News

@Tim Let us go back to 2009! Remember the MPs expense scandal? As soon as news broke out about it I was worried that they would quickly attack the people in order to divert attention away from themselves. It happened Labour introduced ESA and the disabled and sick became the focus in order to turn attention away from that! There had been widespread disgust as the expenses scandal and some MPs choose to stand down from the next election however it was the start of attacking the poor, disabled, and sick and began in the name of reforms, but I did feel at the time it was also a way to turn the public's focus from the corruption in Westminster to scapegoating the sick and disabled. 

@Tim The corruption in the political systems around the world is jaw dropping. 

@Roy Haynes For new claimants the severe conditions criteria group also results in the higher UC LCWRA/Health element. So if the Lords changed the definition so increasing or decreasing the number of people eligible to be in the group. It would not be cost neutral. So would be within the financial privilege of the House of Commons. Also Timms told the house of Commons that the definition in the bill is the same as the one currently used, it's not. But the Speaker could think there has been no change to the definition so the only thing the bill is doing is changing the benefit amounts.

@Roy Haynes No, they can't do that because all managed migrations get, and will  continue to get, transitional protection.   The migration process is happening very quickly now.  There's things to worry about, but I very much doubt that this is one of them.

@Roy Haynes This is my concern atm as I haven't received my migration from ESA to UC yet. The DWP could cease all migration now & say they are catching up with current claimants. We need clarity on this! I'm going to email my MP (Henry Tufnell) & ask him to clarify with Sir Timms if Legacy claims after the deadline are "Protected". 

@SLB They could leave migration to UC after March 2026 and then say you are a new claimant and only get half. They are in control of the timing of the migrations

@robbie You are right robbie it must be confirmed

@Jonno Those assessed as LCWRA are awarded ESA support group. So called because they get unconditional support. Those assessed as LCW are awarded ESA Work related activity group. So called as they can be required to engage in appropriate work related activities.

Any income based ESA claimants not migrated by April 2026 are assumed to be treated as existing claimants if they migrate later as migration is normally treated as a continuation. Which is why LCW or LCWRA status is migrated and any legacy premiums given transitional protection.

Those just on contributions based ESA or New Style ESA look like they will lose out when contributions based/new style ESA is abolished in 2028/29. Unless it is retained as a legacy benefit for existing claimants, which is unlikely. They will lose their ESA, be forced to live off their savings to survive and once poor enough to claim UC be treated as new claimants. Unless the government actually realises how unfair that is and cares. 

@tom It is not meant to! 

@Scorpion You have no evidence for this.  The review has barely started, there is no way that you know it's conclusions or who they apply to.  We HAVE to stop with the habit on here of people scaring the shit out of others based on absolute nothing.

@SLB I agree with you about using the word (Forever) but what I meant is (Now and after Timm's review).

@Scorpion Maybe I am wrong, but at least I have a solid evidence I rely on.

@Matt As I had a look at the conditions that qualify for severe disability criteria in the new bill of UC, I could say that they may make it harder for anyone to qualify for the enhanced rate in PIP and remember that will make them pay less and save a lot of money. 

@CaroA Great to see that you got a letter emphasising the same points I have highlighted in my comment.

@Matt So we’re not allowed to be sick anymore -
Did they give us a date?

@Matt Surely this cannot be right if a worker go,s to his gp for a sicknote after he,s been ill for 7 days and they send him to the job centre or gym the worker still has a job..... but employers won't be insured to drag the employees back to work esp if it's contagious or a risk to his health or others. This pilot hasn't been thought threw. I wonder if this happens to MP or are they exempt. I hope I'm allowed to comment if not I appologise.

@lesley Yes I think you are right, they haven’t thought about the DWP staff in this at all. I think it will be stressful for them too. I do wonder how all this will actually be rolled out in practice. Does anyone know if there is still a backlog in reassessments? 

@rookie I read it on the news on my phone yesterday. 

@lesley If we’re forced into work we could end up with their jobs 🤔

@John Well said John. 

@UC I think the post in question has been misunderstood by a lot of people on here going by the down votes. 

@John Who goes out to work every day? Lord Mackinlay? I think I understand you John. I misunderstood the whole post. It's Lord Mackinlay who has four prosthetic limbs.  Had to look him up.  Thanks John. Well all I can say is good for you Lord Mackinlay!

@UC That is what Lord Mackinlay has said. As rtbcpart2 has pointed out I probably should have made that clear in my post.

Looking at his record as a MP where his election involved breaching financial rules (he was acquitted at trial, one of his campaign activists was found guilty and got a suspended prison sentence). And Mackinlay's time as a MP where he was found to have breached rules on potential financial interest multiple times. The reason he was made a Lord appears to be that he became severely disabled when he was a MP. So in effect he was given a golden ticket of a lifetime of handouts for becoming disabled. And is now getting paid to be a Lord and to be the director of a anti net zero group, a job he would be unlikely to have if he was not a Lord. 

@UC Hi UC I do NOT think John for one minute is being derogatory towards us, himself or the site he is just quoting what the likes of Lord Mackinley former member of the DWP select committee will start blurting out in the Lords! Due to the historic 'vitriol' from this Lord!

@Wayne No I don't believe so.

@Wayne That would be being reassessed I have not seen that anywhere 

@Wayne Unlikely.  Any changes will be brought in as reassessments naturally come around. 

@Wayne From what I can tell, any changes to PIP have been scrapped completely, but I'll wait for someone else to also clarify that!

@David The DWP have restarted WCA reassessments but has a massive backlog and is focusing to start with on those whose conditions are likely to have improved. The government claims it is going to continue ramping up WCA reassessments and will do WCA reassessments right up to the day the WCA is abolished. Which seems stupid and cruel. As in theory someone on PIP and UC LCWRA could have a WCA and lose their LCWRA then the next week the WCA is abolished and they get UC health due to being on PIP daily living element. But are treated as new claimant because they lost LCWRA status for a week and as a result are worse off for life.  

@David A poster on here mentioned that they were currently suspended and uploaded an internal DWP memo on here demonstrating that.

@GLB Have we had any news about the DWP ramping up reassessments for UC claimants in the LCWRA group? For a while the news we were hearing was that these claimants would not be re-assessed again after the end of 2025. Has that changed now for some reason?

@GLB What do you mean we're still screwed? Oh god I hope not.

@GLB Apart from a few brave legends who staunchly argued and voted against it throughout.  The handful of Labour MPs who actually had integrity.  

@The Dogmother No unfortunately I don't think there is anything we can do, not the lord's. They can suggest amendments to the bill but the government don't have to except them because it's a money bill. That is my understanding.

@The Dogmother If my health allows, I’m still going to write to any members of the Lords with an interest in disability.  Not that it’ll achieve anything (just like my emails and voicemails to my MP didn’t throughout the process), but I have to do something.