An impact assessment, setting out how many people will be affected by the cuts, should have been published along with the Green Paper as part of the consultation process.

But it wasn’t. 

This may have been an attempt to bury the assessment amongst all the other news of cuts and changes that will be announced in today’s Spring statement.

Or it may just have been incompetence leading to the figures not being ready in time.

Either way, it has meant that, on the day before publication, the DWP discovered that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) did not accept their claim that the Green Paper cuts would save £5 billion.

According to media reports, it may have come up with a figure as low as £3.8 billion, because the OBR does not believe the changes to PIP scoring will lead to as many people losing the daily living allowance as the DWP predict.

There is speculation that a further freeze of an element of UC will now be announced, saving £0.5 billion, with cuts also being made to other budgets to meet the shortfall.

We'll provide full  details of the impact assessment, when they are published this afternoon.

In her speech, Reeves said:

"Today the OBR has said that they estimate the package will save £4.8 billion in the welfare budget, reflecting their judgements on behavioural effects and wider factors.  This also reflects final adjustments to the overall package consistent with the secretary of state’s statement last week and the government’s Pathways To Work Green Paper.  The universal credit standard allowance will increase from £92pw in 25/26 to £106 by 29/30 while the universal credit health element will be cut for new claimants by around 50% and then frozen."

There was no mention of freezing the health element for new claims in the green paper, only for existing claimants.

In addition, the Green paper says:

"we will increase the UC standard allowance for new and existing claims. This would mean the single person 25+ rate of UC standard allowance increasing by £7 per week (pw) (from £91pw in 2024/2025 to £98pw in 2026/2027)"

It is not clear whether this is in line with the figures given in Reeves' speech.

The OBR reports are now available online

PIP changes

In relation to changes to the PIP scoring system the OBR says:

From November 2026, in addition to current rules, claimants will be required to score four points in at least one of the 10 daily living descriptors to qualify for the daily living component. The static costing of this policy would reduce spending by an estimated £7.9 billion by 2029-30, and would reduce the number receiving the PIP daily living component by an estimated 1.5 million people (32 per cent). This is estimated simply on the basis that 58 per cent of onflows and 52 per cent of award reviews among the existing stock of claimants qualify for the daily living component without scoring four points or more in any descriptor.

The behavioural response significantly reduces the estimated number of people who lose the PIP daily living component to 800,000 (16 per cent of those receiving the daily living component), with 400,000 of these leaving the PIP caseload entirely due to not receiving the mobility component. This reduces the static savings by around half (£4.0 billion) by 2029/30. This is a highly uncertain judgement which reflects:

  • the strong financial incentive to qualify for the daily living component, with the standard rate currently £3,800 a year and the enhanced rate £5,600 a year, and to therefore demonstrate four points in at least one descriptor at assessment;
  • that assessing whether a claimant qualifies for four points in any descriptor is a judgement that heavily relies on an assessors’ interpretation of the relevant criteria, and one which depends primarily on self-reported evidence rather than external medical evidence; and 
  • that these changes will lead to higher levels of mandatory reconsiderations and appeals among unsuccessful claimants, along with higher volumes of reclaims. 

In addition to the behavioural effects on the PIP caseload outlined above, we have also assumed that a proportion of those whose PIP entitlement is affected by the policy will claim universal credit to compensate for their income loss. The magnitude of all of these behavioural responses is highly uncertain and therefore means there are significant upside and downside risks to the costing of this policy.

So, the OBR seems to be saying that 58 per cent of new claimants and 52 per cent of award reviews do not score any 4 point daily living descriptors.  So, on the face of it, this would reduce the number of people getting PIP daily living by 1.5 million, virtually one third.  But the OBR guesses, and they admit it is only guesswork that the actual number who lose the daily living component will be reduced to 800,000 because people will fight harder to be awarded a 4 point descriptor, including by challenging decisions.

