Rishi announcement

Sncjw

Hi 

I am very worried about the announcement by the pm in regards to pip. I am on it till 2027 and I have just got my motability car. I am worried that he is changing the system again. 

I am scared I am going to lose it before I even get a chance to use it long term. Also scared I am going to lose my pip money or they will change it to having treatment.

Muttleythefrog

I did fear posting earlier about the Sunak speech today as I know it will cause distress to some members. I can't say it has particularly improved my day. 

However I provide the caution huckster does above... we are heading into a general election... and campaigning is effectively already ongoing. There's little doubt who the announcements are meant to appeal to and there's no doubt who they're aimed at not appealing to. There would be little time to implement reforms and these reforms lie on top of other reforms (like the phasing out of the WCA) they're planning which take us probably towards the end of the decade. The polls and election analysis out there is clear... the Tories can only avoid losing the next election if something massive happens to change their fortunes including events to prevent an election. It's unclear what tweaks or changes could be implemented before the election which is most likely in autumn but the government has taken a recent line of major reforms being phased in due to practical requirements like assessments and DWP resources.

The broad nature of what is proposed ranging from reducing those entitled to PIP and changing criteria (consultation apparently to come soon!) to reducing payments and 'qualifying illnesses' (clearly there is a dislike for depression and anxiety or stress causing claims) to favouring treatment over giving regular payment. The main aim is at those with Mental Illness but also those with one off type need for equipment. And that's just PIP... the main aim of the proposals seems to be to continue the attack on LCWRA and LCW.. changes to the WCA criteria already they believe will lead to 400,000 less qualifying claimants of LCWRA... but he wants to go further and push more towards work or some new sanction regime. He also attacked GPs and the culture of issuing sick notes and wants some unknown group of professionals to instead take a 'what work can they do' approach to fill this gap.

My view is announcements like this often achieve the opposite of what is often headlined.... it makes people more sick and disabled and less trusting of state and working opportunities. The government hasn't learned its lessons... it eliminated the payment for LCW and found itself with a barrage of claimants being more severely classified. It's removing the WCA with intent to use PIP to determine working disablement and that will have provoked many PIP claims. Instead of attacking the sick and disabled under the guise of not abandoning people to miserable lives of solitude and unproductivity... true engagement with the sick and disabled is necessary. Only then are we likely to see change to what he rightly points out is rising levels of long term sick and increasing numbers of disabled which is expensive in terms of both public spending and business lacking employees.

I would hope MSE staff leave the thread up for information purposes as it could affect many people who are members and plenty more visitors... for this end I link to the 3 bodies of announcements on the official government webpage.

https://www.gov.uk/welfare#news_and_communications

Refer the currently listed three most recent publications:

"PM to overhaul benefits system and tackle Britain's "sick note culture" in welfare reform speech"
"Disability benefits system to be reviewed as PM outlines "moral mission" to reform welfare"
"Prime Minister’s speech on welfare: 19 April 2024"

(There are some potentially helpful and relevant "Research and Statistics" papers also linked on the page)

Dustyevsky

Muttleythefrog said:

I would hope MSE staff leave the thread up for information purposes as it could affect many people who are members and plenty more visitors...

Indeed. I shall refrain from saying anything specific, for fear of compromising the thread, and especially not about the 'elephant in the room,' which is a large part of Mr Sunak's legacy.

My sympathies go to the OP, and others like them. I have no answers to share, other than that already given by another poster.

kkkklinky

Just to point out @Muttleythefrog. Under the government plans claiming PIP will not prevent being found "fit for work" (it will be up to Work Coach to decide fitness for work whether claiming additional PIP or not) they will just get the extra health premiums that the LCWRA used to get, a common misconception which has resulted in extra PIP claims from people thinking they will be forced to work otherwise.

It's the Tories desperate measures to get last minute support due to the Election. I'm not worrying about it unless it gets confirmed that it's happening 

huckster

I don't think Work Coaches will decide fitness for work.  One of the journalists asked the PM about this and no decision has been made about the exact process. 

I suspect that if a Government were to remove work capability assessment process and need for fit notes, they would use either existing provisions such as work & health programme or a new provision. And it would be the providers who would then recommend on capability for work which would go to DWP Decision Makers where required. 

scottleag

Practicalities also have to be considered here. There are well over three million people in receipt of PIP. There is no way that ANY changes by ANY government can affect EXISTING awards. Those awards were made under the prevailing conditions at the time of award. Any attempt to retrospectively review those awards wouldn't pass the first court challenge. That's before you consider the practicalities. The DWP are struggling to cope with claims as it is without having to re-evaluate over three million claimants, even if rollout of reviews was to be staggered. It simply can't be done. So existing awards are secure for the term of the award. 

As to what would happen when existing awards end that's more problematic. Any changes coming into effect might well be applied at review. But if that becomes the case there are bound to be legal challenges on the basis that someone has received PIP for X years, their condition has remained the same or even worsened, yet they are now considered less disabled than they were at the time of the award. It's impossible to predict what any ruling would be in those circumstances.

But as others have said these proposals are performative. They are intended to be portrayed as 'cracking down' on 'scroungers' which is on the face of it a popular policy. Many people on benefits consider themselves as genuine recipients but not the folk across the road. That may seem cynical but I believe it's an accurate assessment. 

Such efforts to 'crack down' inevitably end in failure. Every Tory government in my 68 years on Earth has been 'cracking down' with little or no effect (see also 'law and order'). 

However the next government, regardless of political complexion, will no doubt launch a large-scale review of benefits in light of the massive increase in costs post-Covid. What the upshot of that is no one can say. But large increases in costs of paying benefits can only be met in three ways - or a combination thereof - cuts in public expenditure elsewhere (already down to the bone in many instances), economic growth increasing the tax take (which takes years to percolate into the system), or increases in either or both direct and indirect taxation (the former hits the individual and the latter is inflationary).

