Green Paper Related Discussions

That's right, they've always got plenty of money for their own priorities. 😤

I've just read that with the upcoming Spending Review that they have suddenly announced that they are going to spend 93 billion on capital spending!! 😱

Capital spending is things like on new schools, hospitals, prisons, the rail system and even nuclear reactors. So it is needed but they are being so mean with money for government departments like the DWP, you'd think the country was bankrupt!

They can easily afford to do everything properly, this country isn't at all short of money.

Capital spending projects attract private investment where government departments are part of the public sector. Everything has to go into private hands, all the time, according to them.

Some "Labour" government!! They deserve to lose all their voters with their appalling attitude, I hope that they never get back into power. 😡

I have again been reading up on Liz Kendalls careless and incorrect comments that PIP was never designed for those with mental health issues. She's obviously not done her homework (yet again) as it's simply not true. This is what I found out again that completely contradicts her harmful and very untruthful comments.

Would It Be Lawful?

The UK government can lawfully change the eligibility criteria or descriptors for PIP through secondary legislation (statutory instruments) without requiring a full Act of Parliament. This has happened before. However:

• The changes must not breach human rights law, equality law, or disability discrimination law.
• They must comply with Article 14 (non-discrimination) and Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which the UK is still bound by via the Human Rights Act 1998.
• The Equality Act 2010 prohibits indirect discrimination against disabled people, including those with mental health conditions.

So: yes, the DWP can propose changes—but the legality depends on how those changes are framed and whether they disproportionately disadvantage people with mental health disabilities.

⚖️ Could a Legal Challenge Be Brought?

Yes. There are several legal avenues for challenging such a policy:

1. Judicial Review

• Affected individuals or organisations (like disability rights charities) could apply for a judicial review of the regulations.
• The court could find the changes unlawful if they are:
  • Irrational or unreasonable
  • Discriminatory under the Equality Act
  • Contrary to legitimate expectations (e.g., if the government previously committed to parity between physical and mental health)
  • In breach of procedural fairness or inadequate consultation

2. Discrimination Claims

• If the criteria systematically disadvantage claimants with mental health issues, they could be found to amount to indirect disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
• The burden would be on the government to show that the changes are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

3. Human Rights Challenges

• Discrimination against those with mental health conditions in access to financial support may also violate Article 14 of the ECHR, especially when linked to Article 1 of Protocol 1 (the right to property, including welfare benefits).

4. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)

• While not directly enforceable in UK courts, failure to uphold the rights of people with psychosocial disabilities could be used in legal arguments or international pressure (e.g., complaints to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities).

🧠 Background: PIP Was Meant to Cover Mental Health

PIP explicitly includes mental health in its legislation:

• The 2013 PIP assessment guide and regulations make clear that psychological distress, cognitive difficulties, and fluctuating mental health conditions are covered.
• Court cases (e.g., MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) have repeatedly affirmed that mental health issues must be given equal weight in PIP assessments.

Therefore, attempting to reframe PIP as being "for physical conditions only" could face strong legal opposition.

🧱 Examples of Successful Legal Challenges:

• RF v Secretary of State (2017): A successful challenge to PIP rules that unfairly excluded people who experienced overwhelming psychological distress from the mobility component. The DWP lost and had to change the law and reassess thousands of claims.
• Mathieson v Secretary of State (2015): The Supreme Court ruled that denying Disability Living Allowance to a disabled child in hospital was discriminatory.

🛡️ Summary

I hope this puts some peoples minds at rest just a little, whenever Liz Kendall opens her gob and spouts lies I'll reasearch it and show her for the dangerous, evil narcissist that she is.

If delayed though won’t the impact statement be out for them to see then as we know the impact statement will show what we all know and the uproar will be more ?

Morning Johnny ,

I wrote exactly this . That’s why they’re rushing it through. The fact there’s now talk of a delay / concession makes me think they’re panicking and trying to find a way to get this to pass . Please god they start to u turn in some way 🤞🙏

morning Squirrel So what is the gov saying there gonna delay exactly ? Not the vote then

Please don't say that. 😞

See the other post that I've just sent to you. Please 🙏don't give up hope. 😊

just read this from The daily express

I have ME and even a phone conversation can mentally and physically tire me out . Being forced to work will put us under pressure as we are responsible for others when we can’t even take care of ourselves.

I agree with you that it's doubtful that money is the issue. It's the ideology behind this minor amount in savings that this is all about.

Starmer and Co have set themselves up as a party for people who work. It's not for the working class any longer. If you are unable to work, like us or you are too young or old to work, they regard you as an unnecessary burden, costing the country money. Yes, isn't it evil. 😳

I think you meant the ECHR, the European Court of Human Rights. They are already discriminating against the human rights of disabled children.

I've just read about the SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) children where the government are now trying to stop their funding. They will then have to be taught in a mainstream school which will really disadvantage them educationally and leave them at much greaterrisk of being bullied by other children. 😡

It's disgraceful but hardly surprising. The monsters who are supposed to be governing the country are using every way they can to sideline the disabled, whatever their age. As far as they are concerned, only fit and able people of working age who do work deserve anything at all. 😤

I agree that their priorities are completely immoral and wrong and have nothing to do with what amount of money is allocated and to where but with their political choices in trying to compete with the odious Nigel Farage and his equally vile colleagues in Reform UK. 🤮

The problem with taxing the gambling sites is that the companies that run them will pass the extra costs of that tax on to their vulnerable customers, many of who will be gambling addicts, making life even worse for them.

I would not like to think that any U turn of any kind should be achieved by making people who have gambling addiction pay even more to do so, putting them into more debt, poverty and misery.

How grotesque this government has become. 👺