Reintroduction of WCA reassessments

The OBR says:

The Government will reintroduce reassessments for claimants placed in the LCWRA group prior to April 2026 with certain short-term prognoses (such as high-risk pregnancies or cancer treatment) or who, without LCWRA, faced substantial risk to their physical or mental health. The savings from this policy are estimated to reach £0.3 billion in 2029-30, due to reassessments leading to more claimants leaving the LCWRA caseload. The key uncertainties in this costing are the level of off-flows following reassessment and whether there is sufficient workforce capacity for the reassessments to take place.

So, it looks like reassessments are going to be particularly targeted on pregnancy, cancer and substantial risk.

Reduction in the generosity of the UC health element

The OBR says:

The value of the UCHE has been frozen at £97 per week for the four years from April 2026, rather than CPI uprating assumed in the baseline (which would have taken it to £107 per week by 2029-30), for those who joined the LCWRA caseload prior to that date. For people newly classified as LCWRA from April 2026 onwards, the UCHE is halved and then frozen for four years at £50 per week. 

These changes are estimated to reduce spending by £3.0 billion in 2029-30, reflecting a £1,100 average reduction in overall annual UC awards for the 3.0 million individuals expected to be in receipt of the UCHE by that date. The additional premium, mentioned in the Green Paper, to protect the incomes of UCHE recipients after April 2026 with the most severe, lifelong conditions, has not been costed in this forecast. This is because DWP has confirmed to us that key components of the policy, including the value of the premium and the groups of people impacted, are still being considered (see Box 3.2).

This is a provisional costing which is highly sensitive to judgements on the composition of the baseline LCWRA caseload and on the behavioural impacts of the measures. The static costing assumes that, by 2029-30, four-fifths of the pre-April 2026 caseload remains in receipt of the UCHE. With the overall LCWRA caseload expected to rise gradually over the forecast, by 2029-30 this means that 73 per cent of the LCWRA caseload is estimated to be pre-April 2026 caseload, and the remaining 27 per cent is estimated to be new claimants receiving the lower UCHE rate. The savings in 2029-30 are nearly six times as large for individuals in the latter group (because they receive the halved UCHE award) as the former, demonstrating the sensitivity of these ‘stock’ vs ‘flow’ shares for the estimated savings.

There are several potential behavioural responses to this policy, all of which are uncertain. We provisionally estimate that behavioural responses reduce the static saving by £0.4 billion through four channels: 

  • Fewer UC claimants after April 2026 will undertake a WCA and flow into the LCWRA caseload in response to the reduced financial incentive, which is estimated to reduce the caseload by around 40,000 in 2029-30 and increase savings by £0.1 billion.
  • Fewer claimants in the pre-April 2026 stock are assumed to leave the caseload because they would lose the higher award and only be eligible for the lower UCHE award for new claimants if they were to claim the UCHE again in future. This increases the caseload by around 30,000 in 2029-30 and reduces the savings by £0.1 billion.
  • Some claimants will also claim PIP in response to the reduced income support provided by the lower UCHE for new claimants. This is estimated to increase the PIP caseload by 50,000 by 2029-30 and reduce savings by £0.3 billion.
  • The equivalent of one month’s worth of claims are estimated to be brought forward into 2025-26 to access the higher UCHE rate before the reduced award takes effect, which increases the caseload on the higher UCHE rate by around 30,000 in 2029-30 and reduces the savings from the measure by £0.1 billion.

 So, the OBR estimate that freezing the UCHE for existing claimants and cutting it for new claims will save £3 billion, but £0.4 billion of this will be offset by existing claimants not leaving the caseload for fear that they would get the lower award if they returned and more claimants also applying for PIP because of the lower level of UC payments.

Other measures

The OBR has not included some Green Paper proposals in its costings because of a lack of detail from the DWP.  This includes:

  • scrapping the WCA
  • the new additional premium in the UC health element for those claimants with the most severe, lifelong conditions
  • more PIP face-to-face assessments
  • a new, single assessment for PIP daily living and UC health element

Impact assessment published

You can download the DWP Impact assessment and the equality analysis from the bottom of this page

You can download the impact assessment from this page.