No political party is going into an election pledged to tax rises other than on small and (deservedly) unpopular groups - non-doms, charitable status for private schools for example. The last time any party campaigned with tax rises in their manifesto was Labour in 1992 (and in Scotland the SNP in 1999). Both lost and both lost badly in elections they were thought to have a good chance of winning. They learned their lesson. Subsequent Labour (and SNP) victories were predicated on no rises in personal taxation or indirect taxes such as VAT.

People tell pollsters they're happy to pay more tax in order to properly fund the NHS or schools. But when they go into the polling booth it's very often a diferrent story. 

Muttleythefrog

kkkklinky said:

Just to point out @Muttleythefrog. Under the government plans claiming PIP will not prevent being found "fit for work" (it will be up to Work Coach to decide fitness for work whether claiming additional PIP or not) they will just get the extra health premiums that the LCWRA used to get, a common misconception which has resulted in extra PIP claims from people thinking they will be forced to work otherwise.

It's the Tories desperate measures to get last minute support due to the Election. I'm not worrying about it unless it gets confirmed that it's happening 

As above... I've tried to read all contemporary changes proposed and I'm not sure there has been any process decided. All I've been able to take from what's published is the concept of moving to a singular (PIP) test for determination of working capability... And hence some focus on how many WCA relevant claimants currently get PIP and changes bringing more alignment to respective criteria. The role of work coaches may end up flexible but I'd struggle to understand how it could be justified that they will essentially be making clinical, medical judgements with no qualification. You might be right on payments but again I'm not sure this has been decided. And of course it's reasonable to say they are unlikely to be in power to see the elimination of WCA continue... But I assume the new government will want to pursue that change.

Muttleythefrog

scottleag said:

Practicalities also have to be considered here. There are well over three million people in receipt of PIP. There is no way that ANY changes by ANY government can affect EXISTING awards. Those awards were made under the prevailing conditions at the time of award. Any attempt to retrospectively review those awards wouldn't pass the first court challenge. That's before you consider the practicalities. The DWP are struggling to cope with claims as it is without having to re-evaluate over three million claimants, even if rollout of reviews was to be staggered. It simply can't be done. So existing awards are secure for the term of the award. 

...

People tell pollsters they're happy to pay more tax in order to properly fund the NHS or schools. But when they go into the polling booth it's very often a diferrent story. 

Yeah agree with you... although on the first point I look at what they plan to do with WCA. Although the awards are somewhat different in nature to PIP where they have open ended review rather than a set award with review towards end.... for those who could be affected by changes to WCA criteria (which exclusively is negative in terms of qualification..i.e. it intends to reduce claimants eligible) they seem to want to lump them for review with new claims and reported changed circumstances while leaving those with existing awards on back burner due to resources. So I don't have quite as much confidence as you on the existing award point and especially if this or future government changes the criteria. But yes I'd see legal challenges if tried as you describe.

Agree on that last point.... as I put it (and others have before me)... people walk into voting booths and remember their wallet. Sadly true that many voters expect consistency in politicians (as they should) but when it comes to voting there can be deception and hypocrisy regarding what one says and does. 

scottleag

Muttleythefrog said:

scottleag said:

Practicalities also have to be considered here. There are well over three million people in receipt of PIP. There is no way that ANY changes by ANY government can affect EXISTING awards. Those awards were made under the prevailing conditions at the time of award. Any attempt to retrospectively review those awards wouldn't pass the first court challenge. That's before you consider the practicalities. The DWP are struggling to cope with claims as it is without having to re-evaluate over three million claimants, even if rollout of reviews was to be staggered. It simply can't be done. So existing awards are secure for the term of the award. 

...

People tell pollsters they're happy to pay more tax in order to properly fund the NHS or schools. But when they go into the polling booth it's very often a diferrent story. 

Yeah agree with you... although on the first point I look at what they plan to do with WCA. 

Fair point. Must admit I was looking just at PIP

the_pink_panther_2

Blackout05 said:

Its what Labour have planned thats important, and thus far I dont think we really know much of what they have in store...

It's this last bit here that I wonder about.  They have been so quiet on the benefits front, it's a huge part of the budgeting part and also affects so many people.  I can't understand why they have been so silent on benefits when it affects so many.

Muttleythefrog

the_pink_panther_2 said:

Blackout05 said:

Its what Labour have planned thats important, and thus far I dont think we really know much of what they have in store...

It's this last bit here that I wonder about.  They have been so quiet on the benefits front, it's a huge part of the budgeting part and also affects so many people.  I can't understand why they have been so silent on benefits when it affects so many.

They know they'll inherit an economic crisis and possibly unrecoverable public services. There'll be huge pressures on them to spend across departments. As a result they're likely to have to do atypical things of a labour government and on benefits I think they're be very cautious what goes in their manifesto. There's a perception particularly given the shadow chancellor that we could see a more conservative like run treasury. Social security isn't really a vote winning area for labour... as inherently benefit claimants are unlikely conservatives.  The Tories can afford to be hostile towards claimants... it arouses their base and possibly attracts others who dislike paying taxes to support others... this Sunak speech in the face of impending defeat may be considered therefore little more than such rabble rousing. 

I suspect a labour government will continue the line of policy previously announced by the Tories regarding the phasing out of the WCA... and take advantage of their hostile actions to reduce numbers with the WCA criteria changes. But I could be wrong and it is hard to know.... manifesto will give more ideas but as we've seen in recent times from this government those documents even where there is good universally popular policy it may still not see light of day due to internal party political issues... and Labour will face some of same as they're a 'broad church' with competing narratives. Time will tell.