Timms review revives Tory plan for PIP awards based on costs not difficulties

Details: Published: 10 September 2026

The Timms review has finally revealed its plans for a radical reform of personal independence payment (PIP) in which awards will be based on additional costs for items such as equipment, bedding and transport. The proposals bear a remarkable similarity to those included in the infamous Conservative Green Paper published in 2024.

The Timms review September update, published last night, included details of the issues that will be put to the shaping recommendations workshops set to run from 15 September to 7 October.

Improving the current system

Some of the proposals relate to improving the current PIP system. These include such things as:

Reducing unnecessary award reviews
Improving the PIP2 form
Making DWP communications more respectful
Introducing an advocacy service to support PIP claims
Improving how PIP assesses fluctuating conditions

Some of the suggestions would be welcome improvements, but many are ill-defined and will be difficult to measure.

Radical reform

However, the changes to the current system appear to be designed simply to improve matters whilst a radically different method of deciding PIP awards is developed.

The recommendations for a reformed PIP award are that:

“the award will be non-means-tested

“cash will remain the foundation of the award

“some awards will also include services, and offer other non-cash support

“the award will contribute fairly to the extra costs that arise from disability and long-term health conditions and reflect fluctuating and cumulative impacts

“cost categories used to discuss the person’s circumstances, and therefore determine their award, could include equipment and aids; mobility and transport; clothing and bedding.

“people will be signposted to further relevant information and support”

What this appears to mean is that instead of the current points system, which assesses what difficulties claimants have with daily living activities and mobility, the proposed PIP system would look at what extra costs claimants have as a result of their condition.

It will be these “cost categories” that determine their award.

And whilst the recommendations make it clear that cash will remain the “foundation” of PIP awards, they do seem to suggest that for some conditions a proportion of the cash may be replaced by “services”, and “non-cash support”.

The cost of being prevented from accessing employment is not mentioned anywhere in the categories.

It seems likely that such a system would especially disadvantage claimants with mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions, where costs are harder to quantify.

Conservative proposals

The Timms review recommendations seem to have a great deal in common with the April 2024 Conservative consultation “Modernising support for independent living: the health and disability green paper”.

In that document, DWP secretary of state Mel Stride pointed out that in New Zealand people “provide estimates of their additional costs (eg.£50 per month for physiotherapy), which are then approved for an ongoing award”. Meanwhile, in Denmark “awards for extra costs are determined on a case-by-case basis and issued by local government”.

The 2024 Green Paper asked respondents to rank additional costs including:

equipment and aids
transport costs
energy and utility costs
food
clothing, footwear and bedding
personal assistance

The Timms recommendations suggest that cost categories used to determine awards could include:

equipment and aids
mobility and transport
clothing and bedding

The Conservative Green Paper also pointed out that various extra costs may already be being met by other provision and are thus duplicated, giving the example “people receiving the daily living component of PIP and who require aids such as walking sticks may have them supplied by the NHS.”

The Conservative document then went on to ask whether support for some people ought not to be cash but instead “improved access to healthcare (such as mental health provision or physiotherapy) or enhanced local authority support (such as care packages, respite or home adaptations).”

The Timms review recommendations are, at this point, much less open and detailed than the Conservative proposals were, but the similarity with the Conservative vision for a new PIP benefit are unmistakable.

Current PIP claimants

The Timms review remains utterly silent on whether current PIP claimants will be affected by the proposed changes. But its terms of reference are very clear that “the Review will consider how recommendations might be applied to reassessments for people already claiming PIP to ensure it is fair and fit for both new and existing claimants”.

So, for the moment, we cannot rule out current claimants being subject to any new system.

What we can rule out, however, is any such changes being brought in quickly or without a great deal of new primary legislation.

So, for those readers who are troubled by these proposals, there will be many opportunities ahead to challenge them. And here at Benefits and Work, we will do our best to support those who choose to do so.

You can read the full Timms Review: co-chair update, September 2026 here.

