Green Paper Related Discussions NEW

I don't think so not now

who says they support getting rid of welfare i certainly do not want reform in nowhere did i mention that i want rid of welfare what i said was its looking likely that reform might win the next general election and they want to cut welfare by 15 billion or get rid of it all together

Hi yogi ,

Any idea about kemi ? She’s apparently said she’ll support the bill if Starmer agrees to her terms but on bbc news she said it’s not up to her to get his bill through.

If anyone is on X look at Stef Benstead's page. There is an updated list of who has signed the reasoned amendment.

I know it's a while ago, but in the Westminster Hall debate early last month started by Diane Abbot, Conservative Danny Kruger said his party would stand with those who oppose the changes (tho this debate was about PIP).

As @YogiBear mentioned, Kemi Badenoch said about her 3 conditions:

'The first condition is that the welfare budget is too high, it needs to come down. This bill does not do that.

The second condition is that we need to get people back into work. Unemployment is rising, jobs are disappearing, and even the government’s own impact assessments say that the package in this bill will not get people back to work.

The third is that we want to see no new tax rises in the autumn.'

The welfare budget likely does need to come down, but Kemi is simply saying this bill won't do this; she's not saying any cuts should be harsher.

She's also saying that this bill will not significantly increase the number of unemployed [disabled] people ending up gainfully employed, as we all know.

It's all a bit of political shenanigans that will allow the Tory's to vote how they wish. What I've heard from Rishi Sunak & from Kemi Badenoch's office, with a message from her, gives me hope. At worst, with the Tories being in opposition, they'll not be wanting to make things easy for Labour!

Don't give up hope.

Hi chiarieds,

I read somewhere earlier, can’t remember where , about ME being classed as a fluctuating condition therefore not eligible for the scc as its only for conditions they can’t have periods of remission . Although my ME has never been in remission for a single day .
Kemi has also given an interview on bbc news stating it’s not up to her to save starmers bill . Not sure if it was taken out of context though. My brains not working after all this so hope I make sense

Hi @secretsquirrel1 - the 'severe conditions' criteria is that which is already in the WCA handbook for Healthcare Professionals, so nothing new. It does say that the following is an example of a claimant that might not qualify:

'Conditions which might be severe at times, but recovery of function might be present for substantial periods, such as recently diagnosed relapsing non-progressive forms of Multiple Sclerosis.'

This was why I previously gave you an example of someone who might have MS, but had had a long period of remission.

I think the use of the word 'remission' could however be open to question. I was reading a paper about fibro this afternoon, & it seems in this medical context, no-one has actually defined what this is, how long it lasts, & that even someone considered to be in remission still likely has a background of some fibro symptoms. And, those who have a comorbid condition (like your ME) are usually those who are worst affected anyway.

So many of us have more than one disorder like mine. It's been found (from medical papers) that those of us with Chiari 1 Malformation associated with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) are worse affected than with 'just' EDS. This will be so true for many claimants.

Please don't worry, if you have never been in remission (& I think this would have to be for years), then your ME doesn't 'fluctuate,' tho everyone will be different.

We'll have to wait until 1 July to see what's going to happen. Last I heard was that 137 MPs (not all Labour) were against the Govt's proposals. I think the Tories will also oppose, but we'll have to wait & see.

SWEARING AN AFFADAVIT

Since knowing about the Green Paper, I've often thought that if the changes come in, and I was to have any benefits stopped relating to being fit enough to work (either because PIP or LCWRA were stopped due to then not meeting changed criteria etc or UC), I would not 'sign or agree to commitments to look for a job/work' in order to receive UC/JSA. That is because I am not going to lie and say that I'm fit/well and able to work, when I'm not. I'm not averse to sticking my neck out when I have to, not when it's a matter of truth, integrity or fairness.

I am not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination but I plan to go to a solicitor to notarise an Affadavit. All I know is it's a brief Statement of Fact/Truth that is done [usually] in order to then take or support legal proceedings. It is brief (one page). It is inexpensive to do. The person signing/witnessing it, does not have to see all the evidence (it would cost me a fortune for a Notary to see mine and wade through it all as it's circa c 500 pages and growing 🙄).

I will write it myself, soon, and post a copy here so you can see what it is and what I put. I only intent to use it, as and when any of my benefits are cut, and upload on my Journal at any point I'm requested to 'agree commitments' in the future which I won't be doing.

If anyone writes one and it is false they can be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.

Might sound a bit off the wall and simplistic but, to me, truth is important and I am not planning to tow the line, but to disrupt/delay where I can, and keep true to myself, both to my wellbeing and my health.

As I have no money to take legal action it is likely totally all irrelevant but I would still use it to state and support my case.

Just thought I'd put this out there. If anyone has legal knowledge that it's a waste of time to do this I'm very happy to read comments although I'll likely still do it anyway as it seems to me the only 'legal way' of stating the truth officially.

I sometimes have an idea or, as I call it, my 'Eureka' moment! I'm not naive enough to expect my benefits to then be restored but the truth is important and I believe should just be stated and conveyed, in the fullest way possible.