Headline figures in the impact statement

370,00 current PIP recipients expected to lose entitlement to the daily living component on review and 430,000 future recipients.  Average loss is £4,500 per year. 

2.25m current recipients of UC Health to be impacted by the freeze (average loss of £500 per year – although they will also see a rise in cash terms from the standard allowance)

730,000 future recipients of UC health (average loss of £3,000 per year).

Some 3.9m households not on the UC Health element are expected to gain from the increase in the standard allowance (an average gain of £265 per year).

The vast majority (96%) of families that lose financially have someone with a disability in the household. These families losing out are also estimated to represent 20% of all families that report having someone with a disability in the household.

It is estimated that there will be an additional 250,000 people (including 50,000 children) in relative poverty as a result of the changes to benefits.

Equality analysis

Just 0.1 million families with no disability in the household will lose out, 4% of all those affected.

3.1 million families with some disability in the household will lose out, 96% of all those affected.

Single females are more likely to lose out (1.4m) than single males (1.1m)

Overall, it is estimated that in 2029/30 there will be 3.2 million families – some current recipients and some future recipients - who will financially lose as a result of this package, with an average loss of £1,720 per year compared to inflation.

Savings

A number of measures, such as dropping the Conservatives planned changes to the WCA descriptors and increasing the UC standard allowance will cost the government money.  But the following changes are where the DWP intends to make savings.

Personal Independence Payment (PIP): Change the PIP assessment so claimants must score four points in any one activity from 2026-27 

This measure will require those claiming the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) to score a minimum of 4 points in at least one activity to qualify for a daily living award.

It is estimated this measure will save £4.5 billion by 2029/30

Increase capacity for processing PIP award reviews from April 2026

There will be an increase in the number of PIP award reviews.

It is estimated this measure will save £200 million by 2029/30

Restart WCA reassessments

These reassessments will affect those who were eligible under the ‘substantial risk’ criteria, and those with conditions with a short-term prognosis who may have recovered. 

It is estimated this measure will save £355 million by 2029/30.

Universal Credit Health Element: Maintain at 2025-26 rate until 2029-30, reduce rate by 50% for new claimants from April 2026 and maintain until 2029-30

From 2026-27, the award rate of UCHE will be frozen for existing claimants and new claimants will receive a lower award, set at 50% of the Limited Capability for Work- and Work-Related Activity (LCWRA) rate for 2026/27. This will be frozen over the forecast. 

It is estimated this measure will save £3 billion by 2029/30.

 

 

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    Could you imagine if among the current holders of PIP only 7% have scored 4 points in one descriptor!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 hours ago
    On my last at least 4 wca paper based reports  it said this at the very bottom.... " Restricted Medical" anyone any clue as to why? Does it mean the reports weren't telling me the whole story of their findings or what?. I'd love to know or hear suggestions. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 23 hours ago
    What WCA will be targetted under substantial risk they talk about cancer and high risk pregnancies, but what health conditions do they consider as high risk I have severe epilepsy and have not been assessed since 2018/19 I get contribution based due to my having worked for 20 years I would expect to an assessment, I know I will get another PIP early next year as it due Nov 26 but lost daily living at the last review god only knows what I can expect to face.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Why are disabled people, a legally protected group under the Equality Act 2010, being discriminately targeted in these welfare-reducing reforms?

    They are hiding the discrimination against disabled people behind reforms for NEETS and able unemployed people.

    They are selling these reforms in the media by talking about NEETS and getting unemployed people into work, but the reforms which target disabled people are discrimination of a legally protected group.

    They cannot lump NEETS, jobseekers, and disabled people all together. This is what they are doing in these reforms and in the media.

    The reforms targeting NEETS and able jobseekers should be separated from the reforms targeted disabled people, who are a protected group with a collective legal right not to be discriminated against.