Comments

87 Comments
Terms
RSS
Register

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.
Wynn · 14 days ago
The idea of replacing assessed need with a “fair contribution” model is fundamentally flawed. PIP is not a general cost‑of‑living supplement; it is a disability benefit designed to offset the actual, measurable impact of functional limitations. My costs are not theoretical or averaged across a population. They are specific, unavoidable, and directly linked to my own conditions.

A flat contribution model ignores the reality that disability related expenses vary dramatically between individuals. Some people require specialist equipment, ongoing replacements, adaptive technology, or higher‑cost transport arrangements. Others face increased heating, laundry, or clothing costs due to medical needs. A standardised contribution cannot reflect this complexity and would inevitably under‑fund those with higher needs and they know it.

It also risks penalising people whose conditions require expensive aids or mobility solutions. Under the current system, awards are based on functional impact, which is the only fair and objective method. Moving to a contribution model would shift PIP away from evidence‑based assessment and towards arbitrary budgeting targets.

For these reasons, I do not support the proposals. It would reduce fairness, reduce accuracy, and reduce support for those whose disability‑related costs are highest.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Andy · 13 days ago
  
  @Wynn Well said! 👏
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Allen · 16 days ago
so what about the people that were awarded 10yr awards as they were over state pension age will they be left alone until the review is due or they have a change in circumstances
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Dawn · 7 days ago
  
  @Mick I totally agree Mick - I was diagnosed with MS in 2007 and was awarded indefinite DLA. Once that was changed to PIP, I did in fact, get enhanced mobility due to my walking issues for a few years, and put the money towards a mobility car. That was taken away, and now I only have standard daily living allowance. If that was also taken away, I don't know where I'd be. Cars don't run on fresh air, unfortunately.....
  
  These so called 'assessors' rarely know how a person living with a condition that is not curable, and symptoms fluctuate on a daily/hourly basis feels. As it is, we have to fight tooth and nail to get what is supposed to be for the vulnerable person.
  
  All the specialist/consultant letters sent with the PIP application form mean nothing.
  
  I have worked all my life up until December '25 when I was made redundant for the second time in 2 years but was not eligible for redundancy as I had not been at the companies long enough. I feel I have paid into the system, so should not feel as if I am a burden when I need help now.
  
  Not one of these Politicians, whichever party they stand for knows anything about real life!
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Mick · 15 days ago
  
  @Allen
  The same goes for those of us who had lifelong DLA awards, then got forced onto PIP and had it taken away or reduced and have had to fight to get back to a PIP 10 year/ongoing/indefinite and now face the prospect of the same happening all over again!
  
  The promises and lies mean nothing. Timms lied to parliament and continues to do so, as do McFadden, Badenoch, Whately, Stride and all the rest who say whatever they want, regardless.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Wayne · 17 days ago
My pip is until 2031 if they push the timmins review thew will me and others be forced to have a early review again thanks
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Wayne · 16 days ago
  
  @JBob1234 Thanks very much
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  JBob1234 · 16 days ago
  
  @Wayne No one knows.
  The previous abandoned 4 point rule was originally pre-existing claimants would be assessed when their next reassessment was due, no early reassessment. Before the concession of making all pre-existing claimants exempt from the change was offered. And then the plan abandoned entirely. Hopefully the new plan will be similar no early reassessments, and if there is enough opposition from Labour MPs a similar concession can be achieved.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Matt · 17 days ago
Whilst not directly relevant to the Timms Review, I'm deeply alarmed at Reform getting £72 m from some shady crypto billionaires. There's a book entitled What if Reform win?, has anyone read it?

I worry that is Badenoch and Forage decide to bury their differences, a Tory/Reform coalition might well the next GE, and the disabled community will be toast. I don't like the idea of Labour being the least worse choice, but realistically that's will be the choice in 2029.

