Login FormClose

Free ESA, PIP and DLA Updates

With over 140,000 subscribers our fortnightly updates bulletin is the UK's leading source of benefits news. Get the facts about what's changing, how it affects you and how to prepare.   Get your free benefits updates now.

Professional Members

We support both claimants and professionals.  These are just some of the organisations who have subscribed to Benefits and Work:

  • Royal College of Nursing
  • Spinal Injuries Association
  • Chesterfield Law Centre
  • Coventry Mind
  • Birmingham Citizens Advice Bureau
  • Colchester Borough Council Welfare Rights

Read more

Sick and disabled claimants to lose up to £80 per week under leaked Tory plans

Plans leaked to the BBC reveal that the Conservatives are considering cuts of up to £80 a week for sick and disabled claimants if they win the election.

The leaked documents show that the Conservative party commissioned research into how much could be saved by measures including:

Taxing disability living allowance (DLA), personal independence payment (PIP) and attendance allowance (AA), saving a predicted £1.5 billion a year.

Abolishing contribution based ESA and JSA entirely, so that only claimants who pass a means test can claim these benefits. According to the BBC, DWP analysis suggests 30% of claimants, over 300,000 families, would lose about £80 per week, saving a predicted £1.3 billion a year. In fact, some families would lose more than £80 per week if these benefits were abolished.

Cutting the number of people getting carer’s allowance by 40% by only awarding it to those eligible for universal credit (UC), saving a predicted £1 billion.

Limiting child benefit to the first two children, eventually saving £1 billion but very little in the short-term.

Other plans include replacing industrial injuries benefits with an insurance policy for employers, regional benefit caps and changes to council tax.

The Conservatives deny that these proposals are party policy.

A spokesperson for Iain Duncan Smith told the BBC that:

"This is ill informed and inaccurate speculation.

"Officials spend a lot of time generating proposals - many not commissioned by politicians.

"It's wrong and misleading to suggest that any of this is part of our plan."

However, the Conservatives still refuse to say what benefits they will cut.

Earlier this week Benefits and Work suggested that working age claimants would lose an average of £19 a week under Conservative plans. We pointed out that some would lose less and some might lose much more – but we hadn’t realised quite how much more.

Would you be affected by these cuts and could you cope financially if they were imposed?

Read the full story on the BBC website

Comments  

+1 #49 choogle 2015-04-08 09:59
I saw the BBC report that said that some people will lose £80 as a result of proposed changes to benefits. That's actually a lie, as some people will end up losing both their DLA and ESA payments, and this could actually be over £200 per week for some.

It's strange that IDS doesn't think it 'relevant' to discuss potential cuts (some of these are more than 'potential' - they will happen whatever creed of government gets in). For example, I remember seeing some document online a few years back that stated that contribution-ba sed ESA was to be done away with (by 2017/18, I think).
#48 tintack 2015-04-03 01:04
Quoting tazman:
Tintack you are my eloquent hero. You say everything I struggle to express. If only you were running the DWP!


Thanks for your kind words tazman. I did try to post a message a day or two ago thanking you, but it seems to have disappeared into the ether. Hopefully this one makes it!
+4 #47 tintack 2015-04-02 18:04
Quoting David:
I've been to Sweden several times , I was in Gothenberg a few years ago with my wife for some of her business conferences . The differences twixt wealthy and not so wealthy was very very visible and even more noticeable for the guest workers in the hotels & the restaurants . But it was a really clean city .


Oh, there will be noticeable differences between rich and poor in even the most progressive European countries, no doubt about that. It's the sheer scale of the gap that marks us out from the rest of Europe. Of course, it doesn't help when even proposals for modest tax increases for the wealthiest are instantly derided with a screeching chorus of "class war!!!" - and yet, savage cuts which hit the poorest hardest (inflicted by wealthy and priviliged politicians) are not. Who'd have thought it?!
-1 #46 David 2015-04-02 12:58
This bit tintack ....

But in any case, the Scandinavian countries are also known for their high-taxes and high welfare provision. The swedes have a massive black market problem as they too just hate paying taxes so that others who don't.. won't or cant work as hard as the real earners can live at a few percentages points below the higher earners .

