• Search
  • You are here:  
  • Home
  • News
  • Over 100 people attend mass lobby of parliament

News

Over 100 people attend mass lobby of parliament

Details

Disabled activists travelled from England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to lobby their MPs over the Pathways to Work Green paper, the Disability News Service reports.

As many as 40 MPs held meetings with constituents, including former Conservative work and pensions secretary Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Daisy Cooper, deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats; and former Green party leader Sian Berry.

But others did not turn up, including Ellie Reeves, chair of the Labour party and sister of chancellor Rachel Reeves. Housing minister Matthew Pennycook was another no-show.

According to Disability Rights UK, the lobby was organised by the Coalition Against Benefit Cuts, Disabled People Against Cuts, Disability Rights UK, Well Adapt, Inclusion London and SIC.  

With over 100 people attending it was one of the largest lobbies by the disabled community in over a decade.

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.
    Diceman24
    · 33 minutes ago
    With keir starmer now going back on 2 child benefit to please the labour MPs I’m thinking now they will get the disability cuts through now so looks like starmer and co have now got enough mps on their side. I do prey I’m wrong 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    godgivemestrength
    · 1 hours ago
    I'm lost for words. Where Timms starts on about the New Deal in 1998. 1998!!!

    Then "admits that his constituent ended up in “a rather unsatisfactory zero hours job” that he decided to leave."

    "“The current system forces people to aspire to LCWRA status—as a kind of ambition,” he claimed."

    "Timms says he understands that disabled people are worried about the possibility that they could “really suffer”. It’s Labour welfare cuts that are making sure they do."

    Stop! Stop it now! Actually no, keep going. Show the world more of what you are.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?q=https://socialistworker.co.uk/news/disability-minister-stephen-timms-backs-benefit-cuts-while-constituents-suffer/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiy1_jz9LyNAxVVT0EAHSfzCX4Q0PADegQIDBAT&usg=AOvVaw2giQ9eF9JKdBRaqxBn-7OY
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    SLB
    · 1 hours ago
    The Independent and the i newspaper are basically reporting that there is a stand-off between Starmer/Reeves and the Labour MPs.  The MPs are threatedning to rebel (including possible front bench resignations) if the leaders don't stand down on the issue.  It's almost a case of who blinks first.  The problem at the moment is that we are getting so many mixed signals from media outlets over what might or might not happen next, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds that rather exhausting.  I really think that MPs and the media seem to forget that these are people's lives that they are playing with.  We shouldn't be a political football.   One day I'm hopeful, and the next day I'm in despair.  This is hard work!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    robbie
    · 1 hours ago
    Momentum gathers

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?q=https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/up-to-150-mps-revolt-against-starmers-benefit-cuts-3711570&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiy1_jz9LyNAxVVT0EAHSfzCX4Q0PADegQIDBAb&usg=AOvVaw0e3O9lbsTeL7TDnV1FkwbI

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?q=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-benefits-welfare-cuts-b2757139.html&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiy1_jz9LyNAxVVT0EAHSfzCX4Q0PADegQIDBAH&usg=AOvVaw3xX4QI1w8NydUS9L4RVHzO
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    keepingitreal
    · 2 hours ago
    If Susie Boniface was right about the winter fuel allowance Uturn being contrived so the government could appear compassionate and listening, maybe the extremities of the green paper proposals are intended to allow for the appearance of concessions. Rough us up before offering merciful compromises which we gratefully accept. Even if I believed they had the guile for that I still think they've underestimated the backlash.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Mick
    · 2 hours ago
    It's coming out in the observer and the financial times that Starmer has asked Reeves and the treasury to look for the money to scrap the two child benefit cap and will then push on with welfare cuts as a "moral mission".  He believes that will win over most.

    So we're back to the "moral mission" now, not to save money, nor fight against reform as Kendall told everyone.

    Again, desperately clutching at all possible straws and doing just what I thought they would try on next.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 26 minutes ago
      @Mick
      "Again, desperately clutching at all possible straws and doing just what I thought they would try on next."

