Labour ministers have resorted to online scam techniques to try to force their PIP and UC cuts through the Commons on Tuesday. And there’s a strong chance that their dubious promise to exempt current claimants from the cuts is, in reality, only a two year reprieve.

But its not too late to for you to try to stop them, as one MP has confirmed.

Blank cheque

Ordinarily MPs would know what they were agreeing to when a bill is presented for its first vote. 

And if they do vote in favour, there is then a committee stage at which a group of MPs look at possible amendments, consult with experts - -such as disability groups in this case – before presenting amendments to be considered by the whole House. 

This process usually takes weeks or, for a bill that will affect millions of people like this one, even months.

There is then a final vote on the amended bill, at what is called the third reading.  But it’s incredibly rare for the government to lose at this stage – the last time it happened was 48 years ago

After the final vote, the bill goes to the Lords, to be carefully scrutinised again.

But in the case of Tuesday’s bill, MPs won’t actually know what they are voting for. 

Because ministers have promised there will be amendments which will exempt all current claimants, but they probably won’t even have been published by Tuesday.

MPs will just have to trust ministers who say that what they are actually voting for – the 4 point rule applying to all claimants – is not what will really happen.

Chaotic few hours

And then, a week after Tuesday’s vote, the entire months long committee stage will be shrunk into a few chaotic hours in front of the whole house, voting on amendments they have barely seen and with no chance to get advice from experts.

And, what is more, the government have applied to have the bill certified as a money bill.  If the Speaker agrees, then the Lords will have no power to change any of it.  Even if they do try, it will automatically be passed without change after one month.

Online scammers

Isn’t this exactly how online scammers work? 

Promise to save you from losing all your money as long as you hand over your account details immediately.  Quickly, quickly.  No time to talk to anyone, don’t hang up the phone, do it now or it will be too late. You’ll lose everything.

And yet, in reality even if the PIP cuts are put into law this month, they don’t actually take effect until November 2026. That’s sixteen months from now.

So, why can’t they be properly discussed and put into a separate piece of legislation next year?

Unless Labour have things to hide.

Labour’s dodgy promise

Labour’s promise to exempt all current claimants from the PIP and UC cuts may not be all it seems.

Kendall’s letter says that in relation to PIP, “The new eligibility requirements will be implemented from November 2026 for new claims only.”

But she says nothing about what happens in 2028, when disability minister Stephen Timms has finished rewriting the PIP eligibility criteria and the new rules are put into law. 

Labour says the new PIP rules will be coproduced with disability organisations.  But who honestly believes those groups will be given a veto on anything, especially with the government determined to cut costs?

So, if Timms decides that the four-point rule is a good one and should stay, then under the terms of Kendall’s letter, it will apply to current claimants from 2028.

Kendall also says “we will adjust the pathway of universal credit payment rates to make sure all existing recipients of the UC health element . . .  have their incomes fully protected in real terms.”

But she doesn’t say what will happen in 2028, when the work capability assessment is abolished and only claimants with an award of PIP daily living component are eligible for the UC health element. 

If current claimants are not exempt from this change as well, then 600,000 who don’t get PIP daily living will no longer have their income protected.  And if the PIP four point rule is also incorporated in the new PIP assessment from 2028, then hundreds of thousands more current claimants who don’t get four points, will lose their health element when they lose their PIP.

Contacting your MP will make a difference

Now, none of this may be what ministers intend.  But MPs voting on Tuesday won’t have a clue what they do intend, because the whole process has become a chaotic shambles – in spite of the fact it has the power to plunge hundreds of thousands of disabled people into poverty.

So, please consider contacting your MP and asking them to vote for a planned Labour amendment – which, ironically none of us has seen yet – which will give MPs more time to consider the cuts.  And if that fails, then vote against the bill in its entirety.

You won’t be wasting your time.  There are still rumoured to be 50 or 60 determined Labour rebels, with many more unsure what to do.

And, as one MP told the BBC yesterday,

"it shouldn't be underestimated the potential effect of a weekend of emails from constituents, constituency surgeries etc".

