Labour ministers have resorted to online scam techniques to try to force their PIP and UC cuts through the Commons on Tuesday. And there’s a strong chance that their dubious promise to exempt current claimants from the cuts is, in reality, only a two year reprieve.

But its not too late to for you to try to stop them, as one MP has confirmed.

Blank cheque

Ordinarily MPs would know what they were agreeing to when a bill is presented for its first vote. 

And if they do vote in favour, there is then a committee stage at which a group of MPs look at possible amendments, consult with experts - -such as disability groups in this case – before presenting amendments to be considered by the whole House. 

This process usually takes weeks or, for a bill that will affect millions of people like this one, even months.

There is then a final vote on the amended bill, at what is called the third reading.  But it’s incredibly rare for the government to lose at this stage – the last time it happened was 48 years ago

After the final vote, the bill goes to the Lords, to be carefully scrutinised again.

But in the case of Tuesday’s bill, MPs won’t actually know what they are voting for. 

Because ministers have promised there will be amendments which will exempt all current claimants, but they probably won’t even have been published by Tuesday.

MPs will just have to trust ministers who say that what they are actually voting for – the 4 point rule applying to all claimants – is not what will really happen.

Chaotic few hours

And then, a week after Tuesday’s vote, the entire months long committee stage will be shrunk into a few chaotic hours in front of the whole house, voting on amendments they have barely seen and with no chance to get advice from experts.

And, what is more, the government have applied to have the bill certified as a money bill.  If the Speaker agrees, then the Lords will have no power to change any of it.  Even if they do try, it will automatically be passed without change after one month.

Online scammers

Isn’t this exactly how online scammers work? 

Promise to save you from losing all your money as long as you hand over your account details immediately.  Quickly, quickly.  No time to talk to anyone, don’t hang up the phone, do it now or it will be too late. You’ll lose everything.

And yet, in reality even if the PIP cuts are put into law this month, they don’t actually take effect until November 2026. That’s sixteen months from now.

So, why can’t they be properly discussed and put into a separate piece of legislation next year?

Unless Labour have things to hide.

Labour’s dodgy promise

Labour’s promise to exempt all current claimants from the PIP and UC cuts may not be all it seems.

Kendall’s letter says that in relation to PIP, “The new eligibility requirements will be implemented from November 2026 for new claims only.”

But she says nothing about what happens in 2028, when disability minister Stephen Timms has finished rewriting the PIP eligibility criteria and the new rules are put into law. 

Labour says the new PIP rules will be coproduced with disability organisations.  But who honestly believes those groups will be given a veto on anything, especially with the government determined to cut costs?

So, if Timms decides that the four-point rule is a good one and should stay, then under the terms of Kendall’s letter, it will apply to current claimants from 2028.

Kendall also says “we will adjust the pathway of universal credit payment rates to make sure all existing recipients of the UC health element . . .  have their incomes fully protected in real terms.”

But she doesn’t say what will happen in 2028, when the work capability assessment is abolished and only claimants with an award of PIP daily living component are eligible for the UC health element. 

If current claimants are not exempt from this change as well, then 600,000 who don’t get PIP daily living will no longer have their income protected.  And if the PIP four point rule is also incorporated in the new PIP assessment from 2028, then hundreds of thousands more current claimants who don’t get four points, will lose their health element when they lose their PIP.

Contacting your MP will make a difference

Now, none of this may be what ministers intend.  But MPs voting on Tuesday won’t have a clue what they do intend, because the whole process has become a chaotic shambles – in spite of the fact it has the power to plunge hundreds of thousands of disabled people into poverty.

So, please consider contacting your MP and asking them to vote for a planned Labour amendment – which, ironically none of us has seen yet – which will give MPs more time to consider the cuts.  And if that fails, then vote against the bill in its entirety.

You won’t be wasting your time.  There are still rumoured to be 50 or 60 determined Labour rebels, with many more unsure what to do.

And, as one MP told the BBC yesterday,

"it shouldn't be underestimated the potential effect of a weekend of emails from constituents, constituency surgeries etc".

Let yours be one of them.

Comments

Write comments...
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.
    · 1 hours ago
    See Starmer was back out tonight trotting out the same lines..... protect the most vulnerable but those who can work should.....

    Can I ask exactly at what stage did PIP become an OUT OF WORK benefit- i must have missed that? 