      Yes, first they backed down on the WFA after saying they wouldn't, but insisted they'd still keep the two child cap and go ahead with the disability cuts.

      Now they're backing down on the WFA and the two child cap, but insisting they're going ahead with the disability cuts. I doubt that will work - if anything, saying to their own MPs "we'll give some ground on pensioners and kids, just let us screw the sick and disabled" may antagnoise them even further and exacerbate the rebellion rather than quash it. Disability cuts was apparently one of the issues raised frequently on the doorstep during the local elections, so any Labour MP who votes for it now knows they run a significant risk of losing their seat.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Dave Dee
      · 2 hours ago
      @Mick They'll pass it in the end, that's my two pence. They will NOT back down on this.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Diceman24
    · 3 hours ago
    Just my opinion and hopefully a few others why don’t  this government just make pip payments slightly lower say £50 less a month each claim and no reforms that way us the disabled have no more worrying and anxiety which causes are health to deteriorate even further and the government saves them money and all the voting and court hearings which this brings. Why don’t the government just ask us. Than this government can give us all dignity has most of us with severe disabilities have a full time job battling our conditions we really don’t need anyone without medical expertise is our different conditions telling us we can work when our professional experts in our conditions say we can’t so government get a grip and stop playing with our lives. Thanks for taking your time to read my rant 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Diceman24
      · 37 minutes ago
      @Mick Hi mick you and I know the government won’t tax the wealthy and tech companies I hope they do. I just be glad when all this ifs and buts are over like us all but anyway thanks for your input in my thread take care 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      keepingitreal
      · 1 hours ago
      @Diceman24 But why, @Diceman24? Cost of living has gone up, housing has gone up, wages have gone up. Why should welfare go down? Why must the poor pay more? If you were to suggest that everyone should see their income reduced by the same percentage as a collective effort to balance the books, I might get on board with that, but I don't even believe that's necessary. Governments always choose what to finance.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      SLB
      · 1 hours ago
      @Diceman24 Or simply impose a benefits cap for the disabled in the same way that there is one for regular benefit claimants.  Obviously it would need to be higher than the regular one, but at least it wouldn't bankrupt us.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Mick
      · 2 hours ago
      @Diceman24
      No, absolutely not.

      No concessions, no cuts.

      This isn't about them saving money and the money that our welfare system pays is already a pittance and way below what it should be!

      Make those with the broadest shoulders, the wealthiest, the corporations and tech giants, tax dodgers and the likes pay their fair share.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Dave Dee
    · 4 hours ago
    The observer are reporting an exclusive that Starmer is scrapping the two child benefit cap and saying in doing so it now shows that it is a moral mission to carry on with the disability cuts
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 11 minutes ago
      @Dave Dee
      And if that doesn't succeed in quashing the rebellion, as I suspect it won't, what will he do then? Give up on the disability cuts as well? He should, but they seem determined to press ahead - and yet, if the Tories vote against the cuts, as now seems a distinct possibility, a Labour rebellion of 100+ MPs would likely be enough for the government to lose the vote. 

      In a way, the best possible outcome might be if they press ahead with this tin-eared intransigence but lose the vote. The damage done to Starmer, Reeves and Kendall would be huge and their authority in trying to force through any alternative package of cuts would be severely weakened.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Cecelia
    · 5 hours ago
    I think the government wants the 800,000 job vacancies filled to take the country up to an 80 percent employment but not with immigration. Perhaps the current 1.5 million job seekers currently available are perhaps unwilling.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Dave Dee
    · 6 hours ago
    I'll add my predictions, there will be some sort of middle ground, an acknowledgement that out of all those people who will lose LCWRA/PIP they WON'T MAGICALLY BECOME EMPLOYABLE. So I presume this "halfway house" will be a version of LCW where you give them a heads up once in a while.

