News

@Cookie While no sitting Labour PM has ever faced a leadership challenge. Labour PM have resigned when the writing is on the wall. No Labour PM has ever been as unpopular as Starmer and Labour never so low in the polls. If there was a general election today Labour would come 5th place winning only 63 seats. That is 349 Labour MPs forecast to lose their seats if they loyally follow Starmer rather than get him to resign or oust him in a leadership contest. And that is just the average forecast. The May local elections are likely to make this situation blatantly apparent to Labour MPs. 

@Cookie @Cookie I don't know about that, but my point was not about the likelihood of a leadership contest, it was to say that a new leader would, in all but exceptional circumstances, have stabbed the previous one in the back, and that we can't expect a new leader to stick to the policies of the one they rep!ace.

Nor can we, cynical though this may seem, rely on any party to honour its manifesto,. any more than we can expect an estate agent to represent accurately the properties they advertise.

@keepingitreal Their won't be a Labour leadership challenge,their never is with them that's wishful thinking.whether we like it or not we have got another three years of Starmer.

@John No, @John, I absolutely do not think the list genuinely reflects what Starmer believes. I repeat, the grander the promise the larger the pinch of salt with which it should be taken.

If you don't think Starmer believed it then surely that bears out what I saId in reply to @James - that it is inevitable a leadership challenger will stab the incumbent in the back, and cannot be expected to see through the pledges of the deposed candidate.

That list is some mighty promise, which Corbyn could never have fulfilled, even if he was genuine, and which Starmer had little intention of delivering.

It's campaign talk, they're politicians, it's what they do.

@keepingitreal Do you think the list genuinely reflects what Starmer believes. And now being PM with a massive Labour majority he somehow finds he is unable to enact the policies he believes in.

Or like many think Starmer misled the Labour Party membership to gain power. Then consolidated power in the Labour leadership. Purged the party of the left. And shifted the party to the right.

Then won the general election due to how unpopular the Conservatives had become, and the right wing vote being split. Despite Labour getting less votes in the 2024 general election than they did in 2019. And now is so unpopular that if there was an election today Labour according to some polls would come 5th place. 

@John This is where we heading, no health premium, but unqualified job coaches been given discretion to apply exemptions for work activity instead, they succeed in the cuts still, which is all they care about.

I also would agree them targeting mental health if was a reform or tory government, but given the 4 point proposals made by Labour on PIP, Labour do seem to have a problem with physically ill people, as evident in the Blair era as well.  I dont think Labour will specifically target mental health.  

@John Thank you John for your thoughts.    Let' shope there  will be some common sense allowed.   

@Ala If they have already been placed in the Severe Conditions Criteria group using the old 2017 eligibility criteria (expected to be LCWRA for life). They would remain in the Severe Conditions Criteria group.

If they qualify for the exempt group (by which I assume you mean LCWRA) on safety grounds they would still get LCWRA. And so have no conditionality. It is only the eligibility for Severe Conditions Criteria group that has been changed not the eligibility criteria for LCWRA. For LCWRA it is the amount of money for new claimants that has been changed. Pre-existing LCWRA claimants are protected from this drop in money.

No one knows what will happen if as planned the WCA is abolished in 2028/29 and replaced by a new PIP assessment system. Presumably due to the unpredictability of when they will suffer altered or loss of consciousness or temporary paralysis, they might qualify for PIP daily living and so UC health. Due to the potential danger of undertaking tasks. And if their health condition is for life maybe get a ongoing PIP award. Which might or might not be used as a passport to Severe Conditions Criteria group.

I maybe completely wrong. But, going by politicians rhetoric and media scapegoating. I think any changes to the WCA substantial risk criteria when it is replaced by a new PIP assessment system will be designed to target people with mental health conditions. I think the evidence of risk might be increased and who counts as stable enough to try and move towards and into work changed. And they might also even cut the money of those who still qualify for reduced conditionality due to substantial risk due to mental health. Or even get rid of substantial risk entirely and rely on Job Centre Work Coaches to not ask people to do anything that would be detrimental to their health.   

@Matt I think the idea is non medically qualified Job Centre work coaches would refer people to talking therapies (and also be able to do so for physical therapy) commissioned by the DWP. The therapies would then be provided by a qualified person.

Hopefully it will be voluntary. As if not I would have thought it would be a clear medical ethics violation. The problem is the DWP can already in theory reduce or reject benefit claims of those refusing a medical treatment without a good reason. If it can be assumed they would not be eligible if they had the treatment. And the Conservatives previously made similar proposals where talking therapies could be mandated activities.

@John Never mind genetics etc, mental health problems can never be about the worsening wider environment we are all forced to endure in, can they?! Really, it's always the mother's/parents' fault and then when person concerned finally gets to be adult, it's theirs for failing to see this and correct for this themselves. If it could treat a wide range of neurodiverse conditions, said person likely doesn't have a neurodiverse condition to begin with! Are they about to tell every mental health professional in this country (again) that their diagnoses are all wrong? I think we have a much bigger "crisis of idiocy" of the privileged few decision makers in this country. The wealthier they are, the worse their apparent affliction is. I wonder if any of them, when they one day gain a mental health diagnosis, will automatically and happily accept a secondary diagnosis that their parents are to blame somehow when that time comes? I don't wish for war or civil unrest, but I think this is how everything we came to value as a nation came to be, and is now systematically being destroyed by those in power who seem so disconnected from the increasingly worsening reality of life lived by the masses today.

