Disability Benefit Cuts - Take action before July 9th.

Lord Kinnock backs raid on the rich, as the Government’s union paymasters swing in behind the idea.

Labour is “willing to explore” bringing in a new wealth tax, Lord Kinnock has suggested.The party’s former leader said a 2 per cent tax on assets worth more than £10 million could help raise about £10 billion a year for the Treasury.His suggestion comes after Cabinet ministers were warned taxes would have to rise following Sir Keir Starmer’s capitulation on welfare reforms.On Sunday night, some of Labour’s biggest union paymasters, including Angela Rayner’s former employer Unison, backed the call for a wealth tax. One union source told The Telegraph they would raise the idea with the Prime Minister and lobby Labour MPs.But Downing Street is likely to resist the idea, after one of Sir Keir’s most senior advisers warned that recent levies on the rich may already be undermining economic growth.Economists have also said such a move would trigger a fresh exodus of the rich from Britain.

Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, needs to raise tens of billions of pounds this autumn to hit her borrowing rules after deteriorating economic forecasts and costly policy reversals.The gutting of the welfare cuts package last week has required the Treasury to find an extra £4.6 billion a year, but has emboldened hard-Left Labour backbenchers to push for more policy changes.Speaking on Sky News, Lord Kinnock, who led the Labour Party between 1983 and 1992, said of Sir Keir’s Government: “The appearance has been given that they are bogged down by their own imposed limitations. There are ways around that, ways out of it, pathways that I think people are willing to explore and actually would commend themselves to the great majority of the general public.“They include, for instance, asset taxes in a period in which for the last 20-odd years in the United Kingdom, like quite a lot of other Western economies, earned incomes have stagnated in real terms while asset values have zoomed. They’ve just gone through the roof and they’ve been barely touched.“Now, you wouldn’t have to touch assets of under £6 million or £7 million, so people’s houses would be secure, obviously. But even by going for an imposition of 2 per cent on asset values above £10 million, say, which is a very big fortune, the Government would be in a position to collect £10 billion or £11 billion a year.”

The rich ‘are going unscathed’

He said the public was “fed up” with the richest going “unscathed” and suggested the policy would be “a substantial gesture in the direction of equity”.A No 10 spokesman declined to endorse the policy, instead pointing to Sir Keir’s remark in March when he said: “We have raised money – the energy profits levy, taxing non-doms and air passenger duty on private jets – but this isn’t a bottomless pit and we must kick-start growth to get the economic stability that we need.”Last week, it emerged that Liz Lloyd, a senior policy figure in No 10, reportedly questioned whether existing wealth taxes were harming Sir Keir’s “mission” of growing the economy.But five trade unions have told The Telegraph that they will pressure the Prime Minister to pursue wealth taxes.Christina McAnea, the general secretary of Unison, said: “A wealth tax would be a much fairer way of raising revenue to invest in public services and grow the economy.”Ms Rayner rose to become Unison’s most senior elected official in the north-west of England before she became an MP.Paddy Lillis, the general secretary of Usdaw, said “those with the broadest shoulders” should pay, adding: “We know wealth in this country is with a small number of people. It is one way of raising money quickly.”Steve Wright, the general secretary of the FBU, said: “Introducing a wealth tax to fund public services, a generous welfare state, and workers’ pay must be a priority in the second year of a Labour government.“There’s overwhelming support for that approach within the Labour Party, trade unions and the electorate.“The Prime Minister and Chancellor must abandon the welfare cuts and instead tax the super-rich as an alternative to the Tory austerity that was so decisively rejected by the electorate a year ago.”

Do you support the introduction of a wealth tax?

Unite spokesman said: “Unite has led the campaign for a wealth tax inside and outside the Labour Party. A 1 per cent wealth tax on the richest 1 per cent would generate £25 billion.”Matt Wrack, the acting general secretary of Nasuwt, said: “People voted for change at the general election last year. They wanted to see a clear end to austerity, an improvement to living standards and an end to the undermining of public services.“Part of addressing these issues is the immediate introduction of a wealth tax, a measure which has very significant public support.”In the first quarter of 2025 alone, Unite, Unison, Usdaw and the FBU gave close to £800,000 to Labour.As well as political donations, the unions take part in regular meetings with Sir Keir and hold key influence over Labour’s ruling body, the National Executive Committee.Labour MPs made similar calls over the weekend. Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP who tried to kill off Sir Keir’s welfare reforms last week, and Jon Trickett, a former shadow minister under Jeremy Corbyn, both threw support behind a wealth tax in comments given to The Telegraph.

