This has nothing to do with this topic. I don’t disagree with your points. But removing the benefits designed to allow disabled to actually function in anything close to an equal manner. It is in no way going to help your issue.

And refusing to cover rental housing costs for the poorest members of our population. Without hugely increasing homelessness and death. Will require a huge investment in social housing and time. Long before the nation is ready to stop covering that cost.

But I agree that sort of move is needed. But that would require an electorate and political party willing to support it.

the benefits system is riddled with fraudulent claims

If this was true. These actions in no way address such claims. They are purely about making it harder for genuine claims to actually pass the process, and paying less to those that remain. Absolutely nothing in this plan addresses false/fraudulent claims.

Also, while some fraudulent claims exist, riddled is totally false. The Tories have spent their whole time in office trying to prove your statement. Yet the cost of implementing their extra checks has been hugely more expensive than any claims cancelled.

You like much of the nation have fallen for the media and channel 4 propaganda.

Seventy percent of rejected claims are won on appeal

This actually underplays it.

35% of claims rejected by the internal appeal, Then start a court tribunal. Of those, the DWP overrides 25% before the case gets to court. So they already recognise they have no hope of winning 25% having rejected twice.

Of the remaining cases that then go, on to a tribunal hearing. The court decides with the claimant in 70% of cases. Based on exactly the same evidence, the DWP was presented.

The false rejection rate is way higher, the 70% it is insane.

But we will never know2 the number of false rejections that do not have the energy to face the stress of taking DWP to court. Especially as we have a history of this process taking years. The cases then being due for re-review soon after the court case is won. And often getting falsely rejected again. The last 14 years of media coverage of these cases seem like DWP is trying to bully qualified claimants out of the benefit.

Given, this is not an income based benefit. But one where the majority of claimants work. Designed to help cover the excess cost disabled people face just living, interacting with society and travelling to life events or work and back. Its goal is to make a minimal attempt to allow disabled to have anything close to an equal chance and role in society with able-bodied.

This is more than just a motivation within DWP to reject valid claims. It is abuse of a perceived invisible section of our society. And an attempt to scare/tire them out of gaining any equality.

The thing is they have to be found guilty for the UK to be breaking the law supplying arms to Israel.

An arrest warrant is not evidence of guilt just suspicion. And the UK gov seems determined to ignore it as long as they possible can.

International law is nothing more then a collection of treaties between national governments. And depends on those governments willingness to cooperate to actually have any real meaning.

The majority of people on PIP are already working.

It is not an income based benifit. Your income and assets make 0 difference to your claim.

Its whole purpose is to cover some of the extra costs disabled people have to pay to interact and be involved in society as a whole.

The getting people back into work is just an outright lie when it comes to PIP reductions. Its about removing the cost of making society accessible to disabled people.

IE their direct chance at any form of equality. And for many lower earning disabled. Their whole ability to get to work participate and keep their employment.

Those that are will get relocated to the actual NHS, not the quango.

Or the government department,

Humanpenguin thinks politicians rectal cranium insertion is under diagnosed.

"The cost of 0 VAT on financial services is devastating. "

And only used by the wealthy.

Why should someone who needs an accountants time get it tax free. But needing a plumbers time dose not.

I wouldn’t even say that Lammy got rebuked. Just look at the language. They’re pretty much just saying “This is the FO’s/David Lammy’s view, we do not technically endorse it. Please speak to them.”

But when you add.

They added: “The government is not an international court, and, therefore, it is up to courts to make judgments.”

Id say that was very much the equivalent of. “Oi Lammy you are not in a position to make such statements as an official. Wind your neck in a bit.”

The foreign secretary later said he “could have been clearer” in the chamber, when asked in an interview with Bloomberg if he regretted making the statement.

Could even be interpreted as “neck retracted one click.”

In the context of the govts relationship with Israel I think this is actually good news.

When you consider the. “Israel’s actions in Gaza are at clear risk of breaching international humanitarian law”

Yeah, I’d agree they may at least be worrying a little about the need to re-evaluate the relationship, depending on Israels continuing actions.

I remember a fable about one rotten apple in a barral of fresh ones.

Seems to apply to tories.

Nasty infects those in close proximity.

Millions. But yeah agree entirly.

sources for above claims

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/personal-independence-payment-statistics-to-january-2024/personal-independence-payment-official-statistics-to-january-2024

https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/7-10-pip-appeals-won-same-evidence-dwp-already-held

Worth noting. This fails to address one of the largest false claims of the media, this and the last government.

Benefit fraud is a significant element of their costs.

The Tories openly proved this, even if they refuse to admit it. A huge part of their changes in the disability benefit system was aimed at reducing fraud. Not only was the increased cost of running the DWP much higher than any savings during their whole time in government. But the number of court cases and % of those cases that overrode their rejections was much higher than past methods. Costing them and the disabled community much more on top of the running of the department.

