DWP disability minister Stephen Timms repeatedly misled parliament by untruthfully claiming that personal independence payment (PIP) claimants over state pension age “will not be affected by the proposed changes”.  Timms has finally admitted that the DWP currently have no idea how to avoid the proposed 4-point rule affecting pension age PIP reviews.

Ever since last April, Benefits and Work has been trying to get to the truth of Timms frequently repeated statement in connection with the proposed 4-point rule that:  “In keeping with existing policy, people over State Pension Age are not routinely fully reviewed and will not be affected by the proposed changes.”

We pointed out that pip claimants over state pension age are subject to a light touch review every ten years and that they may also ask for a change of circumstances review if their condition changes.

In the year to January 2025, 12,300 pension age PIP claimants had a planned award review. 

In addition, 19,238 pension age PIP claimants had a change of circumstances review in the same period.

We wanted to know how claimants in these circumstances could avoid the four-point rule, unless the DWP was exempting all claimants over pension age.

We even went so far as to ask readers to ask their MPs to put two specific questions to Timms on this subject.

Conservative MP Alicia Kearns kindly asked those questions and Timms replied on 16 May.

In relation to whether PIP claimants of pension age who request a change of circumstances review will be required to score at least four points in one daily living activity, instead of answering “Yes” or “No”, Timms fudged desperately:

“All claimants are required to notify the Department of any change to their circumstance, be that an improvement or deterioration in their needs. Upon notification of a change, a Case Manager will consider what further action might be required to ensure the claimant is receiving the correct level of support.”

However, Chris Law of the SNP asked the same question as Alicia Kearns and on 6 June received a different answer:

“In keeping with existing policy, people on state pension age are not routinely fully reviewed and will not be affected by these changes. We are considering further how the 4-point minimum requirement will affect claimants over state pension age who report a change of circumstances, and we will provide further information in due course.”

In other words, pension age PIP claimants who request a change of circumstances review will be subject to the 4-point rule and run the risk of losing their daily living award altogether, unless the DWP can come up with a way to get round it, which they haven’t yet.

And, in truth, the same will almost certainly apply to claimants subject to a 10 year light-touch review.  Because it isn’t a review unless you make a decision on continuing entitlement and you can only do that using the law as it stands, not the law as you would like it to be. 

It’s yet another example of the ways in which the Green Paper reforms are half-baked, at best.

When he became disability minister, Timms claimed that he would create a new era of transparency at the DWP, as part of an effort to restore trust in the department.

In this case, Timms could have been transparent and truthful from the outset by saying that the 4-point rule would not affect “the majority” of pension age PIP claimants. He chose not to – over and over again - and that choice leaves claimants with no reason to trust anything he tells them in the future.

Many thanks to the excellent Rightsnet website for welfare rights workers for alerting us to the written question and answer.

Latest news on PIP/UC changes

What’s changing, when

What you can do

New PIP test

 

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.
    · 5 hours ago
    See the government is repealing the vagrancy act 1824 that criminalizes rough sleeping and begging. Who says they are not thinking ahead about the consequences of their disability benefit reforms/cuts.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    From Dan bloom on twitter:

    “NEW: Details on PIP/UC disability benefit cuts ✂️
    I hear a bill could be introduced next week, suggesting "second reading" vote is in the week of June 30 or later
    It's likely to be tightly focused on the cuts, while other welfare reforms will come only later in the year.
    This will concentrate Labour MPs’ anger, but could also allow the government to classify it as a “money bill” — meaning it would be made law within a month of being sent to the House of Lords even if peers still object.
    Officials have also held talks about putting the bill through a “committee of the whole house,” preventing lengthy evidence sessions with experts and campaigners. One insider argued: “You rip the plaster off, otherwise it just drags out for longer.”

    So what does this tell us?