Let yours be one of them.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 hours ago
    What's the likelihood of this bill being passed next week?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Pens
      I don't know, I haven't seen a list of MPs who are members of the group. A few MPs have gone public and said they're still voting against - I'm assuming they are part of this group though I don't know that for sure. 

      It really depends on how many other MPs outside this group are either still intending to vote against or still unsure which way to jump and therefore persuadable. The government is saying they have peeled off enough rebels to win the vote. Whether that's true or just propaganda meant to discourage MPs from rebelling is hard to say.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 hours ago
      @tintack Although only one rebel Labour mp has confirmed they now are supporting the bill so far

      And one paper has a quote from an no saying only a handful of the rebels have jumped ship

      Of the confirmed 126? Known named Labour rebel MPs we need about 75% to carry on rebelling (there could be other Labour rebels that are keeping their position quiet so not to get hassled by whips?)

      It’s been about 48 years since a government bill was defected at the second reading - it was always going to be an uphill battle

      I personally can’t call this vote - could go either way at this point
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 hours ago
      @tintack which 50 MP's
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 hours ago
      @YogiBear
      It's looking likely to be passed, but it's not certain. Around 85 Labour MPs would need to vote against, assuming there are no abstentions (though there could be some). Reports suggest there is a WhatsApp group of about 50 Labour MPs still intendng to vote against and there are said to be others who are still unsure how to vote, so the government hasn't got this in the bag yet. This quote from an MP:

      "it shouldn't be underestimated the potential effect of a weekend of emails from constituents, constituency surgeries etc"

      suggests it's still worth e-mailing MPs before the vote. It could be very close.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @YogiBear That's what we all want to know. All I can advise is for everyone to contact their MP, sign & share petitions and try to stay strong. Sorry I can't give you a clearer answer. Hopefully we will all have a better understanding soon. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 hours ago
    Keeping the fight up to the bitter end. I might be frigile, but I'm also obsessive and stubborn. This bull shine dominates my thoughts every day, but it just makes me more determined. 😔🤣
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I understand why people are against taking the concessions, but I don't think people have necessarily thought through what that might mean.  So, forgive me for being blunt.

    At the moment, the concessions would stop 375,000 current claimants from losing their benefits by the end of the decade.  It would also prevent anyone who starts their claim over the next 18 months from having to be under the 4 point rule, as they would be current claimants by November 2026.

    But what are the alternatives?  Well, basically for the whole bill to be voted down.  But people are very naive if they think that's the end of it.  

    Most likely, a new bill with new cuts would be introduced in the autumn.  These cuts aren't going to go away.  And while the new bill might not be quite as harsh as the current unamended one, it most certainly would not be as "generous" as the concessions we are offered now.  Many of the 375,000 would still lose their benefits.  Can you live with that?

    If a new bill isn't forthcoming, there's even the possibility that THIS bill returns, unamended, and tied into the November budget, where it would get voted through because a budget is basically a confidence vote. 

    So, while it might turn your stomachs to see the concessions for 375,000 current claimants and those in the system by November 2026 to be voted through, the alternative is quite possibly going  to be worse, where nearly EVERYONE could still lose their benefits - including future claimants.

    So you have a dilemma: do you look after those 375,000 people, prevent them from going into poverty, and also those who apply within 18 months?  Or do you gamble everything, knowing full well that EVERYBODY could be worse off?  And for those saying "we shouldn't ignore the new claimants of the future," are you willing to risk the welfare of 375,000 people to follow your (albeit commendable) ideology? YOU might be willing to take the risk, but have you asked the other 374,999 people on benefits what they think?  These are 375,000 real people whose lives you are playing with.  

    The PIP form review is where we can fight for a fair form and rules for everyone.  The bill that is forthcoming, dealing with the changes to LCWRA eligibility is another place where we can fight for new claimants.  But, at the moment, I say "stick" with the current offer rather than saying "twist" and risk losing absolutely everything for everyone.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @SLB I agree. Take the win. If too much was gained, it would immediately become a manifesto issue for tories or reform to completely distroy pip unless you had first degree riga mortis!

