Green Paper Related Discussions
Comments
-
No, she's still a Labour MP. She has resigned as a whip and not as an MP.
1 -
Sh3 will still be a Labour MP, just not a government whip.
0 -
I think that MPs as "voter representative" spacers are outdated - people can easily vote directly for or against laws, for example, via the Internet.
0 -
Yes bravo 👏
0 -
How can they predict the uplift in UC and PIP rates for the next 5 years ?
from: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0267/240267.pdf
0 -
She resigned as a Government Whip but she hasn't resigned the Whip. She's still a Labour MP. However, she may well lose the Whip (and sit as an Independent) following the Second Reading of the Bill on 1 July.
1 -
Now the Bill has had its First Reading, I think its worthwhile completing the Green Paper questionaire again, focussing on what is now known from the Bill's publication and those areas that have been left deliberately grey or ommitted to be dealt with under future legislation.
With reference to UC LCWRA (severe disability group) the emphasis on NHS diagnoses is of concern to many who "only" have autism or MH issues but others as well. I also wonder about people who have been diagnosed outside the UK. An increasing number of people are being diagnosed outside the NHS for reasons I don't have to spell out.
0 -
councillor's quitting in Cheshire due to the welfare cuts, it’s all falling apart for Keir.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev4vvgxgm4o.amp
3 -
What's this now ? You have more chance of lcwra if you have a diagnosis ?
0 -
Obviously, people have a better chance of any benefit with a diagnosis.
This isn't just LCWRA. It's to do with the LWCRA claimants whom it is said will never face reassessment because they are severely disabled for life. Read the Bill. Complete the Green Paper
0 -
That image ought to be sent as an attachment to future emails.
0 -
I would put them on all the billboards aroud the UK.
Once in power they change their tune, greed and power and feel they are to scared to speak up with starmer around.
2 -
Yes. It will be interesting to watch junior members of the government between now and the Second Reading and how many Labour MPs will lose the Party Whip after the vote.
1 -
Lying or incompetence by a Liebour MP serving as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport since 2024. Lisa Nandy. What a bunch of …
https://x.com/Shrink_at_Large/status/1936018635262439830?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
1 -
Labour is both incompetent and dishonest. Unfortunately, most people now think of PIP as an out of work benefit. It's just so wrong. PIP helps people in education, finding appropriate work, and keeping it.
4 -
Thanks all for the explanation on Vicky Foxcroft, but now I have another question.
Are the two Cheshire councillors that resigned from the party now independent then? And will they still get a vote on the cuts?
Just trying to get my head around it!
0 -
it’s only MPs who vote in the House of Commons … I believe.
0 -
Only MPs in the house will be able to vote on the subject,everything else is local.
0 -
From Disability Rights UK
The Universal Credit and PIP Bill: Our ConcernsOur Handbook editor, Ian, speaks about the drastic consequences of the Government's Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill.
In defending the Green Paper proposals, Liz Kendall told the Guardian “When we set out our reforms we promised to protect those most in need, particularly those who can never work” and “That is why we are putting additional protections on the face of the bill to support the most vulnerable and help people affected by the changes. These protections will be written into law – a clear sign they are non-negotiable.”
Now that the new Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill has been published, it is clear that these protections will not actually cover a very substantial proportion of those people Liz Kendall had in mind.
The key protection in the bill is that those with lifelong conditions would automatically get a higher rate of universal credit (equivalent to the current limited capability for work-related activity (LCWRA) element). It reflects the current criteria for the LCWRA element, in that you need to meet one of a set of stringent descriptors (set out in Section 7 of the Universal Credit regulations), but with the added provision that this must ‘constantly (apply) to the claimant and will do so for the rest of the claimant’s life’. The insertion of the word ‘constantly’ will make it extremely difficult for claimants with variable conditions, such as MS, Parkinsons Disease, Rheumatoid arthritis and schizophrenia, to meet the new criteria. In these cases, it will be rare for one of the criteria to be met constantly; ie all the time. The new criteria will therefore not protect many of the very groups of people that it would be reasonable to assume would need such protection – in fact, they are deliberately excluded.
The bill will also provide 13-weeks of additional protection to existing claimants affected by the cuts to the personal independence payment daily living component. The DWP describe this transitional cover as ‘one of the most generous ever’. However, this cover compares poorly with the equivalent Scottish short-term assistance, which allows payments of Scottish disability benefits to continue at the rate of the earlier award while you are challenging a decision. In March 2025, Social Security appeals were taking 32 weeks to clear; prior to this mandatory reconsiderations are taking more than ten weeks to clear – 42 weeks in total. A 13-week protection will be of very little use with such delays.
https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/universal-credit-and-pip-bill-our-concerns
0 -
I have just read this article from the I Paper. It makes m think if the Conservatives are really on our side
Well done, Keir Starmer: benefits reform is long overdueWhat is the alternative?