    I think labour ministers either think the standard legislation route and getting a standard bill type through would be too close for comfort or they’d lose

    To fast track the bill (by making it a money bill) is the labour ministers playing dirty and cheating in a way and suggests they don’t think they can ‘win’ in this gov vs disabled ‘battle’ playing out ‘fair & square’ (something to half smirk about) 

    But if it does become a money bill it speaks huge volumes as gov reasoning for welfare cuts and reforms being driven primarily to help disabled into employment officially blows up and become total bull

    I hope the gov using these lowbrow tactics finally opens a real legit legal route to challenge all this in court

    Labour higher ups can’t be allowed to get alway with this by ‘fixing the deck’




  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    Hes certainly not fit to be disability minister. He needs a review right now and kicked out. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Del I agree with you but he's exactly the disability minister Mcsweeney, starmer and blue labour wanted.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 hours ago
    Working age claimants with ongoing awards with light touch reviews. Parliamentary written question UIN 54482, tabled on 22 May 2025

    Question
    "To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what steps she is taking to ensure that people claiming Personal Independence Payments with chronic health conditions are not subject to reviews unless there is evidence of significant change in their circumstances"

    Answer 
    "Reviews are an important feature of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) ensuring thesupport continues to meet the individual’s needs, as circumstances can change over time, and to make sure the correct level of support is being provided.

    People who receive the highest level of PIP and whose needs will not improve receive an ongoing PIP award with a light touch review at the 10-year point. The light touch review is intended to maintain a minimal level of contact with claimants to ensure nothing has changed and that we hold up to date information such as contact details.

    In the Pathways to Work Green Paper published on 18 March, we announced that we are considering ways to improve communication with people receiving these ongoing awards in PIP to ensure they provide the right reassurance for people whose conditions are unlikely to change and who are likely to remain on disability benefits for life that they will not be required to undergo regular award reviews.

    We have also launched a review of the PIP assessment, which I am leading. During this first phase of the review, I am speaking to stakeholders to gather views on how best to approach the review. We will then publish the Terms of Reference in due course."
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 hours ago
      @John
      "People who receive the highest level of PIP and whose needs will not improve receive an ongoing PIP award with a light touch review at the 10-year point."

      "we are considering ways to improve communication with people receiving these ongoing awards in PIP to ensure they provide the right reassurance. .. that they will not be required to undergo regular award reviews."

      Thank you, secretary of state. Now answer the question. Something like this:

      "People of any age claiming Personal Independence Payment, with any level of award, who have chronic health conditions, will not be subject to reviews. If their conditions worsen they will be able, without risk to an existing standard award, needing 8 points, to request a review in pursuit of a higher award, needing 12 points. There will be no restrictions on the configuration of points."

      I'd find that reassuring.



  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 hours ago
      @rtbcpart2 Ah, to be 27 again....Love her fighting spirit (and cool name)
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 hours ago
    The thing is I don't believe a word Timms or anyone from this government is saying. They simply seem to be making it up as they go along.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @The Dogmother Oh thank you for that.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @Helen Galloway Managed migration is still ongoing in my area. I'm dreading it. They even have ads on tv about it. Stating 
      "The benefits system is changing,look out for your migration letter, do nothing yet, and don't worry,there's plenty of help out there. "!
      Thanks for the constant reminder we don't need. Wonder how much the AD cost.  Wish they'd at least put it on hold for another while. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 hours ago
      @Old Mother Is that still going on?. I thought I’d read somewhere that it was all a huge unmitigated success with it all completed by December last year. They really are useless. One comfort is that they will inevitable get things wrong slow rubbish delayed with the benefits cuts. But I am  sorry if you are having problems with this they are awful really . . 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 hours ago
      @Hilde Agrée. And the ongoing chaos of « managed migration » is currently going under the radar. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 hours ago
    Hello all, I know this is not part of the thread, but since the Government is convinced that the way to reduce the benefits bill is to get disabled people into work.....well, I am in the early stages of going through the grievance procedure at work. Has anyone on this forum being through an employment tribunal in relation to disability discrimination and being successful? Any advice would be much appreciated. Frankly, most employers do not want disabled staff, and those they have they like to get rid off over time.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @MATT Are you a member of a union that you can call on?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 hours ago
      @MATT Hope this is ok to post B and  W  ?  but I have seen a channel on you tube where the channel presenter won a case of discrimination of her employers treatment when she became  ill and it was in the media and  she won ! Her employer was the actual DWP I believe too ! The channel is called the justice journals on you tube . 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 hours ago
      @MATT Hello, I'm sorry I can't help because, as yet, I have no experience of this, but I would be very interested to hear how you get on, as I anticipate similar problems in the future. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 hours ago
    Posted to my social media:

