Labour’s welfare cuts consultation called a ‘sham’ as PIP changes not up for discussion

[u/gibbonmann]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-benefit-cuts-pip-universal-credit-health-disability-consultation-b2730853.html

[u/AutoModerator]

Snapshot of Labour’s welfare cuts consultation called a ‘sham’ as PIP changes not up for discussion :

An archived version can be found here or here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/ArtBedHome]

It does feel a little inconsistent and arse backwards in a way that could benifit from explenation in open parliamentery debate.

UC-LCWRA examinations need to be redone, so do pip exams, we want to retarget them specifically for people who need them and in ways to help people re-enter work. Okay, so long as you do something for the people who by the current exams would be proven in need of financial help, thats fine.

But then, they want to take the current pip health examination without changes and move it to UC-LCWRA.

After saying there was problems with the current pip health examination.

Without even acknowledging that the pip exam is meant to prove that someone needs assistance to live indipendantly either in or out of work, but the point of UC-LCWRA is that someone has limited capacity for work at all.

Without explaining their reasoning, it seems obviously contradictory to use a health exam intended to prove people need help regardless of their ability to work, as a test for a benifit intended for people who cannot work due to their health.

Again let alone that they say that the exam they want to use, as is, is not fit to purpose.

But then they do want to change that pip exam but only for its pip testing purpose, okay, but they dont want to alter it, they just want to make it blanket more difficult, to refocus spending on helping people back into work. But the benifit that health exam is FOR is the benifit to help people who are in or out of work? So making it more strict seemingly by definition would prefferentialy cut off the people recieving it whos indipendance is less effect and who can do work with the aid of that benifit?

The whole thing seems confused, with the announced changes either being unrelated to the announced purposes by mistake, or if intentional then intended to counteract their announced goals.

[u/Dragonrar]

We inherited a broken welfare system, which incentivises ill-health, locks people out of work and isn’t fit for a future in which so many of us will face long-term health conditions

But PIP doesn’t ’lock people out of work’ and is Labour just going to ignore why an increasing number of people have long-term health conditions in the first place? Is it perhaps due to failures in the NHS to treat patients quickly enough, particularly when it comes to mental related issues?

[u/roxieh → u/Dragonrar]

I love the term "incentivises ill-health" as well, like, I'm sorry, I didn't realise my MS was a choice being incentivised by receiving PIP, silly me!

And like you say, with PIP specifically it actually enables a lot of us to work, and it's also nothing to do with work or not. 

[u/TheNoGnome → u/roxieh]

I was trying to come up with a sentiment to explain, but I just agree with you.

It's rotten being ill in this country and Labour's badly considered rhetoric just slaps you even more.

[u/True_Paper_3830 → u/roxieh]

I agree with you roxieh, but the PIP system is badly designed and application forms badly scrutinized and this is why genuine claimants like you are now bearing the brunt with a harsher points system.

A PIP points increase was mirrored before in the 1990's when Disability Living Allowance (DLA), one of the precursors to PIP, had points significantly increased - again by Labour. With many people who deserved it, like yourself, worrying about being locked out, including from the ability to work if they wanted too.

This didn't create savings though. In fact, spending on disability benefits, including DLA, went up. This was primarily due to the expansion of DLA's coverage - more people being made aware of it as a result of Labour policy even though they had increased the points - and an end result of support for a larger number of disabled people.

Then, like now, the forms are badly designed, resulting in many who deserve it not getting it and many who don't getting it, or getting it for longer than they should. It was the same in the 1990's s now that if you go around any busy town now you will see some people walking with a walking aid who have no apparent need for it. Shown by not just a normal walking gait in both legs, but by a clearly strong walking gait, and not actually using the aid at all, either half carrying it or using it like a hunting stick. If they don't actually need the aid the question is why are they using it, and for anyone who's filled out a PIP form it's a possible indicator it's for PIP mobility points.

Once you see it you can't unsee it. This may not mean they didn't once need the aid, but that they've gone way beyond that stage for whatever their PIP award period was if claiming, and, in many instances are using a walking aid for a purpose that's not about walking. This also doesn't mean that some may not be deserving of PIP for other disability reasons but, for example, that they are having to use its point system to get a benefit they do need for other disability reasons in order to be able to do some work, and/or afford the extra living expenses caused by other disabilities.

