Benefits and Work has obtained details of the conditions which have the highest number of awards with no 4-point or higher descriptors. 

The figures, provided under the Freedom of Information Act, show that Labour's PIP cuts are overwhelmingly aimed at older, but still working age, claimants with physical health conditions, many of whom will have been employed for most of their adult life and many of whom will still be employed.. 

Almost half (46%) of all working age PIP claimants are at risk of losing their award on review from November 2026  

Nearly eight out of ten awards where back pain is the primary disabling condition are at risk under the proposed 4-point or higher rule

This is closely followed by arthritis, where more than three quarters of awards are threatened.

The conditions least likely to lose out are learning disabilities, where only 3% are at risk and autistic spectrum disorders at 6%

These figures only cover working age claimants.  There is a lack of clarity from the DWP about what will happen to pension age claimants from November 2026.

According to these statistics there are a total of 2,795,000 working age PIP claimants and 1,296,000 (46%) are at risk of losing their award on review from November 2026.

 

Rank

Health condition category

Volume of PIP Claimants in receipt of Daily Living component

Claimants awarded less than 4 points in all daily living activities

Volume in each condition group

Proportion in each condition group

1

Back pain

194,000

154,000

79%

2

Arthritis

279,000

214,000

77%

3

Other Regional Musculoskeletal Diseases

136,000

97,000

71%

4

Chronic pain syndromes

173,000

118,000

68%

5

Cardiovascular diseases

61,000

38,000

62%

6

Respiratory diseases

83,000

45,000

55%

7

Anxiety and depression

587,000

282,000

48%

8

Multiple sclerosis and neuropathic diseases

80,000

38,000

48%

9

All other conditions

272,000

126,000

46%

10

Other neurological diseases

97,000

35,000

36%

11

Cerebrovascular disease

56,000

19,000

34%

12

Cancer

70,000

23,000

33%

13

Epilepsy

36,000

11,000

30%

14

Other psychiatric disorders

90,000

25,000

28%

15

Cerebral Palsy and Neurological Muscular Diseases

47,00

11,000

24%

16

Psychotic disorders

112,000

26,000

23%

17

ADHD/ADD

75,000

14,000

19%

18

Autistic spectrum disorders

206,000

13,000

6%

19

Learning disabilities

188,000

7,000

3%

DWP Notes

Health condition category is based on primary health condition as recorded on the PIP Computer System at time of latest assessment. Many claimants have multiple health conditions but only primary condition is available for analysis.

Only the 18 disabling condition groups which make up the highest proportions of the PIP caseload are displayed in this table.

Other disabling condition groups which cover smaller proportions of the PIP caseload are covered in the "Other Conditions" category. This includes:

  • Visual Diseases
  • Other General Musculoskeletal Diseases
  • Endocrine Diseases
  • Hearing Disorders
  • Gastrointestinal Diseases
  • Genitourinary Diseases
  • Skin Diseases
  • Autoimmune Diseases (Connective Tissue Disorders)
  • Infectious Diseases
  • Diseases of the Liver, Gallbladder or Biliary Tract
  • Haematological Diseases
  • Metabolic Diseases
  • Multisystem and Extremes of Age
  • Diseases of the Immune System

Anxiety and Depression includes the following conditions recorded in the PIP Stat Xplore data:

  • Anxiety disorders - Other / type not known
  • Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
  • Stress reaction disorders - Other / type not known
  • Generalised anxiety disorder
  • Phobia - Specific
  • Phobia - Social
  • Agoraphobia
  • Panic disorder
  • Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD)
  • Anxiety and depressive disorders - mixed
  • Conversion disorder (hysteria)
  • Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD)
  • Dissociative disorders - Other / type not known
  • Somatoform disorders - Other / type not known
  • Depressive disorder
  • Bipolar affective disorder (Hypomania / Mania)
  • Mood disorders - Other / type not known

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.
    · 13 days ago
    Hi ALL

    It appears that we now have to be cautious about what we are answering on any petitions and surveys!

    MP's penalized if they abstain on one issue but then basically bribed to abstain from another matter (re welfare reforms)!

    I concur with Angela who has posted on the site that if MP's abstain from a vote that will be EQUALLY as bad. As then it will leave just the majority who have voted which will determine basically the fate of the disabled, sick, mentally ill. 

    However, what we have to bear in mind is that even if our local MP's abstain for fear of losing local seats in their area then they DO NOT DESERVE to be voted for EITHER.

    Which will mean that if they abstain then it would be the majority that have voted.

