Cutting personal independent payments: potentially devastating or justified? | Benefits

As expected (Starmer offers “massive concessions” on the social protection bill to the rebels of work, June 26), an attempt was made to recover the bill on well-being. Unhappy deputies and disabled people welcome insurance that people who currently receive personal independence payments (PIP) or the health element of universal credit will be protected against changes. But the episode is harmful, caused thousands of unnecessary disabled people, and can be considered as pivot in Keir Starmer’s mandate.

There is something deeply invited to have two classes of benefits of services – the current protected recipients and those who make future complaints. At the same time, it is clear that the system of benefits requires a reform and, in particular, must support people at work rather than adopting a punitive and brutal approach to the cost economy.

How Starmer ended up in this position is fascinating, if he was not extraordinary for a government with such a majority and the potential to make radical and fair change to be on several occasions. It is unlikely that swirls will look weak and disorderly, and present them as an active listening response to convince anyone. Starmer claims not to be ideological, and there is the problem; Politics is not shaped by a coherent strategic vision and aspirations focused on the principles for a better life, opportunities and real equality, but by economic necessity and prudence.

It is an imperfect model, which intensifies the divisions between ministries, labor members, taxpayers, benefits of services and the larger electorate. The government is necessary for major learning and reflection; Optics went wrong, but chaos of well-being reform is the symptom of much deeper political discomfort.
Dr Melanie Henwood
Hartwell, Northampothire

I am a social worker and I support cutting pips. I have met a number of young adults trapped in a cycle of dependence on well-being, unemployment and chaotic lifestyles. They share the conviction that the State must finance all aspects of life and the lack of understanding that the benefits do not come “from the government” but are redistributed from the population’s tax.

PIP is often claimed on the basis of anxiety or depression, but the idea of ​​working to support yourself or seeking training or education to make work more feasible is absent from their reflection. The answer? Probably a combination of education, early interventions and thrusts with regard to the change of culture, in particular by reducing the availability of PIP. In the long term, the status quo will not help the young people with whom I work.
Name and address provided

What is not specified in government declarations and the coverage of reductions in disability benefits is the relationship of payment of personal independence at work. PIP is paid to help additional costs resulting from disability. He is paid to people at work and without work. It is crucial to allow people to stay at work, to pay technical and personal support, health needs, travel and other costs. This also allows people who cannot work full time to work. What will happen to these workers when they can no longer afford the additional costs? It is clear that the government does not understand the role of PIP in activating the work.
Jean Betterridge
Manchester

While we are approaching the parliamentary vote on the new bill on well-being, save a reflection for the many PIP beneficiaries who received the advantage when it was known as life allowance for disabilities. I suspect, for many, the scars persist from this change of government to the system.

What revealed is that the disability allowance was not directed to those who need it most because of their disability. The reception of the new advantage depended rather on its ability to fill out a 40 -page form. Then it depended on physical and mental resilience to contest the result and take it to the court. It was a period of prolonged and stressful time. For many, which arrived so far, the court reversed the DWP score and people found that they had their old level of reinstated advantages. Too bad stress aggravates many medical conditions for the individual.

Many years ago, I thought that the DWP wanted to help those who have serious handicaps. These days, I have so much confidence in them as they seem to have with disabled people (DWP letters now seem to be written with a subtext of “You are a fraud and we will catch you”).
Name and address provided