Incidentally I'm not due a PIP reassment until 2031. I may have to consider reapplying before the next GE.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  shadowPony · 15 days ago
  
  @Matt yes i've read the book, and it's very good. though it was based on what was available and known about REform UK's policies pre the local elections. I'd love to see an updated version with the welfare reforms added.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  JBob1234 · 17 days ago
  
  @Matt I cannot see a deal being made because Reform is no longer a minor party unable to win seats but popular enough to deprive the Conservatives of victory and hand victory to Labour. In effect Reform being a means to move Conservative party policy through the threat of acting as spoiler party on the ballot.
  
  Reform now are about equal to the Conservatives in polling. And as such are a existential threat to the continued existence of the Conservatives. If the Conservatives did a election deal with Reform to not stand candidates against each other. I expect it would be the beginning of the end of the Conservative party. If the Conservative party merged with Reform I expect it would be with Farage as leader of the combined party. So again the end of the Conservative party.
  
  It is unknown if the influx of lots of money from billionaires is going to enable Reform to do better through funding more campaigning or do worse due to being seen as a party for the rich. That one of the billionaires was also responsible for the £5 million undeclared gift and the other billionaire was convicted for money laundering but pardoned by Trump, does not help. Nor does another one of Reforms prominent donors and key Farage allies posh George having a conviction for money laundering. Or Tice being investigated for suspected money laundering.
  
  Current polling seems to indicate if there was an election tomorrow the most likely out come would be a Labour minority government dependent on the support of the LibDems and SNP. Such a fragile set up could limit future welfare reform.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
JBob1234 · 17 days ago
In my opinion people who are unlikely to be affected are being swept up in the fear that benefits maybe reduced or stopped.

I think the earlier interim Timms review report alongside the polling by the Tony Blair institute is probably indicative of what conditions they are likely and unlikely to targetted.

Anxiety, Depression, Autistic Spectrum Disorders, ADHD. I think look likely to be the targets.

All other psychiatric disorders, neurodevelopmental disorders, learning disabilities and all physical health conditions. I think look unlikely to be targets.

My reasoning is as follows:

According to the interim report Anxiety and Depression increased from 5.9% in 2020 to 8.1% in 2025. The report claims this rapid increase cannot be accounted for by population demographics. So these conditions seem likely to be targeted. There has also been polling commissioned by the Tony Blair Institute that shows only 35% of the general public think these conditions should usually qualify people for cash benefits.

According to the interim report Autistic Spectrum Disorders increased from 0.0% in 2009 to 0.6% in 2025. The report claims this rapid increase cannot be accounted for by population demographics. So these conditions seem likely to be targeted. There has also been polling commissioned by the Tony Blair Institute that shows only 46% of the general public think autism and ADHD should usually qualify people for cash benefits.

By contrast.

According to the interim report Learning Disabilities increased slowly from 0.4% in 2009 to 0.5% in 2025. So seems unlikely to be targeted due to it only being a small slow increase and there being a lack of evidence of public support for targeting the condition.

All other psychiatric and neurodevelopmental conditions fell from 1.0% in 2009 to 0.8% in 2025. So seem unlikely to be targeted as they are falling not rising.

It seems especially unlikely that mental health conditions that involve psychosis will be targeted as polling by the Tony Blair institute shows 70% of the general public think those conditions should usually qualify people for cash benefits.

Arthritis increased from 0.5% in 2009 to 0.8% in 2025. But the interim report says this can be accounted for due to aging population demographics. So it seem unlikely to be targeted.

Back pain increased from 0.4% in 2009 to 0.5% in 2025. But the interim report says this can be accounted for due to aging population demographics. So it seem unlikely to be targeted.

As for support in kind being used to reduce or replace benefits. I think that is far far more likely to be voluntary than involuntary. I detail my reasoning in my previous post.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Nesta · 7 days ago
  
  @JBob1234 Jbob12234, you talk about the percentage of the population that support each idea. This is not a criticism of your thoughts, but of one of the measures being used.
  
  I am puzzled as to why the government will take those opinions into account when they completely ignored the massive majority who support the assisted dying bill, but were deemed to not be worth listening to. Even the lower house supported it, just for it to be overturned by a few members of the Lords.
  