Over 35% of rejected pip claims start court process. After the DWP has already reviewed and rejected the claim a second time.

Of those, 25% are overturned by DWP before going to court. This is after they have already forced those claimants to go through a 2nd review. So this is an absurdly high number to decide they have no case.

But when they finally go to court. The court overturns about 70% of the cases in favour of the claimant.

These numbers make it hard to believe the DWP is not intentionally rejecting cases in the hope genuine claimants will not push for their rights.

Add to this that the very community they are doing this to. Are often the least able and most stressed by such legal fights. It really is pure abuse.

Labours new plan is to just avoid the courts by refusing to give benefits to a larger proportion of those who face higher costs interacting with society.

It’s not like PIP is exactly generous with who gets support. 3.6PIP 1.2DLA (DLA for those not of working age) out of 16.1M disabled by DWPs own claims. While never really covering the difference in cost. But way short of transport cost now, taxis have increased so absurdly since covid.

That screeching is less universal then the press would suggest.

A 0.1% drop after a 0.4% rise is the best actual data they have. So all the claims of collapsing economy are exaggerated predictions not facts. But gowd are the press trying to push it as fact.

The econ is on a prestige. But the cause was the huge borrowing and lack pf regulation on spending during covid. It has left the UK with huge wealth disparity added to an international loan market that is less trusting of UK finances. Meaning the cost of borrowing has risen compared to gdp. Making spending harder. Increased inflation would actually help the gov by making current debt cheaper but harm the poor.

But dispite the tory press. The increase in borrowing costs are directly related to tories time in power and increased borrowing.

I can’t see them introducing anything that would count as a wealth tax. Tory papers are to out to get them. And they care to much about voters/funders that read those papers. Current Labour just ain’t gonna go that left wing. Honestly atm nor were they likely to win the election if they did.

And with FPTP I honestly cannot see any other party that stands a chance of winning doing so.

Its def worth writing to labour MPs complaining about the attack on the poor and disabled again. But we would need at least 100/25% of labour MPs to threaten the government over this. That will be hard but far from impossible. Its just some option less left then a outright wealth tax will be needed to sell it. Given the breakdown of parliment and the numbers of right of centre labour mps.

Austerity, in terms of government policy, refers to measures aimed at reducing public sector debt and budget deficits through spending cuts, tax increases, or both.

An out right lie. Austerity is the method of achieving this by reducing spending rather then increase revenue. Tax increases have never been considered an austerity measure.

Considering this orgs bias is entirly about not haveing to pay higher taxes. That is a very deceitful definition they are using. One intentionally designed to ignore the actions labour have taken they disagree with. A disgusting attempt to change language to suit their own agenda.

Unbiased as possible (not me of course but trying to be language wise)

Yes some of the actions labour has taken and propose are def austerity based.

And most if not all actions tories used were austerity or wished for growth often promoted by austerity. Plus the tories favorite non proportional tax. VAT.

While tories did attempt to increase revenue via VAT and NI. That was not critisized as austerity. Just accused of class warfare (or lesser ways of saying much the same) as these taxes effect those without extra income or assets much more drematically then the wealthy.

Because media often critisized austerity and non proportional taxation in the same language. Of effecting lower incomes more then higher. This article is intentionally and falsely trying to change the language.

Openly Biased

Tories have always been fuck the poor and claim the rich support them. If the actual data fails backs it up. Yhey have to manipulate it using there fav compare numbers not propotions trick.

Right wing Labour while fighting for the same voters and support. Is only marginly better in the fact they are trying to tax some assets.( Land inheritance including Farms) while farmers refuse to admit higher taxation was the only reason this land was kept as personal owned rather then placed in an LTD in the first place. Farms have been acway for wealthy to hide inheritance for a long while. While actually running the farm as a land company rather then separating out the land as a personal possession would protect it from inheritance while increasing taxation during running.

Many farmers outright refuse to admit to themselves they have been benifiting over other corperations for decades.

They get £675 a month max. As low as £138

And please remember pip has nothing to do with work. Employed people can get it. It is designed to cover the extra costs disabled people face interacting with society as a whole. And dose not come even close to covering it for most. Transport alone has gone up way way past the amount covered. In the last few years taxis have more then doubled in cost.

And all doctors should listen to a history graduate because?

Historically they were undiagnosed seems to be the best advice he can offer. Or is it the usual political solution. Deny anything you don’t like exists.

as anti-disabled as the tories.

Well when you spend your time appealing for the same voters and funding sources.

Your going to be forcing down the same policy ideas.

Always less work to not give than to take. Disabled are an easy target not really seen by voters.

Billionaires fight back very visibly and take actual risk to defeat.