    We know disabled people who will lose these benefits may or will not find work, ever, so all of these "reforms" are a smokescreen for cuts. That's all. If they placed all disabled people out of work into the unemployment pool Britain would have record unemployment. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Dave Dee
    · 7 hours ago
    The reforms will remove the support disabled people currently use to be able to work.

    It's so blindingly obvious that this isn't about getting disabled into work I am convinced it's intentional. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Pixelmum
    · 9 hours ago
    A good article that's just popped up on BBC news

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Gingin
    · 9 hours ago
    ‘One ambitious backbencher has backed a land tax and argued for £20bn of revenue-raising, including a revaluation of council tax in England, and higher levies on the savings and investments of high earners.
    Admittedly, that was in 2018.
    And that backbencher's name? Rachel Reeves.’

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Yorkie Bard
      · 7 hours ago
      @Gingin You really couldn't make this up!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Mick
    · 10 hours ago
    Well said @SusieBoniface


    Thank You!!!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Gingin
      · 2 hours ago
      @Mick She is indeed one of my new heroes 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      keepingitreal
      · 8 hours ago
      @Mick Uurgh - the wfa a strategic Uturn - that's terrifying, the ultimate cynicism. A miscalculation, though, I reckon, as it wont be enough.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Pixelmum
    · 12 hours ago
    Another interesting article today...

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      sara
      · 2 hours ago
      @tintack
      @tintac, good to know we're ahead of the game, you and I: 2 days ago under the B&W article "Are Tories set to vote against Green Paper cuts?" :

      Me
      "...I wonder whether we should up the anti by inviting even the sympathetic and rebel mps to pressure their unsympathetic colleagues into supporting us and voting against the green paper. With enough momentum things could turn from mps being afraid to defy the whip to their being afraid of voting on the losing side - if the vote goes against the cuts."

      You
      "I certainly see nothing wrong with asking a sympathetic MP to try to persuade their colleagues to vote the right way.

      I think we're already past the point at which threats from the whips carry much force... What can they do - threaten to withdraw the whip from all of them? Clearly not.

      That's why the momentum needs to be maintained: the more MPs are willing to rebel the less power the whips have...it''s essential to keep up the pressure on Labour MPs.



    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 4 hours ago
      @Pixelmum
      I saw an interesting quote yesterday from an unnamed Labour source who said that after the local election results, "a lot of people have decided they're more frightened of the voters than  the whips". We definitely need to keep up the pressure on Labour MPs to hold their nerve and vote against the cuts. A rebellion that gets into three figures might well be enough to defeat the government.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    keepingitreal
    · 20 hours ago
    Marti. Lewis points out "the estimated 700,000 eligible people who were not claiming pension credit".

    When they do, the cost will far outweigh any savings on wfa. Messing with that was a total shot in the foot for Labour.

    Lewis on welfare cuts:

    “When you take a payment away from people with no other income, the biggest problem is what do you do, how do you transition them to a new lower income when prices are going up? The answer is you can’t.”

    You can't, prime minister, you can't.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?q=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/martin-lewis-winter-fuel-payments-starmer-pip-b2756502.html&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiahJD7-LqNAxW-VUEAHe4hFi8Q0PADegQIChAL&usg=AOvVaw2kNB50iM6l2-hRqZL70Z5g
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    SLB
    · 23 hours ago
    My brain sometimes looks at figures and can't work them out properly.  So can someone confirm I'm right here?

    A Labour MP has 5000 votes and a Green MP (for sake of argument) has 4000 votes.  
    There are 1000 PIP recipients, and they all voted Labour.  
    If 501 of that 1000 PIP claimaints switch to the Green MP, then the Green MP has won. (4499 vs 4501).  

