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

Labour would scrap the WCA

Debbie Abrahams, the shadow work and pensions secretary, has said today that Labour would scrap the work capability assessment (WCA). In a speech to the Labour Party Conference Abrahams said they would replace the WCA with “a system based on personalised, holistic support”.

Abrahams told the conference:

“The Labour Party has already pledged to get rid of the discriminatory and unfair Bedroom Tax. But I want to go further. I want to scrap the discredited Work Capability Assessment and replace it with a system based on personalised, holistic support, one that provides each individual with a tailored plan, building on their strengths and addressing barriers, whether skills, health, care, transport, or housing-related. This Government’s punitive sanctions system must go too, so Job Centre Plus and employment support providers’ performance will not just be assessed on how many people they get off their books.

“I want to see disabled people better supported into and at work. We will halve the Disability Employment Gap – and when we say it we mean it. And we will tackle other labour market inequalities too. I believe in a fair and just Britain, where everyone can get on and no-one is left behind.”

You can read the full speech here.

Comments  

-1 #16 Frogman9 2016-10-02 16:53
That's good of them......seein g as they brought in Atos in the first place, I do not believe anything I hear from the Tories or Labour until I see it in writing.
+1 #15 boolybooly 2016-10-01 10:23
"Holistic" is the kind of schizoid spin euphemism Blairites would use to describe a highly intrusive system of coercion.

Why are incentives for the poor sanctions yet the employed get bonuses? Why can we not devise a positive system of incentive rather than a coercive one for the unemployed?

As someone with ME CFIDS (with FME) who has recently been misassessed for the second time by medical professionals who nevertheless lack an understanding of ME, the thought of medically untrained jobcentre people making health and welfare related decisions, (including sanctions for inactivity) which could ruin the delicate balance of the activity pacing I need to employ every waking moment of my life to avoid relapse and breakdown, fills me with dread.
#14 Meg3 2016-09-29 17:26
Debbie Abram really does not have any idea. Just empty words...They should first do a head count as to how many disabled people the Labour party employ and support across the UK and how they currently support them in the work place and if there is any help and support getting to and from work, and what happens when they are off work due to their disability . Maybe a fact finding mission in her own party first would highlight the difficulties with illness/sicknes s and disability and what support they currently offer and if that is something they can roll out !!!!
-1 #13 Mutley 2016-09-29 16:32
Quoting Eli48:

Perhaps some reading comprehension would not go amiss, or indeed, a sense of humour. Even if you have totally got the tone of his post wrong, your tone of voice and sarcasm (lowest form of wit) is still not acceptable. We come here for the news and for support from one another, not be rude and sarcastic, as you have been. Please desist from doing this again. If you are not sure of what someone is saying, ask them. This is not the first time I have had to mention this in a post to a member, and it is sad to have to say it again.

Amazing how people get its sarcasm when they are told it is.
Tone of voice and sarcasm ? wow you got all that from factual content. There was no rudeness nor sarcasm so stop trying to read something between the lines as if they were not blank spaces. I wrote factually about the current state of a Government that has done nothing but penalise the poorest in society, whilst feathering their own nests. If that is sarcasm, well, sad day for the English language.
+3 #12 tintack 2016-09-29 02:24
Quoting Eli48:
Nice sarcasm there Tintac! :)


Thanks - the sad thing is that Reeves and her ilk actually seem to believe it! Here are her own words:

"We are not the party of people on benefits. We don't want to be seen and we're not the party to represent those who are out of work. Labour are a party of working people formed for and by working people"

She seems to think that if you're on benefits you don't deserve to be represented. Apart from the obvious betrayal of Labour's traditional role of sticking up for those with the least power, this quote raises a couple of obvious questions:

1. What happens when those working people she mentions lose their jobs through no fault of their own through redundancy or illness? Is Labour the party to represent them until the moment they lose their job, at which point Labour says "sorry, you'll have to find yourself a new party"?