@John Very useful. Surely this group therapy thing would breach medical confidentiality so who would chair group sessions? Surely not a job coach! And wouldn't any plans such as you describe be open to legal challenges?

@John I wonder what the plan is for after the sessions. A certificate of attendance? A diagnosis? A
qualification? A job, maybe, as a mentalisation therapist? That would work - the practitioners could swap places with the clients on a growing and never ending cycle, until noone knows who is which. Like the pigs and humans in Animal Farm 😲

@Jobseeker Jeff My elderly parents have helped me with it in the past.

@Cookie @Cookie are you able to get a professional service to help you fill the forms out like citizens advice if I get pip in the future I am going to use the nhs autism service for mine these dwp medical reports are all lies anyway so long as you had the correct diagnosis and say the right things should be ok 

@Jobseeker Jeff Got a text this morning from DWP saying my pip review has started and I will receive the forms shortly.

@Jobseeker Jeff I get Pip daily living standard and Universal Credit health element.

@Cookie @Cookie don’t get pip just waiting to see what happens with the changes in next 2-3 years before I decide what to do they can’t cut everybody off so many mental illness from depression autism ptsd bi-polar etc I get uc lcw which is interviews but at the moment they are every 3 months with a work coach and last one was cancelled and before that nobody pestered me for 7 years been quite lucky really 

@Arthur Yes that Mel Stride is/was a particularly nasty piece of work.

@J B Sal I think John has said it will be abolished.I think whichever party gets in their will be cuts.

@J B Sal Planned to. However the PIP side hasn't been finalised until Timms Review reports in the Autumn. Once it had they will confirm if this will still happen at planned. 

@J B Sal It is not certain.

It requires the government to go ahead with the plan it announced in the Pathways to Work paper and parliament to agree to it.

Nothing is certain until legislation is passed by parliament. And even then rollout can take far longer than planned.

If it goes ahead a new PIP assessment system (the details of which are not yet known) would determine eligibility for UC health element. Which would in effect replace LCWRA element.

It is not known what protection if any there would be for pre-existing claimants. 

@John Thank you for that.  That was helpful

@andygo The following is taken from the WCA handbook
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/work-capability-assessment-handbook-for-healthcare-professionals

In 2015, a Court of Session Judgement advised on the meaning of “always” within this descriptor. (See also section 2.3.1.14 – LCWRA Social Engagement Descriptors).

The meaning of “always precluded” has been clarified by this judgement

“Always” does not mean “at all times”; claimants need not show that they fall within the descriptor all the time, every minute, twenty-four hours of every day.

could therefore apply to a claimant whose condition is constant and continuing in its disabling effects, for the purposes of social engagement, albeit with short intermittent breaks in that being the case

Advice should have regard to the need for steady and reliable engagement in social contact for the purposes of work and work-related activity; and be mindful that evidence of some kind of social engagement by the claimant, would not necessarily prevent the descriptor being met.

Social contact where the claimant requires to be accompanied should be disregarded.

@David @David same as me last July I sent off a uc 50 for change of health I wouldn’t expect to hearing anything till later in the year at the earliest on Reddit somebody said the had to wait 2 years before they was called in for a wca reassessment 

@Mara Sorry, I did realise minutes later and asked for this to be removed.... but the site doesn't allow you to remove it so you have to hope!

@Chips and gravy True

@Neil Are andrea and neil the same person? I'm confused by the responses indicating a response to someone who hasn't commented in the subthread?

@andrea The DWP has previously left people awarded LCWRA alone because they have no conditionality and sanctions regime. Claimants are not required to do anything so there was no reason to contact them.

They are not required to do anything because they have been assessed as effectively incapable due to disability or chronic illness of any and all forms of paid employment and also incapable of any appropriate activities toward work. So there would be no appropriate jobs and no appropriate activities towards work the DWP could inform them of. Making contact pointless.

Also, due to the nature of their disability or illness in some cases engaging with them maybe difficult or impossible or detrimental to health.

Previously it was left up to LCWRA claimants to contact the DWP if they wanted help towards or to get a job. After all there could be exceptional situations where they could do a job with support.

Now it seems the DWP thinks it is OK to hassle people they have assessed as not capable. Because politicians have decided that claimants are being told they are not capable when they are.

For example last year all LCWRA claimants in some areas were contacted to ask them if they could voluntarily come to the jobcentre for a chat about working in construction, hospitality or the care sector. This would not have previously been done. As it would have been viewed as inappropriate to the point of being ridiculous. But, now somehow it is acceptable. 

