The Universal Credit Bill becomes law. Here are the changes to disability benefits you need to know

It's this misuse of the word speculation that I have a problem with. You're undermining opposition to the White Paper now with the misuse of that word.

Speculation is defined as: taking to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence

There is sufficient evidence that DL PIP will be used as the gateway for the 'Health Element' as per the paragraph in the Green Paper I provided above. There is also sufficient evidence that this will result in at least 23% of 'Health Element' claimants becoming ineligile.

I'm adding this final statement because you're continuing to mislead people by using the word "speculate" incorrectly which has the effect of undermining efforts to oppose the White Paper now.

You communicate with such authority on here yet hadn't even read paragraph *37* of the Green Paper. That tells me everything I need to know about your ability to accurately gauge the situation for the 'Health Element'.

Paragraph 37 *literally* states that the Work Capability Assessment will be scrapped in the first line of that paragraph and that access to UC Health will be via qualification of DL PIP. It *literally* states that this will be implemented via Primary Legislation.

Your revisionism of the facts is so easily disproven! Good grief. You really are so intent on believing your own fantasy version.

I said that if you protested the 4 point PIP rule based on the Green Paper before the UC & PIP Bill was published (so between March and June) that would make you a hypocrite.

You've said you did raise concerns about the Green Paper with your MP so you did vocalise your opposition based on what you would call "speculation" (the Green Paper).

You've then contradicted yourself again by saying "the current descriptors remain the basis for scrutiny" but then in previous posts you've said that the FOI isn't useful for protesting because it's a snapshot of the eligibility criteria now.

Your apparent need to be right is blinding you to the actual evidence and reality of the situation and causing you to make multiple contradictions and illogical statements.

I agree.

Things are bad enough for us without people arguing and point scoring.

Personally I am waiting for an official announcement to be made and hopefully that will happen soon.

Nope.

See below screenshot from Work and Pensions Committee Report published on 29th July 2025, 7 days after the UC bill passed the House of Lords.

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/49050/documents/257767/default/

Clearly states that the Government *will* (future tense) legislate to remove the WCA. This is going to be done via Primary Legislation not Secondary Legislation as you are stating. That is clearly indicated in paragraph 37 of the Green Paper: "we will implement this change via primary legislation" (screenshot provided again below).

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/pathways-to-work-reforming-benefits-and-support-to-get-britain-working-green-paper/pathways-to-work-reforming-benefits-and-support-to-get-britain-working-green-paper

The UC Bill does not scrap LCWRA at all, it is a bill that indicates how the rates will change over certain years depending on which claimant group someone falls into. LCWRA & IR ESA are both very much labelled in that bill. The rate for new LCWRA after Apr 2026 is only indicated for 2026-2027 to leave it open to the changes the Government want to push through Parliament via FURTHER Primary Legislation following this autumn's White Paper, so it is NOT set in stone and this does not somehow confirm that the WCA has already been scrapped or that Secondary Legislation has already been completed.

I notice how I'm the only one of us backing up their points with ACTUAL EVIDENCE (screenshots, links) whilst you're just saying stuff.

You are misleading people and making them think their fate has already been sealed in terms of the WCA. You're the one scaremongering on this thread not me. I'm trying to let people know it's not a done deal yet.

I've also provided a link to The Big Issue article published a few days ago, in one of my replies above, which also backs up what I'm saying. The DWP were given a right of reply to that article and therefore if anything was inaccurate in that article it wouldn't have been published.

I'm not posting on here anymore because you are intent on proving yourself as correct even when you're not.

Anybody reading this please judge this based on the evidence provided, not just what someone says. I can be found over on X with the same handle if anyone wants to properly join the opposition to the White Paper. I refuse to keep draining my already severely depleted energy on someone who is not engaging in good faith.