Get your MP to act against cuts

@jul1aorways Good afternoon , dear friend – and once again, thank you so much for trusting me to share your MP’s response and asking for my perspective. You’re always such an inspiration to me and many others in this campaign space. The time and dedication you and your partner have put into writing a heartfelt, detailed, and deeply personal letter clearly made an impact – and it’s wonderful to see that acknowledged in the first line of your MP’s reply. That’s a big achievement in itself.

Now, onto the letter itself – and I’ll try to unpack this in a supportive, balanced, and honest way. I’ll admit upfront that I’m not as politically fluent as you are – I’ve only recently started understanding these processes myself, since this disturbing Green Paper emerged – but I’ll share what I can from my reading and lived experience.Firstly, I completely agree with your feeling that the language is deliberately vague and perhaps intentionally ambiguous in places. Phrases like “covers major themes but lacks much of the detail that will become legislation” are, in my view, a classic example of diplomatic obfuscation – an attempt to downplay the concrete direction the government is heading in by cloaking it as merely “consultative.” But as we both know, this Green Paper doesn’t read like a genuine co-exploration of ideas -it reads like a pre-determined one-way agenda, dressed in discussion clothing , partly due to its vagueness.

There’s a subtle rhetorical sleight of hand throughout. Take the MP’s line “It is true to say that the benefits bill has grown very significantly since the pandemic.” That sounds definitive – but it’s worth asking, “According to whom?” Multiple long-term analyses(plus future predictions), including from the OBR and Disabled People Against Cuts(DPAC), have strongly disputed this narrative. John Pring’s reporting on the Disability News Service  has exposed how DWP figures may have been selectively framed or overinflated to build this argument. It feels like a post hoc rationalisation, not a fair presentation of evidence. As you rightly pointed out- this “growth” may be more myth than fact.

Another phrase that stood out to me was “those who genuinely cannot work.” The use of “genuinely” here is subtly judgmental and loaded with suspicion, and it echoes a long-standing pattern in political discourse: pitting so-called “deserving” versus “undeserving” claimants. This is particularly harmful when we know the reality of fluctuating, invisible, and complex health conditions.

You also noted (spot on) the use of the term “vulnerable” instead of “disabled.” That kind of framing risks infantilising or victimising people. While it might be well-intentioned, it ultimately blurs the lines around rights, equality, and entitlement, as protected under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act. It steers the narrative away from legal protections and towards a paternalistic tone – as though support is given out of generosity, not entitlement. This might be inadvertent, but it is still deeply problematic.

What majorly concerns me is the way the MP avoids addressing the actual contents of the Green Paper – especially the two devastating proposed changes:

1.The abolition of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), and

2.The tightening of PIP eligibility, especially using a rigid 4-point daily living descriptor.

Neither are acknowledged here. Instead, we get the line “I support reforms that help those who can work into work…” which sounds eerily like echoing Labour’s position – particularly Starmer, Reeves’ and Kendall’s framing of “reforms” as “common sense” and “moral,” which feels quite dystopian and punitive given the real-world consequences for disabled people and their families. When MPs start recycling the same rhetoric as the government but replacing words like “cuts” with “reforms” and “sanctions” with “targeted support” – that’s euphemistic deflection. And yes, “weasel words” is pretty appropriate here too.

That said, I do think there are a couple of cautiously optimistic glimmers in this response. For instance, the MP says, “this has to happen in a thought out, consulted and open way.” That’s good – but where’s the reference to accessibility, inclusivity, or the Public Sector Equality Duty? One could argue that their silence on those dimensions is telling by omission.

Even more encouraging is this final part:“It is also fair to say that the Government is experiencing some challenges from within its own ranks… I will take on board your comments when scrutinising the proposals.”(As you say- Booo-Ha😉)This shows there is internal friction – and that MPs are aware of the public pressure and potential backlash. As you brilliantly said, ✅it’s a volatile time in politics, and no MP wants to be the one who lost their seat because they backed an unjust welfare reform. So yes – this is our window. This is the moment to keep pushing, to keep writing, and to keep speaking out.

In sum, my thoughts are:  Merits: It’s a personalised reply. There’s at least some acknowledgement that your voice matters. There’s a hint of internal political pressure. Demerits: Vague, euphemistic, lacking in legal or rights-based framing. Conceals more than it reveals. Possibly contradictory in parts – “supportive of reform” while expressing “concern” about details, for example. There also appears to be an unintentional lack of inclusivity and a limited understanding of the experiences and challenges faced by disabled individuals.Assumptions and Intentions: It may be that your MP is trying to sit on the fence, hoping not to alienate party lines while acknowledging constituents’ concerns. But this ambiguity can’t last forever-especially when the final vote arrives.