    Disabled people are not the same as NEETS and able jobseekers.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Guys, we are all in more or less the same boat. But at least we are not going into the abyss alone. Whatever we will face in the future, we will all be facing it together. They want to make life harder for us, but we all have each others backs. So replace anxiety with solidarity and continue the Relentless Opposing Pressure (ROP) to these discriminatory reforms.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    The only way proposals are ever stopped is by enough opposing pressure being brought to bear. In the absense of massive, relentless opposing pressure (ROP), they will pass everything. Get Chat GPT to generate a point-by-point counter argument against the green paper reforms, then email it to your MP, and to all the disability rights groups. Only by collective ROP will we stop this discrimination.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 23 hours ago
      @Relentless Opposing Pressure @Relentless Opposing Pressure, @Disabled Rights Movement, yes, I agree. 

      What would be powerful would be if each of us could explain, in detail and precisely, one scenario, or more, with which we are familiar, presenting the facts - financial, physical, practical, psychological - of how changes to welfare entitlement would impact anyone in that scenario. 

      We need to be cool, hard headed and analytical. The range of experience we have could then be collated into the point by point counter argument you suggest.  thread could be set up?), we could build a dossier, which I believe would be difficult for government to dismiss as random panic or isolated cases.

      It would be equivalent to our own specific survey, with no deceitful questions, simply an account of how things would actually work out for various claimants. Perhaps B&W could help with putting the results together, then the whole thing could be circulated to all the disabled rights groups, campaigners, law firms and charities, local authorities, gp surgeries, the government and individual mps. This shouldn't be hard in the digital age.

      So get posting - how will the welfare changes affect you or someone you know? If you are not sure, try to find out from an adviser, or, if the likely effects have not been made clear in the green paper proposals, state your current benefits, the reasons you receive them and raise your concerns as to how you might be impacted by the cuts. The only way we are going to raise enough noise is by combining relentless pressure out of the stark revelation of our individual experiences.

      Can we do it? Well I've made a first attempt in my response to Eric's question below. Not all scenarios contain that many variables, so it won't be nearly that much work for everyone. You've already done a much harder thing telling the dwp how your disability affects you, now explain how you would be affected by the proposed welfare cuts. We can get something together before the green paper so called 'consultation' ends.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    @Eric, your question is critical. Here is my very long failure to answer - it's a work in progress, to which others are welcome to contribute:

    My impression is the government has not addressed your point, so it is something which should be raised when writing to our mps, because if people do not retain pip into state pension age they could lose pension credit because they will not get the severe disability allowance which might be what would have qualified them for pension credit and they would therefore lose the winter fuel allowance and maybe other benefits like social utility tariffs too.

    Someone with full state pension would not get pension credit unless they also got pip and therefore the severe disability allowance which would favourably affect their assessment for pension credit. If their state pension income was just a few pounds over pension credit eligibility they would have lost not only pip (standard daily living - more than £3500/year, but over £5000/year for enhanced daily living), but also the whole of their pension credit top-up (potentially in the region of £4000/year). So a total annual loss of between £7500 and £9000/year. These are the sorts of subtle details which have not been factored in and which need to be brought to the government's attention.

    If pensioners lose the daily living element of pip, at whatever rate, they could apply for Attendance Allowance as an approximate replace!ment, but they would lose the mobility element of pip (standard around £1500/year, enhanced over £3,500/year) because you can't claim Attendance Allowance and pip at the same time. So you have to add loss of pip mobility element to the losses of the daily living element and the loss of pension credit, as well as the losses of winter fuel payment and social tariffs etc, as explained above, even if you were to recover some of those losses if you qualified for some rate of Attendance Allowance. So there would be an important better off calculation to be done there (do you sacrifice your pip mobility element for the sake of a gamble on Attendance Allowance restoring your daily living element?)

    Eligibility for uc health element and the cuts to It are irrelevant to people beyond working age, who should be free of the stress of applying for those kinds of income replacement top-ups. Pip is not an income replacement benefit. It is very damaging to those at or near state pension age to have all this rhetoric around getting people into work. We've already been swindled out of claiming our pensions at 60, and even when we can claim, suddenly, what, we're supposed to get a job?

