The government is keeping secret the location of venues for public consultations about the Pathways to Work Green Paper.  Individuals who manage to get a ticket will be informed of the venue by email only after bookings have closed, presumably in an effort to reduce the possibility of demonstrations taking place outside.

Tickets are now available for nine in-person events between 30 April and 24 June in London, Manchester, Plymouth, Leeds, Cardiff, Glasgow, Birmingham and Nottingham.

Reasonable travel costs will be reimbursed for those attending in a personal capacity.

People hoping to get tickets may be greeted by a notice saying the event is sold out or closed, even though it isn’t.  The organisers say that “To ensure we hear from a range of voices ticket releases will be automatically staggered so please check back later. “  There is no indication of what the final date for bookings will be.

There will also be a series of six virtual events.  However, each of these is very limited in scope, dealing with a single chapter in the Green Paper such as “Supporting people to thrive”.

More information and links to booking forms are on this page.

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.
    · 2 hours ago
    Hello all

    Just received the following email from the campaigns department at RNIB. May I encourage as many blind/partially sighted people on this forum to attend. I am very pleased that not only are they going to discuss the changes to UC, PIP, LCWRA etc, but also employability, access to work, and wage disparity between the able-bodied and the disabled (and I should add less opportunity for promotion, which I regret to report RNIB was very guilty off when I worked there).

    From: Campaign Mailbox <Campaign.Mailbox@rnib.org.uk>
    Sent: 14 April 2025 15:33
    To: Leonard, Matthew <Matthew.Leonard@lv.com>
    Subject: RE: WELFARE REFORM

    WARNING: This email originated from outside of LV=. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Please report anything you are unsure of using the button in your outlook toolbar.
    Hi Matthew,

    In May we will be running online focus groups with blind and partially sighted people over Microsoft Teams so we can hear your opinions on the UK Government’s plans to reform health and disability benefits and employment support. Your thoughts will help us to shape our response and campaigning.

    We will be running health and disability benefits sessions on the following days:

    •    Thursday 1 May, 6 to 7.30pm
    •    Tuesday 6 May,10.30 to 12pm

    Topics will include the importance of Personal Independence Payments (PIP), what a tightened eligibility criteria could mean, the rate and age someone can access the Universal Credit health element, and benefit reassessments.

    We will be running sessions on employment support on:

    •    Friday 2 May, 11 to 12.30pm
    •    Wednesday 7 May, 6 to 7.30pm.

    We would love to hear your thoughts on Access to Work, how employers can support blind and partially sighted people in work and disability pay gap reporting for large employers.

    If you would like to find out more or join one of these sessions, please email campaigns@rnib.org.uk and let us know which session and date you would like to join, and if you would find it easier to be dialled in using your contact number.

    All the best,
    Ross

    RNIB Policy and Campaigns
    Our campaigns: rnib.in/Campaigns_Hub
    Campaign news: rnib.in/Campaign_News
    Follow our Twitter / X account: rnib.in/RNIB_Campaigns
    Sign up to receive email updates: rnib.in/eNews
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    Don't really listen to the media but been thinking this to without reading about it  wonder if others have been thinking  labour will lose seats if they don't stop being cruel think it will happen .

    Today's headline the guardian 

    Electoral wake-up call’: dozens of Labour MPs risk losing majorities over welfare cuts.






    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Lill Possibly, and if Starmer had only secured a majority of 12 (as Cameron did in 2015) you can bet the cuts would not be happening. 

      Having gazed into my crystal ball again, I can see the GE of 2029 being one where the turnout will be historically low (just above 50%) and no party having an overall majority. It may be the last time we have FPTP and we may have a very messy coalition government. Lib Dems and Greens could hold the balance of power, although I'm wary of the lib dems (Clegg)
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 hours ago
    Thank you for your email. I am grateful you have taken the trouble to get in touch to tell me about this.

    This is my Parliamentary email address which I use with residents in my constituency of East Ham. Given your email relates to my role as Minister for Social Security and Disability, please can I ask that you re-send it to Ministers@dwp.gov.uk?