      The key here is that it’s shown there isn’t a majority for bashing disabled people. The books need balancing with someone else taking the pain.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @SLB It would also prevent anyone who starts their claim over the next 18 months from having to be under the 4 point rule, as they would be current claimants by November 2026.

      What is the evidence to support this?

      But what are the alternatives? Well, basically for the whole bill to be voted down.

      This would be the outcome we’ve been fighting for from the start.

      The PIP form review is where we can fight for a fair form and rules for everyone.

      How likely is this - given that the intention is to make cuts?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 hours ago
      @HL Hence the scammer comparison.  It’s making government policy by manipulative social engineering. 

      Vote them out.  Not fit to govern.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 hours ago
      @D My husband’s review is also early Jan. it angers me when I hear Timms talk about the majority not being up for reassessment for a few years- as if it’s ok for those who will be reassessed sooner to be sacrificed.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 hours ago
      @SLB @Slb That's the government's cynical reckoning - that the rebels will be too tired to scrutinise the latest offer.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    YES we do have to think about those who will come after us.

    Children will still be born with disabilities and life-long ill health (close your eyes and picture that mother and father right now being given that news )
    Road traffic accidents will still happen disabling and deforming people for life (close your eyes and picture those people right now)
    Someone under the age of 21 can be healthy on a Monday but then on a Tuesday have a life-long condition diagnosed. (close your eyes and picture those young people now being given that news and having that youthful sparkle in their eyes extinguished)

    Do you recognize those children, those adults, those youth. YOU SHOULD we were/are them.


    This Governments pathetic 'last minute' concessions are NOT ENOUGH

    Besides as in my previous post. Can we actually TRUST them to stand by their word that it will NOT affect existing claimants they will have reassessments rushed through and they will change the goalposts. 

    WHERE IS IT WRITTEN IN THE AMENDMENTS/CONCESSIONS. IT IS DAMN WELL NOT!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 hours ago
      @SLB You are falling for divide and conquer. 

      Don't be manipulated. 

      Labour has showed itself not fit to govern with this bills presentation and their sham concessions. 



    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @SLB https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/budgets

      “A government could be defeated on a specific budget resolution or on a vote on the subsequent finance bill. The effects of this on a government would depend on the specific vote that they lost.”

      It’s damaging enough for a gov to lose a commons vote on a bill they introduced - but doing some research not being able to pass the budget/financial bill would probably topple the government 

      Honestly if the pip/uc bill gets voted down on Tuesday it would be political suicide for Labour and reeves to risk a repeat backlash in the autumn budget.

      I apologise for saying the following but fear seems to be affecting some on this site ability to see straight and reason logically - I’d advise those shouting ‘deal’ to take the weekend off away from the internet and do something nice solo or with loved ones

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 22 hours ago
      @D2 Children do need to be looked after, and hopefully that can be done via an amendment.  

      I understand the noble thought of wanting to fight for adults who will be disabled in the future - but have the adults who will be disabled in the future fought for us?  In most cases, no.  

      And nobody is saying we shouldn't think about the future claimants - but are you willing to risk the lives of 375,000 current claimants to do it?  Do you have their permission to gamble on their behalf?

      If this bill doesn't go through with the concessions, we could be facing a different one in the autumn - or, worse, this one without the concessions brought back and tied in with the budget, where it will be forced through without doubt.  

      That is why the concession has to be accepted - save the people we can save -  and the welfare of future claimants should be fought within future bills - and there are several to come.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 23 hours ago
      @D2 Today's ordinary people and tomorrow's unborn children will lose their safety net with this government. Don't have a work related accident, don't have children who have deformities or major illnesses, and don't expect this so called unprogressively government to help you with a a proper safety net for you, your family, and your friends. This government is dismantling all your protection right from under your feet! Rise up and protest as they use your contributions to deny you your safety net!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    'Olivia Blake dismisses Starmer’s welfare bill changes as ‘plucked from the air’ and urges rebels to stand firm'