    TORIES, REFORM, LIB DEMS ALL SEEM TO BE IN FAVOR OF THE REFORMS!

    It is as if whatever we do they will throw something else at us!

    Whatever we say will be turned back on you NO MATTER WHERE YOU SAY IT OR HOW YOU SAY IT. THEY HAVE ALREADY PREEMPTED IT AND THEY WILL NOT ANSWER IT JUST DEFLECT FROM IT.

    SKILLED JOURNALISTS AND ACADEMICS HAVE HAD TO TOLERATE THEIR DOWNRIGHT IGNORANCE AND INSOLENCE.

    I AGREE AT THE MOMENT TELL THEM TO MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS. 

    Normally, I would state to just write cost of Care, added electric and gas, water, due to disabilities, expensive equipment wheelchairs and ALL other mobility aids to include specialized added cost of services such as  washing and ironing,  (AS AGENCY CARE WORKERS WILL NOT DO THAT ANYMORE!)
    Gardener etc..,!

    However, they WILL just start to question the legitimate support and equipment that you have to pay out for. 

    They WILL just continue to keep on moving the goal post to suit their aim.

    I think this is WHY a lot of disability charities NOW have refused to enter into any form of communication with Starmer, Kendall, Reeves and Co.. Since the Green paper proposals. 

    Whereas before they were in communication with them. Because there was/is a realization that whatever they stated about sick, disabled mental health and work has FACT been misconstrued. To suit the agenda. 


    Then this Government has USED that information to be ready and waiting for it to be used in these reforms. Whether or NOT certain entities are regretting it now or NOT who knows. 

    However, the HARM is already done. Maybe they thought that reform was needed but now realize that it has gone FAR TOO FAR! When they engaged behind our backs with this Government.

    This IS what we are ALL up against.

    Now they are marking down PIP points in recent assessments, compared to what was awarded the last time. As Cmjdexter has posted on the site. 

    ALL LOOK AT YOUR MEDICATIONS THAT YOU ARE PRESCRIBED FOR WHATEVER YOUR CONDITIONS. THERE WILL BE PRINTED ON THEM WHAT THE SIDE EFFECTS ARE OR WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN DRIVE OR OPERATE MACHINERY. I KNOW THIS MAY SOUND STUPID TO SOME OF YOU ON THE SITE! WHAT I AM TRYING TO GET AT HERE. HOWEVER, WE HAVE GOT TO START LOOKING AT ANY HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS THAT THESE PROPOSALS WILL BE IN CONTRAVENTION OF. THEY SEEM TO BE TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE EQUALITY ACT 2010 AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT. THEREFORE WE HAVE TO START LOOKING AT OTHER LAWS THAT INDICATES WHAT A HEALTH AND SAFETY RISK THAT YOU ARE IN ADDITION TO THE DISABILITIES, CONDITIONS, ILL-HEALTH THAT PREVENTING YOU 'SAFELY AND RELIABLY' FROM BEING ABLE TO WORK. 

    THIS IS ALL UNLAWFUL EVERY LAST BIT OF IT BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHERE OR HOW THEY CAN BE STOPPED.
    THROUGH ANY LEGAL REMEDIES.

    THE CASUALTIES TO THIS THUS FAR ARE ENORMOUS, IT HAS EXACERBATED ALL OF US AND THE VERY SERIOUS CONDITIONS THAT WE ALL LIVE WITH. THE CASUALTIES IF THIS BILL IS PASSED DOES NOT EVEN BEAR THINKING ABOUT. 




    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @Gingjn You have your opinion and I have mine!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @Gingjn Tim me partner read that Ed Davey of Lib Dems his son is disabled and these cuts could harm him, so are the Lib Dems Mps likely to vote for something that could effect their own leader?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 days ago
      @DJ I’m not sure you’re right about the Lib Dems supporting these reforms. My MP has said there’s significant concern about the proposals in the party and others have opposed them, as was highlighted by another poster on this site. I’m not saying go vote Lib Dems, I’m just not sure that what you’ve said about them being in favour of the reforms is accurate. As Ed Davey’s election campaign was a lot around the plight of carers I think they might well have serious concerns around the reforms. I know my own Lib Dem MP does. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    A comment via Scope.

    Money bills can be used to adjust payment amounts (freeze, increase, or cut benefits like Universal Credit) because they focus on spending. What they can't do is change who qualifies, how claims are assessed, or the conditions for receiving benefits. While money bills can tweak payments, major reforms require full legislation.

