News

I have always said the gov can change things without changing descriptors, they just change the guidance to decision makers and assessors.
I fully expect these reviews of existing LCWRA will be a similar story, same descriptors but less awards due to new guidance.

Starmer is a joke!

I'm glad he didn't appoint Harriet Harman as his advisor on welfare, as she's an ardent welfare cuts proponent.

The reason Labour has lost council seats to Reform appears to not be because Labour voters are voting Reform. But due to Labour voters voting Green, while Conservative voters are voting Reform. Which would indicate Labour at the next general election will as planned rely on saying a vote Green is a vote for a Reform government as only Labour can stop Reform. While the Green party has previously said they will do a general election deal with Labour to stop Reform if Starmer is not the Labour leader. A deal where the Greens do not stand against Labour in lots of seats and in return Polanski and his friends get to stand in seats with no Labour candidates standing against them.

Fear of Reform is why Starmer and friends think they can do anything regardless of how unpopular it is with the left. As come the next general election they believe left wing voters will turn up and vote Labour regardless to stop Reform.

In the UK there are more left wing voters (Labour, LibDem, Green, Independents, SNP, Plaid Cymru) than right wing voters (Conservative, Reform, DUP). The reason the right wing often win is due to their vote being less divided. Labour hope fear of Reform will unite the left wing vote behind whichever left wing party is best placed to defeat Reform. Which they believe will obviously be Labour.  

We can see the direction of travel for the next three years: Labour will pivot to the right, try to bribe the young who have voted green and perhaps open discussions about a future coalition. For the community here this does mean tightening of eligibility for benefits, face to face assessments (and reassessments) and increased stress and poverty m

It's shocking that even the Conservatives are gaining from Labour, taking over Westminster Council from Labour, which gained control of it from the Conservatives in May 2022!!!!

It is unfortunately looking like reform are coming out as winners in these local elections, oh god are we screwed.

I think its a cloaked way to reduce the backpay, my review Jan 2023, took DWP until April 2024, they ignored all the new evidence (including my social worker care plan)and scored me exactly the same. 

Could it be that most "Change in Circumstances" where health has deteriorated reviews have been put on "Hold". 

Let’s face it PIP is a lottery, it’s got nothing to do with helping the disabled, especially if you get a physiotherapist doing the assessment, PIP should be awarded by medical advice!

The right wing media are definitely stoking the fire with the anti benefit rhetoric and it really seems to gone up a gear, the likes of Talk TV and GB news seem happy to report that virtually everyone on PiP has a mobility car and then enough for luxuries like holidays, I bloody wish ! I'm really beginning to get resentful and angry at these lies and exagerations and nobody seems to argue contrary 

To me it’s clear what is happening the planned review application requires a lot more information about the claimant enabling the decision maker to make a new award without an assessment, this comes as a relief for claimants so an unwritten policy develops of “make the same award for at least 5 years.” Even claimant triggered reviews are resulting in “we’ve looked at your claim and decided your award remains the same.” All these decisions are made within new assessments.  The vast majority of claimants won’t challenge these decisions. 

I had a review (much delayed) after my second round of open heart surgery. In their wisdom they decided to ignore all of the new physical problems (onset of Fibromyalgia and mobility problems for example) and stopped my PIP completely. Luckily I was successful with my MR but despite being promised an increase verbally, that never materialised. Also luckily I recorded their verbal promise and I'm now waiting for a tribunal date.

Whilst I agree that changing the PM is not likely to change Labour's policies in itself, what is worrying is the headlines in today's FT and Guardian reporting the highest level of Government in 28 years, and the prospect of prolonged inflation. This bodes ill for welfare claimants and those, like myself, on low pay with an annual increase below the current level of inflation.  Any Government is going to look at it's borrowing costs and see where cuts can be made....I really do have a nasty feeling that the Timms review will be a copy and paste of what the Blair Institute proposes. And I don't think existing claimants are going to be excluded.

What's all this then?

@Scorpion congrats and thanks for sharing your good news. I hope it encourages others to be proactive and shore up their position, even though we don't know what's ahead. You've not only done that, but improved your current circumstances 👏

John did U read what I put in a few  categories down in the main subject list about what will happen to existing claimants in 2028/2029, will we still be left alone or will we be forced into the requiring pip daily living in order to maintain our former Lcwra/ to be called UC health award or will we be automatically being put in that category without needing daily living in order to qualify?