    You may wish to copy your local Member of Parliament into the email too. You can find out who this is by entering your postcode here. In the interim, I will tell the team in the DWP to look out for your email.

    With all best wishes

    Rt Hon Sir Stephen Timms
    Member of Parliament for East Ham
    House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA

    Phone: 020 7219 4000
    Web: www.stephentimms.org.uk
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 hours ago
    Things have moved rather quickly for me tonight.  Some of you will remember the open letter that I wrote to Stephen Timms a day or so ago.  I put it on my personal account on X this afternoon (Sunday)  and it has gone nuts.  It has had over 525 reposts, and, as I write this, it has had over 13,000 views.  This is far beyond what I expected - or anything has happened on Twitter/X before when I have posted something.  The only person who hasn't read it is Stephen Timms!

    For those that didn't see the letter, it can be found here:
    https://silentmovieblog.wordpress.com/2025/04/12/needing-help-to-eat-dress-wash-cook-and-use-the-toilet-are-not-low-level-functional-needs-an-open-letter-to-stephen-timms-mp/
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @SLB @SLB I read your letter and it is amazing, I have to say I wrote to Stephen Timms a year or so ago regarding the proposed scrapping of WCA and his response, like my MPs was about as useless as a chocolate fireguard, I wrote on a number of occasions to my MP about PIP and the assessment system, I even met him, but as he was a Tory I got alot of responses taken from the parliamentary library which I already knew about, and absolutely no intention to change anything at all.  He also voted in favour of welfare cuts and getting disabled back to those non existent jobs, but no ideas about encouraging employers to take disabled people, thats if they could or wanted to work, in my experience workcoaches just are not the answer and this is all about saving money at our expense.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @SLB It's worth sharing the letter and any other relevant links to petitions etc with social media pages of the guys from The Last Leg, who have many followers who will be sympathetic to the cause.





      They've all abandoned Twitter/X,  btw.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @SLB Excellent letter SLB thank you 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 hours ago
      @SLB Fantastic!!! I reposted it on Bluesky but have next to zero followers so don’t think I will make much of an impact. Well done SLB. Everyone that’s willing and able should put it on their social media 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 23 hours ago
    I watched a comment  recently no names mentioned and it was implied that unless you go through the UK  Government website other petitions wont be recognised. Do not quote me on that. There is a government petition just short of 10,000 signatures. If that is reached the Government has a duty to respond. Hopefully just the first step.  More  it is important  for all disabled people to stand together and unite as one. We will all be impacted if it comes to pass and I wish with all my heart by making quiet peaceful demonstrations like some members of the disability rights movement or the crucial work done quietly in the background by the Benefits and Works Team who work tirelessly to support and reassure all disabled people of  the reality of the situation. We all have a voice, with important views that need to be heard. I am disabled myself so I empathise with everyone and what they may be going through. We need to stick together and support each other in these uncertain times of adversity. Thank you Benefits and Work and all that contribute to this forum. Your opinion , views always matter and are sincerely appreciated by one and all.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @(No) hope Unless this gets picked up the right wing press (who, with the bankers, run the country) you are not likely to get much a response to a parliamentary petition. Hit the pensioners though.......
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Anon Totally agree. Support legal action and use your votes to remove those who support these cuts. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 hours ago
      @Anon Petitions don't work. The petition site is just a gimmick. The response will just be a refusal comment as always.

      The legal system is our only representation.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @Anon I struggle to grasp the numbers here, when there are some 3.7 million in receipt of pip, and yet we have not reached the 10000 point in this particular petition. Is it lack of awareness of there even being a petition?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Dear Mr Timms,

    I write to you in dismay that you are supporting the green paper proposals on Welfare.

    My husband has a genetic neurological condition which causes his muscles to waste and affects his daily life very significantly in a myriad of ways. I am his carer, as he risks choking or falling when he is alone. I work part-time from home as my current NHS employer is understanding and flexible, but my income is very modest and my role is at risk due to restructuring, so I am likely to end up having to take a job away from home in the near future. As a household, we receive PIP standard daily living and mobility, LCWRA and UC Carer’s Element.