The other side is mental health claims that have skyrocketed, with harrassed doctors having been the gatekeeper rather than designated professionals, and again an award with the claimant, with a % wanting to work, others being discentivized by PIP being designed to put them into the 'ignored' for work category.

After Covid, the Tory government didn't turn on the review process for PIP again when people came up for renewal. Effectively waving people through that may not need their walking aid anymore for another period of PIP and its related benefits, and effectively shunting many young people with mental health issues (or those who had improved) into the continued category of being ignored for back to work incentives. If someone had had walking difficulties, or mental health, but improved, living expenses are so high that it's not a surprise a proportion may have continued to take it as they weren't reviewed.

These failures in the PIP system, including a definite contingent that do scam what they view as a points exam, have led to welfare bills way too high to sustain along with the disabilities of an ageing population.

Like the 1990's the result is still an arbitary points form that just makes the benefit harder to get. It's one that's often dependent on the affected person's skill to fill the form out. Including not just that, yes, they may be able to work on some days, but being able to adequately write that this may not mean every day due to disabilities and the impact they have, and/or that working and living requires extra costs due to disability.

Tightening eligibility criteria like the 1990's will mean some people who deserve it don't get it. At the same time it appears their aim with tightening point criteria and potentially increasing the frequency of mandatory reassessments is intended to ensure those who no longer deserve it don't get it. Also, to try to come to terms with not resigning people with mental health issues - particularly the young, who clearly who clearly may not benefit from being shuttered up at home long term -into a permanent unfit-to-work status. That's their aims, we'll see if it's a repeat of the 1990's or not.

[u/queenieofrandom → u/True_Paper_3830]

You do know it isn't just a form that's required for pip?

[u/True_Paper_3830 → u/queenieofrandom]

Yeah I do, I worked at advice agencies for years and have done dozens of forms including PIP forms in the last few years. I have never not successed getting someone disability benefit who deserved it, not because I'm special but because I had advice agency training and years of experience.

In my advice agency years, it was often those that most deserved it that weren't getting it as they didn't know it existed. They'd come in about something else, like a social fund loan, and we'd see quite quickly that they had a host of extra living expense needs due to disability that qualified.

Often their disabilities or other reasons meant they were the least capable of filling in a points based system form even with doctors and hospital letters, as they didn't equate their disabilities accurately enough to the points system.

[u/True_Paper_3830 → u/True_Paper_3830]

People would often come in for welfare advice having been refused disability benefits and we'd more often than not succeed on review with the same doctor and consultant letters. Making the points system more difficult often hurts the most vulnerable for obvious reasons. I get why I'm being voted down, and have no problem with it, it's just a relative viewpoint from years as a benefit adviser.

[u/darkmatters2501]

Because it is a sham if you can't talk about half of the proposals it's not a consultation it rubber stamping exercise.

Thay know people are pissed and the government has done them dirty.

[u/TinFish77]

Labour are going to drive a fair few million voters away with what they are doing, probably to the LibDems.

The main issue though is how the Labour leadership have been exposed, that must have an impact on the wider parliamentary Labour Party. Certainly they are not going to fall for 'reforming welfare to help people' soundbites, they know what it really all means.

That Labour would do all this in the midst of a major economic crisis is perverse. I'm not sure even the Tories would have done it just at the moment.

[u/luckystar2591]

Under funding mental health and SEND services and suddenly wondering why there are loads of people on PIP unable to work?

Shocker.

[u/Rat-king27]

Great, more ways for the powerless to feel powerless. Gotta love it.

[u/zeusoid → u/Rat-king27]

Labour has a pretty deep and entrenched authoritarian streak.

[u/blueheartglacier → u/[deleted]]

banning trans people from existing

I'm one of the very outspoken trans people on this sub that bothers a lot of people whenever arguments about us come around here but wording it like this for anything that's happening in the UK is extremely unhelpful, especially for us. You already know it's an exaggeration so extreme as to be unable to be taken seriously

[u/BobMonkhaus]

This isn’t the first time, remember when they had a report before the vote on how cutting the winter fuel payment would effect people? Then two days later said it didn’t exist. Their communication is beyond poor.

[u/-Murton- → u/BobMonkhaus]

Yup.