2. If she doesn't want Labour "to be seen as the party of people on benefits", what about people on in-work benefits? Clearly, the idea that everyone is either in work or on benefits is not true.

Perhaps we could refer to someone who receives in-work benefits as Schrodinger's Claimant. This is a person who simultaneously occupies two contradictory states of being: on the one hand,a "hardworking person" and therefore valuable member of society, on the other hand a "feckless skiver" on whom Labour must "get tough".

If the New Labour bunch had been around in the American South in the 1950s I have no doubt that they would have branded Martin Luther King an extremist while stressing the need to "listen to voters' concerns" on racial equality. All in the name of "credibility" and "electability", naturally.
-1 #11 Eli48 2016-09-28 18:19
Quote:
Quoting Mutley:
Maybe itintack needs to be reminded, along with all the MP, that will not back Corbyn, is that Labour is a socialist party and not another conservative party in disguise, as the likes of Blair pushed it.


As I've said, if you read my post it's an obvious p**s-take of that part of the Labour Party which is prepared to imitate the Tories in the name of supposed electability, even if that means supporting appalling policies on benefits. The bit about a contest between a conservative Conservative party and a conservative Labour party being a real choice should have made it clear that I was taking the mickey out of the Tory-lites.
I got it Tintac and I can have many dumb dark blonde moments.! Nice line in sarcasm! :)
+3 #10 Eli48 2016-09-28 18:17
Sounds like I have gone off the boil, but you read it it will make sense.

I feel for you, as it must be hard. I find it annoying that those who own their own homes cannot get the same help as those in social housing, but I do not attack those in social housing. Please refrain from doing so again. I know jealousy is hard to control, but do try. I am lucky to be in social housing having tried to own a home, but as a self-employed person, that was impossible. I do agree that the same help should be given to home owners and maybe we could get a petition going. I do believe if Corbyn gets in, he will make the help for you available.
No, those in social housing should not have less money. They hae bills to pay and now have to pay a lot of council tax as well. ESA is now the same as job seekers £73 a week and that is a bleeding nightmare to live on. I have been there. I started on £67.50! Many in social housing are disabled and sick, so no, they should not get less. What they do get, is hardly livable, I am sure you would agree, or maybe not.
+1 #9 Eli48 2016-09-28 18:10
Quote:
Helping sick and disabled people? Ridiculous! This is just the sort of dangerous, extremist nonsense which shows why Labour is unelectable under Corbyn!

Labour must become "electable" by replacing Corbyn with a "moderate" leader, and this means it must "listen to voters' concerns on welfare" by promising to kick the crap out of the sick and disabled even harder than the Tories. Rachel Reeves was willing to promise just that in the last parliament, so I'm sure she'd be the ideal choice. That way, the next election will be a contest between a conservative Conservative party and a conservative Labour party - now that's REAL choice!
Nice sarcasm there Tintac! :)
+1 #8 Eli48 2016-09-28 18:09
Quoting Mutley:
Maybe itintack needs to be reminded, along with all the MP, that will not back Corbyn, is that Labour is a socialist party and not another conservative party in disguise, as the likes of Blair pushed it.
Corbyn won first time around with the biggest majority of any labour leader, and the decond time with an even larger majority. That should ring alarm bells to the current Labour MP's surely.

People should wake up and understand why Labour lost the last election. It was the none choice between the flavours of Conservative parties, since Labour has not existed for some years until now, and the populace just said why bother.

I certainly would not vote for another Labour party having a red flag draped over the blue suit. yes I gave you another - for the lack of any understanding.


Perhaps some reading comprehension would not go amiss, or indeed, a sense of humour. Even if you have totally got the tone of his post wrong, your tone of voice and sarcasm (lowest form of wit) is still not acceptable. We come here for the news and for support from one another, not be rude and sarcastic, as you have been. Please desist from doing this again. If you are not sure of what someone is saying, ask them. This is not the first time I have had to mention this in a post to a member, and it is sad to have to say it again.
+1 #7 Mutley 2016-09-28 16:15
It was the fact that a stance has been taken by derisory media imbeciles, echoed by that section of the public with little brains, that JC was not a good leader, despite the fact he is the most voted for leader by the labour party in all history.