    As it stands, disabled people have to apply for 60% more jobs than people without a disability. With a weakening labour market to boot, where are all the jobs for disabled people when Labour snatches away their financial lifelines?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp92edelzero
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 hours ago
      @Gingin thanks for sharing the article. I would like to change jobs, but at 57, partially sighted (and thus not allowed to drive) and increasingly hard of hearing, the outlook is not good for me. Sure, if I were able bodied, physically fit and 25, I would leave my present job now.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 hours ago
    Now is not the time to give up folks. We have an opportunity now that cracks are appearing. It can’t be easy for ministers to keep up the momentum and some of them are looking a bit worn now. With all the pressure they’re under after the humiliation of the WFA it wouldn’t take too much for them to show themselves up in public. It’s hard work to keep piling lie upon lie and it must be a bit embarrassing to be completely incompetent at your day job. You gotta feel for them, right?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 hours ago
      @Gingin Oh, @Gingin 😂

      They've well and truly shown themselves up for a while now.

      Timms is definitely on the edge. He doesn't have the fettle for this game. Noone in their right mind, let alone an astute and optics-conscious politician, would walk round a disabled woman who had collapsed on the floor.

      Now there's the thing "some of them are looking a bit worn now".

      Whereas us? We're looking fresh, crew, we're ready. It's just that noone can see...😉
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 22 hours ago
    Here is timms saying the new system won't have a substantial risk catagory, I know that it what saved many of us last time we were assessed https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-05-30/55138

    "We are considering how any change of this kind could affect individuals who currently meet limited capability for work and work-related activity (LCWRA) criteria due to non-functional special circumstances; for example, those affected by cancer treatment, people with short term conditions that get better, women with a high-risk pregnancy and those currently classed as having substantial risk. Individuals in these categories may not be eligible for PIP, and therefore the UC health element, in the reformed system.

    In the reformed system these groups will still be eligible for UC and for the proposed new higher rate Unemployment Insurance if they meet relevant eligibility criteria. Individuals who are nearing the end of their life with 12 months or less to live will continue to be able to access PIP through the existing fast track route (Special Rules for End of Life (SREL) to ensure we protect those who are nearing the end of their life, irrespective of the duration of their illness."
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 hours ago
      @Sam
      Having read that answer in full, he doesn't say if the change to LCWRA eligibility criteria will apply to existing claimants who get LCWRA under the current criteria or if it will only apply to new claimants after the WCA is abolished. The green paper says that your LCWRA won't change if you have LCWRA prior to April 2026 (I think that's right) and still have it after a reassessment. Does that mean it won't change until the new criteria are introduced, or does it mean that it won't change at all? And what if you have LCWRA now but don't get reassessed before 2028? 

      Once again Timms just regurgitates government soundbites without bothering to answer the question he was asked. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 22 hours ago
    Looking at all the comments posted here so far, the only thing clear is that things are not yet clear on this issue of pension age PIP. Something further has, however, been revealed - that things are yet to be revealed, when we reach that that undefined point "due course".

    Despite an element of frustration in our still not knowing how pension age pip will be affected by these cuts, we have moved forward. We have backed the minister into a corner, exposed the government's duplicity and their lack of understanding and planning, their obvious attempt to pass legislation and sort out the practicalities, as well as deal with the fall out, or disregard it, later.

