News

The only thing left in our power to ‘consult’ on is the issue of whether the time limited ‘employment insurance’ could potentially be made not time limited for those who simply cannot work. I don’t have high hopes but can’t see any other way they’ve left it open to make any allowances. 

I have written to my MP and so have friends and family on my behalf but they’ve received generic replies spouting the party line about supporting the most vulnerable and encouraging the rest to find work. I personally have had no response. 

Other than saving money, the disabled are being used to massage the 'economically inactive' numbers to a lower point (to keep the unfeeling believe disabled are being tortured enough). Not that there is help or suitable work - just requirements to act like you are working - 35 hours a week of endless job searches for work you are too unwell to do. 

Those with mental health problems are likely to be affected the most - being pushed out of PIP, then forced to take on more than they can manage - which will cause a lot of relapses (pressure on NHS) or suicides (which they probably don't care about). 

They will also face more sanctions because they won't be able to keep up with UC commitments or attend face-to-face interviews/job coach meetings.

Still, we can afford for MPS to get a £2,500 pay raise to almost £100,000 py. Pay all past PMs £120,000 per year for their whole lives - despite them making £mns off the back of having been PM.

People making the decisions just have no idea.

'A windfall tax on the record profits of Britain’s biggest banks could bring in nearly £15bn for the public purse, new analysis suggests.

Britain’s ‘Big Four’ banks – Lloyds, NatWest, HSBC and Barclays – made an eye-watering £45.9bn in pre-tax profits last year.

These earnings are not normal: they far outstrip the £25.6bn those same banks made on average between 2018 and 2021, before the Bank of England started raising interest rates. High interest rates allow banks to charge more on loans.

Such bumper profits are currently taxed at a measly 3%. But it doesn’t have to be this way, campaign group Positive Money claims. 

Countries like Spain, the Czech Republic and Hungary have imposed windfall taxes on credit institutions. If Britain were to do the same – at a 35% rate – it could generate £14.7bn for the overstretched public purse.'

Any changes to welfare need to be looked at as the political equivalent of surgery - one wrong slip and people die. So you need experts, you need all the input you can get and you need to listen to the people affected. 

Recently a person commented online that they didn't understand why the disabled needed extra money.

I could have given her a thousand reasons. I didn't want to start signing up just to give her "what for".

But that's what we are up against. 

Do they really not understand or is it pure spite? 🤔  

Most on the thread from what I saw were against Reeves and her cuts. They could see it was wrong, but there's always somebody who thinks differently, I guess they need to be treated with the contempt they deserve. They forget the fight we have,the fact we know we are deliberately short on points because the entire process stinks, and its about to smell to high heaven If the Government gets their way.  I tell ppl who think it's easy to get benefits if it is Go for it,then come back to me. Try it. You'll see the raw side soon enough. 

The document “Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working” presents a detailed outline of proposed reforms to the UK’s health and disability benefits system. Below is a critical analysis robustly challenging assumptions, identifying potential negative impacts on disabled individuals, particularly those with neurological disorders like ADHD and type 2 bipolar disorder.

Critical Analysis and Challenging Assumptions:
    1.    Binary Definition of Work Capacity:
    •    Assumption: The reforms aim to end the binary “can or can’t work” classification by scrapping the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) and relying on the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment.
    •    Critical Challenge: PIP assessments focus predominantly on daily living tasks rather than employment capabilities. This shift might inadequately account for the fluctuating and episodic nature of many disabilities, especially mental health and neurological conditions, potentially misclassifying or underestimating support needs.
    2.    Pro-Work Incentives:
    •    Assumption: Increasing incentives by adjusting the Universal Credit (UC) structure—raising the standard allowance and reducing the health element—will encourage disabled individuals into work.
    •    Critical Challenge: This assumption overlooks substantial barriers such as discrimination, inadequate reasonable adjustments in workplaces, and limited availability of flexible employment. Without robust anti-discrimination enforcement and workplace adaptations, financial incentives alone risk pushing disabled individuals into insecure employment or economic hardship.
    3.    Conditionality and Reassessment:
    •    Assumption: Regular “support conversations” aimed at moving individuals towards work will be supportive rather than coercive.
    •    Critical Challenge: Past implementations of such conversations in the UK’s welfare system have led to punitive approaches and sanctions, particularly harming individuals with cognitive, mental health, or neurodivergent conditions. Without explicit safeguards, disabled people might experience increased anxiety, exacerbating conditions like ADHD, anxiety disorders, and bipolar disorder.