Labour ‘trying to magic up huge amounts of money’

But experts questioned whether it would raise as much revenue as claimed. Dan Neidle, the founder of Tax Policy Associates, said the proposal was “fantasy politics” and relied on “the idea that we can magic up huge amounts of money without real consequence”.He said: “A wealth tax of this kind has never been tried. It amounts to a bet that a small number of very wealthy, very international and very mobile people will stay put and pay up.” This idea did not seem “very plausible”, he added.Around 20,000 taxpayers would be eligible to pay the wealth tax if the threshold was set at £10 million, according to a report by the Wealth Tax Commission, compiled for the Government in 2020.The commission warned at the time that the policy would push many rich people to quit the UK. Up to 17 per cent of assets subject to the tax would be moved abroad, suggesting thousands of millionaires would leave.Sir Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, said of Lord Kinnock’s wealth tax idea: “I think it would be the worst thing to do.”He added: “We’ve also seen around 10 to 15,000 high net worth individuals leave our country as a result of this Government’s policies.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/07/06/lord-kinnock-urges-reeves-to-bring-in-wealth-tax/

So with LCW/LCWRA people in the substantial risk category will no longer be eligible for it? Does that also mean that people with mental illness no longer exist??

Surely this will make people in the substantial Risk category more at risk 😐

As you know, there's an ammendment tabled for 9th to remove the insistence on NHS diagnoses. News from "The Guardian" adds weight to that ammendment:

ADHD UK says over-25s wanting assessment with Coventry and Warwickshire board have no choice but to pay privately

Rachel HallNotifications offMon 7 Jul 2025 11.43 BST

A charity supporting people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is preparing a legal challenge against a regional NHS board that has temporarily stopped accepting referrals for adults over 25.

Coventry and Warwickshire integrated care board said any new referrals for people over 25 would be paused from 21 May to reduce waiting lists for children.

Several other ICBs, including Herefordshire and Worcestershire and some in London, have previously paused ADHD referrals but have accredited other providers for GPs to send referrals to under “right to choose” legislation.

ADHD UK understands that this is the first time that local people aged over 25 will be able to obtain an assessment only by paying privately, which one former patient did at a cost of £1,500.

The charity is beginning the process to mount a legal challenge under the right to choose legislation, which allows patients to choose their provider for certain healthcare services when referred by their GP.

Henry Shelford, the chief executive of ADHD UK, said: “It’s ridiculous. We know one in 10 men and boys and one in four women and girls with ADHD will at some point try to take their own life, so we know there’s a danger.

“We also know that ADHD medication can have a significant positive effect and you can’t get it unless you have a diagnosis. It’s part of the discrimination and a lack of taking ADHD seriously that we face every day.”

Shelford added that it could set a worrying precedent for cash-strapped trusts cutting services elsewhere in the NHS, including other ADHD services.

Dr Imogen Staveley, the chief medical officer at NHS Coventry and Warwickshire ICB, said the “emergency policy” had been introduced to address “the unacceptable ADHD assessment waiting times, currently affecting over 7,500 children”, some of whom were waiting up to 10 years for assessment in the local area.

She hoped the pause would “support the development of a sustainable, all-age ADHD pathway for the future”.

ADHD is defined by the World Health Organization as a persistent pattern of inattention or hyperactivity-impulsivity that negatively impacts academic, occupational or social functioning.

Anita Thapar, a psychiatrist who chairs the ADHD taskforce set up by NHS England, said services were struggling because they were “playing catch-up” with the changing understanding of ADHD.

“The research on ADHD has really matured in the last 20 years but the services have not been able to catch up with what we now know about ADHD,” she added.

“There were concerns initially: is ADHD being overdiagnosed? The research, evidence and data used in our taskforce shows that in England – though this is not true of all countries – ADHD is under-recognised, under-diagnosed and under-treated.”

She said that ideally ADHD would be diagnosed in childhood, but in reality many people were missed or misdiagnosed, especially females. There are negative mental and physical health outcomes – including obesity and cardiovascular disease – as well as societal ones, including an increased risk of ending up in the criminal justice system, in poverty and not doing well in school.

Part of the problem is that services were designed when ADHD was considered rare. It is now known to affect 3-5% of the population, and therefore psychiatrists needed additional training to diagnose it, Thapar said.

Sarah Walter, the integrated care system network director at the NHS Confederation, said integrated care boards were making tough choices about “the services they commission given the very tight financial envelope that they need to work within”.

She added: “It is clear that current waiting lists for ADHD are too long, and commissioners and providers are having to take a pragmatic approach to respond to the needs identified. In some instances, this may mean prioritising certain groups, be it by age or length of wait.”

David Hare, the chief executive of the Independent Healthcare Providers Network (IHPN), said there was ample “local capacity available in the independent sector which can be used to cut the backlog of care and improve access to diagnosis and treatment for all those in need, regardless of age”.

Before the Coventry and Warwickshire board’s pause, Andy Morrison, from Coventry, paid £1,500 to get a private assessment when he was told he would have to wait up to three years on the NHS. He was developing an alcohol abuse problem and had been unable to hold a job for longer than six months. He is now on medication, which he has found life-changing.