    By continuing to insist on a straight answer, we have furthered our aim to get to the truth. As gingin has pointed out, "it shouldn’t be this difficult", and it is not yet the whole truth, because the government has now admitted it has no clue as to what that is - they haven't worked out how pension age pip can be accommodated within the proposals. Timms has admitted that, and we know they haven't worked out how ANY disabled person's benefit claims can be accommodated within the proposals.

    However this is great progress, really, it is, and not just for pensioners. We have already proved that by keeping up the pressure on government we can call them to account (not least by bringing about significant local election embarrassment) and even when they try to avoid consulting us or waiting for an impact report, we can force our concerns, and bring a greater understanding of the challenges we face, as well as of how welfare works, into the public arena. We've told our stories, and we must keep doing so, in order to subvert the government's attempt to ignore us. That is how we move from changing the narrative to gaining influence in the decisions that are made.



    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 hours ago
      @rtbcpart2 Yes! We mustn’t stop backing them into
      a corner. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Letter sent to my local MP regarding this shocking news:

    Dear Mr Dean MP,

    As someone living with disability and relying on the very systems now under attack I feel compelled to write to you again because this isn’t just policy, it’s personal.

    I write once more after reading a detailed exposé freely available online describing how Sir Stephen Timms MP, Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, has apparently repeatedly misled Parliament about the Government’s intentions regarding Personal Independence Payment (PIP) for people over State Pension age.

    The article makes clear and cites evidence from the Green Paper itself that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is actively considering removing access to PIP and Attendance Allowance for new claimants above pension age. This is not speculation. These are the Government’s own proposals presented in official documents and consultation events.

    Yet Sir Timms has stated on more than one occasion in Parliament that there are no such plans. On 15 April 2024 he stated:

    “There is no proposal in the Green Paper to withdraw PIP from anybody above pension age.”
    Again on 15 May 2024 he said:

    “There is no proposal in the Green Paper to change anything for people above pension age.”
    These are not slips of the tongue — they are clear direct statements and they are not true.

    The Green Paper clearly states that the Government is exploring:

    • Removing PIP and Attendance Allowance from pensioners altogether.

    • Creating a “local support system” to replace these benefits.

    • A “better alignment” of benefits for disabled people of working and pension age — something that in this context can only mean downgrading support for older people.

    To hear the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee repeat these reassurances in Parliament — despite what is plainly written in black and white — is deeply disturbing. It raises urgent questions about how misinformation is allowed to circulate unchallenged at the very top of government scrutiny.

    Let’s be honest: if a Conservative minister had made these same statements the opposition benches would rightly be calling for a correction and formal accountability. Yet Sir Timms, now a senior Labour MP, appears to have been given a free pass.

    This brings me to the central point of my letter.

    Why has the Speaker, the Privileges Committee or even fellow committee members failed to act? And crucially why have you Mr Dean not spoken out directly across the House regarding these grossly misleading statements?

    The issue at stake here is enormous. Removing PIP from pensioners is not a technical shift — it is an ideological assault on older disabled people. It will affect thousands suffering with arthritis, Parkinson’s, mobility issues, degenerative conditions, lung disease and more. It will strip away access to support for independence specialist equipment therapy carers transport and day-to-day dignity.

    The “local support” model being floated as an alternative is undefined uncosted and completely unworkable. Local authorities are already stretched to breaking point. There is no indication that they will receive the funding infrastructure or personnel to replicate the functions of PIP.

    The practical consequences of these changes are obvious and devastating:

    • Increased strain on adult social care as older people lose financial independence.

    • Increased pressure on GPs and hospitals as conditions worsen without support.

    • Higher demand on housing support as people fall foul of the benefit cap or lose help with rent.

    • Overstretched advice services as appeals debt and crisis cases rise.

    • Growing mental health issues especially for those forced to reapply appeal or accept severe cuts to their income in later life.

