Scope's reply to the governments planned concessions to the green paper.

Options
1353638404156

Comments

  • Ironside1990
    Ironside1990 Online Community Member Posts: 349 Pioneering

    Richard Burgon and Vicky Foxcroft would be great contenders for Timm's job.

  • Ray212
    Ray212 Online Community Member Posts: 692 Empowering
    edited July 1

    BREAKING

    The government has delayed the implementation of the welfare reforms

    They were due to come into effect in November 2026

    They will now come into effect after the conclusion of a review by Stephen Timms, the welfare minister

    The four-point rule - the subject of so much contention - has been entirely removed from the legislation

    It's a massive, massive u-turn

    Taken from x.com - https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1940084812871618606

  • secretsquirrel1
    secretsquirrel1 Online Community Member Posts: 2,042 Championing
  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 7,126 Championing

    It's crazy you can imagine kendell out of character just DO IT VOTE ......more than anything this goes against them I'm sure mps must think I don't want to be associated with them honestly if she could pay them she would it's unprofessional as mentioned makes no sense to us but yes to them once the deal is done the Devil comes Riding

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 7,126 Championing

    Can you imagine behind closed doors will we hear today anything or is that it for today

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 7,126 Championing

    That's why thier so desperate to pass pls 🙏 No will we hear anything tonight ?

  • mawempathy
    mawempathy Online Community Member Posts: 150 Empowering
    edited July 1

    Removing the clause pertaining to the 4 point rule means it will now be part of the Timms review - presumably without any commitments to protect current claimants. So overall probably a good concession in terms of fairness, but it will leave everyone wondering again how they might be affected.

    Also clear once Labour loses the next election, the next government is going to shred almost all disability support for mental health conditions. Tory MP's are saying it was a mistake to make physical and mental health equal in terms of equalities legislation.

  • secretsquirrel1
    secretsquirrel1 Online Community Member Posts: 2,042 Championing

    Did you read the part on the guardian that mentioned Timms review and said we will all probably fall under his revised activities and descriptors . That’s what the rebels needs to focus on . If they can get away with it they’ll just make it impossible for us all to pass that way . 4 points or 2 points it won’t matter

  • secretsquirrel1
    secretsquirrel1 Online Community Member Posts: 2,042 Championing

    The guardian states that they Timms is reviewing changes to the activities and descriptors. So they can remove the need for a point system and just make it as hard as they like . Or make the 2 point descriptors the same as the current 4

  • secretsquirrel1
    secretsquirrel1 Online Community Member Posts: 2,042 Championing

    So current claimants are not longer protected so Keir can’t be accused of two tier Keir .

  • secretsquirrel1
    secretsquirrel1 Online Community Member Posts: 2,042 Championing
  • mawempathy
    mawempathy Online Community Member Posts: 150 Empowering

    I don’t think you can have an amendment for a clause that no longer exists in the bill, so my presumption is this new concession wipes out the old one. But it’s only a presumption, I could be wrong.

  • onlymeagain
    onlymeagain Online Community Member Posts: 201 Empowering

    I was watching earlier but had to rush cat to the vet (He's fine, prob the heat) Just tuned back in. Where is everyone? Those that are still there are just talking amoungst themselves. I feel sorry for those trying to get a point across because no one is listening.

  • ashmere
    ashmere Online Community Member Posts: 49 Empowering

    From Benefits and Work

    4-point PIP rule is gone

    The 4-point PIP rule is effectively dead as Labour makes its biggest concession yet.  Timms has just told the House:  "I can announce that we are going to remove the clause five from the bill at committee, that we will move straight to the wider review, sometimes referred to as the Timms review, and only make changes to Pip eligibility, activities and descriptors following that review."

    Clause 5 is the 4-point rule, so that is now gone.  Instead, the Timms review will decide what happens to PIP.  And if, as Labour have promised, the review is genuinely coproduced with disabled people there is very little chance of such a rule ever happening.  And if Labour did try to force it into the review decision they would be likely to face an even worse rebellion than the one they have just suffered,

    This seems to mean that the main purpose of the bill is now to take money from future recipients of the UC health element and to introduce the severe conditions criteria.

  • JasonRA
    JasonRA Online Community Member Posts: 299 Championing

    If the Tories or anyone else tries to bar or block mentally ill people from claiming disability benefits then they would face legal action via the equalities act 2010 and the human rights act.

    Moving towards assessments by trained psychiatrists or mental health professionals would make the system more credible, more humane, and likely more legally compliant.

    The Tories have themselves to blame if they're bemoaning the rise in mental illnesses on benefits, they had 14 years to solve the issue.

  • secretsquirrel1
    secretsquirrel1 Online Community Member Posts: 2,042 Championing

    What is actually left of the bill to be voted on ? Just Timms review ? So vote for Timms to conduct a review and demolish pip and it’s already been voted in ? Is that how it works

  • Amaya_Ringo
    Amaya_Ringo Online Community Member Posts: 385 Championing

    No, but I've expected that from the moment I read in the green paper that there were going to be changes to the PIP assessment criteria, so it will come as no surprise.

    On the flipside of this, however, a previous government tried to do that very thing in 2016 - they tried to remove emotional distress from PIP qualification and got forced into a backtrack because it was discriminatory as per the terms of the Equalities Act - which the government has committed not to change.

    There's already a political precedent in place to prevent them from removing support for non physical conditions. The bigger problem is what you say, which is the criteria - but given the scale of THIS rebellion, I would hope they would be more cautious about trying to screw claimants over any further than they already have.

    It's always going to be full of loopholes. Starmer is a lawyer. But if Reform win the next election we're all doomed anyway. It isn't going to be about welfare cuts but the full scale attack on Humans Rights that we need to watch out for.

    (Or alternatively the complete economic collapse of the country, as Reform have yet to demonstrate themselves capable of organising or running anything).

  • apples
    apples Online Community Member Posts: 549 Empowering

    what the heck they playing at, all this is messing with my head, I agree that they will make the criteria to claim pip harder, as if it’s not hard enough

  • Ross1975
    Ross1975 Online Community Member Posts: 243 Empowering

    I also sometimes see them yawning and talking to each other too.

  • SadOldPanda
    SadOldPanda Online Community Member Posts: 37 Empowering

    Wow as someone who enjoys the messy drama of politics it's a shame I'm so emotionally involved in all this because I think I'd be enjoying this. As it is it's messing with people's lives, letting us wait till the last minute for a stay of execution. I will never forgive this government for what they have done to my mental health. Now we just have to hope the timms review actually listens to disabled charities and don't just nod smile and do what they want anyway.

    If this passes it's still awful for future lcwra claimants who get fifty a week less

This discussion has been closed.