Its just like we have a Government that tells us that Brexit was a democratic decision to leave, despite only 37% of the electorate voting to leave, and that a Political party cannot be removed from office until they have served their full term, another apparently democratic vote by the ConLibs actioned in law in 2010.
+2 #6 tintack 2016-09-28 15:17
Quoting Mutley:
Maybe itintack needs to be reminded, along with all the MP, that will not back Corbyn, is that Labour is a socialist party and not another conservative party in disguise, as the likes of Blair pushed it.


As I've said, if you read my post it's an obvious p**s-take of that part of the Labour Party which is prepared to imitate the Tories in the name of supposed electability, even if that means supporting appalling policies on benefits. The bit about a contest between a conservative Conservative party and a conservative Labour party being a real choice should have made it clear that I was taking the mickey out of the Tory-lites.
+1 #5 Mutley 2016-09-28 14:13
Maybe itintack needs to be reminded, along with all the MP, that will not back Corbyn, is that Labour is a socialist party and not another conservative party in disguise, as the likes of Blair pushed it.
Corbyn won first time around with the biggest majority of any labour leader, and the decond time with an even larger majority. That should ring alarm bells to the current Labour MP's surely.

People should wake up and understand why Labour lost the last election. It was the none choice between the flavours of Conservative parties, since Labour has not existed for some years until now, and the populace just said why bother.

I certainly would not vote for another Labour party having a red flag draped over the blue suit. yes I gave you another - for the lack of any understanding.
+1 #4 MarkW 2016-09-28 14:10
Hi tintack
Yes, redtories - saying great things, but don't vote against them given a chance!
Fine to promise when you know you won't be in power for a long time - meanwhile we all suffer........
-4 #3 pusscatsmum 2016-09-28 14:02
Hopefully the sick and disabled will be listened too , helped and provided with adequate financing to cover the increasing costs when one is housebound and honestly to unwell, physically/ment ally to be able to undertake any paid employment. We are too often bypassed via the NHS and 'parked' with no means to be able to exist with meaning, moreover this is ever more so for those who do have their own property, as those in Social Housing are deemed more 'vulnerable' when in effect they do have more money to play with, they do not have to pay for new boilers, new windows or doors, decorating internally/exte rior , the list goes on & on & we have to pay for all our Council Tax etc and not a small bit which is all those in Social Housing have to pay. I know the finances for Welfare needs attention as does the NHS, but hopefully someone along the lines will make it a fairer playing field. Just cos someone owns a small house why should we pay for everything out of our meagre ESA/PIP, whereas those in Social or rented accommodation can use all their ESA/PIP for spending money. It is an area that really needs addressing and promptly too, this area could be harder for those in social /renting accom as they should get less money as they do not have all the other outgoings as a house owner has.A property needs maintenance and honestly those who own are really more likely to be nearer the end of their tether with finances than those in social housing who do not need to care or think about the fabric of what they are living in.
Sounds like I have gone off the boil, but you read it it will make sense.
+1 #2 tintack 2016-09-28 12:41
I'm guessing whoever gave my comment a thumbs down didn't spot that it was in fact a parody of the "be just like the Tories to get elected" wing of the Labour Party!
#1 tintack 2016-09-28 01:48
Helping sick and disabled people? Ridiculous! This is just the sort of dangerous, extremist nonsense which shows why Labour is unelectable under Corbyn!

Labour must become "electable" by replacing Corbyn with a "moderate" leader, and this means it must "listen to voters' concerns on welfare" by promising to kick the crap out of the sick and disabled even harder than the Tories. Rachel Reeves was willing to promise just that in the last parliament, so I'm sure she'd be the ideal choice. That way, the next election will be a contest between a conservative Conservative party and a conservative Labour party - now that's REAL choice!

You need to be logged in to comment