  Unless surveys for the new form of PIP are taken from those who would be affected, and who know what living with their disability is like in real life, they should not be counted. I believe that the ‘average’ person, who is not disabled and cannot imagine what life would be like if they were, are not fit people to have any opinion on the subject, especially as hatred and scorn of disabled people is being encouraged by both politicians and press, giving ‘the man/woman in the street’ a false understanding of the realities.
  
  It’s a bit like asking a person whose only experience of cows is seeing one grazing in a field the other side of a hedge, to opine on the expert care and husbandry needs of said cow to keep it healthy.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Christine · 7 days ago
  
  @Caroline I agree with you. I would like Mr Timms to walk a mile in my shoes..
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  mandy · 7 days ago
  
  @Caroline i agree caroline my husband had a business and was a happy confident person who loved life. depession ,anxiety, mood changes have destroyed his life and this was over 20 years ago, he lost everything he worked for and nearly his life. we struggle every day but at least he's still here. he'll never be the same person again and just has to focus getting through one day at a time. horrendous illness.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Kevin. · 16 days ago
  
  @lollo1 I totally agree and empathise with you, society, the media and the government would rather tarnish and villianise neurodivergent people, rather than understand their needs and help them to live a good life. Warwafe seems to be more important than the welfare of the most vulnerable in society. Welfare actually puts money back into the economy warfare just takes finances and lives, I know which one i would rather fund with my tax.
  
  This is why we as a community need to keep fighting tooth and claw to make sure all disabled, mentally ill, chronically ill and neurodivergent people have the welfare umbrella to support their financially needs, this will enable them to then look after the daily struggles that all disabilities bring.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  lollo1 · 16 days ago
  
  @JBob1234 The issue I have is that Autism is a neuro developmental condition. I really fear for my 2 adult childrens future with regards to benefits and income as neither of them are capable of working. They will be the ones that suffer along with my husband and myself who will be left to support them finacially. They should have the dignity of being finacially independant from us as parents even if it is through benfits. The system is so skewed and the media has fuelled this misconception of people like our 2 to be scroungers. Our son is too scared to go out to far in case of people bullying him because of his disability as has happened when wearing his lanyard which he now refuses to use.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Wendy. · 17 days ago
Sad update regarding the man with bipolar disorder.

My CPN contacted me about rearranging my home visits for this coming week. I am extremely sad to report that the patient with Bipolar who attempted to take his life passed away early this morning due to the complications of the method he used to take his life, he was 27 years old.

This is prime example of benefits cuts for the most vulnerable in our society, a young life snuffed out. This poor young man suffered from bipolar disorder one of the most serious and disabling mental health disorders, that is not just a extreme mood disorder it also has a number of other crippling mental health issues that go along with it including psychosis and losing sense of reality and self to name but a few.

Both my self and my CPN feel stunned this morning, she herself blames the government, the media and also how this aspect has been released to cause maximum fear and anxiety of those affected.

I would like to ask anyone who has any contact with the Timm's report please bring just this one case to their attention. A young man in serious need of help let down by the system we all pay into in one way or another that is meant to help those in need, what could be in more need than someone with a serious mental health condition pussed by fear and anxiety to take his own life. Unfortunately this will not be the last person affected by these cuts and many lives will be lost not only from suicide but also extreme poverty and homelessness due to these cuts,

I am sorry to bring you all this dreadful news but Unfortunately this is what happens when the government and the DWP has no ethics or empathy.

My thoughts go out to this young man's family and friends and to my CPN who is distraught.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  keepingitreal · 17 days ago
  
  @Wendy. The communication of the Timms update has been appalling. So unclear, allowing the media to make the most of it and the vulnerable to fear the worst.
  