    Most welfare reforms involve both financial changes and rule modifications, which is why they usually need primary legislation, not just a money bill.

    If the government wants to alter eligibility, assessments, or conditions, it must use primary legislation, which takes longer as MPs and Lords debate and vote on it.

    You asked what we can do, all of us can continue to contact MPs, ministers, and organisations. This is important for raising awareness and pressuring decision-makers before these changes become law. It’s important to highlight how these changes could push many people into poverty, as policymakers need to understand the human consequences, not just the financial savings.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    Hi moderators, i think your system may have a glitch. My last post had a bit missing. This happened another time recently too. 
    I know it’s IT stuff, but maybe you could flag it. Thanks 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 days ago
      @SLB The upvote was agreeing with the first sentence. Probably 🤭
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @ANGELA That's happened a few times to me, too.  I'm sure much of the board were cheering at seeing my essays chopped short!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    1.3 million working age people will lose PIP. 

    How many of these will also lose UC health components? 
    Does anyone know? 

    I’m set to lose 10K. 
    Got my UC Migration letter yesterday, so that’s another 3K I’m set to lose on top of that. 

    I am actually traumatised (I suffer with C-PTSD as well as physical stuff).  


    Also to search for his moral compass and backbone. 

    Apologies to those with spinal injuries. I meant it in the metaphorical sense. ✊. 

    Spiralling here, but clutching on. Look after yourselves everybody. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @SLB
      "everyone who loses PIP and gets the health component of UC will lose that as well. IF it goes ahead as proposed."

      At present there is a total lack of clarity on whether the UC health element changes will apply to existing claimants or not. The green paper says that if you have LCWRA prior to April 2026 and still have it after reassessment then your LCWRA will not change. This is unclear in more ways then one: does it mean "will not change until the WCA is scrapped in 2028" (the green paper does not say that, it just says "will not change") or does it mean will not change indefinitely? As they're talking about a new UC health premium for those who can't work my guess would be that if you have a reassessment between now and 2028 and they accept you can't work due to conditions which have no prospect of improving then you'll probably be left alone. If you have a condition which is expected to improve, then you'll probably be facing further reassessments. 

      We also don't know about those who, like me, are still on ESA and get a health top-up as part of the ESA system. I've been subjected to the WCA on multiple occasions and been found unfit to work every time, so I'm in the support group. Does that count as LCWRA for the purposes of the proposed new system? We don't know. The whole green paper seems to have been rushed out using back of a fag packet calculations by people who are either utterly clueless about how the system works, or who know what they're proposing is a disaster waiting to happen and don't give a damn.

      It does seem that they're starting to panic about the scale of a potential rebellion though: 


      This bit is interesting: "A group of MPs is understood to be preparing to break cover by calling for a complete rethink." I hope this happens. It would give encouragement to other MPs to ignore threats from the whips and vote against something they know is wrong.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @ANGELA The short answer is that everyone who loses PIP and gets the health component of UC will lose that as well.  IF it goes ahead as proposed.  There's a long time between now and 2028.  Yes, it might get pushed through parliament, but that still doesn't mean it will go ahead without changes.  There are chances for amendments in the commons, it's got to go through the committee stage, and the Lords might well be unhappy with all of this too.   The news in the Guardian yesterday showed that the govt is beginning to panic a little over the rebellion they might suffer in the Commons.  So it's possible that some of this might be rowed back yet.  It's a long fight, sadly.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    What is benefits and works view on the survey about how claimants spend their pip? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @(No) hope They have said DO NOT FILL IT IN, it will be used against us
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    What will it mean if loads of MPs obtain on the vote don't understand that bit or what will happen if loads do .
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 10 days ago
      @MJ
      The number of people who would have gone to Rwanda was absolutely tiny to the point of statistical insignificance - the camps that were built there to house asylum seekers didn't have the capacity to take any more than that. That meant that the cost per person sent there would have been absolutely astronomical. It made no sense. A textbook case of "something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done".

      Desperate people are not deterred by parliament passing a law, not least because the overwhelming majority won't have a clue that the law even exists, and wouldn't care even if they did know about it - they'll still take their chances, even if that means risking their lives on the Channel.