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/28/disabled-labour-mp-olivia-blake-welfare-bill-u-turn-starmer
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Disabled Labour MP says welfare U-turn would create ‘unethical two-tier system’
    Olivia Blake dismisses Starmer’s welfare bill changes as ‘plucked from the air’ and urges rebels to stand firm

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I read this and thought well we are being goverened by a lawyer and so what I read has not surprised me.  I have emailed my MP but as he is a conservative I doubt my comments will cut much ice.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Starmer ,Reeves ,Kendall  & Timms need to resign with immediate effect they and each one of them are incompetent running office and just maybe and only maybe the Labour Party might actually achieve something after wasting a year of being in Government therefore, we must never forget what they have put us through in the last three months.
    Until another day we have to fight for what we are as individuals real people as I like to say…
    And I’ve said this before- the government and the other political parties too should be NOT always be looking down on the vulnerable and the poorest of society but, UP to the resilient and richest of people who have for decades had it so good and a little more tax of their selfish wealth would help this economy far better and much less hassle for the better of this country.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1257987772358855&id=100044429319599&set=a.482963379861302.
    Richard Burgon will be presenting his petition against benefit cuts to parliament on Monday. Still time to sign and share 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Richard Burgon petition. Still time to sign.https://act.38degrees.org.uk/act/tax-the-super-rich-0924
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 hours ago
      @Cuckoo21 Who's with the one down on here? Why is my trying to help all of us a thumb down? Ok. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I just wish I knew which MP's have changed their minds. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Cuckoo21 a list if the mps who changed tgeir minds would be helpful
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 23 hours ago
      @Cuckoo21 Meg Hillary but I hope she realises she has been played
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    A lot of the focus of the criticisms of the PiP UC concessions package has been understandably on the iniquity of a 'two tier' system and the fate of people newly signed up to PiP or a health related UC.

    But I think that there also significant potential and very serious detriments to legacy cliaimants.  What happens when people have to notify DWP of a 'change in circumstances' or a change in their condition? Both of which claimants are required to do, and can face sanctions if they do not.  
    As I understand it people curently on PiP and/ or a health related UC will be protected when they face a routine review of their claim. All PiP or UC awards are time limited and at the end of the award period claimants face a review.  
    Liz Kendall is saying that they that they  will be assessed using the legacy criteria I.e not subject to the new 4 points rule. 
    But at the moment if you notify DWP of a 'change of circumstances' which can be as little as a change of address or notify them of a change in your health condition you face 

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    on our X account 

    MPS should not trust a woman who is odd enough to have a "dream Job" ambition of running the DWP, a man who walks around collapsed women to exit a place quickly to avoid TRUE scrutiny and A PM trying to ram through months of stages of a bill in a day avoiding the lords & examinations. #TakingThePIP #LabourLies stand your ground and vote this bill into the gutter where it belongs #falseconcessions #sneaky #StarmerOutNow

    they need to wake up fast keep playing games with people's lives and heads.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 hours ago
      @godgivemestrength For the record, Kendall went to work the other day wearing a £5,500 watch. That's how out of touch she is with reality.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @godgivemestrength It is creepy. Especially as she would have encountered plenty of people in her constituency who needed help or were disabled before she got her current role. So she would know what the consequences would be with these cuts.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 23 hours ago
      @nightcity/TVGR Radio Sussex @nightcity/TVGR Radio Sussex So right about Kendall - why? With all her millions, why? it's warped. She should be doing something philanthropic.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Just my tuppence worth. Firstly: As an existing PIP claimant, I’m alright, Jack, but I can’t in good conscience support a bill that fails those who will need support in the future. As many others have said, this is divisive and unfair. Secondly: One has to remember that almost nobody - working or otherwise - is “safe” beyond the immediate future. A wealth tax is really the only way to address the concerns and resentments of the working poor/middle class and perhaps prevent vastly more pernicious elements from attaining power. This govt is highly unstable and out of touch with the concerns of its constituents, which isn’t good news for anyone. Hopefully something better will be tabled. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I have written to my MP. I am so confused with regards to new style ESA (contribution based) current support group claiments with what's happening & when. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @Kevin. Hi Kevin

      If you have already migrated across to UC or first needed benefits when UC was in place then I doubt you will have any problems.