So I’d say-this reply, while not perfect, is actually a powerful sign. It shows your campaigning works. You’ve pulled your MP into the debate, and they are now answerable. If enough of us do the same, the proposals’ trajectory can be altered. As we saw from the backlash to previous failed reforms, collective action works. And this is how we make it happen again.

I’d also like to add that, while the MP’s letter is somewhat broad and open to countless interpretation, it’s so encouraging that you received a response. I’m sure others with more political insight may be able to explore its implications in greater depth.

Thank you for always being a guiding light in this space, for empowering others, and for speaking truth to power even when it’s exhausting. I’m proud to be alongside you – even if I’m just a small voice in this big outcry. You’ve always encouraged me, and I hope my small reflections help return the favour.(Apologies if I’ve missed anything obvious - my brain feels a bit taxed today.)

Let’s keep going – we’ve got momentum, and change is still possible.

In solidarity and strength,✊

Please take a moment to read the attached response from the Disability Activism Society, which follows the Government’s official reply. Let’s all do our bit -sign and share this parliamentary petitionwidely. Reaching 100,000 signatures will help trigger a vital debate in Parliament.

(You can find the full Government response just below the petition link.)

Protect Disabled people who cannot work from planned cuts to benefits

I received a very similar reply from my mp.Looks like a corporate cut and paste job

100% agree @silmarillion After much persistence, I’ve secured an appointment with my MP at an upcoming constituency surgery at our local library in two weeks(see my related posts on this thread). 

Let’s all keep pushing strategically, as discussed in this thread and the others related to the Green Paper proposals. Best wishes-In solidarity ✊

The Benefits and Work website has this evening published a piece of analysis that will wipe the floor with MPs' stock replies to our objections. (Apogies if the links don't translate to copy & paste.)

Mental health PIP claimants demonised as cover for massive assault on physical health awards

Under both Conservative and Labour governments, the DWP have colluded with the press to demonise younger claimants living with mental health issues, ADHD and autism.  Ministers have joined in, to create a smokescreen which obscures the politically inconvenient truth that the majority of those at risk of losing their personal independence payment (PIP) under the Green paper proposals are older people with physical health conditions – many of whom have worked all their adult life until they became ill.

Sickfluencers

In January, the Canary highlighted the fact that “Disabled people living with mental health conditions came on the receiving end of an exponential surge in corporate media attacks against benefit claimants in 2024.”  It also found many articles “blaming the rise in disability benefit claims on the increase in claims from autistic people, and people with ADHD.” 

Sinister TikTok and Youtube “sickfluencers” who encourage young people to make spurious claims for benefits rather than find employment have become a staple of these hate tales, which continue to the present day:

Spike in disability claims for ADHD — as influencers provide advice  Sunday Times 14.04.2024

‘Sickfluencers’ help followers claim benefits as 15,000 a week approved  Times 30.11.2024

The benefits sickfluencers teaching Brits how to play the system and take YOUR tax to splash on flash cars and exotic hols  The Sun 07.02.25

The £3.5bn-a-year benefits bill for anxiety and ADHD  Telegraph 19.03.25

Disability benefits for anxiety and depression double since pandemic  Times 25.04.2025

And Liz Kendall, in her speech launching the Pathways To Work Green Paper argued that PIP claims were “rising faster among young people and mental health conditions . . . And the consequences of this failure are there for all to see. Millions of people who could work trapped on benefits… denied the income, hope, dignity and self-respect that we know good work brings

But, if this is the problem that the reforms are designed to fix, why are the bulk of the cuts aimed at older people with physical health conditions?

Physical health to be hardest hit

All the figures provided by the DWP suggest that it is physical health awards, not mental health or neurodevelopmental ones, that will bear the brunt of Labour’s cuts.

PIP awards at risk are those where the claimant did not score a minimum of 4 points for any daily living activity.  DWP statistics show that of all at risk awards:

• 72% are based on physical health
• 26% are based on mental health
• 1% are based on ADHD
• 1% are based on autistic spectrum disorders (ASD)
• 25% are based on learning disabilities.

(Numbers do not add up to 100% due to rounding). 

Clearly, from these numbers, ADHD and ASD awards are not at the forefront of cuts.