I've been to Sweden several times , I was in Gothenberg a few years ago with my wife for some of her business conferences . The differences twixt wealthy and not so wealthy was very very visible and even more noticeable for the guest workers in the hotels & the restaurants . But it was a really clean city .
-1 #45 David 2015-04-02 12:47
[quote name="tintack
"]Quoting David:
It it really that bad putting the welfare budget under the microscope ...Ii must confess that it has benefited me & my family no end but then I did ask many folk for help in filing out the forms and with the medicals at home.


I'm glad you got the help you needed with the forms - without the sort of info provided by the likes of B & W, many people will have no clue what to do with them and have no chance of getting the support they need. I've no doubt that's intentional.

Save for the last ,line of your post shown above Ii agree 100% with you on the whole of the thread.

Re :-
I've no doubt that it is intentional .

That is down to the civil servants operating the system etc not the political party of the day , why they don't even tell claimants about there being an emergency access fund and this shoves the claimants into the scary arms of the food banks & the political parties.
(I gather that there has been moves afoot to see several million government £'s put into food banks but the political mind sets operating the food bank say NO we don't want your bloody money ...go figure ! ) .

Intentionally harming the claimants is how shall I say it, "Politically dead for any party " ..it's those who have not for many reasons managed to make the transitions in the new system that turn up as collateral damage so to speak.

Now if all the Yorper's & Yapper's had concentrated their minds & energies in helping sort those folk out instead of snapping at each other like rabid dogs then I feel things would be much better but what ever happens there will always be a percentage who for many reasons still need further help & won't get it .
+2 #44 tintack 2015-04-02 01:14
Quoting David:
Germany has a massive " Gast Arbieter " ( foreign guest worker ) cheap labour population running back to well before I lived & worked there in 1969 plus until fairly recently they had well over a million foreign troops many with their families injecting cash into the local & national economies . The German nationals themselves were well off , the foreigners weren't , they were held back because of the German regulations that said you must have a bit of paper to say you are qualified to do this or that job and we only accept Germans ones where you have studied for x number of years to get them.
It's easing off now due to the German baby boomers taking more & more out the state welfare pot and also spending their pensions ( the Germans as a whole have always bee very strong in making provisions for their old age many I knew used to regularly buy small ingots of gold to stash away at home or put in deposit boxes in a bank .


We've also had a very large influx of foreign labour going back to the 60s (a good deal of it pretty exploitative), and a great many of those immigrants have been pretty badly off, just like their counterparts in Germany. And unlike the UK, since the early 90s Germany has had to assimilate the old East Germany, a truly gargantuan burden which no other European country, the UK included, could even contemplate. So I don't think the German comparison is unreasonable.

But in any case, the Scandinavian countries are also known for their high-taxes and high welfare provision, and again, they don't have the obscene Dickensian gulf between rich and poor that we do. There seems to have been an ethos in those countries for many years which says, to use a now much-devalued phrase, "we're all in this together" (though unlike Osborne they actually believe in it). We seem to be heading in the opposite direction at full speed. Which, if you're in a position where you need help, is pretty frightening.
+4 #43 tintack 2015-04-02 00:59
Quoting David:
It it really that bad putting the welfare budget under the microscope ...Ii must confess that it has benefited me & my family no end but then I did ask many folk for help in filing out the forms and with the medicals at home.


I'm glad you got the help you needed with the forms - without the sort of info provided by the likes of B & W, many people will have no clue what to do with them and have no chance of getting the support they need. I've no doubt that's intentional.

The thing that infuriates me about the way the welfare budget is put under the microscope (not getting at you here, this is more about certain parts of the media) is that it's often portrayed as a huge, bloated monster that lavishes cash in abundance on the workshy at the expense of "hardworking people". There are all sorts of reasons why this is complete drivel. I've gone into some of them in previous posts so I won't repeat that here. Suffice it to say that the welfare budget would be a fair bit lower if it wasn't, for example, subsidising extortionate rents in the form of housing benefit, or companies paying less than subsistence wages in the form of working tax credits.

But things like that are seldom mentioned. Instead everything is lumped together for the purposes of one headline-grabbi ng figure in order to justify the "bloated, over-generous welfare" narrative. So actually I agree that the welfare budget should be put under the microscope, because if it were reported with even a shred of honesty people would start to realise that the reality bears little resemblance to what they've been told. Unfortunately, there will be those who have swallowed the propaganda hook, line and sinker, and who will then lose their job or suffer a life-changing illness out of the blue. Only at that point will they realise the extent to which they've been taken for a ride. And by then it will be too late.
#42 David 2015-04-01 12:08
[quote name="tintack
"]Quoting David:
Tintack ref your# 29
I guess pensions are being left alone because for the vast majority of pensioners are retired & there is little or no further chance for many of the pensioners ever being able to increase their earnings , where as for those of working age unless massively disabled there is usually an opportunity or two around .