      Funnily enough, you don't see many people from Ukraine or Hong Kong arriving on small boats. Why? Because there is a safe and legal application process for them to go through. By eliminating such processes for people from other countries, so there is no legal application process available, our governments have at a stroke created a thriving criminal underworld of people smugglers who are only too happy to fill the void (and you can bet those smugglers won't be telling their victims about any laws passed in parliament). Genius.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @tintack I was for it and it seemed to be working somewhat as a deterrent. Losing more money without it. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @MrFibro I doubt if Labour will ever win another General Election. They will forever be remembered as the party who mugged the pensioners of their winter fuel allowance  + then set about mugging the disabled too. What will be Labours next trick be, to raid the orphanage?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 days ago
      @SLB Hold on! Your post sounds like you have given up. Whilst you might accept its all over + done. But try not to steal other people's hopes of maybe getting things changed.  
      Whilst you have obviously given up, not all of us have.

      Last Thursday my partner + I went to see the CAB, re the planned changes to PIP (my partners uncle is 64 + is on pip + he's next to bed bound. The CAB said it will be a while before any changes come into effect + the CAB did say theyvare aware there is 6 legal challenges already started up re this government's plans + it hasn't even got through parliament yet. 
      The CAB did say if the courts see against the DWP, they would then have to accept the courts rulling. 

      It doesn't matter if it's May or June when the MPs vote on this. But if Angela Raynor resigns, that is the end of Stammer, he could never survive that. Now if Stammer goes, someone has to replace him, the UK can't just hobble on without a PM. The chances are the new PM would be forced to abandon these ludicrous plans made by an incompetent Stammer.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 days ago
      @WorkshyLayabout
      "A lot of our money went to Rwanda. Emphasis on a lot."

      It was always an absurd gimmick. Even James Cleverley - a walking embodiment of the limits of nominative determinism - reportedly described it as "bats@*'t". And he was a member of the government overseeing it.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    Again surely there will be some sort of legal action taken? If the Supreme Court can made verdicts on other situations then surely they can do it with this?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 days ago
      @Dave Dee According to the CAB, there is 6 legal challenges already started.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 days ago
      @Dave Dee The Supreme Court’s role is to make judgements on existing legislation. The government is bringing in new primary legislation to do this… The moment the Bill is passed it will become law. It will then be possible to challenge it, but legal challenges take many years. Hundreds of thousands of people will suffer, probably for a round a decade, even if a legal challenge is successful

      Meanwhile, this isn’t law yet, so it can’t be challenged legally. That’s why public opposition and campaigning are so important, and why people need to pressure their MPs to vote against this, so it can be stopped from becoming law.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Dave Dee The courts can't change anything, but they can still make a judgement.  If the govt ignores that, then it's going to look very bad.  But first we need someone with shed loads of money to take them to court.  I'll go check on my lottery ticket!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    I have finally received my paperwork for my most recent review ( 8 months after the date it needed to be in for).
    This time l scored 14 in daily living, previously 16. Two fours were downgraded to 3s with just one remaining ( cooking and eating) the award is for seven years and I will be receiving state pension by then.
    It just showed me that they are changing 4s to 3s . However my needs haven’t changed.
    Luckily I held onto one but I reckon if they started to review mine early, that 4 will be magically changed to a 3.
    They also said they used information from my Universal Credit assessment. Strange that. I don’t receive it.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 10 days ago
      @SLB Personally, I don't think our awards are going  to stand the length of time they were supposed to, labour are having a go now and if they lose the next election,the next lot will probably have a go as well, I have an award till 2033,ongoing, and I don't believe it will be honoured at all,I think we will all be reassessed before our time and 90% chucked off,and that includes me!!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @SLB
      " 7 years is a long time - by that point we'll have had another election and, at this rate, the Monster Raving Loony Party will get a majority."

      Many would say they already have.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Cmjdexter Is this how it is going to be for any one having a pip review now 
      As disabled people are just pawns  in the labour party’s agenda of clawing money back from the most vulnerable  folk which are disabled people 

      As folk who got four points in any of the activity’s on their previous pip review before changes in pip was announced 

      Are suddenly getting their fours marked down to 3 in their recent pip review now  when there has been no change in their health condition or disability and needs 
       
      As the dwp pip assessors are doing the governments bidding already by lowering disabled folks 4 to a 3 on their pip reviews 
      Deliberately so disabled people don’t meet the new rules coming into force 

      So the dwp and the labour government  can force disabled people further into poverty as well as causing disabled people severe detrimental impacts on their mental health and on their well being and on their physical health and on their quality of life 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Cmjdexter I very much doubt that they are doing anything like that just yet - and in your case it would be pointless, as you still got a 4 point anyway.  And it's only at your next review that any changes would happen.  7 years is a long time - by that point we'll have had another election and, at this rate, the Monster Raving Loony Party will get a majority. 

