Disability Benefit Cuts - Take action before July 9th.
Comments
-
well done.. as we are in no power to do anything about it.. worrying just causes health issues.. i can tell from my personal experience
1 -
You know people who are in a worse condition than me ? And how do you know what condition I’m in . You don’t know me or my full medical history and certainly not how it affects me . Is it because you don’t consider ME serious enough? Right now I have to suffer daily pain as pain killers are incompatible with other conditions and I’m barely out of bed let alone awake. Life’s impossible without energy.
1 -
Please don't get me wrong. I wasn't saying at all that you deserved two years because they gave 12 months to people I knew who were in a worse condition. Not at all. I was just saying that the outcomes of these assessments mainly depended on the interpretation and the approach of the assessors rather than, as I said it earlier, the objective assessment criteria. Anyone who has gone through these assessments know that they lack fairness, and most of the time claimants find discrepancies between what they stated during their face to face assessment and what they found in their report later on.
I'm so sorry for the misunderstanding. Why should I've to downgrade or underestimate the level of your health condition, as all I know is some of the names of your illnesses! It wasn't my intention at all to compare your health condition with other people's health conditions. I was just reminding of the fact that the outcomes of these assessments were more subjective than objective and that assessors have been consistent with this pattern.
1 -
I think it was just the bluntness in one paragraph that made it stand out that way . I’ve really had to fight the dwp , once for over 2, years up to higher tier . Not just for myself but for everyone who deserves their award but doesn’t have the strength to fight .
0 -
I think how early we'll be reassessed will depend on how happy they'll be with the outcome of S. Timms' review.
To me, their plan was to reassess all claimants with short-term and those on substantial risk from April 2026 and get rid of them. Then, discard the WCA and transfer all claimants in the LCWRA (as the support group of the ESA wouldn't be existing by then) onto the Health element of the UC and launch an accelerated mass assessment of this group under the 4pt based scoring system and kick out as many of them as possible.
They won't be gaining anything from assessing you in 2027, as you'll be likely to keep your current award.
1 -
Yeah ....
Honestly I'm just tired of second guessing them , I'm not going to let them take my life ....
I don't think I'm short term as I've been on benefit for 15 years
I don't think I qualified through the serve criteria
Technically I've never been assessed for lcwra , as I always got assessed through incapacity benefit and then through ESA support group , so when I voullentatrlly moved over to UC I automatically got put into the lcwra group because of my support group status.... Although everyone that is migrateing over will be in that position , we still qualify as existing claimants....
My last time being reassessed was November 2019 , so nearly 6 years since a reasessment and nearly 4 overdue .... So I'm in line for one of think , although I've seen people with another two years on me so god knows
There's a massive back log aswell
So if there not going to start them again until April 2026 and it's only short term and serve criteria they will start with then who knows 🤦🤷
I would think in that case it could be anything from 2027 onwards ....
And when they scrap the WCA in April 2028 they will pilot it first and then start it for new claims
So you could be looking at short term and serve starting April 2026 and it could take them two years to get through them , just on time for the WCA to be scrapped and them starting to asses new claims .... Which means we would be put to one side again 🤷
The DWP is in chaos and they are so far behind , who knows how or what they will do .... But I'm 4 years overdue on November 2026 , it's definitely not out of the realm of possibility that people in our position may not get reassessed until 2029 .... But it will send you mad trying to guess ....
I do worry about what they mean by short term though , I know they mean pregnant , the dreaded C word that I can't bare to say , and I think illnesses that may get better makes up the short term group .... But I was thinking... I probably got a two year award last time I got reassessed , so I was supposed to have another November 2021 but because of COVID the rest is history.... But I was wondering if a two year award is " short term " and maybe I'm in the running for one come April 2026 🤔
0 -
Same here.
0 -
You seem to be scaremongering at a time when vulnerable people are seeking assurance, if that is your choice then I think you should think more before you post anymore. It's enough that they keep closing the threads, without you adding more misery.
1 -
I was awarded LCWRA in 2019, I'm sure it is substantial risk. Does anyone know how likely it is that I'll be reassessed soon after April 2026?
0 -
"But I was wondering if a two year award is " short term ".
A two-year award is definitely not a short-term one. In fact, they rarely give an award that's longer than than two years.
0 -
If you want to wrap up yourself in a deluded little bubble of false hope and falsehood, like the man in the picture who's taking a bouquet of flowers to a girlfriend that only exists in his imaginations, I'm sorry for bursting your little bubble.
0 -
Unlike you, I don't claim any benefits and probably you don't, so what you've put there just makes you the bigger fool😂And unlike you, I'm here to support the people who may or may not lose their benefits, something you seem to relish in. Try to find a joke forum you can join, I'm sure you'd enjoy that better😂
0 -
I don't usually like to quote things out of context, rather hope members might read things themselves & form their own opinion, but Charlie Mayfield's interim report linked to above says,
'……there has been significant growth in people reporting work limiting health condition (both in and out of work). In 2024, there are more people in-work with a work limiting condition than there are economically inactive because of one.'
