nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

We want to hear from you: please tell us about your experience of the online community.

Labour's backdoor changes to welfare : ((

FeistyPigeon

Hi folks,

I just happened to be listening to BBC R4 "World at One" this lunchtime. And they interviewed McFadden, the new DWP minister about his intentions for "reform" of the welfare system.

In a nutshell this is what he says:

They STILL intend to go ahead with "reforms" to disability benefits and will not wait for the Timms review to be completed. Ie they want to put reforms in place BEFORE disability groups have been consulted.
They are planning to make those of us getting the disability premium of UC more "engaged" with jobcenters, with the aim to getting us off benefits and into work. They don't give any details about how this will be done.
They are considering tightening the rules for eligibility to disability benefits for anyone aged under 22. They might even end them completely.

This is all pretty shocking. They failed to convince Parliament to adopt their planned "reforms" back in the spring. So now they are in effect trying to push through these reforms anyway on the quiet. If this were the Tories, I'm sure Labour would be up in arms about this. But in truth, given Labour's track record under Starmer, what's the difference between them? The concessions to the Timm's review were just a sop to push the welfare bill through.

But… how do we stop it??

We should at the very least demand disability groups are heard FIRST.

But even if they do, I have no faith at all now that they have the interests of us disabled at heart.

PS here is the link to the BBC story:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg3jl0ylkyo

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

rubin16

It would depend on what reforms they are doing, as currently I agree there should be some reform to the benefit system as it is not substainable as it is currently and its getting worst year on year.

In my personal view some conditions should be barred from claiming, or atleast have some other support in place. There is a high percentage of pip and UC claiments just claiming for anxiety and depression alone for example. I personally think rather than have monetary support they should be given other support as allowing a person to just claim without any other support is just going to end up in them in a vicious benefit cycle.

Then theres some who try to claim for dental issues which I've seen on this forum. There has to be some sort of breaking point otherwise it'll be gone for everyone.

So yes there has to be some sort of change or reform, it just depends what it is and what it entails for everyone. But currently the system can't last the way it is currently.

Zipz

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1069699#Comment_1069699

If your money was likely to be reduced I doubt you'd be in favour of "reform". You're just echoing politicians and proving their success in pandering to popular opinion.

People often claim for more than one disability so it is not possible to state with certainty "There is a high percentage of pip and UC claiments just claiming for anxiety and depression alone".

Even if you are correct, these psychiatric conditions often have a neurological base and can therefore be lifelong and as crippling as most physical conditions, some of which are curable.

From my perspective, living most of my with a progressive and extremely painful physical condition, the current emphasis on "social barriers" is wrong and insulting. What disables me is not society but a medical condition that can only get worse as the decades tick on. Yet having had a lifelong award of DLA ceased and, at some expense to the state, replaced by an ongoing award of PIP, I'm going to have to go through it all again as I'm getting older and more disabled.

I very much doubt that the forum user with the dental issues will be found eligible for PIP unless they have other disabling conditions.

Zipz

Take heart in this: "He said 1,000 specially trained job centre staff would offer voluntary support to those on sickness benefits."

jonf

interesting as I received a letter today about agreeing a plan back to work. I am on 21 pills a day and will be lucky to make retirement age which is not far away

Zipz

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1069725#Comment_1069725

Are you on LCWRA/ Support Group or LCW / WRAG ? Read the wording closely. Are you sure it's mandatory?

Zipz

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1069733#Comment_1069733

@jonf There’s a lot on YouTube and other media about this sort of thing. It appears that for LCWRA/ Support Group claimants it us voluntary. Write a polite letter refusing their kind invitation and briefly explain why. This is not a new ploy. Past governments havr tried it.

rubin16

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1069719#Comment_1069719

No I'm simply stating facts that the country can't survive without some sort of change or reform happening. Its going to happen whether people want it or not, as the system can't survive or continue the way it is. The system currently is broken and needs fixing.