      But I'm not sure how they awarded you two lots of 3 points, as there's only one 3 point descriptor in the entire set of daily living questions (washing and bathing), and they're not allowed to just make them up.  So one of them might be a typo that, thankfully, doesn't really alter your award.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @sara Sara, how about emailing all the MPs? They are the ones who will be voting.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @sara It is a powerful one and this has to be raised with the MPs and Lords so there are attempts to alter this within the bill itself by alerting them to the dangers
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @James @James that's a powerful one. Would alerting our couny council housing departmentss be the way to best publicise that?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    And now this:


    Please nobody answer the survey if you receive it.  Or better yet, write on it:

    'NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, I OPPOSE THE DISGUSTING WELFARE CUTS AND REFORM'

    Send that back to them!

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @Mick I’ve been thinking about the effects of PIP cuts and the impact on HB for a couple of days now so it’s good to see it explained so well in this article. Many, many people must be extremely worried as must many Councils who face losing tenants plus private landlords, as they will both lose income and face the costs of bringing evictions. Once this aspect starts appearing in the wider Press and in the minds of MPs who will lose their seats over it, there will be a bigger backlash to the PIP cuts. As an OAP homeowner with a mortgage and service charges, I receive ZERO help - any help with service charges through ESA was lost when I got my pension. I’m enhanced DL&MOB but my highest in DL is a 3 point, 10yr review is 2033. My point is that people need certainty about their futures not endless worry about how they’re going to keep a roof over their heads. The wider economy is also a bust flush as it will be impacted by reduced spending as people cut back. Welcome to austerity 2.0, not!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Mick i AGREE WITH YOU MICK

      I think we have ALL got to be a little cautious in where we add our names in light of recent revelations.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Mick Oh no, I answered the Scope one thinking it would help )-:
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Mick I'd ask them what they spend their expenses on. "That's none of your business!" they'll also no doubt say. Because it's different when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?

      Also, thanks for the free £10 voucher. lol
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago


    Seems some  libdems support cuts this is just some of the news report from yahoo news.


    THE Liberal Democrats have criticised the Labour group for not supporting their motion at the full council meeting in Warrington on Monday.

    The motion was on the Government’s recent Green Paper, proposing welfare payment changes amounting to £5 billion a year.

    At the full council meeting, the Labour group unanimously voted against the motion which called on the council leader to write to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to express the council’s ‘grave concerns’ about the impact of these changes and to urge for a ‘reverse’ of the ‘decision to target those with disabilities and health condition with cuts to their support payments’.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Lill I’m confused, it looks from what you’ve said here like the Lib Dems we’re challenging the govt’s proposals, not supporting them? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Lill Sorry, the quote I included didn't send properly but here you go:

      "Liberal Democrat Cllr Ian Marks, a former council leader, seconded the motion.

      He said: “We welcome attempts to get people back into work and recognise that the welfare system is a mess and needs sorting out.

      “However, we don’t like the way the Government has gone about these changes and they have handled the politics badly.

      “Coming on top of the winter fuel allowance cuts, Labour voters believe the Government has lost touch with ordinary people and the changes they promised at the election have not happened. A recent study predicts that the benefit cuts could cost Labour eighty seats at a General Election.

      “We agree that the public finances in the country are in a dire state but money should be raised by making the big banks, the technology and social media companies and on-line gaming firms pay a fair share from their huge profits, rather than penalising the disabled and those with health issues.”"
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Lill Sorry but I've read the full article and I can't seem to find where it indicates that "some Lib Dems support the cuts"? 

      It sounds to me like the Lib Dem councillors are upset that the Labour councillors in the Warrington council don't wish to raise any concerns with the higher ups in the government and have blocked a motion that Lib Dems proposed for them to do so, even though the Labour councillors are also reportedly as worried as they are.

      The article concludes with this.

      "

      He said: “We welcome attempts to get people back into work and recognise that the welfare system is a mess and needs sorting out.

      “However, we don’t like the way the Government has gone about these changes and they have handled the politics badly.

      “Coming on top of the winter fuel allowance cuts, Labour voters believe the Government has lost touch with ordinary people and the changes they promised at the election have not happened. A recent study predicts that the benefit cuts could cost Labour eighty seats at a General Election.