Just to be clear, I'm not saying pensioners should be hit. I'm just pointing out that when by far the biggest portion of the budget is effectively untouchable, the scope for significant cuts is very limited..... etc etc.


It it really that bad putting the welfare budget under the microscope ...Ii must confess that it has benefited me & my family no end but then I did ask many folk for help in filing out the forms and with the medicals at home.

re your other posts

Trying to use Germany as a comparison is like comparing chalk and cheese

Germany has a massive " Gast Arbieter " ( foreign guest worker ) cheap labour population running back to well before I lived & worked there in 1969 plus until fairly recently they had well over a million foreign troops many with their families injecting cash into the local & national economies . The German nationals themselves were well off , the foreigners weren't , they were held back because of the German regulations that said you must have a bit of paper to say you are qualified to do this or that job and we only accept Germans ones where you have studied for x number of years to get them.
It's easing off now due to the German baby boomers taking more & more out the state welfare pot and also spending their pensions ( the Germans as a whole have always bee very strong in making provisions for their old age many I knew used to regularly buy small ingots of gold to stash away at home or put in deposit boxes in a bank .
+2 #41 tazman 2015-04-01 10:23
Tintack you are my eloquent hero. You say everything I struggle to express. If only you were running the DWP!
+4 #40 tintack 2015-04-01 01:03
Quoting David:
Tintack ref your# 29
I guess pensions are being left alone because for the vast majority of pensioners are retired & there is little or no further chance for many of the pensioners ever being able to increase their earnings , where as for those of working age unless massively disabled there is usually an opportunity or two around .


Just to be clear, I'm not saying pensioners should be hit. I'm just pointing out that when by far the biggest portion of the budget is effectively untouchable, the scope for significant cuts is very limited, unless you're prepared to cut in a way that kicks vulnerable people into the gutter. Sadly, the likes of Osborne and IDS appear to be only too willing to do just that.
+5 #39 tintack 2015-04-01 00:59
Quoting David:
I tend to agree that a lot of the benefits should be at a subsistence level for those that are able to work ( covers those that protest they cannot but with a bit of a push can )
There are no long term percentages in giving such folk more than a hand up & & an incentive to strive for better.


Germany has had a much higher cost of living than the UK for donkeys years , their welfare tax burden deductions would have made the average Brits eyes water well and truly . They too are now having to try and sort out how to put a diminished income stream into many purses.


Oddly enough (or not, depending on your point of view), Germany and most other European countries have had much higher benefits than us and economies which in most cases have been at least as successful as ours. I recall a quote from a British politician on a visit to Germany who was heard to remark that "it's a wonder that anyone here works at all", which echoes your view on incentives. And yet, the people there did work and the economy did very well. Food for thought, no?

It's true that taxes are much higher on the continent, but then they get a lot more back than we do, and their societies don't seem to be scarred by the same obscene chasm between rich and poor that we've had for years. Yes, Germany is having problems at present, but again, what policy are they pursuing? That'll be our old friend austerity. It's not improving the lives of most Germans, any more than it's improving the lives of most Brits.
+6 #38 tintack 2015-04-01 00:45
Quoting David:
For some reason I gather that you have to collect taxes and cream off the distribution costs before you can afford financial assistance for those less able to earn their bread . you make the rules governing the collection of taxes too defined and soon big guns with very clever commercial lawyers who get paid by results will drive horses and carts through the enacted with ease.

If the legislation for tax collection is not up to it, the need for financially educated & able politicians and civil servants who understand it and are able to think things through seems to be one of the first places to visit to change the system so that the correct taxes can be levied & collected ., it can't stay as it is can it .?? Which political party has the guts to sort it ???


Well not the Tories, that much is certain - that party is now bought and paid for by big business and the City. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of them biting the hand that feeds them.

Tax evasion is the elephant in the room in the austerity discussion. Even the most conservative estimates are that about £35billion is lost because of it each year, and the true cost is almost certainly well above that. Some estimates put it well over £100billion - to put that number in context, that would pay off the deficit in full, probably with a bit of change to spare, and thus avoid the need for any of this austerity cobblers.

