Disability Benefit Cuts - Take action before July 9th.
Comments
-
So realistically people in our position may not be assessed until 2030 .... Long time to be worrying isn't it .... A new government will be in by then.... a long way to go .... No way I'm going to worry myself for the next five years .... Just concentrate on my next assessment I think 😌
4 -
Why is Labour punishing disabled people but rewarding the wealthy?
'…..one hundred and twenty or more of its own MPs objected to the plans that Liz Kendal had, to cut personal independence payments…..I was angry about that but Im as angry that up to seventy of those MPs who previously objected are now accepting the revised package ….those seventy Labour MPs who backed out have sold out, there's no other way to describe them….and I hope their constituents remember that…they're selling out they're ethics for a basic political calculation of saving their skin…'
3 -
Make no mistake, people voted Reform in the last local elections not because they were necessarily attracted to the empty bravado of Farage, but simply to demonstrate their unhappiness and feeling of being betrayed, and wanted to send a clear message to Keir Starmer and the clowns that are backing him behind the scenes that they would even vote the devil in person to punish them.
It's really too early to speculate on the outcome of the next GE, as anything could happen by then, including buffoon Boris coming back. May elections will make things a bit clearer.
2 -
"So realistically people in our position may not be assessed until 2030."
I wouldn't bet on this, as assessments are conducted by profit-driven private companies, which are remunerated in reflection with the number of assessments they've conducted, which means, the more claimants they assess/reassess the more money they earn.
I'm quite sure the government and its damn DWP are now both as confused as we're, if not even more than us, as their 4pt based instrument, which was central to their evil reforms has now gone in tatters. Therefore, they won't gain anything whatsoever by reassessing us earlier or later.
By the way, the order in which claimants are called for reassessment still remains a mystery to the public, including us, as it doesn't follow any realistic pattern which can be relied upon.
2 -
Well I'm hoping for a reassessment no earlier than January 2027 hopefully I pass and get two years then that will be Jan 2029 and even without all these changes you always get a delayed reassessment of a few months so it will be chaos around that time so that will take me to mid 2029 and we go from there .....
0 -
I will never understand why anyone would protest vote against a government messing up the welfare bill/etc (but with some MPs trying to fight back) for a party who are so far incapable of managing even a local Council without costing thousands in by-elections…and who don't believe in the welfare state/want a privatised US-style NHS.
…A lot of people voted Brexit as a protest as well. One of the reasons we're where we are now is because, instead of taking the no vote as it actually stood (a tight victory), we were suddenly told everyone wanted the most punishing form of Brexit possible and there would be no incorporation of anything that was not total destruction of EU relationship.
This is a bit like that. I wish people would learn. You don't solve broken windows by demolishing the whole house.
4 -
As I said it earlier, the SCC of the Tories was reasonable, as they listed their relevant illnesses and there was no mention of "constant" or "fluctuating".
1 -
I’ve never seen what their relevant conditions were . In fact I’ve never known anyone that knew about it including legal advisors and my GP . My assessor gave me two years for conditions with no cure or treatment. Anything that is up to an assessor I’d be weary of
0 -
Me too
I refuse to let this dominate my mind.
1 -
Hi Passerby, thank you for eloquently detailing this, when just a couple of days ago I could only manage saying ''you will need to be at deaths door'' . I believe this still to be true, I hate saying that, many many folk will fall through the cracks. I firmly believe but obviously could be wrong, that those in power will make any and all changes as difficult as possible for the very simple reason that they need ( to please the tax payer et al ) and will want to, claw back the money to fill that black hole we are all so sick of hearing about.
0 -
I just cannot shake the feeling that that ''4 point based instrument'' will come back to bite us in some other format. New name, approach, same intention and outcome.
2 -
I been reading correct me if I'm wrong ! That even if it's a money bill these can be challenged ie lack of consultations human rights its obvious they are breaking all rules discrimination the works the farmers are taking them to judical court for lack of consultations impact reports I've got to admit getting very scared for the future amd just hope it is true about being able to challenge dropping 4 point rule was because of the legal implications
1 -
Thanks for sharing. The Mayfield Review focuses on keeping people in work, mainly through large companies with resources and government backing. It wrongly assumes a level playing field across UK employers, overlooking the fact that small businesses, often lack the capacity to provide meaningful support.
