Interesting snippets from the Labour conference

on that one the media is re spinning old stories from months back

Timms himself said there were proposals from the pip consultation that were universally panned - I’d bet money that was one of them

the major worry is pip going means tested as that wasn’t covered in the consultation

But as I said that would be counterproductive if labours aim is to get more disabled into work (and potentially coming off esa/uc/hb as a result)

It’s especially bad for working people who have fallen in love with a disabled person and is married/living with them (as a couples income and savings is added together to calculate means tested benefits entitlement for a couple such as uc)

And in terms of pensioners, the state pension counts as income so any over 67? In receipt of a pip award could be caught out if it becomes means tested (utter stupidity if Labour go after pensioners again)

how many of you would be more likely to explore work if pip was means tested - can’t imagine it would be many (making disabled poorer and unable to save money will get disabled questioning if work is the financially the best option for them - and that’s before considering possible health implications)

means tested is probably the best case if you live by yourself and intend to stay on uc (& hb) either by not working or taking advantage of the tapered uc work arrangement (which for those who have done the maths and figured out how many hrs they’d have to work at minimum wage to maintain their welfare awards after ni/tax/discounts in other areas from being a claimant such as free prescriptions - for many disabled work makes no financial sense………..staying on welfare is a no brainer if work badly affects your health also)

those of us who just want to be done with uc and job centre requirements and see the right job with the right support as an acceptable trade off given time the fact that uc isn’t means tested is a huge attraction

For many working disabled it allows them to work part time and being able to have savings over £6k without having to report yourself to the dwp & send in regular bank statements is huge to self worth and independence (hence personal independence payment)

(Plus the other stuff I mentioned previous post about having a partner)

Labour wants to create wealth and you are only able to do that if you are able to be a saver (and do things like get on the property ladder which needs more than a £6k-16k deposit!)

Cuts and freezes would obviously affect those who can’t see or don’t want to see a route off welfare (and obviously those who’s health/disability makes work a non option)

tightening criteria is a unpredictable one and would come to how the dwp go about it

Those disabled without a support system falling down the cracks is a worry of mine (and the true benefit fraudsters always seems to know how to side step the cracks)

The pip consultation of making a pip award more based on specialist/official diagnosis is interesting as it would certainly catch out many of the scammers (much harder to fake a diagnosis then fake dwp paperwork or phone assessment) - and I’m personally all for optional disability id cards if they simplify and secure a pip award of some type

The flip side is that you can’t get a specialist diagnosis if your sole disability is depression and/or anxiety which is hugely wide ranging in severity (and yes, can be faked easily as difficult to prove 100%) - unless you’ve been committed into hospital or under the mental health act

point is Labour are making pretty clear that sickness elements of esa/uc and pip have more claimants than the country can financially handle (another reason to side eye brexit) and Labour need to boot ppl off the welfare ship

Question is will they ask politely who would be willing to try and swim, go for those least likely to fight back or after those that on paper look like they have a fighting chance (that a really bad boat analogy- sorry)

there is no good option for Labour on this but some are fairer than others and some downright inhumane

was it me you aimed that post at @nightcity?

If so I agree - there’s so much of an article overload right now but not much ‘100%, that’s confirmed as happening’

My antidepressants are somewhat working inconsistently at best (my heads so ‘fun’ right now as a result)

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/liz-kendalls-difficult-task-of-defending-the-winter-fuel-cut/

Also the scariest Labour mp to watch videos of with the sound off (seriously look up her interviews and speech - her body language and facial expressions can be borderline terrifying imo)

it’s at most 50:50

There are reason why some people aren’t so bothered if pip goes means tested and/or gets absorbed into uc

I think a lot of people have no intention to work and/or try to come off benefits like uc

Some may think that the dwp plans will exempt them (bcos they have a lifelong disability rather than long term sickness - I’ve noticed a few scope members trying to read between those lines)

And some are single ppl living alone (and not of state pension age which is taxable income) where the welfare system is more straightforward then if you were a couple and/or have children under 16?

If it hashes out that way for the ppl thinking like the above then because uc is already means tested, for their scenario pip going means tested would not affect them one jolt!

But listening to starmer/reeves/kendall quotes this week I’m not sure how many disabled will be 100% fully exempt from this push to find (hopefully suitable) work - I’ve noticed in past easy to read dwp pdfs on helping disabled ppl into work that they included quite a few stock images of ppl with Down’s syndrome (which I think most of us would recognise as a lifelong effecting disability) so my gut feeling is that I think the majority of us will be expected to explore options and/or test out the waters as a bare minimum

now there are 3 types of means tested the dwp use:

1. Calculated and based on income
2. calculated and based on savings (and assets……..though currently your main home/resistance where you live is excluded)
3. calculated and based on both income and savings/assets

For reference universal credit is means tested both based on income and savings/asset

using an example - the downside of being a single person living alone is that current award of uc + hb is most likely significantly less than a couple or a person with children so using the uc tapered earning rates if that person was deemed to able to work full time (at least on minimum wage) the majority of single people would lose all their uc entitlement once all the tapering is calculated (for those saying a lcwra or lcw saying they can earn some money before tapering kicks in - that’s true…………..but how long do you expect to continue getting those elements if the dwp know you work full time)

As many have pointed out, employers aren’t exactly queuing up to hire those with disabilities of all varieties so for starmer and co to have any chance to get a sizeable number of disabled in the workplace then Dwp suggesting and providing support for freelance/self employment will play a massive part - problem is after 1 grace year the dwp calculates your income using the ‘minimum income floor’ (which uses the highest amount of ‘min wage x 35 hours a week’ or your actual earnings to calculate uc award amount) - there aren’t many self employment making a good profit by the start of year 2 so that’s an obvious issue

point is that if pip goes means tested in the same way uc currently then there’s a good chance that those disabled working full time would likely no longer be entitled for a pip award (esp if you were on standard care and/or mobility rate) and those working part time would likely have any pip weekly amount significantly reduced if tapering plays a part

With scope saying that disabled people need over an additional £1000 to have the same minimum quality of life as our abled counterparts it’s clear how vital pip is to working disabled pip

And if labour press ahead with their massive ‘get disabled into workplace’ push than Pip staying NON means tested is essential and non negotiable imo