Yes, sorry, I meant worth to an individual recipient.
If the bill was defeated it would be taken away and re-written. Instead, it’s been amended and passed. Either version will still result in disability benefits being cut, to be honest. It’s just a stay of execution.To me the “concessions” sounded pretty meaningless long term. I don’t get how that would change someone’s opinion for voting on the bill unless their goal was only to get reelection and they didn’t actually care.
Anyways, thinking of everyone in the UK right now. This sucks.
2/3rds of my income and I’d lose some of the remaining third because I’d be sanctioned for not looking for work.
I think that’s already occurred to the disabled campaigners who have been working tirelessly on this for months… Google is your friend for government figures.OK, but I am trying to understand how much money that actually is. My point is that I am pretty sure it isn't that much in comparison to what all the people are earning who drive past me along the M25 in BMWs and Mercs.
That is the case in its current iteration.The thing that has driven me mad with almost all the coverage including by government ministers is they keep talking about PIP as if it were income to live on for people not working, with part of the solution to get more people off it and into work.
That is wrong. It's an allowance to help cover the extra costs of daily living for people who need help to do ordinary activities and includes people who need things that cost money in order to be able to work. It used to be called Disability Living Allowance, which I think was clearer.
It's only the daily living component they are talking about cutting and making much harder to get. Yet even at maximum rate it only covers the cost of a few half hour carer visits a week.
That is the case in its current iteration.
By linking PIP to LCWRA/UC Health in the future, it will be difficult to separate them even though there will still be in-work PIP claimants.
Reliability
For a descriptor to apply to a claimant they must be able to reliably complete the activity as described in the descriptor. Reliably means whether they can do so:
We recognise that the reliability criteria are a key protection for claimants. Also, as a result of feedback received during the consultation on the PIP ‘moving around’ criteria (held between 24 June and 5 August 2013), measures are in place to ensure the reliability criteria are properly and consistently applied as part of the assessment
- safely – in a manner unlikely to cause harm to themselves or to another person, either during or after completion of the activity
- to an acceptable standard
- repeatedly – as often as is reasonably required, and
- in a reasonable time period – no more than twice as long as the maximum period that a non-disabled person would normally take to complete that activity
There are people paralysed from the neck down who can’t get a 4 let alone an 8Once they scrap the Work Capability Assessment they will have to define the new 'severe disability group' based on the new (post Timms' review) PIP scores. So I'm anticipating they will demand anyone in this group will have to score an 8 in one daily living area. Which is obviously almost impossible as it seems they never apply the 'reliably, repeatedly, safely and in a reasonable time period' to the highest score (based on DWP statistics). They don't apply it consistently to even the lower scores, if they did many more claimants would have at least one 4 point score on their award.
![]()
PIP handbook
www.gov.uk
OK, but I am trying to understand how much money that actually is.