And of course this is what would happen if those at the top didn't use loopholes, but just paid their fair whack as they're supposed to, just as everyone else has to. If they did, the pot wouldn't be as "empty" as the government likes to claim. That's the real scandal of the last few years - those at the top caused the crash, but it's those at the bottom who are being blamed for it and made to pay the price.
-5 #37 David 2015-04-01 00:42
Quoting johnboy:
Looking art some of the comments I would say theres a lot of people here that will vote for minority parties. It has to be said that you might as well vote tory,, we need to vote labour to have a chance of getting these evil swine out of government and to stop them making another deal to form a coalition. Labour are far more sympathetic to disability.
They are or party created by or unions and our unions exist to fight for better conditions for the working classes. Conservative are the party of the bosses and the rich. There are more of us so we should win but they accede in fooling a lot of people with their lies and deceit.


The unions didn't do much for my parents who'd always voted labour , both were in their late sixties when I came back to the UK and found them wrapped up in blankets cuddled together on the settee , as they had no electricity due to " Industrial" action and no coal for the boiler because of a coal strike .
I wouldn't ever want to trust them ever again not to kick off to try to hold the country to ransom to satisfy their greed / ego's .

Dad said that after that he & mum woke up along with millions of others and never voted for Labour again & here was me thinking they were blinkered dyed in the wool labour voters . Pop was fair dancing when Arthur Scargill left the scene as natural gas came on stream
+4 #36 tintack 2015-04-01 00:31
Quoting David:
Your confusing defence spending with welfare spending or do you really want to speak Russian ?


I'm not confusing anything. Your argument is that since government doesn't have "the luxury of income" you mentioned, it has to cut its spending, with the big outgoings being at the top of the list. By that logic, which department those big outgoings are in doesn't particularly matter. If you regard such large spending commitments as unwise because the government doesn't have that "luxury of income", then you have no logical basis for saying that such unwise spending commitments can be made in one department but not another.

As for the speaking Russian comment, well plenty of countries don't
have nuclear weapons - most countries in fact. Have you heard anyone in say, Spain or Germany saying that they must acquire nuclear weapons in case Putin decides to invade? Because I sure as hell haven't.
+1 #35 David 2015-04-01 00:30
Quote:
It does not help disabled peoples cause when TV crews film benefit claiments bragging on what they can do to stay on their particular benefit., example people drinking cans of beer before a medical examination for ESA and coming out saying they have passed because the Examiners say they still have a drink problem.
The obese claiments telling television crews that they have no intention of losing weight as they will lose the new car hired through Motorbility, plus the extra money they get because they cannot care for themselves. I just wish some people will think before the go on the TV and make statements that Ian Duncan Smiths advisers and the Tory voters pick up on.
That thing you say about the motability vehicle, it seems to have caught up with things here in Wales ..
One of my neighbours had to comment when he saw I was having a brand new motability car PHEV charging pod point fitted on the bungalow wall , saying , " It's good to see less motability cars at the golf course as I can always find a parking space there now "

Due to the kind of guy he is , I'm not sure if it was a snide dig at me having the new Mitsubishi Outlander for my wheelchair & buggy , an actual truth or both .
-3 #34 David 2015-03-31 23:38
Tintack ref your# 29
I guess pensions are being left alone because for the vast majority of pensioners are retired & there is little or no further chance for many of the pensioners ever being able to increase their earnings , where as for those of working age unless massively disabled there is usually an opportunity or two around .
#33 David 2015-03-31 23:32
[quote name="tintack
"]Quoting David:
It's grown into a nasty many headed expensive carbuncle that needs lancing .

Up until now no political party has had the nerve to try and sort it out due thee fact of it making people change their ways ( people hate change ). & the resultant fall out that will make them almost unelectable in the near future till people sit down put on their thinking caps and realize that those who choose to spend spend are an even worse form of governance


What form should such a lancing take? Contrary to popular myth, UK benefit levels are not hugely generous. Indeed, when people are asked to explain why they support benefit cuts, that support invariably turns out to rest on a set of beliefs and assumptions about the benefit system and claimants which are simply false. In particular, they believe that benefits are far more generous than they actually are, and they believe that levels of fraud are far higher than is actually the case.