    I might not have got all the amounts spot on, but at least I understand the mechanisms and the huge potential losses to those over state pension age, greater than anything so far indicated in any impact statement. Reeves, Kendall et al have no clue how the benefit system works, and the people calculating the impact of the proposed cuts in the green paper have barely scratched the surface.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 hours ago
      @sara Thank you for your reply 
      So it looks like they haven't done their homework,, Because like you mentioned if you don't get PiP that leads onto a knock on effect regarding pension credit and social tariffs
      I thought all this was about getting people who can work back into work 
      And not using pensioners as scapegoats to say Look we've lowered the welfare bill
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
     How would I know whether I've been awarded LCWRA on the basis of "Substantial risk"? Do they mention that you've been awarded LCWRA on the basis of "Substantial risk" in the WCA report?

    Are there specific illnesses for which they award LCWRA on the basis of Substantial risk?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Scorpion I need to find this out as well. Surely the answer will be present in the WCA report. We should all request to see a copy of our last WCA report to find out if we were classed as having LCWRA based on having substantial risk. If it turns out that we were, then it means we will soon be reassessed, specifically to try to throw us off LCWRA.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Does anyone know if the change to PiP regarding 4 points on one living ability question include pensioners or just those of working age
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Today Rachel Reeves doing the rounds on national tv denying the government's own estimate of 250,000 people falling into poverty through these welfare cuts.........she claims that although many hundreds of thousands of disabled people will lose their benefits this loss will be compensated by the DWP helping them find new jobs making them financially better off! Where are these millions of new jobs going to come from? Who are these wonderful new employers who will recruit disable people over able-body people? 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    SOrry if this has all been asked before but a friend asked me this and, I can't think. Do people know when the 50 per cent will be cut from the extra amount added to Universal Credit for people on PIP. Will it be in April 2026 or November 2026? Or come into affect when the person is reassessed after they have transferred to UC from ESA.  Asking for a friend who asked me to ask on here.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 hours ago
      @Anon My interpretation is that current people who are only on LCWRA, which is exactly my case, would not be forced to claim PIP. But once the WCA is scrapped and they happen to be called for a reassessment (God forbid), they would be sent the PIP form to fill in and, in result, they would be assessed via the new single assessment which will be based on the PIP assessment.

      What I can't figure out, by the way, is whether they would also be automatically awarded PIP after having passed the dreadful assessment, as they would be only on assessment method.

      Let's keep brain storming, as the DWP are not quite clear in their evil so-called reforms.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 hours ago
      @Scorpion @Scorpion  Thanks for that info. But what about the PIP business? Will LCWRA-only people be forced to claim PIP on the 4 point rule or lose money?

      Are they going to subject existing LCWRA-only people to the PIP reforms at some point?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @Anon I read through the green paper and it's really confusing in places - deliberately so I feel. As far as I can tell no new claims will be put into the LCWRA or support group, but those of us already in will 'eventually' be transferred over to UC. So not in the first round of cuts. Even more confusing is that it mentions a non-means tested element to of UC for people who were on the contribtions based LCWRA. But then it goes on to say that the UC LCWRA will be a 'limited duration' benefit! Presumably then transferring to the means-tested one. I've read it through a couple of times now but frankly it's just made my brain ache. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @Anon "So, if I get LCWRA now, and I am reassessed as LCWRA from next April onwards, I will lose £200 a month?

      And, if I report a change of circumstances from next April onwards, I will immediately lose £200 a month?"

      Cool down. This is not true at all, as it hasn't been said anywhere else.

      Current people on LCWRA will keep their current rates no matter how many times they're reassessed as long as they keep passing the dreaded assessment and keep their award. The reduction of rate will only apply to new claimants, not the old ones who are reassessed. That's what the damn green paper says.

      For instance, the outcome of the WCA has been, LCWRA, LCW, or Fit for work. Until 2017, all people who were on LCW used to receive an extra payment, which is less than what people on LCWRA receive. But since 2017, this was abolished and people on LCW only receive the UC and nothing more. But those who have been on LCW prior to 2017 continue to receive the extra payment.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @axab43 Are you sure this is correct, because I read in the green paper that it says existing LCWRA claimaints will not be affected by future plans to reduce the health element.