      However, if NOT then you will NOT know until you are managed migrated across whether you are totally fully on Income Based ESA support Group or if historically there is any history of you once having either earned or received Incapacity benefit with Class 1 National Insurance Contributions. 

      I do NOT know in all honesty. I only KNOW what has been thrown at me and still being thrown at me during this migration from ESA (support group) to UC.

      On all of my annual letters from ESA it stated 'Income Related' as such when the migration started to go through a CAB advisor went through it all and at 1st there NO mention of this was contribution based ESA!

      I am managed migration across in the support group with ESA

      Then one CAB advisor (I know her name I will NOT enter it on this site) but for some reason I happened to mention (in general about the transition years and years ago) from Incapacity Benefit. IT WAS HER WHO 1st MENTIONED ABOUT IT! 

      However, at 1st with other CAB advisors it was still treated that I was on Income Related ESA when reading out my annual ESA letters. 

      Then during the ID process with DWP for the migration the DWP employee stated that it was on their systems that I was being migrated across to UC with 'dual' 'New Style ESA' and UC'


      Then I was informed it is because I have historic Class 1 contributions!

      I was/am never going to get better!

      As such, allegedly, that is where the Transitional Element enters into the equation as we are going to be worse off by being migrated to UC so we are being migrated across, ALL OF A SUDDEN with contribution ESA (historically attached) changing it into 'New Style ESA' with UC!

      This has then with others, actually on this site, then culminated in issues with Council Tax! When that starts to go through with the migration. 

      Therefore, I went into this FORCED alleged 'managed migration' as the letter came through that I had to migrate. Obviously within 3 months of the date of the letter. 

      I did at 1st question it, as something was stuck in the back of my mind about at one time being on contribution based Incapacity Benefit. 

      This is what has culminated with myself and it appears others and those others now realizing it as they RUSH and accelerate to get us all moved across to UC on a demand managed migration letter. 

      When asking the CAB as others on this site have and MP'S they HAVE NO ANSWERS TO THIS when it is becoming more and more of a common ISSUE as this Government, are accelerating everyone across to UC by the end of this year now. 

      Therefore, we ask direct questions then we do NOT get direct answers, because they do NOT seem to know exactly! Perhaps because we possibly, truth be told NOT been migrated across at this stage. But at a later stage where the answers and their systems were equipped to handle this!

      However, Starmer, Reeves and Kendall ramped it up and accelerated it! Finer details, NOTHING there for us to rely on! 

      Sorry I could NOT have been anymore help. 

      However, I genuinely hope, that it is NOT going to apply in your circumstances!

      It is sending stress levels through the roof!


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 hours ago
      @Kevin. It’s income based that has morphed into new style. For some reason. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 hours ago
      @D2 This dual element is interesting and worrying.  There seems to be little to no information on why they are doing this. Welfare advisors also seem to be in the dark as to how people formerly claiming income related ESA are suddenly being declared as  new style  ESA contributions on forced migration. 

      Agree with the rush rush - why do this? More social engineering? Sowing confusion- exploiting ignorance - mendacious intent? 

      It seems all out of control or rather DWP up to their usual tactics with full government backing. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 hours ago
      @KT Me too! No.mention of us being protected like current PIP or UC claimants despite the fact they originally put us on contributions based because we were in most cases born this way and not going to get better! They seem to have decided that we will be just fine on zero income because we are just a resource drain anyway...
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @D2 Is it the same for income based ESA based support group migration to UC? Or is it just a problem with contributions based ESA? 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I still need to fill in the Consultation.  Can anyone give any advice on how to fill in or possibly share some of their responses?
      
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    What has never been explained is this: if the PIP assessment is the gateway to UC Health, who then gets PIP? Because the “severe conditions criteria” only apply to getting UC Health on a permanent basis as you’ll never be well enough to work.