    The current PIP system is designed to exclude rather than include even people with significant health issues like my husband. Despite the picture being carefully and deliberately painted in the media, it is not easy for even my husband’s level of illness to be recognised by this system, and we had to appeal the initial assessment. Introducing the 4 point rule will make it even harder for people who have to fight tooth and nail for the least support. These are courageous and resilient people - they would have to be to overcome a system that is against them whilst doing the full-time job of managing their symptoms. I have seen so many stories of people who score across a wide range of areas but would not score 4 in any. They are severely ill, but under the proposed system would not be deemed to be so.

    This leaves these people in a position where their financial support would be withdrawn, but they would remain unable to work. Access to Work was in BBC News just last week, as companies are owed vast amounts by the government and are at threat of going under. Even sympathetic employers would think twice about employing people like my husband in this context.

    How can it be humane or just to remove financial support from people like my husband in such times as this? Look at the state of the economy and the jobs market. What will people like us do? If I take a full time job, who will care for my husband when there are no carers to be had? Indeed, with Carer’s Allowance being removed from thousands of previously eligible households, professional carers will lose their jobs too.

    If your government were serious about ‘putting disabled people at the heart of everything’ you do, you would 1) want to listen to disabled people’s opinions about the most important elements of the proposals (the elements that are excluded from your consultation) and 2) you would only consider such drastic changes when you were sure there were viable jobs for such people to do (which I cannot forsee in any case, given the myriad of health issues faced by many disabled people like my husband). You and your government can say until you’re blue in the face that you’ll provide support for people like my husband to work. He’ll still fall and he’ll still choke, and he’ll still suffer chronic daytime fatigue.

    We are a Bible-believing, Christian household. You will know that God instructs us to care for widows and orphans - Bible talk for the most vulnerable. What your government is doing is to scapegoat and demonise the long-term sick - among the most vulnerable - and belittle their need for support. As a Christian, how can you support and promote this? I am completely appalled and disappointed.

    Please stop repeating in the media that you care about the views of disabled people. I simply cannot believe it. At every turn, their voices have been silenced. I can only hope and pray that your conscience can be revived.

    Yours sincerely,
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @Gingin Is this same Stephen Timms who said:

      "“I am very pleased to be able to announce today the appointment of new lead ministers for disability in each Government department, they will represent the interests of disabled people, champion disability inclusion and accessibility within their departments.

      “I’m going to chair regular meetings with them and will encourage them to engage directly with disabled people and their representative organisations, as they take forward their departmental priorities.

      And I look forward to this new group of lead ministers for disability together driving real improvements across Government for disabled people.”

      ?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @Gingin Quite brilliantly put, but I fear that Timms has sold his own sorry ass in order to hang on to his job and huge salary, and thus a lucrative pension come retirement.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Reminder that Labour, the Tories or Reform are NOT friends of the disabled. They will do everything to downplay disabilities, to mock the mentally ill, to propagandize lies about the disabled in order to save money. 

    "They got money for wars, but can't feed the poor," - Tupac.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Apparently the government might have to revisit benefit cuts at a later stage,supposedly the cuts won't stop the spiralling costs.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    The pip changes won't include those with Terminal illness. 
    What humanitarians they are. 
    How wonderful. I don't belive what I just read. Are they for real.

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    This whole getting back to work and 'changing behaviour' rhetoric completely overlooks how substantial earnings would have to be to replace what was being cut. Awards such as lcwra and pip are already there to support work, to allow the disabled to participate in the workforce and earn a little on top of their incapacity and disability benefits before earnings are deducted, bringing the dignity the government hammers on about and and the opportunity to afford small luxuries not covered by benefits.

    Removing the incapacity and disability benefits is actually a disincentive to work because apart from the practical difficulties, work becomes unaffordable when earnings reach a threshold where they are deducted from means tested benefits and is profitable only when a threshold largely unachievable for the disabled is reached. I know people who already pay to work, especially where child care costs come into play.