  There needs to be clarification, now.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Ginny52 · 17 days ago
  
  @Wendy. So very sorry
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  (No) hope · 17 days ago
  
  @Wendy. Reading this update makes me very sad, and further highlights how cruel this system is, and how being sick or disabled really leaves you vulnerable and up against it. The whipping up of hysteria against the disabled from media sources, and the constant flow of misleading information from party leaders, such as benefits bill spiralling, cuts are coming etc really is enough to push you over the edge.
  No doubt the DWP will conduct an ipr absolving itself of any blame.
  So sorry to hear this.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
JBob1234 · 17 days ago
In my opinion any giving up of some cash benefits for support in kind is far more likely to be voluntary than involuntary. My reasoning is as follows:

I think the co-chair update "the reformed benefit will support independent living, choice and control, helping disabled people and those with long-term health conditions participate fully in society" "Cash will remain the foundation of the award". "Some awards will also include services, and offer other non-cash support". Should be read in the context of the earlier interim report. The interim report says disabled people struggle to access vital services such as community mental health services and wider support. And that reliance on PIP has likely increased due to difficulty accessing vital services and support. So it seems likely improving access to NHS continuing care and wider support will be used to reduce the benefits bill. But it should also be read in the context of there having been polling commissioned by the Good Growth Foundation that shows there would be a high take up by claimants if given the voluntary option to give up some of their PIP for support in kind. Healthy meals, physio, home support for household chores, home adaptations, training, social activates, therapy, job coaching. The Good Growth Foundation wording is Cash remains foundational: PIP would continue to provide a core cash benefit, ensuring basic financial support. Voluntary exchange: Claimants would opt to swap part of their payment for specific services tailored to their needs. Focus on independence: The proposal intends to facilitate living independently and participating in society, rather than solely covering financial costs.

I expect the TImms review either got a similar response to the Good Growth Foundation polling or have read the Good Growth Foundation report.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  keepingitreal · 17 days ago
  
  @JBob1234 So as I suggested earlier?
  
  Perhaps the idea is to have a scheme like motability, but using the daily living element.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Oneofmany · 17 days ago
Also, they say we would have access to mobility equipment and aids for free through the vouchers or extra services but we ALREADY get them for FREE NOW! Through OT and RED CROSS!

Are they trying to deceive us? Can this be considered and highlighted with them?
- Reply
- Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Kitty kat · 17 days ago
So in - kind means taking away cash support? When they stated cash will remain the core of pip. Isn't this contradicting
So someone on pip for 11 years could loose their award altogether
I've read that vouchers could be given instead of cash.
All this is exactly what the Conservative Party recommend before the election. So what exactly has Mr timms been doing
They can't leave people without cash surly
- Reply
- Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Wendy. · 18 days ago
PLEASE READ THIS IS JUST ONE CASE BUT A TRAGIC ONE CAUSED BY THESE CUTS.

The release of these savage cuts is already causing issues with severely mentally ill people.

I was due a CPN home visit yesterday but it was cancelled. My CPN called to say that she could not see me as one of her patients with bipolar disorder had attempted suicide after reading that all PIP was being cancelled for mentally ill people.

This is just one example of how these severe and discriminatory cuts are affecting mentally ill people, people who are the most psychologically vulnerable in our society.

How can they stop PIP and the benefits that go with it for people with Bipolar disorder and Schizophrenia? Both these severe conditions have psychosis and make them vulnerable to self harm and suicide plus a danger to the public during psychotic episodes.

Both these conditions are under the SMI criteria classifying them a danger to themselves and others. These cuts are already causing terrible damage and people are literally going to die because of them.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  keepingitreal · 17 days ago
  
  @Wendy.
  This is what happens when media whip up a storm.
  
  As I understand it, those with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia would retain pip. Of course I could be wrong about that, but that's the point - we don't know, and bad actors in the media and those with political interests are seizing on, and distorting scraps of announcements to prey on the fears of the vulnerable for sales, clicks, comments, whatever.
  