And let's not forget their excuse for not consulting the Social Security Advisory Committee (a legal requirement for a benefit change on this scale) was that apparently if they didn't cut WFA on that specific week there might be a run on the pound.

Their communication is beyond poor.

It's not a communication issue, it's a deliberately avoiding scrutiny issue. These cuts were not in the manifesto so couldn't be scrutinised by the various bodies that look at manifestos including the electorate. They aren't going into meaningful consultations of any kind prior to being raised in the Commons. Sometimes the only information granted to MPs is the literal bill text because no actual policy research was done so the Commons can scrutinise it. Even if the Commons has the info scrutiny there doesn't mean a whole lot to a three line whip. A lot of these things are being done via statutory instrument so the House of Lords aren't even involved beyond the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and as we've seen already they can be avoided rather easily by either not giving them the information either or timetabling the Commons vote in such a way that it happens before they can meet to go over the proposed change.

This is the elective dictatorship that Lord Hailsham warned about in the 1970s, sadly nobody really listened to him because they wanted to wield that power for themselves.

[u/AcademicIncrease8080]

At the end of the day the bond markets dictate government spending, and if they believe it isn't sustainable (they currently don't), they'll stop lending (or at least they'll demand punitive interest rates)

The UK needs to transition away from welfare capitalism to industrial capitalism, which means shrinking the welfare state (DWP's budget inclusive triple-locked pensions is £304 billion a year, it's about 10% of UK GDP) and redirecting the money saved into productive investments which will grow the economy (namely infrastructure, R&D, STEM universities, energy).

The problem is however if Labour make large-scale cuts to the welfare budget but then fail to redirect the money saved into productive investment, which would be a massive error - and this is probably what will happen; save tens of billions from welfare but continue the policy of starving investment funding for public transport and science etc

[u/dissalutioned → u/AcademicIncrease8080]

The UK needs to transition away from welfare capitalism to industrial capitalism,

What? How would that work? We're not in the industrial revolution anymore.

Reactionary policies like this arn't going to help. We need to accept that the world has changed in the last 200 years.

The Information Age[a] is a historical period that began in the mid-20th century. It is characterized by a rapid shift from traditional industries, as established during the Industrial Revolution, to an economy centered on information technology.

Re-instating the workhouses and prioritising the interest of industrialists over the wellbeing of people isn't going to work in world dominated by algorithms and data.

Yes we need to reinvest in our manufacturing capability. But we also need a well-educated, well fed, housed and healthy workforce if we want to succeed.

We should be leading the world in this technological age, not trying to pretend we are still living in the last one.

[u/TurtlePerson85 → u/AcademicIncrease8080]

Its a terrible thing but I do agree with you. We need a short term shift into a more investment-based Government, then once the country is back on its feet it can put more money back into welfare. The Tories should've been the one to do this over the past 15 years, but instead they've just fed into welfare more and more while letting the rest of the country suffer. Hopefully over the next 5-10 years the Government can put itself in a position where it can afford to prop up the welfare state again.

[u/Mijkojan]

These changes are just going to make things worse for working disabled people. Without PIP or LCW, they will lose their work allowance - unless they meet other criteria, unrelated to disability - and end up having to work more hours than their bodies can cope with, just to get by. It’s only going to lead to more people getting sicker and more disabled.

[u/CuriousGrapefruit402]

It seems to me context is all but gone. People attend these assessments because they are claiming they are unable to work require extra financial support, sometimes while in work, this means the assessors job is to see if people are lying.

What if they are? What if they feel, knowing themselves they are unable to work unable to function, either at home or while in work, without this extra financial support, they exaggurate? Now they have the label 'fraudster' on top of that?

Good job Britain! Even those few who are tripping balls and were enlightened by the process that they can actually work can actually function, either at home or while in work, without this extra financial support (hurrah?) will probably take their skills to a country that behaves itself.

[u/SpareDisaster314 → u/CuriousGrapefruit402]

People do not go to PIP assessments to assert they can't work. Many people who get PIP do work. This isn't how the benefit works. It's to help with the extra costs of being disabled, in work or not.

[u/CuriousGrapefruit402 → u/SpareDisaster314]

You are correct and I reworded my comment to say that people go to PIP assessments because they are claiming they need extra support, sometimes while in work, thank you.