Green Paper Discussion (from 24th March, 2025)

Sorry to hear you have been affected and I agree we have to unite. However I just want to say my opinion.

If we don't do something about it then it definitely will be who deserves it and who doesn't because the 4 point descriptor will hit hard and it is designed to hit hard. It will be who is more disabled and who isn't. It will be who is more effective at the point scoring and who isn't. It will be the haves and the have nots. Millions will suffer. This is almost very close to happening. They are trying to make it happen. Those that say nothing is happening right now, nothing is for certain, well, they are going ahead with it aren't they?

It will be who is more disabled and whose disability deserves financial help and whose doesn't. That is what the reforms are all about this is why they designed it.

I think the last thing any of us want is to be assessed by work coaches, unless you're thinking of ones that are fully qualified doctors and psychiatrists.

A lot of work coaches have no understanding of mental issues, and there's a lot of work coaches who are unsympathetic and unempathetic.

I have had experiences with most work coaches that I've seen where after I have tried to explain my issues to them it is as though it has just gone in one ear and out the other, they will still continue to treat me as though there is nothing wrong with me and expect me to do things I cannot do.

For example, after explaining to one how I suffer from depression, social anxiety, and how I find it very hard to cope with a lot of regular situations that most other people can cope with, he suggested that I become a security guard! A mentally fragile person being expected to stand around somewhere in public and to tackle criminals?

@Albus_Scope

Is it possible to divert the Trump posts here to the correct thread please.

I don't disagree that the MSM can be biased, which is why it's good to read across the papers and compare sources. The only way you get to truth is by doing that. Believing in one person/politician uncritically is very dangerous. If you really support someone's way of doing things you should also be willing to hold them to account - otherwise you are only taking one side of the story as well.

And you shouldn't ever just rely on social media, because social media is far MORE biased and more of an echo chamber than the MSM. This is because of algorithms, which give you more posts similar to what you were already reading and reacts to what you like reading. It does not give you a balanced view, which is why you should use as many sources as possible to verify what is true.

I didn't vote Labour and I am angry about what they are doing. At the same time, I realise that the Tories and Reform would do more harm to disabled people if they were in power, so it worries me when people think that getting rid of Labour would solve all our problems. It won't. We have very few positive options, politically, as disabled people.

I'm not going to comment on Trump because it's another country's politics. I also know people over there going through a very bad time/lost their job etc however.

Apologies if that is still off topic but I feel like it's relevant in all the political frustration - remembering to check data and corroborate information across different sources no matter what the issue.

If anything, what we should be concerned about is how little MSM coverage there is now of the benefit cuts, as if it's someone else's problem and not as important as the financial implications of Trump's tariffs. These are all economic issues.

I do think that we should be challenging the idea of economically inactive as well. There is a difference between being not employed and not contributing to the economy. There will be further implications to cutting these payments if people are no longer to contribute to the economy by buying necessities and such. But there's nothing from the govt on that impact.

It seems like they may want us to lie but I will not do that.

I will be truthful and tell them I was granted early ill health retirement from my career because it was agreed that I am unable to undertake any paid employment

All reasonable adjustments were tried and failed

@luvpink

Same here.

Medically retired, after all reasonable adjustments failed. No expectation I would be able to undertake gainful employment prior to retirement age.

Light touch review on PIP.

Support Group- NS-ESA.

I'd be equally humiliated and enraged if some 18yo, medically unqualified, 'Job Coach' was to attempt to tell me what jobs I could/should be doing.

Perhaps that's their aim?

To humiliate us into stopping claiming our current benefits?

@Albus_Scope

After all the posts about Trump, that have appeared on the Green Paper Discussion thread, may I make a suggestion that a separate thread could be created for news and current affairs that would be general and not related to our benefits and all the issues they raise? 🤔

I delved into the ‘Pathways to work green paper’ further and came across a particular point that raised some concerns.So I thought to look into it further….

In the introduction(scroll down), point 194 states:

“Data on economic inactivity published in January 2025 by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) demonstrates that many people who are economically inactive due to long-term sickness want to work, with nearly 700,000 stating they would like a job.”

This figure of 700,000 is attributed to the ONS, as indicated in footnote 90. However, upon reviewing the available ONS data, I couldn’t locate this specific statistics-How did they arrive at that figure?. This raises questions about the accuracy and source of this figure, especially considering the significant implications it has for the 16 million disabled individuals in the UK 😡😡

The Green Paper frequently references the Labour Force Survey (LFS)  and another interim findings of a   “work aspirations and support needs of health and disability customers”

(Interim Report on merely a survey of 3,401 health and disability customers 🙄.”)

-I couldn’t see a ‘moral’ argument here at all, using data from 3,401 people to cut disability benefits for 16 million people.

Both of the above are used as foundational data sources throughout this long-form Green Paper document (which you would truly need a month to read!!).

I’m unsure if this is captured in our green paper thread so far

but

 - I feel it’s important to note that the LFS has faced challenges regarding data reliability. The Office for Statistics Regulation highlighted that several statistical outputs derived from the LFS had their accreditation suspended due to quality concerns stemming from declining survey response rates. I also read that they advised caution when using this data, emphasising its limitations. You can see it all here (in their note mentioning the time constraints ), Rising ill-health and economic inactivity because of long-term sickness -again in the  notes and the caution note(Bolded) in the Employment/Unemployment/Economic inactivity Estimates (point 2) here . These caution notes are on pretty much all of the data on which they’ve based this proposal.
Half of the links they have added as references in the green paper are broken links (as they have clearly rushed to publish this). Just analysing the rushed green paper proposal makes my blood boil.  😡

Given these points, i feel that the justification for the ‘Pathways to Work’ Green Paper may be based on data that is not entirely reliable. This brings into question the validity of the proposals and also suggests that they might be founded on potentially flawed or misleading information.

I feel it deserves the statement of the Benefits and Work organisation as a ‘Bogus Consultation.’ 👍👍I personally find the green paper proposal senseless, purposefully long and vague, purposefully delaying accessibility, confusing, statistically incorrect, non-reliable, misleading, flawed, and based on extremely ‘volatile’ data.”

I encourage others to review these findings and share their perspectives. If these assumptions hold, it could raise significant concerns about the foundation of the Green Paper’s proposals and provide a strong basis to fight against the benefit cuts within the legal system.

(Evidently, I truly feel this consultation has been so rushed -it’s still without an accessible version, as if all its flaws and cracks were meant to go unnoticed. We must leave no stone unturned and hold them to account. We can highlight these issues when responding to the consultation. They need to witness the collective power of 16 million people.)

I was genuinely shocked to see that the Green Paper PDF is 84 pages long. It really makes me wonder….did they ever stop to consider how this would affect disabled and vulnerable people trying to engage with it?

Thank You @noonebelieves I've read your post but need to re read it to assimmilate it properly (my mind not your post which is very well written).

Wasn't sure exactly where to put this and didnt know how to save/upload it, but there's an article from interview with Rachel Reeves this week ? Weds, on Disability News Service by John Pring that I've just seen where RR connecting PIP reassessments with opening up work/employment support.