Anyone for Coffey?

Hi all,

Having spent much of today researching the rumoured merger of PIP with UC, I have yet to read a convincing report.

To suggest, as Ms Coffey has, that a non-means tested benefit could co-exist with a means tested benefit sounds almost impossible without major law changes.

The nearest I can get into moving the two together is with the non-means tested premiums paid to certain ESA recipients and PIP itself.

The message is clear enough. According to Coffey, too many young people are in the ESA support group and too many claim PIP. She is using 'reverse ageism' (is that a term?) in labelling young people as the prime reasons for her reasoning.

As is usually the case, this is coming out of the mouth of someone who is comfortably well off and if (although I mistrust her I wish her no harm) something suddenly unfortunate happened she would be in a healthier financial situation than the vast majority of people to live her life. I know she had a lengthy stay in hospital the other year due to an ear infection going wrong but this obviously didn't mellow her.

I cannot get my head around this one.

Regards,

Phrank.

Hi all,

This is part of the statement by Therese Coffey, the part I've been trying to find:

"I don 't think we're looking at merging non-means-tested PIP with means tested UC, and the reform would not be just trying to force-fit different benefits together."

Well, read into that what you will but that statement makes it sound almost impossible to merge them without changing the nature of one or both benefits.

Regards,

Phrank.

[quote="phrank
post=264910"]Hi all,

This is part of the statement by Therese Coffey, the part I've been trying to find:

"I don 't think we're looking at merging non-means-tested PIP with means tested UC, and the reform would not be just trying to force-fit different benefits together."

Well, read into that what you will but that statement makes it sound almost impossible to merge them without changing the nature of one or both benefits.

Regards,

Phrank.[/quote]

Phrank well done buddy for trying to work this out, but as I've clearly stated PIP is a separate entity?
Therese Coffey is barking up the wrong tree trying to do any type of system change as PIP, like DLA was, and is for people in, or out of work.

Also to note as I've stated many times before all evidence is shared across the whole of the DWP that's what you sign when you claim for any benefits whether it be ESA,mUC,mormeven PIP, all your evidence is stored under you claim, or claims.

As I've said in an earlier post on this thread things will change hopefully for the better.


She can bark all she likes regarding this.

Hi TGGTF,

Thanks for your reply regarding this.

Yes, square peg in a round hole, mixing oil with water, counting all the grains of sand on a beach. Coffey's idea does sound a bit far-fetched, doesn't it?

I think these conferences are just like the meetings I used to go to at work long ago: a free drink or two but nothing really ever comes of them.

Regards,

Phrank.

Phrank your welcome.

Here another point to take into account...

It has been stated... Quote ""introducing a single assessment into the current system would not be beneficial. The benefits have been designed separately and each assessment considers different criteria.”

It “added: If we were to introduce a new single benefit, depending on how this was designed and its objectives, it might be possible to use a single assessment. Alternatively, we might be able to simplify access to this new benefit in some other way."

The report added: "We will consider the impact of any potential changes to the benefits system on the other benefits and support we provide for disabled people and people with health conditions. For example, changes to PIP, UC or ESA could affect benefits such as Carer’s Allowance and Attendance Allowance. We will look holistically at any changes we make, to avoid unintended consequences.

Full article here. www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/dwp-looki...gle-benefit-25238653

It's more likely to be a case of politicians have to say something even if it is tripe. They head up departments but don't have a clue what goes on in them. They are just well-paid figureheads.