Opinion
Kwasi Kwarteng
Former Conservative MP and chancellor
20th June 2025 7:00 AM
The Government could be rewarded at the next election (Photo: Christopher Furlong / POOL / AFP)
Benefit reform? That is always a tricky subject for any government. For a Labour government, less than a year in office, it is the stuff of nightmares.
Already the Government has got into a muddle on this difficult issue. The attempt to remove the winter fuel payment was, frankly, a political debacle. It has cost the Government a great deal of political capital, as was seen at the local elections in May this year.
Anecdotally, this was the most salient issue on the doorstep.
To recap, the Labour Government announced last summer that they would take away the £300 winter fuel payment from millions of pensioners. They spent 10 months defending the policy on prudent fiscal grounds. They then unceremoniously ditched the plan a few weeks ago.
Of course, the damage had already been done. The policy was jettisoned not to win back voters, but to stop the bleeding, to staunch the draining of support, at subsequent elections this parliament. Continuing the policy threatened further disaster at the Scottish and Welsh Assembly elections next year.
Reform UK, an amorphous insurgent political party, annihilated the Conservatives and the Government in the local elections in May. They are now comfortably ahead in most opinion polls. They are cynically trying to outflank Labour from the Left on this issue. They have even pledged to reverse the two-child cap on child benefits, a move Labour itself is not committed to.
After U-turns in general, governments start to look weak. In this particular case, with respect to reducing public spending and pursuing reform of welfare benefits, this Government, despite its large majority, is starting to look like it doesn’t have the stomach for a fight.
The cost to the public purse of benefits is, according to the Government’s own sources, set to increase by £18bn in the next four years to reach £70bn a year.
The Government is briefing against any potential backbench rebellion by the usual leaks to the press. We read that a “Whitehall source” said the increase in spending meant that reform is necessary. “These figures show,” said the source, “that the current welfare system is unsustainable.”
Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves are surely right about this. They know that, without reform, the cost of benefits will rise inexorably. That would lead, as surely as night follows day, to higher taxes which would harm economic growth. Higher taxes to pay for welfare payments would also end up harming the very people Labour claim to support, ordinary hard-working people.
The problem, as is often the case, is one of internal party management. For all my time in parliament, it was surprising how many of the political problems prime ministers faced revolved around dealing with awkward government backbenchers, who nominally, at least, were supposed to back the prime minister’s team.
We all know about David Cameron and Theresa May. They had to deal with the European Research Group and other assorted bands of anti-EU zealots. Their time in office was terminated by this conflict.
Labour leaders have always, conversely, had to deal with recalcitrant backbenchers on the Left, for whom no amount of public spending is ever enough to pay for their quest for social justice and greater equality.
The rebels will argue that the mere act of reducing benefits will harm the most vulnerable. They will collectively say, “We did not become Labour MPs to reduce welfare payments to the poorest in society”.
This sounds laudable, but what is the alternative? To pay for ever greater benefits handouts through ever-increasing taxes? That really would be unsustainable, as the Whitehall source said. Giving in to rebels now would rightly be judged to be a sign of weakness.
Read Next
ANDREW FISHER
Cutting PIP benefits will be Starmer’s undoing
Such a retreat would embolden the Left of the parliamentary party. The awkward squad would rebel even more frequently, in the confident expectation that the Government would yield even more ground.
The alternative is fraught with political danger. We should be aware of that. Indeed, the disaster which enveloped the winter fuel payment question shows how susceptible a Labour government is to accusations of “betrayal”, whenever they try to reduce benefits.
Pushing through reform could increase the split within the Labour Party. Already we can see how the hardcore Left and more pragmatic voices are divided. It could, if badly handled, lead to further alienation of some of Labour’s core support in the country.
Yet benefit reform would be the right course of action for the country. And who knows? The Government could, ultimately, be rewarded by the wider electorate at the next General Election.
Kwasi Kwarteng is a former Conservative MP. He served as chancellor between September and October 2022 under Liz Truss
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.3K Start here and say hello!
- 7.2K Coffee lounge
- 87 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 118 Announcements and information
- 24.2K Talk about life
- 5.8K Everyday life
- 413 Current affairs
- 2.4K Families and carers
- 868 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 524 Money and bills
- 3.6K Housing and independent living
- 1K Transport and travel
- 884 Relationships
- 256 Sex and intimacy
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.4K Talk about your impairment
- 863 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 923 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.1K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 39.5K Talk about your benefits
- 6K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.6K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8.2K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.7K Benefits and income