Labour are following through with Tory plans in regards of reforming the WCA

These changes will mean that almost all people who are currently assessed as having LCWRA will never face a WCA reassessment again. Reassessments will only take place under very limited circumstances, which are:

• When a claimant reports a change of circumstances in their health condition;
• If a claimant has been awarded LCWRA for pregnancy risk, or cancer treatment where the prognosis for recovery is expected to be short-term;
• If a claimant has been declared as having LCWRA under the new risk provisions; and
• In cases of suspected fraud.”

That's the official statement. The concerning part is "under the new risk provisions", which seems like they're going to try to reassess the people who are under LCWRA for substantial risk (although it's not entirely clear).

Although it is worth noting that Labour have said that they're not going ahead with the Tory plans exactly (as always, they refuse to give details) so whether or not they'll stick to that is unknown.

I've found this posted by the Resolution Foundation. It states clearly that all claimants are expected to fall under the new rules by 2028/29 in order to deliver the projected budget savings already baked in by the OBR forecasts. It will immediately affect new claimants and then gradually encompass all claimants as their benefits come up for review. No escape I'm afraid, unless Labour commit to scrapping the changes, which seems unlikely because they would have to increase benefit spending/borrowing in order to do it as it's already baked in.

The new rules proposed for MH will be that the only people awarded LCWRA will be those in crisis or with active psychosis.

Here's the link:

https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/cutbacks-ahead/

Crucially, there no longer seems to be any mention of linking having a PIP award to passporting you to the LCWRA element. This was a terrible idea, but would have at least prevented many of us from being thrown into the LCW group with not just a halving of income, but of having to meet the obligations of the work prep group under threat of sanctions. For example I get PIP under the descriptors for social engagement, that it is always precluded, I get maximum points, so how does it make sense for them to expect me to attend work coach meetings and group work sessions?!

I wish I could say that I believe that the damage done to us will be so severe that they will never be allowed to do this, but there still has been no inquiry into the thousands who have already died because of the DWP, Labour won't commit to holding one either. And it's difficult not to look across the pond at what the government has been able to do there, how many Women would have said 10 years ago that Roe v Wade would have been struck down? They would have thought it impossible. We might think it would be impossible for them to do this, but atm it feels like an unstoppable train.

Yes, my main concern is that Labour will push ahead with the plans of tightening the WCA descripters, as mentioned before..

''The DWP is planning to change the WCA. Specifically, removing or changing the following features:

• Factoring in people’s mobility.
• Bladder or bowel incontinence.
• The inability to cope in social situations.
• People’s ability to leave their homes.
• Work being a risk to claimants or others – a clause which means that an individual is “treated as having limited capability for work and work related activity“, also known as the substantial risk rule.

For me (and many others), if these plans are implemented I will be in a dire situation. At this point in time I no longer care if they take away or reduce my PIP, but if they tighten the WCA and force me into the workforce, I know I can't, end of story. I can only hope that there will be a strong fightback to these proposed reforms if indeed labour do decide to implement them.

Unfortunately that's not the case for the WCA changes as the projected savings have already been taken into account. In order for Labour to cancel them they would have to increase benefit spending, either by borrowing or taxation, and they've committed not to doing that.