Green Paper Related Discussions

1122123125127128195

Comments

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 8,644 Championing

    This the part Gunning Process

    Screenshot_20250611_120707_Google.jpg Screenshot_20250611_120714_Google.jpg

    Pls pls pls make this halt it all

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 1,170 Championing
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • charlie72
    charlie72 Online Community Member Posts: 259 Pioneering

    If they tried to push it through as a money bill it would certainly be the end for Starmer, I think it really would be a step too far for not just labour mp's but the house of commons. I also think the media like to inflame these issues and make things up, albeit maybe some minor truth in it like they had a discussion about it or something. Starmer already has loads of mp's rebelling against these cuts, he'd be a complete fool to try and do this, although I agree he's a complete ego maniac and doesn't care what anyone else thinks.

    Under the Parliament Act 1911, a bill can be designated a Money Bill if it only contains provisions dealing with national taxation, public money, or loans. This designation:

    • Must be made by the Speaker of the House of Commons, not the government.
    • Cannot be challenged in court once made.
    • Severely limits scrutiny: the House of Lords can debate it but not amend or block it, and it becomes law within a month of passing the Commons.

    ⚠️ Why This Is Controversial and Possibly Abusive

    The article suggests the government might:

    1. Draft the bill narrowly, focusing only on cuts (e.g. changes to PIP or eligibility rules).
    2. Classify it as a Money Bill to bypass Lords scrutiny and rush it through.
    3. Use a Committee of the Whole House to dodge detailed evidence hearings.

    If true, this would be a deliberate effort to reduce parliamentary scrutiny and push through significant cuts to disability support with minimal opposition.

    That would raise serious democratic and constitutional concerns, especially if:

    • The cuts affect entitlement criteria (not just spending levels).
    • The bill includes non-financial provisions, like assessment reforms or obligations on claimants.

    Even if it technically qualifies, this approach would be seen as undermining transparency and accountability on a matter that deeply affects disabled people.

    🧨 Political Fallout?

    As the article notes:

    • Labour MPs and ministers may revolt.
    • At least one minister may resign.
    • The strategy could inflame public and media backlash — especially from disability rights groups.

    This could also unite cross-party opposition and possibly result in legal or procedural challenges in Parliament (though courts cannot overturn a Speaker's Money Bill ruling).

    🔍 What to Watch

    • When the bill is introduced (expected mid-June).
    • Whether it is certified as a Money Bill by the Speaker.
    • What the bill actually says — does it only adjust finances, or does it impose new rules and obligations?
    • Backbench and ministerial response, especially from Labour or crossbench Lords.
    • Statements by disability groups (like Disability Rights UK, Z2K, or the Disability Benefits Consortium).
  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 8,644 Championing

    Its to small for me to read what's the general outcome pls

  • secretsquirrel1
    secretsquirrel1 Online Community Member Posts: 2,052 Championing

    More of Kendall’s bs then . If the genuine disabled will be protected and only those million that are not really sick or disabled will lose out why are they consulting other sources who can help when we lose pip . We won’t need help from local councils etc if we are ok to work.

  • YogiBear
    YogiBear Online Community Member Posts: 411 Pioneering
  • ashmere
    ashmere Online Community Member Posts: 60 Empowering

    From the Rightsnet site

    DWP backtracks on FOI response that stated pension age PIP claimants will not be subject to 4 point rule

    This FOI response issued on 15 May 2025 includes the following -

    ‘… those above working age who score fewer than 4 points in all daily living activities … will not have their eligibility assessed on this requirement, although current working age claimants that are affected may continue to be affected after they reach state pension age.’

    When asked to clarify if this means it has been decided that there will be a specific exclusion of pension age claimants from the 4 point rule, the DWP issued a further FOI response (dated 4 June 2025) confirming that is now withholding the information requested -

    ‘The Department can confirm that it holds information relevant to your request. However, this material is being withheld under Section 35(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which exempts information relating to the formulation or development of government policy.

    Your questions pertain to part of a live and evolving process of policy formulation, where officials and Ministers are considering a range of options, including those that may not ultimately be taken forward.’

    https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/21219

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 8,644 Championing

    Says legal procedures cant be challenged so how can they be taken to court

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 8,644 Championing

    I bet the government don't respond by 16th June and push through on money bill can they still be challenged after pip goes through

    Screenshot_20250611_122700_Google.jpg Screenshot_20250611_122721_Google.jpg Screenshot_20250611_122728_Google.jpg

    Everyone go on DPAC site there is two email address they are asking us to email them as well human rights team

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 1,170 Championing
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 8,644 Championing

    Thankyou for posting dpac letter to say I keep reading thinking some hope

  • LouCie61
    LouCie61 Online Community Member Posts: 98 Empowering

    You've just taken the words out of my mouth! Yep, she mentioned "the working people of this country" in that awful grating voice she has.

    Yes, they seem to have money to throw around all over the place at the moment; yet they are still planning to take it from the vulnerable in society. In my opinion, what they are proposing for the chronically ill and disabled has nothing to do with spending cuts, it is more of a cull. 😡

  • secretsquirrel1
    secretsquirrel1 Online Community Member Posts: 2,052 Championing

    Disability cuts + assisted dying bill + scrapping vagrancy laws . Is this their way of giving us support ?

  • jasminehoop
    jasminehoop Online Community Member Posts: 49 Contributor
    edited June 11

    Kendall submits a mealy-mouthed 4-page letter, but her basic reply (and attitude) to the Select Committee can be summed up by 14 words that come right at the end: "We will not avoid or delay the decisive action
    needed to transform the system..."

    In other words, "**** you!"

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 8,644 Championing
  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 8,644 Championing

    OOh It hasn't been scrapped but thousand doctors signed against it and won't be until 2029 so hopefully that will be thrown out

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 8,644 Championing

    This lst is everyone? What illness would qualify would be bad enough if taking pip why don't they leave WCA

    Screenshot_20250611_150057_Chrome.jpg Screenshot_20250611_150108_Chrome.jpg Screenshot_20250611_150119_Chrome.jpg

    It just gets worse !!!

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 8,644 Championing

    They know thier putting through as money bill I wondered why they was so confident

  • stressed76
    stressed76 Online Community Member Posts: 84 Empowering

    Just emailed my mp, angela & john again this time saying that disabled people are feeling that

    1. Repealing vagrancy law is to prepare for when we lose pip & our homes
    2. That rushing assisted dying is to prepare when we lose hope
    3. Rushing disability cuts is out of malice not help

    Wonder if ill get a response?

This discussion has been closed.