It barely touches my main concern, what support exists for sick and disabled people who have already been left behind, and may now be found fit for work in areas where genuine job prospects simply do not exist. Perhaps the final report in the autumn will address this, but it’s a gap that cannot be ignored.
Just to clarify, I wasn’t calling for another external reviewer like Charlie Mayfield. I meant someone from the Upper House, such as Baroness Jane Campbell, a crossbench life peer and pioneering disabled activist. Her independence from government and depth of lived experience would bring the kind of impartial leadership disabled people truly deserve in the current PIP review. If she were leading it, I would feel far more confident that the process would be genuinely open to co-production with disabled people, not just consultation in name.
I would feel far more comfortable with someone like her leading it. Given Stephen Timms’s prior proposals, including the controversial four-point rule that was thankfully withdrawn, it is difficult to see how this review can feel truly fair and inclusive while being led by a minister so closely tied to past reform attempts. He could serve the process better by stepping back and allowing someone without a political stake to lead.4 -
Spot on.
They're forced not to change their intention and plan but their approach; hence the outcome will be the same but with a different nickname.
Who's in charge of the proposed review? S. Timms (a benefits cut freak who religiously believe that cutting benefits will push people into work en mass) and not an independent entity.
1 -
It was in their proposals, but didn't get much media coverage, as it was crystal clear to everyone that they were on their way out.
I know people who are in a worse condition than you who were given just 12 months.
Whether we refuse to admit it or not, the outcomes of both the WCA and PIP assessments are heavily influenced by the assessor's approach and interpretation, rather than solely the objective assessment criteria. This is due to the subjective nature of some aspects of the assessments and the potential for variations in how assessors apply the guidelines.
1 -
That's it though isn't it - he doesn't seriously "believe" that for one moment. But he also doesn't care that it's a devastating lie.
1 -
Thank you Chiareds for posting the link to the Mayfield report.
What stuck out to me like a sore thumb was how little the report tended to touch on employee experiences. It was sympathetic to people's situations more than just assuming people didn't want to be in work, but the idea that most employers want to keep employees and support them in the workplace is highly subjective and doesn't really jive with the 50% of employers who apparently don't want them.I remember reading a report a few years back about Disability Confident, where around 80% of organisations had not actually increased their disability employment. I wish I could find the report now (I think it was 2018, so before the pandemic, showing that this was an endemic problem even then) but it was eye-opening about how many Disability Confident employers were not actually making changes to their practices.
Mine is one that does take all that seriously - for example, they've just published a new disability strategy after consultation with disabled and neurodivergent staff groups - but although that acknowledges so many of the barriers disabled people face, and problems faced during recruitment, it still looks at employment from the perspective of interviewing and scoring candidates on points. No matter how much awareness training you have, you are never going to employ someone who can't present themselves coherently in an interview over someone who can. The playing field is never going to be level - if you make too many allowances for a disabled candidate, you discriminate against non disabled candidates, but if you are using a method that is known to discriminate against disabled candidates, then no matter how much you try and mitigate, it's still never going to be completely fair.So how the government intend to mitigate that I don't know - if it's still a problem even in well-meaning and supportive workplaces.
As I've mentioned before, at department level I've had nothing but support from my management team. It was GETTING the job in the first place that was the barrier . And I think this is something the Mayfield report is missing - at least in any depth - because the barriers people face are so diverse.
(Meanwhile, I hope I misread a report in a paper headline yesterday in which it looked like the Chancellor referred to benefit cuts as 'low hanging fruit' - ie an easy financial target. Perhaps I just took it out of context).3 -
From what I've read Catherine, a money bill can be amended but not challenged. I could be wrong though because it looks a murky way of getting legislation through.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.3K Start here and say hello!
- 7.2K Coffee lounge
- 87 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 116 Announcements and information
- 24.2K Talk about life
- 5.8K Everyday life
- 414 Current affairs
- 2.4K Families and carers
- 868 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 526 Money and bills
- 3.6K Housing and independent living
- 1K Transport and travel
- 884 Relationships
- 256 Sex and intimacy
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.4K Talk about your impairment
- 863 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 923 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.1K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 39.5K Talk about your benefits
- 6K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.6K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8.2K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.7K Benefits and income