The DWP did not provide us with a condition specific breakdown of awards, but even from the categories it did provide, the focus on physical health is very apparent.  The percentage of awards with no 4 point or higher descriptor is:

• 79% for back pain
• 77% for arthritis
• 71% for regional musculoskeletal diseases (excluding back pain)
• 68% for chronic pain syndromes
• 62% for cardiovascular disease
• 55% for respiratory diseases

By comparison, 48% of awards for anxiety and depression have no 4 point or higher and, as we have seen above, 19% for ADHD and 6% for ASD.

What Labour are threatening with their Green Paper then, is almost eight out of ten awards for back pain and arthritis being stopped and even awards for conditions like heart disease and breathing problem being taken away from well over half of all current recipients.

If Labour were honest about this, they would probably find their plans much harder to sell.

Older claimants to be hardest hit

The other claim being made by Labour is that these cuts are aimed at preventing a whole generation of young people becoming permanent benefits claimants and never experiencing the “dignity and self-respect” of work.

The truth is the opposite:  younger claimants are much less likely to lose their awards while older claimants, most with a lifetime of graft behind them, are much more likely to lose their PIP. 

According to the DWP’s statxplore, the percentage of PIP claimants aged between 50 and 66 is, for example:

• 82% of those living with arthritis.
• 79% of those living with respiratory illness
• 75% of those living with cardiovascular disease
• 63% of those living with back pain
• 57% of those living with chronic pain
• 54% of those living with regional musculoskeletal diseases (excluding back pain)

Claimants living with mental health conditions tend to be younger:  only 36% of claimants living with anxiety and depression are aged  between 50 and 66. 

Those living with  neurodevelopmental issues are even younger: just 4% of claimants living with  ASD and 2.5% of those  living with ADHD are aged between 50 and 66.

But, as we have seen, mental health and neurodevelopmental claims make up only a little over a quarter of all at risk claims.

Whereas, just the six physical health conditions listed above, include over half of all the 1.3 million at risk claims. 

When it all unravels

There is no question, as our research has shown, that claimants living with mental health conditions will be hit dreadfully hard by the Green Paper changes and some of them will be amongst the most vulnerable people in our society.

But the number of claimants with physical health conditions who will be plunged into desperate circumstances by a sudden drop in income will be even greater.

Labour ministers may well succeed in conning their own MPs into voting the changes to PIP into law before the summer recess.

But, when the cuts actually come into force in November 2026, the deception will not hold.

It will rapidly become obvious that Labour is systematically destroying the income, not of young people led from the path of gainful employment by greedy “sickfluencers”, but of older people with a lifetime of work behind them. 

And as images begin to appear in the press of disabled people close to retirement age, some using wheelchairs or supplemental oxygen kits, queueing at food banks and debt advice centres, Labour MPs may regret their gullibility.

By the summer of 2029, after two and a half years of thousands of older, disabled claimants being remorselessly stripped of their PIP every single month, there will be a general election at which they may regret it a great deal more.

END OF ARTICLE

Its quite concerning that the ''spying on bank accounts'' is nearing the end of the consultation period, two more stages to get through, it is back in the house right now then it only has the Lords to go. This along with the green paper is a lot to take onboard all at once. I hate the fact that the disabled/out of work are a multi target of the Government. My bank account is just that, ''mine''. Oh sorry, my thoughts are very disjointed at the moment, maybe this bit doesn't belong in this thread, if its a problem let me know and I will remove it ☺️

Dear kind members,

Ever since the Green Paper thread crashed, I’ve been unable to access the main discussion. Could someone kindly help by listing the above petitions on the main Green Paper thread?

The long-awaited WCA petition -which directly challenges the unlawful nature of the consultation- has now finally been published, following strong scrutiny by Parliament. Some wording has been changed to avoid clashing with existing policies, but the core message remains.

Now more than ever, we must stay positive, united, and focused. Every petition contributes to the wider movement. Let’s stand together and support all efforts that push back against these harmful proposals.

Catch up soon!

In solidarity ✊

Thank you so much for this kind gesture, @chiarieds-I truly appreciate it.

Thanks also for adding my petition. I don’t mind at all that you included another one-after all, we’re all united in the same cause, standing up against these harmful proposals.
And funny you mention “gremlins in the works”-I’ve got a few theories of my own about those gremlins! 😳

Thanks for the link to the Green Paper post and thread. I was able to read through the comments, but I’m still unable to post or reply, which is a bit frustrating.

I really appreciate you checking in on me. To be honest, like many of us, I’m dealing with my share of health issues and significant pain-but I haven’t stepped back. I’m still in the game! 😊

Just hoping the website/forum issues get sorted soon so we can all stay fully engaged.

Take care,
In solidarity ✊