    So yes, let the disabled try work without risk of losing their benefits, but forget the green paper cuts and tinkering with eligibility. As for assessments, capability for work and eligibility for pip cannot be tested in the same assessment, when the costs for personal independence are distinct from, and additional to deciding whether someone can work.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Is it worth as many of us as possible emailing Stephen Timms as SLB has done? I’m also going to keep emailing my own MP. She’s Lib Dem and supportive of us but. I don’t know how high this issue is on her agenda and I don’t want the pressure to fall away 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I was working with the Shaw trust voluntarily to get into work but have stopped this week. I do get enhanced PIP and was using it to pay for physio and counselling but am trying to save most of the money now to give me a small safety net in time for 2028
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I had a question with regards the descriptors in PIP and also the ESA and UC forms. Who decides on weighting the questions and answers ? Is there a medical board deciding on these or are these being decided by bureaucrat and/or politicians? In other words who are the experts and how do they decide on the questions and the points ?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 hours ago
      @James Hi James

      I had a friend decades and decades ago whose mother was severely disabled. All those year ago, when it was the Department for Health and Social Security as such it used to employ DHSS doctors it was ALWAYS registered doctors and indeed some consultants who were employed to assess they would make the decisions. That now seems to be totally a thing of the past. 

      There still had to be evidence from patients/claimants own GP and consultants were given but at that time it was definitely handled by Doctors employed by the DHSS. To do the assessments.

      That ENSURED continuity from start to finish. and clear medical opinions and decisions being made. 

      These days as I have said in my post to Sara below, we, the claimants/patients DO provide the evidence of our medical conditions, from our GP's and consultants etc., and then we are assessed by whoever they employ to assess. 

      Then we state how those conditions impact upon us. (Subjective test). How it affects us, then when it goes to the next stage, I think it is as Sara has identified, DWP employees who total up the points and award the points. For each of the descriptors/activities. As such at that point I think it is where things could be really wrong in this process.

      I KNOW my assessor was actually medically trained as I asked her outright, however, I KNOW there have been some horrific plights where the assessor has NOT got any medical qualifications. NOT even any medical training.

      Therefore, at the stage you are referring to I think it is the 'bureaucrat and/or politicians that make the decisions on the questions and the allocation of the points. Employed by DWP.

      Nowadays, the population has grown so much we are living longer and with that has come other social problems culminating in disability and ill-health that there is NOT the capacity to employ Doctors at the DWP as it to used to be when it was the Department of Health and Social Security. 

      It is now a subjective test, I think this is where some of the arguments are entering into the equation regarding the benefits. 

      Our GP's do NOT have the time to be as thorough as perhaps they should be and indeed if you do NOT acquire a letter from them yourself to accompany any PIP claims sickness related benefit claims then the actual form that can get sent to them is NOT appropriate for them to fill out and of course the way in which some GP's fill them out is NOT always to the benefit of the claimant/patient they do NOT have the time. 

      As such the system has evolved as it has evolved which is NOT ideal. 





    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 hours ago
      @sara Hi Sara

      You are right that at the next level after assessment that it then becomes the decision of the DWP who may or may NOT be medically trained, in my opinion.

       I think they take the information as claimants we provide from our GP's Consultants, etc., then the assessor assess us! 

      We all KNOW or most of us KNOW we have had mixed experiences on that. I KNOW my actual assessor was a medic, because I can clearly recall asking her what her background was. Of which she was taken aback over. 
      This is WHY I have always maintained that to provide them with ALL of the medical information that they require, actual EVIDENCE of what our conditions are with the appropriate medical evidence. 

      Then the assessor assesses you and you provide the information on how the diagnoses and prognoses affect you. (subjective test).




    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 hours ago
      @James This is really interesting it DOES make you wonder where that advice is sought from and undoubtedly over this 4 point malarkey they KNOW exactly who they are intending to target.