    I'm still struggling to comprehend how cutting hundreds of thousands of peoples lifelines will help get people into work? 

    Lastly have any of you read the transcript of Timms in front of the committee last week...... spending on the welfare state is still at 5% of gdp exactly were it's been over the blast decade.... liars the lot of them saying things are spiralling. The increase in pip claimants he also admitted is most likely related to government policy.... ie- increase in pension age, nhs waiting times, and people have probably always been eligible but cost of living crisis mean they're actually applying. 


    LIARS....... THE LOT OF THEM!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 hours ago
    Iain Duncan Smith had written an interesting piece for the Telegraph.  He was the "brains" behind Universal Credit, and famously resigned from government when the financial element of the LCW group was removed by whoever was the Chancellor at the time.   Interestingly, the existing claimants continued to get it, but new claimants didn't.  IDS stated back in March on Politics Live that he wouldn't vote for the new bill because he didn't believe in taking money from the disabled.    Anyway, here's his piece from the Telegraph.  

    As an aside http://archive.ph is a way of seeing news articles behind paywalls.  If you need to use it for an article you find, open a new tab, put the archive url in and then follow the basic instructions. 

    https://archive.ph/iDTLB
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    From Tom scotson on twitter:

    Labour MP Rachel Maskell is asking MPs to sign a new *reasoned amendment* to block the welfare reform bill

    Maskell's new amendment rejects the bill because:

    — No consultation with disabled groups
    — OBR will not analyse impact of reforms until late 2025
    — Employment funding will not be ready until end of decade
    — No government impact assessment
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    About these amendments, if they do not present them to the Commons floor by Tuesday, will the vote be pulled?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    Is there a list of Mp's who are still voting against it.Hopefully mine is still on it
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Fiona I would really like to see this as well. I think everyone is trying to organise at the moment. I think MPs are rethinking their next move if they were not strongly against based on public contacting them out of worry. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    What's the likelihood of this bill being passed next week?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @YogiBear
      It's looking likely to be passed, but it's not certain. Around 85 Labour MPs would need to vote against, assuming there are no abstentions (though there could be some). Reports suggest there is a WhatsApp group of about 50 Labour MPs still intendng to vote against and there are said to be others who are still unsure how to vote, so the government hasn't got this in the bag yet. This quote from an MP:

      "it shouldn't be underestimated the potential effect of a weekend of emails from constituents, constituency surgeries etc"

      suggests it's still worth e-mailing MPs before the vote. It could be very close.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @YogiBear That's what we all want to know. All I can advise is for everyone to contact their MP, sign & share petitions and try to stay strong. Sorry I can't give you a clearer answer. Hopefully we will all have a better understanding soon. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 4 hours ago
    Keeping the fight up to the bitter end. I might be frigile, but I'm also obsessive and stubborn. This bull shine dominates my thoughts every day, but it just makes me more determined. 😔🤣
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    I understand why people are against taking the concessions, but I don't think people have necessarily thought through what that might mean.  So, forgive me for being blunt.

    At the moment, the concessions would stop 375,000 current claimants from losing their benefits by the end of the decade.  It would also prevent anyone who starts their claim over the next 18 months from having to be under the 4 point rule, as they would be current claimants by November 2026.

    But what are the alternatives?  Well, basically for the whole bill to be voted down.  But people are very naive if they think that's the end of it.  

    Most likely, a new bill with new cuts would be introduced in the autumn.  These cuts aren't going to go away.  And while the new bill might not be quite as harsh as the current unamended one, it most certainly would not be as "generous" as the concessions we are offered now.  Many of the 375,000 would still lose their benefits.  Can you live with that?

    If a new bill isn't forthcoming, there's even the possibility that THIS bill returns, unamended, and tied into the November budget, where it would get voted through because a budget is basically a confidence vote. 

    So, while it might turn your stomachs to see the concessions for 375,000 current claimants and those in the system by November 2026 to be voted through, the alternative is quite possibly going  to be worse, where nearly EVERYONE could still lose their benefits - including future claimants.

    So you have a dilemma: do you look after those 375,000 people, prevent them from going into poverty, and also those who apply within 18 months?  Or do you gamble everything, knowing full well that EVERYBODY could be worse off?  And for those saying "we shouldn't ignore the new claimants of the future," are you willing to risk the welfare of 375,000 people to follow your (albeit commendable) ideology? YOU might be willing to take the risk, but have you asked the other 374,999 people on benefits what they think?  These are 375,000 real people whose lives you are playing with.  