The biggest part of the budget by far is pensions, and no-one is going to attack those. Benefits for the unemployed are set at subsistence levels.
Most European countries have had far more generous benefits than us for years, including Germany, by far the most successful European economy.
I tend to agree that a lot of the benefits should be at a subsistence level for those that are able to work ( covers those that protest they cannot but with a bit of a push can )
There are no long term percentages in giving such folk more than a hand up & & an incentive to strive for better.


Germany has had a much higher cost of living than the UK for donkeys years , their welfare tax burden deductions would have made the average Brits eyes water well and truly . They too are now having to try and sort out how to put a diminished income stream into many purses.
#32 David 2015-03-31 23:23
[quote name="tintack
"]Quote:
For those who want the Eldorado of more money poured into the welfare coffers
Do any of you really want to end up having a greater tax burden for the next 30 or so years when it could be shortened to a similar one but for only 10 years or less due to a major reorganization of entitlement and staffing costs? .
No-one's asking for "an Eldorado of more money poured into the welfare coffers"....... ..... etc

For some reason I gather that you have to collect taxes and cream off the distribution costs before you can afford financial assistance for those less able to earn their bread . you make the rules governing the collection of taxes too defined and soon big guns with very clever commercial lawyers who get paid by results will drive horses and carts through the enacted with ease.

If the legislation for tax collection is not up to it, the need for financially educated & able politicians and civil servants who understand it and are able to think things through seems to be one of the first places to visit to change the system so that the correct taxes can be levied & collected ., it can't stay as it is can it .?? Which political party has the guts to sort it ???

I'm often led to understand that if we were a truly cashless society with minimal costs per transaction of say 1 p for all under £100 and 2 p for over 9 scaled up in multiples so it runs at 1% of the exchange ) that there would be a massive amount of tax discovered for it would virtually be the end of the black economy & any off shoring etc of the companies . So much tax recoverable , that we could well be looking at less than 20 p in the pound for even the high earners and the welfare funding , NHS & public services etc. could also benefit after sensible managerial re organisations .

.
-3 #31 David 2015-03-31 23:03
[quote name="tintack
"]Quoting David:
Perhaps even planning to spend slightly over that £1 for a 10 to 15 year period but not if your income stream is diminishing.
Seeing as no government has such a luxury of income I guess that cutting the biggest outgoings is a logical action even then any cuts will be tinkering on the edges of most of the various budgets


Again, the example of Trident shows why this argument doesn't work. £100billion is a huge amount for any government to commit to if it doesn't have "such a luxury of income" - and yet, they've committed to it. If the logical action is to cut the biggest outgoings, Trident would be one of the first things to go. The fact that it's not is a pretty clear indication that this is fundamentally a question of priorities.

Your confusing defence spending with welfare spending or do you really want to speak Russian ?
+6 #30 tintack 2015-03-31 20:57
Quote:
For those who want the Eldorado of more money poured into the welfare coffers
Do any of you really want to end up having a greater tax burden for the next 30 or so years when it could be shortened to a similar one but for only 10 years or less due to a major reorganization of entitlement and staffing costs? .
No-one's asking for "an Eldorado of more money poured into the welfare coffers", just a system that doesn't let so many people fall through the safety net, and doesn't treat people like scum for having the misfortune to lose their job through no fault of their own, or being too ill to work. It also doesn't help when sick and disabled people are subjected to an assessment which was found to be so corrupt that the company that came up with it was convicted of fraud in the American courts.

I'm also extremely sceptical about the wisdom of "reorganisation of entitlement" achieving anything positive, assuming "reorganisation " is a euphemism for cutting. We were assured that while the Tories' plans would involve very large and painful cuts, the up side would be that the deficit would be gone by now. Instead it's nearly £100billion, the worst of the cuts is yet to come, and they've had to borrow hundreds of billions more than they said they would even to get to that point. I'd say that's pretty poor evidence for the claim that we can cut our way out of debt.

And look at the change from IB to ESA - that was supposed to save huge sums of cash too, but it's done nothing of the sort and has put an awful lot of people through hell for no good reason. It's also worth noting that while we apparently can't afford these benefits, apparently we can afford to carry on paying private corporations huge sums of public cash every year for the delivery of public services - including benefit assessments - despite those corporations having a pretty dreadful track record. Funny how that works.

You need to be logged in to comment