      It is Labour's intention to get these proposals through as quickly as possible, NO doubt about their intentions is to go full steam ahead with that. I also think that they fully intend to use statutory instruments (Si's) at a later date within the ACT that they are trying to create, This is yet another deployment of historic relied upon tactics, this IS  exactly what they are intending on doing.

      Then the wording of how they are drafted becomes murky and open to all types of interpretation. Causing even more chaos at a later date. As is so with other Laws.
      As you have identified James in previous posts that if these proposals go ahead it has direct ramifications to the generations that follow after us.

      I have replied to your other 2 posts below over the Salisbury Convention and the understanding you inherently have over disabilities whatever they are. 

      Thank you for always having the ability to see things clearly. To be understanding of everybody.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @James I have found out that the descriptors are done through the statutory instruments of an act ie regulations but who does the secretary of state (Liz Kendall) in this case actually seeks advice from is not very clear and what are their medical backgrounds. I have always felt regulations that are not clearly set out within an ACT is an area of abuse because it does not get the scrutiny of parliament and that such regulations pass through as secondary affirmative and negative instruments and are a way around. Labour has a long history of using SI's and the right to set down regulations at a later time within an act and I have never felt they meet the kind of scrutiny they deserve not just in this case but in many other acts of parliament itself leaving to the secretary of state to create these regulations arbitrarily 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    I saw this news story today and literally has made me very angry that this can happen in Britain 

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/nobody-knows-what-to-do-with-me-what-happened-when-chloe-asked-for-help/ar-AA1C2o87

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Seen something about access to work some employers are not given the money from government  and their being forced to pay for it proof their that alot of companies can't afford to take on disabled people because readjustments cost alot of employers would be forced to pay high insurance aswell as ni that's red flag  if there's no employers willing to hire disabled people where are jobs the government want to push people into also access to work applications taking to long for people even if these cuts go through primary legislation they can still be challenged and they will be these changes may get put on hold think they will go to court and  watered down could see another consultation next year  labour councillors have resigned in some places and some have voted against the cuts elections next month could lose labour loads of seats people shouldnt vote reform Tories or labour they only want power it's expected reform will win next general election that would be bad for this country to.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @James @James 100% this. Plus the Already distressed  NHS will break up totally and sink into the mire. They will never cope with what's ahead should so many lose their pip etc. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @Cecelia Perhaps. But I don't know what else I'm supposed to think when these politicians are demanding we find work and then they are actively neglecting/sabotaging things designed to help us find work because we're at a disadvantage as opposed to the average jobseeker. 

      They want us to work. They even claim they want to "support us into work". Yet the support in question is either nonexistent or it works on the smallest budget. To the point where one is waiting for support for months/years. But let's not report on that. Let's just claim that disabled individuals are making a conscious decision to not work and sit on benefits instead.

      It's just all rather convenient (and cheaper) for those in power who wish to paint us as lazy/ungrateful instead of confronting the overreaching problem which is that a) there are not enough jobs out there and b) we're not living in a utopia where many are willing to employ the disabled.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 hours ago
      @Cecelia Employers have been scaling back WFA for years now. Even if a WFA position is advertised, you can bet that you will still have to physically turn up to the workplace so many times a week just so employers can play schoolteacher and ensure you're actually doing your homework.

      Case in point: I had a friend who took a WFA position around the time the pandemic was dying down. He was in a wheelchair due to numbness on his left side from a stroke he had in university. His old manager was very supportive of him and he was able to become one of the most efficient workers in the company, despite working purely from home. 

      All of a sudden, the manager gets transferred and the new manager decides that my friend working from home full-time does not suit him and demanded that he physically turn up to work. 

      Never mind that it's extremely hard to find a taxi that can accommodate his wheelchair without paying extra. Never mind that by the time he actually makes it to the office, he's much too tired to do any real work. He has to be at this manager's beck and call just because this manager does not want to accommodate him. 

      Three guesses who was the only one in the company who didn't get his contract renewed that year despite his good work ethic? 

      And before anybody says that my friend should've dragged this manager to court for discrimination: good luck proving that because they always have an excuse lined up and ready. The excuse in this case was that my friend worked in security, so the new manager felt it was "a risk" communicating with him purely via Zoom calls. 

