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

well if they just accepted the u turn that new claimants only would be affected then we wouldn't be back to square 1. Benefits rules change and I wasn't able to claim old style esa but had to claim UC and the health element , but now the bill has been passed and we are tortured again with the anxiety of not knowing , maybe to try and kill a few more of us off .

we were okay until the MP's wanted more so now we are punished , they passed it and its what they wanted . Simms will review it and then we will all need to get four points , just as they wanted .

Sorry, but I don't think we were okay at all. Nothing was secure or clear, it was a mess and still is. None of it is reform, it's just cuts and spite. I think they were always going to punish us.

Did anyone here listen to their ramblings ? Was ME mentioned regarding the Timms report ?

Thanks I'll try to remember that when happens. I know my rent price but didn't keep my service charge letter..I'll login to my northern counties account but they often good wi that stuff.

I think regardless of how any of this turns out, we can only be sure of one thing, that they're going to make it a lot harder for all of us, current or future.

This Timms bill they were referring to what is it?

Also what about UC

Hi @secretsquirrel1 - yes, I watched part of it. One of the MPs said one of his constituents had ME, but he didn't mention anything about 'serious conditions,' he was just giving an example as to one of his constituents.

With 'serious conditions' the Gov't propose using those defined in the WCA handbook for assessors. This is not condition specific, altho examples are given as to who might qualify or not.

You can see the severe conditions criteria here if you scroll right down to Appendix 8 on p218: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/work-capability-assessment-handbook-for-healthcare-professionals

You'll need to download the file first to access it.

I'll try to show it. You must satisfy one of the LCWRA descriptors, and

1. all four of the following criteria must also be met:

MadMilan, please do not cite me out of context. If you want to quote me, you are welcome to cite my post in full - but don't misrepresent me. Singling me out in bold is not very polite.

My comments were meant to dissuade people already upset from giving too much of their energy getting mad at the Telegraph's every inaccuracy. This is a long way from accepting or condoning the nonsense they print. If you had read my posts on this site you'd know where I stand on that subject.

At the end of the day, the wellbeing of people here is more important to me than scoring points off a Tory rag. Sometimes we have to pick our battles, and right now that's not the right one to pick.

Going back on topic. I don't think any of us know what has actually happened yet tonight. The next week will be pivotal, and so will the form of the review. It was interesting that most if not all of the statements about things changes seem to have come from Timms.

I still think Kendall has to go, but the govt have not done any of this logically. Imagine how much quieter this process would have been if they had just announced the review in March, not the green paper or the bill, and then formed a bill at the end of it and made changes then?

Either way, the govt would be very very misguided to keep trying to hoodwink and manipulate their backbenchers around to get the same conditions in under different wording. But I would not rule it out. If Timms' review was to be moved forward, what of the consultation with disabled people? That will take time.

On voting - I voted Lib last time, they voted against the bill and so I would probably do so again. Unfortunately no realistic Green candidates in my area. Tory incumbent though. Looks like he either abstained or didn't show up at all. Could be either tbh.