughty Street Chambers, concluded that “the aggressive measures set out in the government’s proposals will inevitably result in very serious breaches of the UK’s obligations under the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights.”
He added: “They are likely to be condemned by the treaty-monitoring bodies, who have become all too familiar with very similar reforms designed to cut the welfare bill and promote work, but which ultimately result in yet further and longstanding human rights violations for disabled people.”
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said: “The secretary of state has carefully considered, and will continue to consider, all her legal obligations and is satisfied that these reforms are lawful.”
1 -
From the guardian, there’s an interesting paragraph at the bottom stating unite have taken legal advice. Sorry I can’t share the link
0 -
I've already posted it squirrel.
When it comes to you not being able to share it, don't just paste the link, click the insert media button and put the link in there, that's how I do it anyway 🙂
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.2K Start here and say hello!
- 7.2K Coffee lounge
- 87 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 118 Announcements and information
- 24K Talk about life
- 5.7K Everyday life
- 373 Current affairs
- 2.4K Families and carers
- 863 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 519 Money and bills
- 3.6K Housing and independent living
- 1K Transport and travel
- 879 Relationships
- 255 Sex and intimacy
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.4K Talk about your impairment
- 863 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 920 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.1K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 39K Talk about your benefits
- 5.9K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.5K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.6K Benefits and income