    The PIP form review is where we can fight for a fair form and rules for everyone.  The bill that is forthcoming, dealing with the changes to LCWRA eligibility is another place where we can fight for new claimants.  But, at the moment, I say "stick" with the current offer rather than saying "twist" and risk losing absolutely everything for everyone.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @SLB They would have to be completely insane to try the budget option if they lose on Tuesday. They may think they've got problems now, but if they pulled a stunt like that it would tear the party apart even if they got it through in that way (and if they lost their budget then Reeves would be out and Starmer's position would be somewhere between extremely precarious and utterly untenable).  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @SLB And also why would the concessions not be as generous as you put it?

      If the bill gets voted down on Tuesday with these concessions in play then why on earth would MPs vote a similar bill through in a few months time (sept-nov) with lesser concessions?

      I can only see that happening if MPs are exposed to more serious threats and pressure

      Also I’m don’t think a gov can present to same bill in the same commons session (which I’ll imagine will be open for some more months so the assisted dying bill can get completed)………I don’t know if this applies to mirror bills with minor or major tweaks)?

      Some disabled online need to look at the bigger, longer picture (there’s a reason why no (or close to zero) disability charities or organisations are endorsing these concessions)
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @SLB My pip runs out early 2027 so as much as I want to have a thumbs up moment that my next pip review would be more straight ward under these concessions I have to step back and looks at the bigger picture.

      I know that the 2 tier stuff was already done with the esa wrag amount many years back - but that only lost the new esa wrag less than £2k a year - the cuts proposed in this bill are a whole different level and I personally can’t condemn future disabled to terrible conditions just to ‘secure a loaf of bread for myself’

      Even if I was being selfish, these concessions would massively up the stakes of a tribunal (and the waiting time between pip assessment and review decision would rocket up in stress levels)

      None of these ‘concessions’ are being added to the official legal font of the bill before Tuesdays vote so this is only equal to a verbal agreement and a verbal word is easily gone back on (considering the gov is rushing through this bill much quicker than nexts to be to complete in November, I don’t really trust this gov not pulling something underhand and just saying what they need to to get the bill though then regress on their word a few months later)

      Also reading Kendall wording these concessions cover this current pip assessment process - it does not technically cover the new pip assessment reforms currently being written by timms to be implemented 2028 (yes Kendall could extend the concessions to existing pip claimants after the reforms are implemented but the letter provides no legal obligation for her to do so) - pip reviews are running very very late and  awards are getting extended……..any pip claimant currently with a 2027 (or even late 2026) award end date could find their award gets extended by 6 months and/or review gets put back and as a result lose what could be a temporary reprieve (the best case being getting one more pip review not under the 4pt rule)

      Also on a personal note I would have to forget about doing anything like volunteering or studying in the future as these concessions are a bit like ‘a glass balcony over a cliff edge’ - the dwp are known for using every dirty trick to stop pip award (plus there’s enough public who think disabled are scroungers and could vindictively report us to dwp and loss any one of us our award so we have to reapply as a new claimant)

      If this was a game of ‘deal or no deal’ the banker would be offering around £500? - for those thinking short term they may consider that enough to cover today’s problems. But to me these concessions are at best a ‘bread roll’ that’s coming at a very high price so “Noel, it’s going to be no deal!”

      (Losing a bread roll isn’t enough to stop me wanting to open a few more boxes)
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @SLB LCWRA eligibility changed are still to come? Oh god help us now please.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @SLB My biggest problem with these concessions is that I would have to put my trust in politicians who have been nothing but utterly vile towards us. For God's sake, Reeves was reportedly in tears at the notion that she wouldn't have enough disabled people to line up and lie down and allow her to stamp all over their faces. 

      There's saying 'leopards wouldn't eat my face' and then maintaining they're not eating your face while they're well and truly all over you and nibbling at your nose.

      Do I have any evidence that they'll come for us eventually once they get their foot in the door? No. But would I be absolutely shocked if I found out that's the eventual plan? Also no. Because trusting Labour is what has got a lot of us in this mess in the first place.

      As for the notion that they'll come back with a bill that's far worse, I assume you're saying this because you feel Starmer will be desperate enough to curry favour with the Tories, which would be a disastrous move politically and would probably leave him with very few loyalist MPs to back him up. 