This point seems to have been missed so far by the Gov't, who have also caused problems (& think that cutting benefits is the answer).
As @MW123 comments, the report doesn't take into account smaller businesses, who often might be the future of some disabled people if they were able to return to work, & if perhaps the Gov't hadn't increased employer's NI contributions so some smaller businesses are unable to take on more employees disabled or not.
In fact the 5 & a half million (in 2024) small to medium enterprises (SMEs) seem to have been ignored completely. Many disabled people have set up their own business, some following problems with being an employee. Small businesses owned by disabled people account for 8.6% of the turnover of all UK businesses*
4 -
Must admit I've had to look up Baroness Jane Campbell @MW123 - who would indeed as a disabled person herself be in a far better position to look into the proposed PIP reforms.
I was also thinking about Amaya's previous comments when I read Charlie Mayfield's report. Some of the barriers to retaining employees especially after a period of sick leave were mentioned, with often a muddled approach by the employer. However it does seem to be his intention to listen to disabled people & disabled people's organisations:
See 97 -99 on pp 37-8
where he reports,
'It is vitally important that, as part of our engagement, we hear from people with health conditions and disabled people who have experience of the challenges and barriers described in this discovery. We are therefore planning focus groups and research to gather feedback and understanding from individuals with lived experience.'
Honestly it feels like we'll have a UC Bill, a PIP Bill, & an ESA Bill. If only proper consultation had been done beforehand, importantly also listening to disabled people & the organisations that support us, certainly this rushed PIP & UC Bill would have been avoided.
2 -
@chiarieds I agree. Unless they get their act together, they will require three separate bills.
I think part of their gaslighting of both the general public and us (the claimants) was this idea that one assessment would benefit everyone - claimants, DWP staff, taxpayer.
They were so sold on the idea that everyone would be 'grateful' for this 'improvement' we'd simply fall in line and fail to scrutinise.
Their arrogance is backfiring spectacularly in their face.
0 -
Labour ‘willing to explore’ wealth tax
Lord Kinnock backs raid on the rich, as the Government’s union paymasters swing in behind the idea.
Labour is “willing to explore” bringing in a new wealth tax, Lord Kinnock has suggested.The party’s former leader said a 2 per cent tax on assets worth more than £10 million could help raise about £10 billion a year for the Treasury.His suggestion comes after Cabinet ministers were warned taxes would have to rise following Sir Keir Starmer’s capitulation on welfare reforms.On Sunday night, some of Labour’s biggest union paymasters, including Angela Rayner’s former employer Unison, backed the call for a wealth tax. One union source told The Telegraph they would raise the idea with the Prime Minister and lobby Labour MPs.But Downing Street is likely to resist the idea, after one of Sir Keir’s most senior advisers warned that recent levies on the rich may already be undermining economic growth.Economists have also said such a move would trigger a fresh exodus of the rich from Britain.
Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, needs to raise tens of billions of pounds this autumn to hit her borrowing rules after deteriorating economic forecasts and costly policy reversals.The gutting of the welfare cuts package last week has required the Treasury to find an extra £4.6 billion a year, but has emboldened hard-Left Labour backbenchers to push for more policy changes.Speaking on Sky News, Lord Kinnock, who led the Labour Party between 1983 and 1992, said of Sir Keir’s Government: “The appearance has been given that they are bogged down by their own imposed limitations. There are ways around that, ways out of it, pathways that I think people are willing to explore and actually would commend themselves to the great majority of the general public.“They include, for instance, asset taxes in a period in which for the last 20-odd years in the United Kingdom, like quite a lot of other Western economies, earned incomes have stagnated in real terms while asset values have zoomed. They’ve just gone through the roof and they’ve been barely touched.“Now, you wouldn’t have to touch assets of under £6 million or £7 million, so people’s houses would be secure, obviously. But even by going for an imposition of 2 per cent on asset values above £10 million, say, which is a very big fortune, the Government would be in a position to collect £10 billion or £11 billion a year.”