    And all of this is now being quietly softened by a stream of misleading reassurance — reassurance coming from someone who should be one of the Government’s chief interrogators not its echo.
    Mr Dean, I’m asking you as my elected MP:

    1. Do you accept that Sir Timms has misled Parliament — whether through error or design?

    2. Will you raise this matter with him directly and request a correction to the official record?

    3. Will you make a public statement clarifying your own position on removing PIP from people over State Pension age?

    4. If this proposal comes to a vote in Parliament will you oppose it outright?

    Because at this point silence is no longer passive — it is permissive. If this Green Paper is passed unchallenged and the reforms are enacted with Sir Stephen Timms misleading statements standing uncorrected it will mark a historic failure of Parliamentary scrutiny and a betrayal of every disabled person who ever trusted the system to act in good faith.

    I do not write this letter lightly. Nor do I expect platitudes or vague reassurances. I am asking for action, for honesty and for the courage to challenge falsehood — even when it comes from within your own ranks.

    I look forward to your full and considered response.

    Yours sincerely
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I often wonder about Timms when he served in opposition to the time he is serving while in government and how he has changed and gone back on nearly everything I thought he stood for. After reading many of his robotic responses and the way and manner the 4 point rule was introduced I have come to the conclusion that the man must be completely incompetent to have allowed such as simple change to become so deep and far reaching a change as it has turned out. I have no faith in his approach nor in his abilities any longer and see him as a person who can be easily bought off with a title and a position that has made him abandon his alleged principles and his promises of transparency and find that he is a perfect example of what is corruption in the leadership of the labour party full of instant fixes and ill thought out plans. I know they lack experience but to fall for the plans the DWP civil servants drew up for the Tories and then follow them through shows a complete lack of competence or caring in their actions.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 hours ago
      @James I couldn’t agree more with your assessment of Timms. It’s disheartening to watch someone who once seemed principled and engaged now appear so detached and robotic in his role. His shift from opposition to government has revealed either a worrying lack of backbone or a willingness to abandon his convictions for the sake of position.

      The introduction of the 4-point rule is a perfect example. What was presented as a minor technical adjustment has turned out to be a seismic change with devastating implications for those genuinely in need. Either Timms didn’t understand the full consequences or he did and chose to push ahead anyway. Frankly, neither option reflects well on his competence or his concern for disabled people.

      The bigger issue, though, is what this says about Labour’s leadership more broadly. There’s a clear pattern emerging of adopting Conservative-drafted frameworks dressed up in Labour language. It’s all style over substance and the promises of transparency and reform now ring hollow.

      Timms' behaviour reflects a broader rot at the heart of the party where personal ambition and the allure of government titles seem to outweigh the commitment to meaningful change. He’s not just failed to challenge the DWP machine — he’s become an enabler of it.

      It’s no wonder trust is draining away fast. People don’t want party loyalty or spin. They want leadership that acts with integrity and stands firm when it counts. Sadly, Timms no longer represents that.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I really enjoyed this article for it's merciless mockery of Reeves and Torsten Bell in particular. I enjoyed it in the same way as my sister did staying up all night watching the Trump/Musk fallout in real time.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/09/reeves-struggles-explain-genius-labour-winter-fuel-payment-u-turn
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 hours ago
      @gingin Good to see The Guardian turning their guns on Labour.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @gingin Interesting that the Guardian article refers to the 100,,000 extra pension credit claims that Reeves encouraged after limiting winter fuel payments last year to recipients of that benefit, hence costing the treasury far more than the wfp itself. Something rarely mentioned.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I'm not disabled nor do I claim any disability benefit, the person I look after is and I don't even claim carer's allowance, I do it out of my own time on my own dime (Americanism). I've basically had enough of this today, they'll pass it and I hope they'll just water it down some what because they will not give this up, this is a politically orientated hate crime against the most vulnerable in society. 