@andrea @andrea because lcwra claimants are never expected to work ever again and are in the high category wca criteria so they are left alone for now because as you might of heard their are some changes ahead in next couple of years where by might not be disabled enough to get uc health in future 

@John Let’s just be grateful it’s all easy to understand. Nothing really confusing there

@James  Income related ESA is closed to new claimants and all existing claimants are supposed to be transferred to UC

Contributions based ESA is closed to new claimants and all existing claimants are supposed to be transferred to New Style ESA.

New Style ESA is not being reduced.

New Style ESA single age 25 or over £95.55 + Support(LCWRA) group £50.35 = £145.90 a week paid two weekly as £291.80 ESA. If they also get UC then New Style ESA is deducted from UC (£145.90 ESA a week x 52 weeks a year)/12 months a year = £632.23 a month deducted from UC.

UC is being reduced for new claimants.

UC single age 25 or over £424.90 + LCWRA pre-2026 claim or severe conditions criteria claim or terminally ill £429.80 = £854.70 UC a calendar month . If they also get New Style ESA then UC is reduced to £222.47 a calendar month.

UC single age 25 or over £424.90 + LCWRA £217.26 = £642.16 a calendar month. paid monthly as £642.16 UC. If they also get New Style ESA then UC is reduced to £9.93 a calendar month.

Note my examples have been worked out by me so should not be taken as definitive. And just include the age and Support Group/LCWRA elements. There are other elements for example UC housing element for people who rent.

@dancer22 Hi Dancer, thanks for your reply.  It was a bit hard for me to understand your explanation.

@James No.
The UC entitlement would remain the same. The amount paid out by UC would change.
ESA is subtracted from UC.
UC entitlement = 500. ESA = 400. UC pays = 100 (500-400). Total income = 500.
UC entitlement = 500. ESA = 200. UC pays = 300 (500-200). Total income = 500.
The LCWRA health element is part of the UC entitlement, different to ESA.

@Chips and gravy I've just read the entry on gov.uk site and it looks like this applies mainly to those who are subject to the reduced £217 amount and also new claimants too, I could be wrong but if you are reduced to getting the £217 amount wouldn't you have been informed of that by now?

@Chips and gravy Thanks for the advance warning!

@Chips and gravy I'm a phone claim Lcwra and presumably it would be in the form of a SMS asking me to call them? I don't have an online journal, I never gave had its always been sms messages to call them and find out what they want 

@Anon.

@Avie The new post Timms review PIP assessment system when it replaces the WCA in 2028/29 will include an assessment for SCC. As the SCC will still exist and those awarded SCC are supposed to never be reassessed. Pre-existing SCC claimants should in theory continue to receive SCC with no reassessment under a new assessment system. But we do not know for sure.

We also do not know what happens in regard to people with ongoing PIP daily living awards who are supposed to not be reassessed for PIP. With no PIP assessment they have no opportunity to be placed into the SSC group. So will they all be passported to it. While this might not effect the money they receive if UC health is treated as a continuation of LCWRA and not a new thing. It would effect the conditionality regime going forward. As LCWRA and SCC look like they will treated differently for conditionality.

What is also concerning that we do not know for sure if from 2028/29 UC health will be treated as a continuation of LCWRA with pre-existing claimants continuing to receive the higher rate. Or if it will be treated as LCWRA being abolished and a new UC health element created with only transitional protection or no protection for pre-existing LCWRA claimants. As that would save a lot of money.

And there is the issue of what if any protection in regards to money and conditionality will be given to people to currently qualify for LCWRA but who will not qualify for PIP daily living under the new post Timms review PIP assessment system.

And the issue of what the Timms PIP review will do to PIP. As they are looking at how the benefit is assessed and the amount of support it provides. So eligibility and benefit amounts could be affected. And they are looking at saving a lot of money by changing PIP to refocus it on the most severely disabled. What if any protection will pre-existing PIP claimants get from any moving goal posts on eligibility and any changes to the levels of support for those awarded PIP.

Claiming incapacity and disability benefits seems to be to be forever at the mercy of a changing welfare system. And impending doom. As even after the changes planned by Labour we then get what? Possibly a Reform or Reform/Conservative government and further massive cuts to welfare. It has been never ending changes and cuts for decades with no end in sight. No peace of mind. Scapegoated and demonised in the media and endless targeted by the government. 

@John

@Skippy I disagree with the idea of two tiers physical impairment and mental impairment. If you mean physical impairment should be paid more than mental impairment.

I disagree with awards being for 10-15 years. I think duration should be based on medical prognosis. And in many cases awards should be for life.

I hope you mean convicted benefit fraudsters not suspected benefit cheats should get prison sentences. And I would only agree with that if tax evaders had the same sentences. Rather than the current situation where tax evaders can make deals with HMRC especially those caught evading huge amounts of tax. 

@Catherine I’m already in poverty!  Have RA, OA, asthma and a total of 13 different health conditions,  I don’t get much in the way of treatment from the doctors because my case is so complex they just don’t know what to do!  I get PIP, ESA (new style) and UC.  Never wanted to go on UC because of the fluctuations in payments.  In reality they have been the same each month.  I have less money to live on than a pensioner on state pension.  If they cut anymore, then I will have to go foraging for food!