Areas Negatively Impacting Disabled Individuals:
    1.    Financial Impact of Changes to PIP Eligibility:
    •    Introducing a threshold that requires at least four points in one daily living activity to qualify for PIP’s daily living element risks excluding individuals who face moderate barriers across several areas. This policy could disproportionately harm those with neurodivergent conditions like ADHD, who often experience widespread moderate impairments rather than severe issues in a single domain.
    2.    Reduction in UC Health Element for New Claims:
    •    The reduction in the health element of UC from £97 to £50 per week for new claims places significant financial pressure on disabled individuals. This may particularly disadvantage those recently diagnosed or newly disabled, including younger individuals, potentially causing financial insecurity and mental health deterioration.
    3.    Lack of Clarity on Workplace Adjustments and Employer Accountability:
    •    The reforms heavily focus on incentivizing individuals to seek employment but do not robustly address existing inadequacies around workplace adjustments or employer accountability. Without clear mechanisms to enforce employers’ legal obligations, disabled individuals remain vulnerable to workplace exclusion or exploitation.

Disabilities Most Affected:
    •    Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders: Conditions such as ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Anxiety Disorders, Depression, Bipolar Disorder, and other fluctuating mental health conditions face particular risks from these reforms. These conditions often involve symptoms like executive dysfunction, sensory sensitivity, fluctuating energy levels, mood instability, and difficulties with routine tasks, none of which are easily captured by simplified assessments like PIP.
    •    Invisible Disabilities: Disabilities without visible markers or those that fluctuate are at high risk of being underestimated or ignored due to the simplified assessment criteria and increased conditionality.

Hypothesized Impact on Neurological Disorders (ADHD, Bipolar Type 2):
    1.    ADHD:
    •    Individuals with ADHD commonly experience executive dysfunction, impairing their ability to manage benefits claims, attend mandatory support meetings consistently, and cope with additional administrative tasks. Increased conditionality, including mandated regular conversations, is likely to disproportionately penalize these individuals, potentially leading to sanctions or a complete withdrawal from support systems.
    •    Reduction in financial support risks exacerbating stress-related symptoms, reducing capacity to seek and maintain employment. The fear of losing benefit entitlements could discourage attempts at work due to worries about not managing job demands sustainably.
    2.    Bipolar Type 2 Disorder:
    •    Those with bipolar type 2 disorder experience periods of depression alternating with hypomania, with significant variability in their capability to work. A single assessment approach, as proposed with reliance solely on PIP, may fail to accurately reflect these fluctuations.
    •    The financial uncertainty from the reforms, including cuts to benefits, could aggravate symptoms, intensifying depressive episodes or triggering anxiety attacks, significantly reducing employability. The additional pressure from increased conditionality (e.g., mandatory “support conversations”) might exacerbate mental distress, discouraging engagement with the system.

Recommendations to Mitigate Negative Impacts:
    •    Robust Safeguards Against Sanctions: Clearly define and strictly limit sanctioning for missed engagements, especially for those with neurological and psychiatric disorders.
    •    Tailored Support: Introduce explicit adjustments for conditions characterized by fluctuating or episodic symptoms, ensuring fairer assessments.
    •    Strengthened Employer Accountability: Enforce stronger compliance with reasonable adjustments, supported by clear legal frameworks and penalties for non-compliance.
    •    Enhanced Access to Mental Health and Neurodiversity-specific Support: Provide guaranteed access to tailored support services addressing executive functioning difficulties, mental health crises, and employment readiness.

In conclusion, while the document articulates a pro-employment stance with positive intentions, it critically underestimates the complexity of certain disabilities, particularly neurological and mental health disorders. Without significant revisions, these reforms risk exacerbating financial insecurity, mental distress, and barriers to employment rather than alleviating them.