PIP debate-live now

rogerblack

dori2o wrote: »

Reducing the disability benefits bill, but potentially substantially increasing the AtW budget.

Your case is 'easy'.
You are a disabled person in work.
You are - regrettably - in the minority of people with HRM.
In principle A2W should pick up easily.

(If it will actually do so is another question - I suspect the fine words of the minister are something that will come out as stars if I repeat it here).

Even in principle, the case of disabled people who are on ESA and want to attempt some work is lots harder.
A2W will not pick up on speculative activity well.
Removing their own transport adds yet another barrier, and will result in more people being isolated.

dori2o

rogerblack wrote: »

Your case is 'easy'.
You are a disabled person in work.
You are - regrettably - in the minority of people with HRM.
In principle A2W should pick up easily.

(If it will actually do so is another question - I suspect the fine words of the minister are something that will come out as stars if I repeat it here).

Even in principle, the case of disabled people who are on ESA and want to attempt some work is lots harder.
A2W will not pick up on speculative activity well.
Removing their own transport adds yet another barrier, and will result in more people being isolated.

and thats the whole problem IMO. It's fine for the under-secretary to the dwp to be saying these things now, but what actualy happens when it comes time to amke the request for AtW funding is another matter.

It will be interesting to see if the answer given is removed from the edited version of the Comittee transcript. I may just hold onto a physical copy of t incase I need to refer back to it some time later.

I also find it quite disgraceful that all of the impact reports on which this change from DLA to PIP has been implemented were done in 2010 BEFORE the election, and were not at that time specifically proposed for use as evidence in changing DLA to another form of benefit.

The imact assessments therefore do not take into accoiunt the changes that have been proposed since the election, they don't take into account the other hardships facing he disabled. Neither do they take into account the fact there has been a further recession and mass contraction of the economy sicne the reports were completed.

From reading the report a number of times it is absolutely clear that Esther McVey and her 2 cronies have absolutely no clue how their changes are going to affect the people these changes are aimed at.

sunnyone

dori2o wrote: »

And it would have to be backed up by the medical evidence. You cannot just exclude a certain group of disabilities. That is discrimination.

Time to ignore this AE I think.


GOODBYE SUNNYONE

Ah, the lowest form of argument calling someone a troll, used by people who cant put forward their own case is a discussion so they resort to insults instead.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

schrodie

In your case it's not an insult.

rogerblack

dori2o wrote: »

From reading the report a number of times it is absolutely clear that Esther McVey and her 2 cronies have absolutely no clue how their changes are going to affect the people these changes are aimed at.

They know quite, quite well.
But it's OK - 'the big society' will pick things up - as after all - it's great in their little rich village in the country with lots of people with plenty of time.
Wikipedia: "McVey has worked in the family business which specialises in demolition and site clearance,"

Richie-from-the-Boro

Yep

She sold Winning Women last Jan to Leeds-based counterpart Forward Ladies. McVey won’t discuss what was paid for the group – which had over 7,000 members across the North West – but she says the deal “worked for everybody”. “It wasn't masses and masses, but it was a good price and I was pleased with it,” she says. “One of my overriding concerns was about the women having some kind of continuity with the new owner and they have got that with Forward Ladies.”

CTcelt1988

dori2o wrote: »

and thats the whole problem IMO. It's fine for the under-secretary to the dwp to be saying these things now, but what actualy happens when it comes time to amke the request for AtW funding is another matter.

It will be interesting to see if the answer given is removed from the edited version of the Comittee transcript. I may just hold onto a physical copy of t incase I need to refer back to it some time later.

I also find it quite disgraceful that all of the impact reports on which this change from DLA to PIP has been implemented were done in 2010 BEFORE the election, and were not at that time specifically proposed for use as evidence in changing DLA to another form of benefit.

The imact assessments therefore do not take into accoiunt the changes that have been proposed since the election, they don't take into account the other hardships facing he disabled. Neither do they take into account the fact there has been a further recession and mass contraction of the economy sicne the reports were completed.

From reading the report a number of times it is absolutely clear that Esther McVey and her 2 cronies have absolutely no clue how their changes are going to affect the people these changes are aimed at.