      He'd lose more votes than he could gain and - what's more - Starmer cannot rule out a tax rise anyway because he's running out of short term solutions to avoid that and he's having to spend more money on defence so that's that plan out of the window anyway. And the Tories know this. Hence why they're dangling their support over his head. And why wouldn't they? It's funny. 

      And this isn't even going into how wrong this is morally but I feel it's more imperative to explain why exactly this bill needs to be shot down once and for all. "Don't go after the disabled" shouldn't be "don't go after the disabled who were declared unfit for work or eligible for PIP before Rachel Reeves switched up the rules", it should be "don't go after the disabled - period!". 

      The reason this is important to point out is that people with 4 points in a PIP activity could've very easily adopted the attitude of 'well, this doesn't affect me so who cares?' but I've seen absolutely zero of this rhetoric. I've seen countless people writing to their MPs and it's why we've been able to get as far as we have. I'd be extremely disappointed in this community if I see such rhetoric adopted now when there's a potential we could still hold out.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    YES we do have to think about those who will come after us.

    Children will still be born with disabilities and life-long ill health (close your eyes and picture that mother and father right now being given that news )
    Road traffic accidents will still happen disabling and deforming people for life (close your eyes and picture those people right now)
    Someone under the age of 21 can be healthy on a Monday but then on a Tuesday have a life-long condition diagnosed. (close your eyes and picture those young people now being given that news and having that youthful sparkle in their eyes extinguished)

    Do you recognize those children, those adults, those youth. YOU SHOULD we were/are them.


    This Governments pathetic 'last minute' concessions are NOT ENOUGH

    Besides as in my previous post. Can we actually TRUST them to stand by their word that it will NOT affect existing claimants they will have reassessments rushed through and they will change the goalposts. 

    WHERE IS IT WRITTEN IN THE AMENDMENTS/CONCESSIONS. IT IS DAMN WELL NOT!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @SLB https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/budgets

      “A government could be defeated on a specific budget resolution or on a vote on the subsequent finance bill. The effects of this on a government would depend on the specific vote that they lost.”

      It’s damaging enough for a gov to lose a commons vote on a bill they introduced - but doing some research not being able to pass the budget/financial bill would probably topple the government 

      Honestly if the pip/uc bill gets voted down on Tuesday it would be political suicide for Labour and reeves to risk a repeat backlash in the autumn budget.

      I apologise for saying the following but fear seems to be affecting some on this site ability to see straight and reason logically - I’d advise those shouting ‘deal’ to take the weekend off away from the internet and do something nice solo or with loved ones

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @D2 Children do need to be looked after, and hopefully that can be done via an amendment.  

      I understand the noble thought of wanting to fight for adults who will be disabled in the future - but have the adults who will be disabled in the future fought for us?  In most cases, no.  

      And nobody is saying we shouldn't think about the future claimants - but are you willing to risk the lives of 375,000 current claimants to do it?  Do you have their permission to gamble on their behalf?

      If this bill doesn't go through with the concessions, we could be facing a different one in the autumn - or, worse, this one without the concessions brought back and tied in with the budget, where it will be forced through without doubt.  

      That is why the concession has to be accepted - save the people we can save -  and the welfare of future claimants should be fought within future bills - and there are several to come.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @D2 Today's ordinary people and tomorrow's unborn children will lose their safety net with this government. Don't have a work related accident, don't have children who have deformities or major illnesses, and don't expect this so called unprogressively government to help you with a a proper safety net for you, your family, and your friends. This government is dismantling all your protection right from under your feet! Rise up and protest as they use your contributions to deny you your safety net!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    'Olivia Blake dismisses Starmer’s welfare bill changes as ‘plucked from the air’ and urges rebels to stand firm'

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/28/disabled-labour-mp-olivia-blake-welfare-bill-u-turn-starmer
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    Disabled Labour MP says welfare U-turn would create ‘unethical two-tier system’
    Olivia Blake dismisses Starmer’s welfare bill changes as ‘plucked from the air’ and urges rebels to stand firm