      But to summarise: WFA positions are as rare as hen's teeth as it is. WFA positions that promise you lifetime security are rarer still and things can change in an instant if your higher up gets switched out for whatever reason.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Dez That's a bold statement.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Dez Maybe their is a possibility of us working from home.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Just wondering if there are any countries offering asylum to British benefit claimants being persecuted by their own government 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @Quietplease How about the Bahamas? Good enough for the corrupt elite to move their wealth to...
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Quietplease If you want to chance it, there's always Scotland, I suppose. I know it's very likely that the cuts will affect them too due to how their benefits are apparently funded by Westminster but at least the SNP are putting their necks out for their disabled citizens and have openly stated they do not agree with these cuts.

      Me and my mates always joked about moving up there for the free university tuition years ago when we were applying. Really wish we'd done that and stayed there now. It seems like a much kinder system that what we have down here.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 days ago
      @Quietplease Well, I don't think you'll like the benefit systems those countries have as there is a much much bigger emphasis on benefits being contributions based. Basically if you haven't worked, you will get very little. Even when it comes to disability benefits. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 days ago
      @Quietplease Apologies to anyone who doesn't appreciate my cynical sarcasm over an increasingly sensitive and frustrating scenario
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 days ago
      @Quietplease If you find one let me know as I feel exactly the same way about out oppressive government
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    "Rachel Reeves under fire as UK job market suffers worst downturn since the pandemic."

    "Chancellor Rachel Reeves is under growing pressure as new figures show the UK jobs market is in its worst state since the Covid pandemic, with number of people looking for work rose sharply, reaching its highest level since December 2020, according new figures"!


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 days ago
      @Scorpion Just wondered where the statement of being £500 better off came from ? Didn’t Rachel Reeves get it round the wrong way instead meaning £500 plus a month worth off !! 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Over the weekend, I will be sending the following letter to Stephen Timms, and making it public online:

    Dear Mr. Timms,

    Following the furore over Darren Jones and Rachel Reeves’s comparison of the forthcoming disability benefit cuts to “pocket money,” it is with astonishment that I see that you have referred to being unable to cut up food, needing assistance to wash or shower, and needing supervision to use the toilet as “low level” problems that can be dealt with by “small interventions” on April 7. At the same time, you defended the decision to change the eligibility for the Daily Living element of PIP to require 4 points in at least one category.

    The problem with the approach to disability benefits that you, your department, the chancellor, and the Prime Minister are taking is that you appear to be wilfully using provocative language, misinformation, and downright lies in order to persuade the public at large that those of us with problems that are spread over a wide range of daily tasks are somehow not disabled enough to be worthy of a benefit. With this in mind, I have to ask the question of why you have only come to this conclusion since you have been in the party of government. After all, on June 8th, 2016, you voted against reductions in disability benefits when you were in opposition.  The rules were the same then, so perhaps you would be good enough to tell us what has changed your mind?

    But let us return to those “level level” problems, those tiny inconveniences, of not being able to wash, cut food, or go to the toilet. I am sure that I don’t have to remind you that the dozen questions on the PIP form are there for the purpose of deciding whether we should get the benefit or not. Those questions, and the answers we give to them, are not the sum of the problems we have to deal with on a daily basis.

    If we need help with those basic things, it is highly likely that it is because of pain and discomfort. That does not start and end with dressing and washing. It is there for every moment of every day, from the time we get up in the morning until the time we go to bed at night. What is more, you appear to ignore the costs associated with that.

    Let us look at just one example: If we can only use a microwave to prepare meals, one would assume that means eating ready meals. Two ready meals a day is around £8-10. We know that cooking from scratch is considerably cheaper than that (just ask Lee Anderson MP). So, yes, using the microwave is a “small intervention,” but it costs anyone who does that every day probably 50% more than those who don’t have to.

    That’s an extra £28 a week. But you don’t want PIP to cover that? Why? THAT is what PIP is there for – to pay for the things that cost us more because we are disabled.