      So, are existing LCWRA claimants at risk of losing £200 a month from next April, or aren't they? The green paper says existing LCWRA claimants will not lose money, but you are saying we will.

      HELP!! 😟
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    The Chancellor announced in her Spring Statement on Wednesday (March 26) changes to the welfare system designed to save £5B by 2030. She is targeting cuts to the personal independence payment (PIP), carer’s allowance, and universal credit.

    Government statistics show 800,000 people will miss out an average of £4,500 annually from PIP cuts, a further 150,000 people will lose £4,200 annually from carer’s allowance, and almost 3M will also lose upto £3,000 a year from changes to Universal Credit.

    Is this REALLY a Labour government???!!!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Does anyone know if the PIP criteria questions will remain the same or be changed? 4 points is going to be virtually impossible to get in most of the daily living activities due to the way the questions are worded..
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Junee They probably will delay everything till after November so they can then use the 4 point rule against everyone.

      Why are NEETS, able jobseekers, and disabled people all being treated as the same? The latter group cannot work, unlike the former two groups, and has legal protection against being discriminated against.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Matt This is all so stressful.. my pip review is due in July 26 but I bet they will try to delay it until after November so they can apply the new 4 point rules. So disheartened with it all…
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Junee Don't know, but my suspicion is that the Govt will change the wording to make it extremely difficult to score four points on a daily living activity, and to be worded in such a way that charities/pressure groups won't be able to offer guidance/templates.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    I’m 69 and in a wheelchair because of mobility problems. Therefore not able to work because of age. Does anybody know how the changes versus age are affected?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Anon It could impact claimants of pip, who might not requalify to keep pip beyond pension age, which might cost them pension credit if they don't get the severe disability allowance added to pension credit via pip daily living.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Pensioner It will affect pensioners,  i am pension age but still working part time. I am disabled and don't get UC , never have  but get lower rate PIP daily living which I will loose under new rules 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Pensioner None of this impacts pensioners, only those of working age. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    "WCA are bad and we will scrap them in 2028". Simultaneously: "WCA reassessments will be reintroduced now". So, they don't like WCA for new claimants because of "on-flows", but they do like WCA for existing claimants because of "off-flows". And they are not consulting on this change.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Anon Hi Anon

      You are absolutely RIGHT. These proposals go ahead then ALL will be affected NO matter what the condition and the severity of it. 

      They are NOT consulting on anything

      In my opinion we are being used as scapegoats for their bad management of the public purse as they call it. 

      Thinking we are UNABLE to fight back and indeed by the route they have implemented with Act of Parliament as I have repeatedly stated on this site with NO redress via challenges for Judicial Review for their UNLAFULNESS.

      DJ


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Anon I thought I read in Government chart that the WCA reassessments will start in April 2026. ALso there must be a massive backlog in assessments. I wonder how long it will take to go through them all?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Anon Neatly put, Anon.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Why don't they pilot a Universal Basic Income for those who need it the most: disabled claimants. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @UBI For Disabled People Likely be another 5 years Before we should hear about it whilst they gather more research from those who are already on it if anyone is still on it 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @UBI For Disabled People Like the £10, they consider to be life changing amount for the peasants.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @UBI For Disabled People The problems are: 1, what is basic? UC standard rate?, and 2, who pays for it. 