    We heard these figures of how many PIP claimants in each constituency, but I've only just realised only half of them have to change their vote for the Labour MP to lose their seat.  Are my sums correct?  If so, that means even Liz Kendall is at risk of losing hers in 2029. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      rtbcpart2
      · 8 hours ago
      @SLB My post was a reply to yours, mainly, SLB. No disrespect, Yorkie Bard. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      rtbcpart2
      · 9 hours ago
      @Yorkie Bard There is an incomprehensible number of numbers (!) flying about and I've stopped trying to comprehend or cross check them. All I know is how I would be affected, before, then after state pension age if the cuts were to go ahead, and I trust there are others who are across their own situation who know how they would be affected.

      I am able to conclude that things would be bad for a great number and for every single soul whose suffering makes up that number it's a world of pain.

      That said, I continue to delight in this - albeit imprecise - number, that for more than 200 Labour mps their majorities are smaller than the number of PIP claimants in their constituency.

      That's the most embarrassing revelation of just how feckless they are, and their reaction to that great big oops has been a joy to behold. Never mind the plight of - how many disabled is it? - rebel to save yourselves, you lazy greedy freeloaders.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Yorkie Bard
      · 11 hours ago
      @SLB SLB, if your assumptions about way that the 1000 PIP claimants vote is correct, then your calculations are spot on! 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    SLB
    · 23 hours ago
    Just when you thought things were getting better, we get this news story from the BBC, which doesn't sound very hopeful. 

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3q7584v07o

    One MP they talked to, Alex Ballinger, is in favour of the PIP cuts.  So, I sent Mr. Ballinger a post on X which reads as follows:

    Let's talk about  @AlexBallingerMP

    Mr Ballinger is the Labour MP for Halesowen. His majority at the election was 4,364. There are 5,945 people claiming Daily Living #PIP in Mr. Ballinger's constituency.
     
    Mr. Ballinger told the BBC that he thinks the most important thing about the #disabilitybenefits cuts is the support to get people into work. But those that CAN'T work are going to lose £8400 (or more) from their yearly income. And even those that do find work are going to need to earn £17,000 a year in order to get back what they have lost through benefits because of the UC tapering system.

    Here's a bit of common sense - disabled people are not likely to work full time, even if they find a job that they can do at all.
     
    How exactly do you think that's right, Mr Ballinger? And do you even understand the benefits system and the proposed changes? It certainly reads as if you don't. And how am I and thousands like me meant to live on less than a third of our current income? The #Disabled are NOT collatoral damage for the failed economic policies of your party or the Tories.

    Perhaps more important than all of that for Mr. Ballinger is just how he intends to keep his seat in 2029 when his majority is considerably less than the amount of people in his constituency on PIP that he is plunging into poverty?

    I have to confess that I have started double-checking myself when sending posts on X right now, as it's easy to say something you really don't mean.  There's a thin line between harassment and making your point in the bluntest way possible, and I am getting concerned that I'm approaching it - and I really don't want to cross it.  That's not what I'm about - although I do feel harrassed by the Labour MPs in many respects, who want to take away our lives.  Because with that money gone, we don't have lives, we have an existence. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Gingin
      · 36 minutes ago
      @Moose I said this to Ed Davey when he called me before PMQs. I made a point to say that MPs should not be voting on this without a proper understanding. He agreed that they probably don’t understand yet. We still have work to do on this, friends. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Frances
      · 51 minutes ago
      @Moose I agree. Educating people about welfare is our greatest challenge. It's just not widely understood how the proposed changes would impact claimants. That's why the least the government should have done is wait for the impact statement before holding the vote, and perhaps why they did not
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Moose
      · 2 hours ago
      @SLB The problem is the benefits system is so complex. Unless someone has ever had dealings with it then it’s impossible to get a proper understanding of it. Most MPs have probable never had persons dealing with it hence their poor understanding of it. I’m concerned that MPs will be voting on something they are clueless about.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Gingin
      · 4 hours ago
      @SLB SLB, one again you’ve hit the points with pinpoint accuracy and flourish, and I don’t think you’ve ventured into harassment at all. Brilliant post, I hope you go viral- again
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 10 hours ago
      @SLB I don't think there's anything wrong with the message you sent to Ballinger. There is nothing wrong with being blunt as long as you stick to facts - and you did. Asking him a question like how you're supposed to live on a third of your current income is perfectly reasonable, as is asking him to justify that. In fact it's more than reasonable: it's essential to have this sort of thing pointed out to MPs like him so they know exactly what the impact will be on real people. Similarly, pointing out that people will lose literally thousands of pounds a year is also reasonable - because it's true. Ballinger and those like him need to have these facts pointed out to them and asked to justify them. Obviously you have to be careful and not cross the line into being abusive, because then he'll just ignore you, but as long your messages are factual, blunt is good. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    rookie
    · 1 days ago
    The government is jittery, apparently. Welcome to our world.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 9 hours ago
      @naheegan
      "Is it 'dire' by definition or is that a polite word for something more descriptively extreme."