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    I read this and thought well we are being goverened by a lawyer and so what I read has not surprised me.  I have emailed my MP but as he is a conservative I doubt my comments will cut much ice.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    Starmer ,Reeves ,Kendall  & Timms need to resign with immediate effect they and each one of them are incompetent running office and just maybe and only maybe the Labour Party might actually achieve something after wasting a year of being in Government therefore, we must never forget what they have put us through in the last three months.
    Until another day we have to fight for what we are as individuals real people as I like to say…
    And I’ve said this before- the government and the other political parties too should be NOT always be looking down on the vulnerable and the poorest of society but, UP to the resilient and richest of people who have for decades had it so good and a little more tax of their selfish wealth would help this economy far better and much less hassle for the better of this country.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1257987772358855&id=100044429319599&set=a.482963379861302.
    Richard Burgon will be presenting his petition against benefit cuts to parliament on Monday. Still time to sign and share 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    Richard Burgon petition. Still time to sign.https://act.38degrees.org.uk/act/tax-the-super-rich-0924
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    I just wish I knew which MP's have changed their minds. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @Cuckoo21 Meg Hillary but I hope she realises she has been played
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    A lot of the focus of the criticisms of the PiP UC concessions package has been understandably on the iniquity of a 'two tier' system and the fate of people newly signed up to PiP or a health related UC.

    But I think that there also significant potential and very serious detriments to legacy cliaimants.  What happens when people have to notify DWP of a 'change in circumstances' or a change in their condition? Both of which claimants are required to do, and can face sanctions if they do not.  
    As I understand it people curently on PiP and/ or a health related UC will be protected when they face a routine review of their claim. All PiP or UC awards are time limited and at the end of the award period claimants face a review.  
    Liz Kendall is saying that they that they  will be assessed using the legacy criteria I.e not subject to the new 4 points rule. 
    But at the moment if you notify DWP of a 'change of circumstances' which can be as little as a change of address or notify them of a change in your health condition you face 

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    on our X account 

    MPS should not trust a woman who is odd enough to have a "dream Job" ambition of running the DWP, a man who walks around collapsed women to exit a place quickly to avoid TRUE scrutiny and A PM trying to ram through months of stages of a bill in a day avoiding the lords & examinations. #TakingThePIP #LabourLies stand your ground and vote this bill into the gutter where it belongs #falseconcessions #sneaky #StarmerOutNow

    they need to wake up fast keep playing games with people's lives and heads.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @godgivemestrength It is creepy. Especially as she would have encountered plenty of people in her constituency who needed help or were disabled before she got her current role. So she would know what the consequences would be with these cuts.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @nightcity/TVGR Radio Sussex @nightcity/TVGR Radio Sussex So right about Kendall - why? With all her millions, why? it's warped. She should be doing something philanthropic.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    Just my tuppence worth. Firstly: As an existing PIP claimant, I’m alright, Jack, but I can’t in good conscience support a bill that fails those who will need support in the future. As many others have said, this is divisive and unfair. Secondly: One has to remember that almost nobody - working or otherwise - is “safe” beyond the immediate future. A wealth tax is really the only way to address the concerns and resentments of the working poor/middle class and perhaps prevent vastly more pernicious elements from attaining power. This govt is highly unstable and out of touch with the concerns of its constituents, which isn’t good news for anyone. Hopefully something better will be tabled. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    I have written to my MP. I am so confused with regards to new style ESA (contribution based) current support group claiments with what's happening & when. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @D2 Is it the same for income based ESA based support group migration to UC? Or is it just a problem with contributions based ESA? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @KT Contribution based ESA isn't being migrated to UC. It's being replaced by a new health insurance for new claimants. I'm not sure what is going to happen to us existing recipients. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @KT
      Hi KT

      I am in the same position as you on that KT it is because it has been accelerated to get us all moved across. They have rushed it through that quickly that questions people such as ourselves with this, 'dual element of new style ESA and UC that they are NOT equipped to answer! It is a shambolic mess!

      I spoke to CAB this week regarding the same/similar issues that have been thrown my way.

      I was told by the CAB Advisor that I spoke with (initially I called due to what should have been an answer to a simple question regarding the confusion with the new style ESA and the UC (dual)) BUT they could NOT answer it! So then I got put through a call where the DWP staff member did NOT listen and was oppressive and actually RUDE! 

      Therefore, because of this rush, rush, with the DWP I was told by the CAB advisor that the 'Expert Advisors' at CAB have/are recognizing that migrating across when in the support Group is causing NO END of problems.' When being migrated across with transitional protection. 
      Lets try and stay strong KT 
      '

      '

      '
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.