  I remain baffled as to why the recent Timms report preview was released, as, unlike with the earlier interim report, there was no apparent pressure on the committee to do that. It was a mistake. I'm increasingly wondering whether it was to test the water, and because the process is floundering, therefore seeking reaction before committing to recommendations.
  
  It is clear from their most recent update that the leaders of the review cannot possibly formulate a plan by later this autumn. If they had any courage or conscience they"d come clean in their 'final' report and say there has been insufficient time to consider this vast and complex matter and they are unable to make any recommendations without proper and genuine consultation with meaningful representation from those who would be impacted by pip reform.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Wayne · 18 days ago
Does anyone know if there a petition to sign about this mess
- Reply
- Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Wayne · 18 days ago
Can anyone tell the main newspapers about this sham timmins review and send a letter to Andy Burnham
- Reply
- Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Scape goat · 18 days ago
Yet again disabled people are still being seen as a burden to the government and society and the cost to the government not what needs the disabled person has How degrading demoralising and dehumanising
Life is a daily struggle for disabled people as it is so why create more barriers to control disabled people by cutting their money or stopping it all together it will push disabled people further into debt and into crisis whilst the government doesn’t care and can break as may laws as they want such as the equality act and human rights and disability discrimination the government needs to let disabled have a freedom of choice of what they need to spend their pip money on
- Reply
- Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
Chris H · 18 days ago
You don't grow the economy by cutting people's disposable income harder than you already do, certainly not those who only spend that income locally or nationally and put it back into the system.

How on Earth, after what we saw from 2010 and Osborne's cutting-spree, anyone in the UK can still trust peak Capitalism - where public services, welfare and wages are ground down to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest - is beyond sensible, thoughtful and I dare say expert comprehension.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  D · 18 days ago
  
  @Chris H Totally forgot about that.
  
  The vast majority of pip is spent back into the uk economy
  
  Obviously health based business would be less hit by these reform proposals - but every other sector will experience hits (especially in constituencies with high pip claims)
  
  I don’t know if Labour leadership care about disabled pockets but they could have problems if industries like hospitality notice a dip because the dwp no longer sees those types of expenditure as disability related costs when calculating what financial pip award a claimant should have
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
(No) hope · 18 days ago
So a re-hash of the voucher scheme in all but name then? I hope the significant pushback starts now from all the dpos and all of us too. They really struggle to read the room don’t they?
- Reply
- Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
A · 18 days ago
I’m off to one of the workshops, so maybe I’ll get an idea what the proposals will look like in practice.
Im reading all the comments so im prepared.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  D · 18 days ago
  
  @A I hope individuals going to the workshops will be able to relay things back
  
  (are they making you sign a non disclosure? - if not I’d probably listen rather than activity challenge anything crappy and see if they drop a nugget we can use as amino when this s*** officially hits the fan - if you do have to keep what happens quiet then give timms hell for all of us)
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
billkruse · 18 days ago
What's the point of social security? Why do we have it in the first place? Giving money to people who can't work so they need to spend it to live ensures that when times are hard there will still be money flowing through the economy. That steady economic activity will encourage investment, leading to employment, leading to the economy picking up again. It's an essential feature of a fiat economy like ours. So what are these idiots doing? Bending over backwards in their greedy, grasping attempts to take money away from people, the complete reverse of what the economy needs. This isn't policy, this is lunacy.
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  JBob1234 · 18 days ago
  
  @billkruse The government's plan is to replace new style JSA and new style ESA with a new higher (the same amount as UC LCWRA severe conditions criteria group), time limited (6 or 12 months), contributions based unemployment benefit. So those workers who find themselves short term out of work and on benefits, including in economic downturns, have money to spend. And do not get to experience the hardship of the lower benefits reserved for the long-term unemployed including many ill or disabled new claimants.
  
  The most deserving are in effect being defined as workers who have paid into the system and find themselves short-term out of work. And the most severely disabled for life, expected to not be ever able to work in the future. With those who meet that disability criteria due to likely substantial risk to their health being excluded from that definition, deemed less disabled. Presumably the government assumes they are mostly people with mental health conditions and is prejudice.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
A@ · 18 days ago
As an autistic person with significant, lifetime, mental health conditions I feel as if I and people like me are fully in the Crosshairs of these cuts (call them what they are, it is all about cutting not improving).