      If the cuts go ahead many people, me included, won't have enough money to cover even the bare essentials required for survival. I think that qualifies as dire. MPs like Alex Ballinger think it qualifies as "a bit of encouragement".
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      naheegan
      · 12 hours ago
      @tintack If beating with a stick is encouragement... good grief.

      Is it 'dire' by definition or is that a polite word for something more descriptively extreme.  

      I have recently been all over the Joseph Rowntree Foundation site, doing a lot of reading. I've wanted to include verified stats in any online comments I make. There's a wealth of info, stats being one that are worth inclusion in many current conversations and letters to MPs.

      One recent report, UK Poverty 2025, makes a statement that is obvious to claimants, but intentionally omitted by government spokebots and is consistently unreported by the media:

      "the basic rate of UC is even below destitution thresholds."

      To intentionally reduce financial assistance to those living below destitution thresholds is an unforgivable level of cruelty. I knew this, as we all do, yet was still shocked at seeing this shameful truth in print.



    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Yorkie Bard
      · 21 hours ago
      @rookie And sounds like JD Vance?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Yorkie Bard
      · 21 hours ago
      @rookie Yes rookie, but don't you think that Alex Ballinger both looks like JD Vance?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 1 days ago
      @rookie "For Alex Ballinger, who was elected as Labour MP for Halesowen last year, his party is about "increasing opportunities for the most vulnerable people in society".

      "We're about improving life outcomes and being ambitious for those people who maybe need a bit more encouragement," he said."

      And apparently Ballinger believes the best way to "increase opportunities for the most vulnerable in society" is to give them "a bit more encouragement" - by plunging them into dire poverty. "Labour values" indeed.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    CaroA
    · 1 days ago
    https://cathoughtsdotblog.wordpress.com/2025/05/23/privileged-but-unprocessed-how-elite-education-and-unacknowledged-loss-created-a-cruel-welfare-state

    Sorry if anyone is interested this link should work the last one didn't!

    Things just got personal......

    Ive written a longer piece exploring how personal histories of our leaders and elite education may have shaped decades of brutal welfare policy. Please feel free to post elsewhere.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Welsh val
      · 11 hours ago
      @Helen Galloway Exactly right Helen Galloway 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Old Mother
      · 13 hours ago
      @CaroA Good read. Interesting links. On reading your blog I feel we need a different type in politics representing fairness and equality for all rather, than self-service for the few. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Old Mother
      · 13 hours ago
      @Helen Galloway So agree. Pointless talking about caring.  Go for where they are unlawful 
      Or the money. They practice managerialism - point out their fiscal failings.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      James
      · 23 hours ago
      @Helen Galloway They are sociopaths 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Helen Galloway
      · 1 days ago
      @CaroA They don’t like weakness they despise it. You have to be thick skinned and highly confident but you still can have humanity look at Jeremy Corbyn . These automaton’s left all that behind and I  think they care more about themselves their careers than helping people. So when we deal with people like that you won’t get anywhere appealing to a better nature that isn’t there. It’s defeating them any way you can when they make errors fail or don’t follow processes properly. 

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

Over 110,000 claimants and professionals subscribe to the UK's leading source of benefits news.

 
iContact

Latest news