      Personally I do think there should be a levy on employers who do not employ disabled people - why should the taxpayer be expected to pick up the tab.  It should be employers. And they would employ if the costs of not doing so were to prohibitive.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Somebody please explain to me how 4,400,000 unemployed people can fit into 819,000 job vacancies. I'll wait. Oh, is it because that 819,000 job vacancies will soon halve because of AI? Now I understand. Yes. 4,400,000 unemployed people should compete for 400,000 jobs. The 4 million losers can presumably live in tents and eat pigeons. They have NO SOLUTIONS FOR SOCIETY AT ALL. Everything is only going to get worse. We will all die eventually. That's the only good news.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Matt Self-employment is much harder than working a job. And you are not guaranteed to make any profits unlike a job. And the profits you do manage to make, they take 40% in taxes plus charge you for next years taxes 1 year in advance, specifically to cause you cashflow problems and tank your business. The whole system in this country is designed to screw people. It's a feudalist country with 20% owning everything, 80% peasants.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @DJ Fully agree DJ. We all need to make as much noise as possible about our opposition to these reforms. We need to keep voicing our opposition to this and keep lobbying against this. The only way proposals are ever stopped is by enough opposing force being brought to bear against them. If we don't fight this they will pass everything. Everybody: RELENTLESS OPPOSING PRESSURE.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Kat Good point. Very relevant and it compounds even more how ridiculous and ludicrous these welfare cuts are. This is untenable.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Anon Hi Anon

      I agree that is just how I am feeling right now. 

      This is the HARM that the Green Paper has caused thus far. We have got yet another 2 months of further harm when it goes to white paper and whether or NOT we will have any HOPE with the back bench who will have to vote. Contemporaneously with enough public outcry AGAIN due to the way they have gone about this to make it Act of Parliament as they DAMN well KNEW going down the statutory instrument route that we all would have taken them to Judicial Review. 

      Lords are NOT going to be able to have much of a say as I have also stated on this site.

      Mr Starmer the Historic Human Rights Lawyer KNEW the only chance of getting these reforms started was to act when he did.

      Lets NOT allow them to divide us as it is does NOT matter what level of disability ill-health and what award we get lower or higher end of the spectrum WE ARE ALL GOING TO LOSE. There is NOT one category that IT is NOT going to impact severely upon. IF this gets passed.

      Lets stay UNITED


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Bern400 I think work coaches are going to push self employment a great deal. Even they know, especially in the deprived areas of the north of England, East Midlands and parts of the South West, that there are not the jobs available; those that are will be on min wage, very long hours and require employees to be physically fit.  Where the jobs are located are in very expensive areas, eg Berkshire......
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Hi does anybody know if autism is being removed from the eligibility criteria I work part time and get pip but I’m also autistic artist
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Any estimates on how long it will likely be until the 'Right To Try' guarantee takes actual effect? Are there any details on the length of time following trying work that you will be not reassessed? They say no immediate reassessment, but if you are reassessed 6 months later, then the Right To Try is a scam and does not de-risk trying work, since they will use it against you 6 months later. It's worth nothing unless you are protected from reassessment for at least 1 year. Any details on this subject are appreciated.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 days ago
      @WorkshyLayabout But that's the problem, you won't have the right to try because you will have failed the medical assessment and have been found fit for work, so it's sadly benefit sanctions for us even if we are in pain, labour are heartless 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 days ago
      @Anon What employer would honestly be willing to give an unreliable sick or disabled person a test run for a few weeks when the employer would prefer a reliable healthy person? The "Right to Try" will be a disaster. The sick being forced to try work they can't do; employers forced to employ people who are not suitable; the unemployed unable to get a job because all the jobs are being forced upon those that cannot work. The number of employers prepared to employ the sick and disabled is zero.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Will there be a legal challenge? How can a disability and the various aspects of it score enough NOW to get an award, but not in the future because of the 4 points? If the disability and the effects of stay the same then moving the goalposts in the future won’t make those disabilities go away. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Jan  Hi Jan 

      Exactly where we have long term degenerative conditions already unfit to work then in my opinion this is where the government hope that what they are doing will totally finish us off. 

      We have already been deemed by our consultants and our doctors that this is so. StarmerStal and his acolytes spiel we WILL protect those that are in this category or that category, is just a knee jerk response to WHAT was thrown at him yesterday by certain MP's. 

      NO their changes on this part and that part will NOT change where it is DEGENERATIVE conditions 

      George Orwell's Animal Farm springs to mind It was about Stalin and his acolytes. This is Starmer and his acolytes. 


Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

Over 110,000 claimants and professionals subscribe to the UK's leading source of benefits news.

 
iContact
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.