In the last twelve months I have twice been taken to hospital following mental health crises (once triggered by the DWP), on both occasions seen by the Crisis team (who are completely useless), referred to primary care mental health services (who told me to call a community based charity) and assessed by the community mental health team who decided that as I was autistic it wasn't their problem, especially as they have assessed and treated me in the past and subsequently have suffered Crisis episodes following their rejection...

Not only is very little of this easy to provide evidence of for reviews but also it doesn't exactly help to prove additional costs should that be necessary... Starmer's attempt to cut disability benefits lead to a crisis situation and referral to mental health services (a friend had to be hospitalised as a result), yet neurodivergence and mental health are deliberately downplayed and targeted. I may appear able bodied but that doesn't mean that barriers and distress don't exist.

The thought of what may as well be mandatory therapy from approved providers (such as Serco, Mitie, ATOS etc) in "exchange" for some of your entitlement is chilling. Similar proposals have been made before. They ignore the fact that in order for therapy to be successful it needs to be consensual and trusted. Being "offered" treatment (unless it is 100% voluntary with no negative inferences or repercussions if declined) has the potential to be counterproductive to the patient, not to mention that it might be deemed as a reason to reduce the length of an award if the DWP has access to reports.
This whole process fills me full of dread, time and again the media and politicians run articles or make remarks deliberately to question our honesty and whether we deserve support (the ghastly remarks on social media are stoked by these). I am frequently troubled by ideation as it is, this whole thing makes me feel like I would be better off if I were no longer here, I fear that I am not alone...
- Reply
- Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
D · 18 days ago
The more I read the chair update the angrier I’m getting as it’s obvious timms hasn’t listened to disabled ppl and is spinning things to justify what could end up to be a really dystopian pip reform (though it sound like a totally different benefit award….too large for any reform alone)

For example:

“We also found that while many disabled people say that PIP is vital in helping them meet the extra costs of disability and participate in everyday life, others stated PIP creates barriers to participating fully in work, social and community life.”

Which claimant told timms that pip has created barriers in daily life (yes the assessment process but not the award itself.

Also this is very telling that the dwp are looking to limit pip to specific disability extra costs only:

“the award will support participation and opportunity across everyday life, including work, volunteering, care and other meaningful activities”

What’s a meaningful activity in timms eyes

And this talk about an initial assessment and different assessment pathways for different groups of people - the current pip system at least semi treated us equally (we all had to fill out the same paperwork and go through a f2f/phone/paper assessment. This idea of different pathways suggests claimants with different conditions will have to jump different hoops to have a chance of any award + the indication that the dwp will practically ask pip claimants to list their expenses and then get judged on if it’s a disability expense or not is the action of an authoritarian government

As some have pointed out this is significantly more complex to carry out than the current pip system and surely we’ve got a handful of human rights being challenged here.

Perhaps the reform/tory pip reform ideas are meaner but these plans are so intrusive that if in place by my next review I may not even bother reapplying just in case they have problems with past expenditure/what I previously used pip money on and decide to fine me.

Orwellian fiction should stay fictional!
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  N.B.C · 18 days ago
  
  @rookie Explains where Timms might have got some of his ideas from
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  rookie · 18 days ago
  
  @D Orwell was never fiction.
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
One of Many Anons · 18 days ago
Clearly, there's a tactic here to try and win Tory votes to get this through: steal one of their ideas and then when they refuse to vote on it because it's "still not enough" like they said about the 4 point rule, just turn around and call them out on how they proposed the same thing.

Only it wasn't Badenoch who proposed anything in that Green Paper, it was Sunak and it didn't win him the last election. So, she could simply say that she's not her predecessor and still turn down the proposals for not producing enough savings for defence like she wants.
- Reply
- Share

News