@John Oh what? Do me a favour. As if anyone is going to be able to set in motion anything like that in four years' time.

"a personalised state-pension payment calculated on an actuarially fair basis, using information about their age and health circumstances"

Well that's a lifetime's debate right there.

Another day another policy proposal from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. This one on replacing state pension with a lifespan fund. With pension age based on remaining life expectancy. And accessible during people's working life when they are for example caring for a sick or disabled relative. But looking at the details it does not look good to me.

"We propose replacing the state pension with a new model from 2030: the Lifespan Fund – a flexible lifetime income-support account that individuals build up through active contribution to society."

"those aged below 57 in 2030 (more than ten years from SPA at implementation). All individuals more than ten years from their SPA when the reform was introduced would have their accrued state-pension entitlements converted into Lifespan balances."

"Entitlements would be earned through work (via existing National Insurance contributions (NICs)); seeking work, caring for others or being unable to work due to ill health (via existing National Insurance credits); and through a new entitlement for time spent in full-time higher education.
people would have the equivalent of half a year’s state pension added to their Lifespan Fund for each year of economic activity"

"After 40 years of contributions, they would have built up a maximum entitlement worth around £250,000 in today’s prices, equivalent to 20 years of support at the current state pension level of around £12,500 per year."

"Pension Credit would be phased out and replaced with a means-tested Lifespan top-up. This top-up would apply once individuals reach the equivalent of the SPA and would bring Lifespan balances up to the ten-year floor, means-tested against private-pension wealth and other savings."

"The value of each person’s Lifespan Fund would rise based on a smoothed link with median earnings"

(no more triple lock, so future state pension would be far less generous than if triple lock was maintained)

"Conversion (to a life time pension) would take place on an actuarially fair basis, meaning that the expected lifetime value of pension payments would equal the balance of the Lifespan Fund at the point of retirement. This calculation would take into account both age and health status, just as private-pension annuities do at the moment."

"In practice, individuals could choose when to retire and would receive a personalised state-pension payment calculated on an actuarially fair basis, using information about their age and health circumstances."

"Those choosing to retire early or with smaller funds would need to demonstrate sufficient private-pension savings to ensure an income equivalent to today’s state pension (around £12,500) to minimise the risk of poverty; otherwise, they would be required to delay retirement."

(wealthier people could retire early, those without private pensions would be able to retire when they have a remaining life expectancy of 20 years, or if they have less than 40 years contributions, a remaining life expectancy as low as 10 years the safety net)

Access to the lifespan fund during working life

"Access during working life would also be restricted to those resident in the UK and with indefinite leave to remain"

"Withdrawals would be permitted only once a minimum balance had been accumulated and could not reduce the fund below that threshold. For those aged 35 and under, the minimum balance would be equivalent to five years of entitlement, to prevent early withdrawals being used to fund extended periods of youth unemployment, which can be particularly damaging early in working life. This minimum balance would then rise by one-quarter of a year’s entitlement for every year above age 35 to ten years of entitlement for those aged 55 and over"

"It would be possible for an individual to draw down an amount equivalent to the value of the state pension – around £12,500 a year in today’s terms"

"during unemployment spell of up to six months, conditional on participating in activation measures, just as is required of Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants
during the first six months of setting up a new business
while taking part in approved training or adult education
while looking after one or more children aged under 3
while caring for a sick or disabled relative for up to three consecutive years"

"individuals would not need to withdraw the full state-pension-equivalent amount each year. They could choose to draw smaller sums – such as half the annual amount – for longer"

"anyone who accessed their Lifespan Fund during working life would be automatically enrolled into higher NICs for the following ten years to rebuild their balance. This would be collected either through the PAYE system by altering an individual’s tax code or through the self-assessment tax system. Contributions would be capped at 5 per cent of earnings, with the option to repay more quickly or slowly, or to opt out and accept a smaller pension later. To opt out of repayments, individuals would need to show that they had saved enough in a private pension to offset the funds they had withdrawn from their Lifespan Fund, plus an additional 25 per cent to cover the risk that the private-pension fund did not generate as much income as the Lifespan Fund or subsequently fell in value."

https://institute.global/insights/economic-prosperity/the-lifespan-fund-reforming-the-state-pension-for-a-more-affordable-flexible-and-fair-future#executive-summary

The DWP are simple waving through most PIP reassessments without any checks. They are concentrating their man power on new claims as they have reached over 700,000 as of Jan 26 - a 4 year high.