Reading the transcript, McVey refused to answer questions on the caseload of how many will lose HRM by 2018, instead wanting to refer to the caseload till 2015. However, the 2018 figures are included in the PIP assessment documents, so why doesn't she want to mention how many will lose out in 2018? She looks out of her depth, thought Miller was bad, McVey looks even worse.

dori2o

CTcelt1988 wrote: »

Reading the transcript, McVey refused to answer questions on the caseload of how many will lose HRM by 2018, instead wanting to refer to the caseload till 2015. However, the 2018 figures are included in the PIP assessment documents, so why doesn't she want to mention how many will lose out in 2018? She looks out of her depth, thought Miller was bad, McVey looks even worse.

Exactly, simply fudging the figures.

The one question that has not been answered however is whether the case law applied to previous disability benefits including Invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance, AA etc, will be carried forwards to this benefit, in order to keep the current definitions of what is, for example, severe discomfort, or the definition of being able to walk etc etc, or are we, and the state going to have to finance a whole raft of new commissioners/court decisions on these definitions, which as was the case with DLA, took many many years and meant those who were entitled to receive the benefit didn't for many years.

There is not enough information within the PIP guidance booklet to define these conditions and limits, so it seems we will be back to the biased opinions of the DWP decision makers and ATOS.

satarical

CTcelt1988 wrote: »

In my situation, if I lost my HRM and had to claim to AtW, then it would cost them over £2000 a month to pay a taxi to my work as I work 30 miles away. Catching the bus is no option as the bus stop is too far away, plus I would have to get 2 buses to get there which would be awkward.

Train times aren't good either to get to my work, plus I would have to get 2 trains and 2 taxis. A taxi would be the only way Access to Work would be able to get me to my work, if they paid £2,000 a month, then it wold be cheaper for them to give me enhanced rate of PIP! Crazy! Access to work budget would have to increase if this happens to a lot of people.

What has that got to do with passing the PIP descriptors - 'I won't be able to go to work/it will cost more money', are you actually suggesting that those and many more lame excuses be taken into account as to whether you are granted the enhanced rate for mobilising?

The simple purpose of PIP is to reduce the current DLA budget by at least 20% How that happens, or what the consequences are of it has no bearing at all on the scheme.

Like most, you simply buy your own car out of your own income if you are working. Or is that something that you haven't realised that you can do?

If that is not possible then find another job closer to home with better transport links.

People today actually spend 25%+ of their take home pay just on transport costs(petrol/derv) never mind buying and running a car as well.

dori2o

satarical wrote: »

What has that got to do with passing the PIP descriptors - 'I won't be able to go to work/it will cost more money', are you actually suggesting that those and many more lame excuses be taken into account as to whether you are granted the enhanced rate for mobilising?

The simple purpose of PIP is to reduce the current DLA budget by at least 20% How that happens, or what the consequences are of it has no bearing at all on the scheme.

Like most, you simply buy your own car out of your own income if you are working. Or is that something that you haven't realised that you can do?

If that is not possible then find another job closer to home with better transport links.

People today actually spend 25%+ of their take home pay just on transport costs(petrol/derv) never mind buying and running a car as well.

Congratulations on making yourself look a complete idiot.

That wasn't what CTcelt1988 was getting at.

For some people travelling other than in their own car is not possible. This means that transport costs are higher for them than those people who have the choice whether to use their cars, or use public transport.

I certianly don't use my car to travel to work because I want to, given the choice I would choose to use public transport everytime, not only because of the fact it is quicker to use the tram than it is to use the car (althouh it takes much longer on the bus), or because it is more environmentally friendly to use public transport, but the biggest factor in choosing to use public transport would be the cost.

The bus is nearly 3 times cheaper for me, the tram is just less than 50% cheaper.

I use the car because I can't use public transport for various reasons, I use some of the money I get from DLA to cover that cost (I have my own car).

If I am not awarded PIP or only awarded the lower rate, then that has a knock on effect on my travel to/from work as I simply cannot afford the extra costs, but travelling on public transport would have serious effects on my condition, potentialy substantially increasing the amount of time I am absent from work.

So, what options do i have.

Nobody is saying that should be a factor is getting the enhanced rate of PIP, but it does pose a problem in that removing the benefit would have an effect on an individuals ability to get to and from work. Therefore what is available to offset that.

This point was raised by the Chair of the Comittee that discussed the change from DLA to PIP last week. As the chair put it, forcing people out of jobs due to a lack of ability to get there would not be a good reflection on the Government.

The Minister herself (Esther McVey) commenetd that in that situation Access to Work would be there to pick up that extra cost (the difference between public transport and the costs involved in driving).

Or, do you feel it is right that people should be forced out of a job because they can no longer afford to get there, either because of their costs or due to having a car taken away from them?