    Therefore, who will get PIP and what is it for?  Is this omission paving the way to abolish PIP? It certainly smells like that to me,
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 hours ago
      @Yorkie Bard Same boat as you and your wife - only I am 14 years younger than my husband. And at 62, he has already outlived the span of both his parents who died in their early 60s ... I the birth injured one ( twice) must surely be able to find work so he can retire ...
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 hours ago
      @Yorkie Bard What was this comment in relation to please? Wondering what stops at 66 since my husband is my carer and 14 years my senior apparently he wont ever be able to retire as he cannot claim his pension until I reach pension age when he is 80!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 22 hours ago
      @James James - there is & I was claiming until I got to 66 - then it stops! 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 22 hours ago
      @Yorkie Bard
      @Yorkie Bard God give me strength! And you, and you wife 🫂
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 23 hours ago
      @Yorkie Bard Actually there is a carer element to ESA which may still be there.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Ive copied and paste these questions to my MP too. He never votes against the government but I've done my best these past few weeks in sending emails, and having a long conversation on the phone.

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    In my opinion the alleged concessions have NOT been put in writing. Last minute shambolic attempt for Starmer, Reeves, Kendall to still rush this bill without proper scrutiny therefore, I do NOT trust them to deliver on their last minute attempt to bribe the rebel MP's with these latest concessions they propose. That existing claimants will NOT be subjected to the 4 point rule. 

    How can a 2 tier system work? It cannot!

    This is yet more trickery and bribery. In my opinion. 

    Leaving loose ends to be written in later the small details being left out with the frenzied rush by the Government to get everything through. 

    We have or most of us have experienced the migration from ESA to UC whereby AGAIN different claimants falling into different categories of how the transitional element of UC protection is made up AGAIN finding out that you have contribution based ESA topped up with income related premiums. Just one example of how things were NEVER clearly explained or NEVER entered into legislation. Causing shocks to claimants even, with the managed migration from ESA to UC to be informed, that you have contribution NI attached to your claim as such more confusion to claimants and this rush, rush and details being missed.

    Those on LCWRA ESA who do NOT claim PIP again this rush, rush full details of where they stand being missed out.

    Then, people on this site being faced with shocks during migration with ESA to UC with their council tax. AGAIN because of this rush, rush and details being missed out. Then threatened with baliffs if they did NOT pay the council tax added on by THEIR ERRORS not the claimants! AGAIN this rush, rush, culminating in the small details, being missed!

    Therefore, have we all NOT had enough to sort out thus far over the small details NOT historically being made clear/included?

    In my lifetime this current Government has been the most slippery sly oppressive, cruel and inhumane to date so I think that the small details, the finer details DO NEED TO BE DRAFTED IN NOW. 

    As it is the lack of the finer details NOT being finalized that will cause the shambolic chaos further down the line. As such if this passes a money bill we WILL NOT have case  law to fall back on.

    Timm's installing of arrogance within his staff where they are NOT always correct because of this rush, rush failing to understand that claimants migrating in across in the support Group on ESA that status migrates with them so NO work commitments but then making demands all because of this constant rush, rush 

    To me it is suspicious and we have NO guarantee without the details being drafted in NOW that they will stick to their word. 


  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Amanda Akass from Sky News says Labour MPs planning to rebel on the welfare bill next week have set up their own WhatsApp group. She said it already has 50 members.

    One rebel tells me a 50 strong Whatsapp group has already been created for Labour MPs who are still planning to vote against the welfare bill - “so it’s perfectly plausible we’ll get back to bill killing numbers over the weekend” @SkyNews

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Kevin. One MP said it was only 'a handful' of MPs who WERE happy with the concessions. That's not to say all those who are unhappy will vote against (by any means), but I think it does mean that more MPs than are in that Whats App group will. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Gingin Is 50 enough? I thought that even when it was nearly 150 rebelling against it it still wasn't enough. It all seems to be futile and Starmer has won as the Tories are most likely to vote for cuts. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Gingin Wouldn't that be nice? Hopefully this 'u turn' has enraged the tories so much that there isn't a hope a single one will for it. I have no idea if they are all expected to vote the same way or are allowed autonomy. 

      I can't see how an MP with half a brain can reasonably vote for this. Just seeing how rushed it is should raise major concerns.