       
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 days ago
    @James, re your investigation into the £6,000 limit:

    It only makes sense in the warped dwp parallel universe. It's the same when they calculate how much you'd get from a pension you haven't accessed - they put a notional figure on the non-existent annuity payments and deduct it from means tested benefits. Also, the £6,000 threshold is soooo longstanding it's nonsense. Trying to save for a car, for example, because the motability scheme doesn't suit everyone, you can't accumulate enough without losing some of what you've saved. They deduct according to their inflated figure and the real, much lower, figure is eroded by the deduction . Simples 🙄
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @sara The only thing I could work out is if they want you to spend your 250 pounds at 4.80 per week but then they are actually encouraging you to go back to benefits within the year and not encouraging anyone to save which I think is counter productive if someone is able to
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @sara The same applies to medical procedures. Someone cannot get an operation on the NHS because of ridiculously long waiting lists and times, but isn't allowed to save the money to pay for private treatment and aftercare.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 days ago


    "nothing that’s been sent to me has given me hard evidence of cases that are at risk of really losing out.”

    Wish we knew which that mp was - we could put them right! Refer them to a certain B&W survey maybe.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @tintack tintack Yep, head up his own backside.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @SLB
      "thankfully, he might be educated during the Commons debate"

      Assuming whoever it is bothers to turn up. It sounds like someone who is determined not to see the evidence staring them in the face. "I see no ships...."
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Frances Whoever it is will certainly be one of the right-wing Starmerite drones. I find it very hard to believe that they haven't had e-mails from constituents describing just how devastating the cuts will be if they go through. And given that the stated intention is to save billions of pounds - not that that will actually happen, as the savings made by cutting benefits will be vastly outweighed by the extra cost of NHS treatments that people will need because they've been made poorer and therefore sicker - how do they think that is going to happen without people losing out? Presumably they think the savings will be made by pushing sick and disabled people into all those jobs that don't exist and which they couldn't do even if they did exist.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @Frances thankfully, he might be educated during the Commons debate.  But it's pretty sickening that there are MPs who can't be bothered to do their homework.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @Frances "Nothing that’s been sent to me has given me hard evidence of cases that are at risk of really losing out.”

      Oh, that's extremely reassuring! They personally haven't seen or heard anybody worrying about these reforms so that means nothing bad is going to happen. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 days ago
    From the Guardian:  "Ministers scramble to avoid Labour rebellion on disability benefit cuts
    Exclusive: backbenchers may be allowed to abstain, a major climbdown from previous votes when rebels were suspended from the party."

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 days ago
    Another news story, this time in the Mirror:
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 days ago
    So you've got better than a 50/50 chance if you're just down and bluesy?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 days ago
    Keir Starmer and his clowns are scrambling to bribe revolting MPs against disability benefits cuts, offering them to abstain!

    "One Labour MP said: “When people abstained on the winter fuel vote, they were warned that it had been taken by the leadership as voting against the government. This time, however, a number of MPs have been offered the opportunity to abstain.”


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/apr/17/ministers-avoid-labour-rebellion-disability-cuts
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @Scorpion And many will, because they're wimps.  But I'm not sure that's enough to make the whole thing blow over.  Our best chance is to see Labour decimated at the council elections.  I've voted against Labour for the first time in my 33 years of voting.  I'm sure I'm not alone - and, thankfully, there are plenty of people upset with Labour for other reasons, too.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 days ago
    Follow up to my previous posting I have made an FOI request to the DWP through What do they know web site

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/how_does_435_return_per_month_ha

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @James very good question - I have wondered that myself many times.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @SLB I've sent two responses to Scope, one from me and one from my husband. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @SLB Brilliant, every mention in the news of the real impact is good, thanks for flagging these.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 days ago
    Slightly off topic but related to the so called 6,000 pound limit. 

    The DWP say that if someone has a savings of say 6,250 pounds then for the extra 250 pounds they say will regard it as an earning by you at 4.35 a month. I started to wondering this is in fact a return of 20.88 percent a year. If this is the case will it be possible to find out how someone can do this with their money and where such a good investment can be found because it does not make sense to me.

    I wondered if we able to investigate and find out how this can be done by an individual who is on benefits and may have 250 pounds which they will consider will earn 4.35 which is 52.5 pounds per year which I think you will agree is a very good return for anyone by any standards.

    Is there some way we could challenge this assertion ? because if they know of something the rest of us do not I would like to find out more !~

    As a person on benefit if I had such an amount to invest ie 250 pounds where can I find out where I can get a return of 4.25 while being on benefits because I simply do not know or understand how this can actually be achieved 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @James It's up to £6250 e.g,  if you have a pound more than £6000; then you will lose £4.35, as you are classed as having £6250. if you have a pound more than £6500; then you will lose £8.70 and so on.