    I might have some respect for your position if I thought that it was one that you actually believe in, but your previous voting record suggests that it isn’t. I have psoriatic arthritis. I am in pain from the moment I get up in the morning until the moment I go to bed. I suffer from fatigue, as many do who have inflammatory conditions of this kind. Beyond that, I’m taking extra strong codeine three or four times a day that makes my brain foggy and makes me generally tired. And you want me – and others like me – to go to work. My biologic medication costs the NHS £650 every four weeks. Do you really think I would be given it by my consultant if my condition wasn’t severe?

    And my consultant says I shouldn’t work. But you say I should and, either way, you’re going to take my PIP away from me because I’m just not disabled enough. Oh, and when you take that, you’re also going to take my LCWRA UC when the WCA is scrapped because it’s somehow going to cause a “behavioural change” (according to Keir Starmer) and I’ll be able to go to work. What’s more, you are not even allowing those who only get the mobility element of PIP to get that higher element of UC.

    Are you REALLY of the belief that those who can’t walk more than one metre are not disabled enough to get the health element of UC?

    What you are suggesting is insane. It has no basis in reality. The disabled community knows this. The medical profession know this. And the worst of it all is that YOU know this. So does Liz Kendall, and Darren Jones, and Rachel Reeves, and Keir Starmer, and every member of your party who doesn’t have the guts to stand up for those of us that need their help right now.

    What you are suggesting isn’t just insane, it’s insulting. It is patronising, pathetic, and puerile, and it is trivialising what we, the disabled community, have to go through every day of our lives, and through no fault of our own.

    How dare you tell us that what we have are merely “multiple low-level functioning needs” that need a “small intervention,” just because your government has decided that we are collateral damage for your budgetary failures.

    Your position is no better than that of Boris Johnson who thought that Covid was “nature’s way of dealing with old people.” In the future, people will look back and view what you are doing as the Labour government’s way of dealing with the disabled. The results will be the same. People will die. 


    Yours faithfully...
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @WorkshyLayabout Well, good news for those ghouls. Home inspections can be carried out by DWP if you've been accused of benefit fraud.

      Also, you know these people who suggest such things are also the sort that complain and moan about the BBC carrying out home inspections if you don't have a TV licence. 

      Do I agree with that? Absolutely not. But it's strange how what they call "police state behaviour" is all well and good when it's directed towards the sick and vulnerable living on an actual lifeline and not over something that's not even a necessity like a TV licence.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @Anna I read an actual comment (and no, I am not making this up) that the DWP should send enforcement officers round to our houses to check our bins for ready meal containers and take-away packaging to prove that we're not lying if we say we cannot prepared a meal. 

      That's how distrustful some people are of anyone claiming benefits. 

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @SLB Odd, because the link I provided takes me to a page I can see in its entirety. It's not in my nature to pay to read articles on websites. However if I open up one of the links, that new page will ask for money. 


      But, msn has come up trumps again.


      (Timms also opposed Tory plans to spy on bank accounts, yet has since flip flopped. It's a Labour policy - dontcha know!)


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @SLB Maybe Stephen timms can come round and strip wash us.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @WorkshyLayabout I've only had jobs that I've originally got rescinded due to them not wanting to work with a disabled person (even after knowing I was disabled before hiring me) I had to sue and they were government body who were apparent on the Disability Confident employer's list.
      I have often had to lie about being disabled to get a job and put in so many dangerous positions as a result. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    "The most harmful proposals are being introduced instead in the new government bill, without any consultation." - From DNS. Legal action against primary legislation leads into mirky waters, most of the main legal actions will be taken against the Green Paper/White Paper.

    It's hard to take Primary Legislation to court, if it's a money bill then the Lords can't amend it, Starmer knows this and that's why he's doing it. 

    Labour sees the cuts sans Green Paper as a "halfway house" because they knew legal advice and or action will be taken. Labour, Reform and the Tories are NOT friends of the disabled.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 hours ago
      @James Hi James

      I HOPE that you are RIGHT

      However, Starmer DID raise it as a money bill, in his elective. As such the Lords are restricted they CAN and they have recommended that it be left at the moment,  which was the last I heard, of which Lords, DO have the power to do for up to 12 months.