    You know why I worry? It goes beyond the person I care for, I worry deeply that disabled people are going to be left to rot whilst the media and politicians cover the devastation up leaving Nigel Farage and Reform to cut even further if or when they go into government. I cannot tell you how resentful and bitter I've become over all of this. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @tintack Let's hope so or ill be left living on £350 a month occupational pension  and £400  part time wages that can not increase, the bills alone will take that! no more food or medication 4 me,it's truly frightening what they're proposing and some will sadly perish,it must be stopped at all costs 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 hours ago
      @Dave Dee I think we're all feeling bitter and resentful. Many of us also cannot see how we will survive if the cuts go through - I'm certainly in that category. But, as tiring as it is, that's what makes it so important to keep fighting. In particular, the pressure on Labour MPs to vote against the cuts has to be maintained. Remember, just a couple of months ago it seemed impossible that the government could lose the vote: only 27 Labour MPs had said they opposed the cuts and the Tories were saying they would vote in favour. Now the Tories have said they will vote against and the number of Labour MPs opposed is 150+. There is now a genuine possibility that the government could lose the vote, so we can't give up now.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    IFS director said WFA allowance U-turn will lead to higher taxes or further cuts to welfare. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    If we are going to get Timms to clarify what he says. Can we ask an MP to get him to correct the record for when he misspoke at the debate hosted by Dianne Abbot. As he said the OBR report stated only 400,000 people will lose their Daily Living Component. That is not what the OBR report said. It said 800,000 people will lose their Daily Living Component, but due to also receiving Mobility Component only 400,000 would lose PIP. And I have since heard Timms misquote the OBR on this again in the media. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Bill Oh immediately after posting my first reply it dawned on me 370,000 +430,000 = 800,000. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Bill No. 

      Timm's cited theSpring budget OBR economic and fiscal outlook March 2025 as his source "The behavioural response significantly reduces the estimated number of people who lose the PIP daily living component to 800,000 (16 per cent of those receiving the daily living component), with 400,000 of these leaving the PIP caseload entirely due to not receiving the mobility component" And misquoted it. 


      JRT report cites the Spring Statement 2025 health and disability benefit reforms – Equality Analysis by the DWP as it's source. "Changes to PIP entitlement rules where we expect 370,000 current recipients to lose entitlement (when they have an award review) and 430,000 future PIP recipients who do not get the PIP they would otherwise have been entitled" And JRT misquoted their source too.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @john @John 

      Timms was correct:

      "370,000 current recipients (when they have an award review) and 430,000 future recipients of PIP losing their entitlement to the daily living component, losing an average of £4,500 per year."

        
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    This is the most callous, cold and insidious government I've ever witnessed in my life. They have NOTHING but contempt for disabled people, we were warned. In 2013, Rachel Reeves as Shadow W&P Secretary gave an infamous speech to a Labour Party Conference, telling delegates, Labour did not want to represent the unemployed. As you can imagine this didnt go down well with the membership. Labour lost the 2015 GE largely due to Reeves & Ed Balls economic strategy.

    Sadly, they've not learnt from those mistakes, they dont even listen to their own membership or even the Unions.

    I believe they'd rather choose electoral oblivion than change course and admit they were wrong.

    The Labour Right, are worse than the Tories.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Dave Dee
      "This is the most callous, cold and insidious government I've ever witnessed in my life. They have NOTHING but contempt for disabled people"

      That's why we have to keep up the pressure on Labour MPs, as tiring as it can be to keep fighting. There is no doubt that pressure has made a big difference - a Labour rebellion that started out at 27 MPs is now around 150+. I would not have predicted that a couple of months ago. We have to keep up the pressure so those MPs hold their nerve and vote against the cuts.

      "The Labour Right, are worse than the Tories."

      Indeed. I expect this kind of thing from the Tories, but Labour are supposed to be better - and to be fair, the left of the party generally is. Unfortunately many of them have been kicked out in favour of right wing drones. However, all MPs care about holding on to their seats, so it needs to be made clear to Labour MPs that failure to oppose these cuts is going to cost them at the ballot box. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I'm a pensioner, and I've got a traumatic brain injury. If I didn't have one I certainly would by now because Timms has completely done my head in over this, AND I'm still not sure !

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

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

 
iContact
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.