As for if my money were to be reduced would I still say this, yes I would. I couldn't care if my money got reduced or not I've stopped caring or worrying about it. I also don't care for politicians, they are all liars and can't be trusted as I find with most neurotypicals these days. I'm just simply stating facts that the numbers don't add up and something has to be done no matter who's in power.

As with the anxiety and depression thing, if you do your research it'll state that the most condition claimed for is anxiety and depression. Even most posts on this forum proves most claim for anxiety and depression. If we actually put funding into supporting a person rather then giving them no support and have them live of benefits with no prospect of getting better, it would cut this number severly.

JasonRA

We're going into who is more deserving of incapacity benefits whilst the dwp would rather none of us gets a single penny, I think that's something we should recognise first and foremost.

I get it when the pennies are squeezed we think of ourselves but a little tact goes a long way.

Zipz

A few questions & observations @rubin16

Why can't the county survive without further welfare reform? Austerity has always been a political choice.
How would you survive were your DWP income to be cut or stopped?
Although you're right to say that anxiety and depression are high on the list of conditions claimed for, these conditions may not be a claimant's *primary* condition.
Yes. We ought to be funding NHS mental health (and physical health) care but until a claimant gets better they need financial support. The NHS is so run down that it will take decades to offer health care for disabled people. The only other option is to push people into "treatment" by inappropriate DWP/ 3rd party funkies.

JasonRA

I lost someone because he took his own life due to depression in 2008, when I read nonsense like "it's a put on for benefits" it really annoys me. Let me get this straight Depression was verified as an incapacity for work long before 2010 when the Equalities Act came in place.

The Media and Politicians have fuelled this witch hunt against Depressives after Covid where the isolation, lockdowns, fear, the losing of loved ones directly effecting the minds of younger people.

More investment within the NHS mental health teams would help, more team skills building, voluntary community work, just to be outside to try to communicate with others face to face in a positive light helps.

"Duty to engage" remember those words from last year? Engagement will ultimately have tiers be it from face to face meetings, to phone calls to emails, twice weekly, monthly, quarterly ect. This is where it's going especially when Labour phase out LCWRA and LCW.

Bright side is that this will be voluntary for the time being.

jonf

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1069733#Comment_1069733

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1069743#Comment_1069743

jonf

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1069743#Comment_1069743

do not understand what LCWRA is.

Zipz

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1069789#Comment_1069789

Low Capacity for Work-Related Activity. LCWRA claimants are not expected to look for work ir engage in work-related activity.

FeistyPigeon

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1069719#Comment_1069719

Very well put Zipz, couldn't have put it better

FeistyPigeon

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1069721#Comment_1069721

Well spotted Zipz! Hadn't read that bit. Yep, makes a big difference, PROVIDED it remains voluntary.

So maybe all this talk about "welfare reform" is just to show they're doing something (to head off Farage, whom they seem obsessed with now)..?

Albus_Alumni

Yes it's all voluntary, which is the key part here. No one is being forced into work, but the helping hand is being offered to those who may have felt too awkward to ask for support.

FeistyPigeon

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1069789#Comment_1069789

LCWRA = limited capability for work + work related activity. It's equivalent to the old support group on ESA. They say only about 10% of those classed as disabled on UC are given LCWRA, the rest of us are on LCW, and are expected to do "preparation for work", although it's recognised we cannot actually do a job + are not expected to apply for work.

FeistyPigeon

https://forum.scope.org.uk/discussion/comment/1069910#Comment_1069910

Nice to hear from you Albus, and if it's there's no coersion involved then I agree, the policy's a good thing.

But the gov document only mentions those on LCWRA. I'm wondering what changes will be brought in for the rest of us on LCW, and whether they'll be mandatory. That would take things to a different level…

Albus_Alumni

Good to see you too @FeistyPigeon my avian friend. 😊

People with LCW should still be engaging with their work coaches, if at a limited capacity, so I'm guessing that'll be why they're not mentioned in the gov docs?

[Deleted User]

No formatter is installed for the format not-found

Component react.suggestedcontent had an error.

The value must be greater than or equal to 1.

Sign in or register for free

Get more out of your online community by signing in or registering