“I’ve never looked back and getting the diagnosis gives clarity and context – you almost grieve for the life you could have had if you had been diagnosed in the first place,” he said.

A spokesperson for NHS England said: “ADHD services are under significant pressure from a huge rise in people coming forward, and we know that is resulting in unacceptably long waits for assessment and treatment – particularly for children and young people.

“While local NHS teams are responsible for taking action to tackle excessive waits, the NHS has set up an ADHD taskforce to examine ways services for patients can be improved.”

That would be outright discrimination. The NHS idea is itself rickety in law.

I could see them trying to get around it by saying 'because the waiting list is above X amount of years' when the reality is the NHS is a mess all round.

Unless they decide to abolish reassessment of the current claimants in the LCWRA/Support Group, as the Tories proposed last year, reassessments will restart sooner or later.

The Tories' proposal in November 2023 (as part of their welfare reforms) to abolish reassessment of current claimants in the LCWRA/Support group was wholly predicated on them getting through their WCA reforms, if you remember. Once they lost the election last Summer, Labour took up the Tories' appeal against Ellen Clifford's judicial review of the consultation on the WCA reform, which the High Court ruled unlawful in January this year. So Labour abandoned the Tories' WCA reform. Therefore, there is zero chance of Labour now proposing not to reassess current LCWRA/Support group claimants before they plan to abolish the WCA entirely in 2028/29.

I do not think the Timms review will revive the 4-point PIP proposal to restrict eligibility for PIP. It has proved too damaging for Labour politically. They will never get it past the PLP in future, not after what happened last week. I also think Timms won't dare risk as onerous cuts to PIP eligibility as they hoped they could get away with early in their Parliamentary term. By the time he comes back with his proposals in the Autumn of 2026, the time it will take to get through Parliament will get them too dangerously close to the next general election cycle. I think the 4-point PIP proposal is dead for the rest of this Parliament. And a lot of political pundits think the same.

I just don't see the rationale now for postponing WCA reassessments until after April 2026 for the low hanging fruit in LCWRA/Support Group the green paper cited they will initially target - short awards and substantial risk. Their policy document cited a saving of £300 million from off-rolling or downgrading those awards. The only barrier the DWP face currently is the lack of capacity with assessment providers. I would keep an eye on any plans for recruitment of more assessors by the providers in the near term.

The Benefits & Work website in a recent newsletter has published that reassessments have started again. See link:

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in brief

The DWP has begun WCA reviews again. So existing LCWRA claimants may have their award reviewed before April 2026. 

Their information is usually solid, isn't it?

The rationale behind restarting the reassessments from April 2026 is because the bill in question will only come into force April 2026 and not before. 

Ah, that makes sense.

But what do you make of Benefits & Work's newsletter recently saying WCA reassessments have started? They wouldn't be saying that if they didn't have inside info, would they?

I am in the initially targeted cohort (substantial risk), as you know - not sure I should rely on believing that they won't come for me until after April next year, much as the idea gives me comfort. And they can start their targeted reassessments at any time. They don't need to rely on this Bill passing through Parliament for that. They already have the power to restart reassessments of short awards and substantial risk without it.

Well, from what you and B & W website newsletters say, then WCA reassessments have always been ongoing in however a limited way. Even more reason not to believe they will leave me alone until after April next year. My award is in a targeted category, after all.

I was so relieved to think I would be left alone for another year when they published their plans in March... but after what happened last week in Parliament, now I'm not so sure.

Anyway, thanks for your insight @Passerby

I was in 'support' group ESA many years ago then automatically went on to LCWRA.I believe I am classed as 'substantial risk' .

I am unsure also ..

I am no legal expert but back in 2017 when I was called to shift from DLA to PIP, the government (Tory) had just tried to tighten PIP criteria to exclude people whose disabilities were mental health related (in essence, remove psychological distress as a factor). For this reason my entire (autism, not mental health) related claim was rewritten and rejected as anxiety, for which I didn't claim and didn't have support.

This policy change was legally challenged and was ruled to be against equalities legislation. Removing eligibility for conditions based on political opinion and not medical fact would probably be treading this same ground, and there is already a precedent for ruling it out.

A person with no medical or other training is not in a position to determine that ADHD is not a significantly disabling condition, for example (nor is it necessarily a mh condition, either).

I may be wrong, but my theory is that the govt went after the points, not the conditions, because (Starmer being a lawyer), they knew that if they started singling out conditions by name for exclusion, they would face the same costly legal rigmarole somewhere down the line.

As for the British Citizen thing, that's general Tory policy at the moment, Badenoch announced that they want disability benefits to be paid to people with British citizenship or EU residents who have settled status here. Something about 1 in 4 households claiming PIP having a non British citizen. As usual the Tories have gone for the divisive approach. We have no stats on whether non British citizens are even claiming anything, nor am I sure if it matters…it's just to appeal to the right.