      However, the Lords do NOT hold a majority seat.

      You are absolutely RIGHT Starmer and co., did NOT receive any approval at a general election BUT it was part of his elective. 'Welfare Reforms' I THINK this is where, there may be some legal redress, for the reason(s) that you have given in your post.


      Hence the reason WHY I think that there are certain legal firms in the UK looking into this. 





    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 days ago
      @DJ The Salisbury Convention is a constitutional convention in the United Kingdom under which the House of Lords should not oppose the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto. The origins of the convention date back to the late 19th century, at which time the Conservatives held a majority in the House of Lords and, with the support of the third Marquess of Salisbury, developed the "Referendal Theory", which applied solely to Liberal legislation, under which the House of Lords could obstruct legislation until it had received majority approval at a general election

      However given that Starmer DID NOT receive any approval at a general election as nothing was in his manifesto then the Salisbury convention could not possible apply 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 days ago
      @Dave Dee Hi Dave Dee

      You are absolutely correct, I posted this 2 weeks ago on the site. 

      Starmer does have the protection of the Salisbury Convention 1911.

      The Lords are NOT going to be able to do much even if they are on the side of disabled..

      Welfare Reform was ALSO on his elective. 

      Some of their proposals were already on the table, for want of a better expression, from the Tories. 

      Indeed yet another atrocity from Kendall, Starmer and Reeves, pertaining to this came to light last week.

      Again for nearly 2 years in certain geographical areas GP's have been consulting with the Government. 

      Once AGAIN the very people that should have been consulted with re those that if affects have NOT been.  The disabled.

      Read Charger7 post below, he has commented upon this. That in a 'nutshell' he started to pick up on this in 2023, as did I due to the shift in attitude towards certain conditions. Where I live from the places that as children we are brought up to believe that we can trust and who are there to ENSURE or at least that is what we thought to be there for our clinical needs we have become political business decisions. However, that is for another time if and when these unlawful inhumane proposals go ahead.

      If they are passed and made law then it will NOT be able to be Changed as it is Act of Parliament. Sovereign is supreme. 

      Which is WHY we have got to HOPE that there will be enough back bench revolt and petitions of public outcry.

      The current 'events' that they are holding is in my opinion are a publicity stunt to be able for them to say that they did consult with those it will affect re the disabled sick, those who look after the sick but there are time limits and restrictions on what can be discussed at these secret locations to yet be announced quasi consultations.

      Starmer, Kendall, Reeves and co, are already acting as if it is a done deal. Opening this week  the 1st building in London to get the sick and disabled into work.

      When asked by a journalist if it would have been better for them to have ENSURED that all these centres were in situ and how productive they would be before cutting people's benefits she was so unbearable to watch it was frightening. It is as if it is assumed that it is a done deal.

      People are genuinely too unwell and too severely incapacitated to even get to a job centre and indeed it is I fear if these cuts go ahead going to result in major accidents and major incidents of extreme harm to ALL who are severely disabled.

      There is NO consideration given to the amount of medications we are on and the effects of those medications that render us NOT physically safe but ALSO NOT safe because the nature of the medications we have to take. 

      People with severe mental health out of control and I can forsee that if these proposals go ahead that in these centres they have spent 1 billion on that a lot of people are going to end up being more than harmed at these centres. With NO medically trained personnel on site just their optimistic work coaches of which a lot have left the profession. That is before the process of getting all us sick and disabled people in their words, 'fit for work' for jobs that are NOT there for the able bodied let alone the sick and disabled. 



  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Can we oppose this green proposal
    By directly emailing the consultation email inbox by the end of June as none of the issues that directly affect my life ( as with many) are not being consulted on . Would that still
    Count ? I am very cross also with them proposing abolishing wca without a single disabled person being involved in the decision and they have cleverly closed it for discussion as well