The rich ‘are going unscathed’
He said the public was “fed up” with the richest going “unscathed” and suggested the policy would be “a substantial gesture in the direction of equity”.A No 10 spokesman declined to endorse the policy, instead pointing to Sir Keir’s remark in March when he said: “We have raised money – the energy profits levy, taxing non-doms and air passenger duty on private jets – but this isn’t a bottomless pit and we must kick-start growth to get the economic stability that we need.”Last week, it emerged that Liz Lloyd, a senior policy figure in No 10, reportedly questioned whether existing wealth taxes were harming Sir Keir’s “mission” of growing the economy.But five trade unions have told The Telegraph that they will pressure the Prime Minister to pursue wealth taxes.Christina McAnea, the general secretary of Unison, said: “A wealth tax would be a much fairer way of raising revenue to invest in public services and grow the economy.”Ms Rayner rose to become Unison’s most senior elected official in the north-west of England before she became an MP.Paddy Lillis, the general secretary of Usdaw, said “those with the broadest shoulders” should pay, adding: “We know wealth in this country is with a small number of people. It is one way of raising money quickly.”Steve Wright, the general secretary of the FBU, said: “Introducing a wealth tax to fund public services, a generous welfare state, and workers’ pay must be a priority in the second year of a Labour government.“There’s overwhelming support for that approach within the Labour Party, trade unions and the electorate.“The Prime Minister and Chancellor must abandon the welfare cuts and instead tax the super-rich as an alternative to the Tory austerity that was so decisively rejected by the electorate a year ago.”
Do you support the introduction of a wealth tax?
Unite spokesman said: “Unite has led the campaign for a wealth tax inside and outside the Labour Party. A 1 per cent wealth tax on the richest 1 per cent would generate £25 billion.”Matt Wrack, the acting general secretary of Nasuwt, said: “People voted for change at the general election last year. They wanted to see a clear end to austerity, an improvement to living standards and an end to the undermining of public services.“Part of addressing these issues is the immediate introduction of a wealth tax, a measure which has very significant public support.”In the first quarter of 2025 alone, Unite, Unison, Usdaw and the FBU gave close to £800,000 to Labour.As well as political donations, the unions take part in regular meetings with Sir Keir and hold key influence over Labour’s ruling body, the National Executive Committee.Labour MPs made similar calls over the weekend. Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP who tried to kill off Sir Keir’s welfare reforms last week, and Jon Trickett, a former shadow minister under Jeremy Corbyn, both threw support behind a wealth tax in comments given to The Telegraph.
Labour ‘trying to magic up huge amounts of money’
But experts questioned whether it would raise as much revenue as claimed. Dan Neidle, the founder of Tax Policy Associates, said the proposal was “fantasy politics” and relied on “the idea that we can magic up huge amounts of money without real consequence”.He said: “A wealth tax of this kind has never been tried. It amounts to a bet that a small number of very wealthy, very international and very mobile people will stay put and pay up.” This idea did not seem “very plausible”, he added.Around 20,000 taxpayers would be eligible to pay the wealth tax if the threshold was set at £10 million, according to a report by the Wealth Tax Commission, compiled for the Government in 2020.The commission warned at the time that the policy would push many rich people to quit the UK. Up to 17 per cent of assets subject to the tax would be moved abroad, suggesting thousands of millionaires would leave.Sir Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, said of Lord Kinnock’s wealth tax idea: “I think it would be the worst thing to do.”He added: “We’ve also seen around 10 to 15,000 high net worth individuals leave our country as a result of this Government’s policies.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/07/06/lord-kinnock-urges-reeves-to-bring-in-wealth-tax/
1 -
They are the gift that keeps giving
0 -
Hello @Passerby
I actually think, if they have the capacity with the assessment providers, they will ramp up WCA reassessments well before April 2026 from now on - specifically targeting short term awards and substantial risk in the first instance to off-roll them before tackling the rest. The whole purpose of these 'reforms' was and still is to save money. Their proposals have been driven by the Treasury, which is why they have tried to ram it through, bypassing consultation with stakeholders (disability charities etc). They were stopped in their tracks by the PLP (moderate new Labour MPs).
Don't you think their green paper pledge to restart reassessments from April 2026, which was published in March this year, is now defunct? Why are you assuming what they intended in the green paper regarding reassessing UC LCWRA/ESA Support group will continue as previously planned? Surely the filleting of the UC & PIP bill by removing the PIP 4-points clause has now changed the landscape entirely? Their priority is to cut money.0 -
They really are the gift that keeps giving, but the wrapping paper is suffocating what little trust remains. We are not here to unwrap what they hand us. We never were.
It is time to remind them, we are not passive recipients. We are the resistance. And we need to let our MPs know, the concessions in that bill are not good enough.
Here is the twist, they only get to keep giving if we keep accepting. Let’s stop unwrapping and start reminding them, we deserve better. We deserve a fully independent review into the PIP reforms.0 -
I just feel such sorrow everyone been pushing at them they just want this through
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.3K Start here and say hello!
- 7.2K Coffee lounge
- 88 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 121 Announcements and information
- 24.1K Talk about life
- 5.7K Everyday life
- 406 Current affairs
- 2.4K Families and carers
- 864 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 523 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
- 922 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.1K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 39.3K Talk about your benefits
- 6K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.5K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8.1K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.6K Benefits and income