|
Queens Fish Bar 10:31 Wed Mar 15
Nasty Party
|
|
Is this what So many people who voted Tory wanted to happen?
Government welfare experts slam ministers for denying PIP disability benefits to 160,000 vulnerable people
Anger as Damian Green, the Work and Pensions Secretary, refuses to allow MPs to vote on the changes – insisting that is “above my pay grade”
Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green EPA
The Government’s own welfare experts have attacked a controversial decision to deny disability benefits to 160,000 vulnerable people – and urged ministers to shelve it.
The changes to Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) – affecting the mentally ill - should be delayed until they have been properly tested and “clearly understood”, ministers are told.
The experts also warn it is “not clear” how assessors will interpret the changes – raising the danger that claimants will not be “consistently treated”.
READ MORE
Disabilities minister ‘blocks benefit payments to 160,000 people'
And they dispute ministers’ claims that emergency legislation must be rushed through tomorrow, suggesting a feared leap in costs has been over-hyped.
The damning conclusions sparked angry exchanges in the Commons, with some Tory MPs joining Labour and the Liberal Democrats in criticising the impact of PIPs on the vulnerable.
But Damian Green, the Work and Pensions Secretary, refused to allow MPs to vote on the changes – insisting that was “above my pay grade”.
Mr Green also acknowledged “a handful of people” could now have their PIP payments cut, having been awarded higher sums in the last few months.
Debbie Abrahams, Labour’s Work and Pensions spokeswoman, said that contradicted repeated assurances – including by Theresa May – that no disabled people would lose money, with only new claimants affected.
And she said: “The Government’s decision to change the law on PIP is a clear example of the way people with mental health conditions are not given equal treatment.”
The row follows the Government’s decision to tighten the criteria for PIPs, after a tribunal ruled they should also cover conditions including epilepsy, diabetes and dementia.
The ruling would cost at least £3.7bn over the next five years, money which should go to “really disabled people who need it”, one minister said – before later apologising.
The tribunal also said that claimants who needed support to take medication should be assessed in the same way as those managing therapies such as dialysis at home.
When the controversy first blew up last month, some Conservative MPs threatened a revolt, urging ministers to stand by the tribunal’s ruling.
But the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) used what is called a “negative resolution” to push through the change, denying the Commons a vote.
As a result, it comes into force tomorrow – despite the heads of 32 charities warning it will leave many disabled people without vital financial support.
In its report, the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) said it was “particularly concerned” that overturning the tribunal’s ruling will cause confusion.
“It is not clear how tribunals, decision makers, or health care professionals conducting assessments will respond to changes in descriptors to exclude ‘psychological distress’,” it warned.
READ MORE
The SSAC urged the DWP to consider “testing the proposed changes with health care professionals and decision makers to ensure the policy intent behind the regulation is clearly understood”.
And it concluded: “The department should both (a) consult more widely with representative bodies and health care professionals; and (b) improve the estimate of likely impact before the changes are introduced.”
Answering an urgent question, Mr Green insisted the SSAC was “not challenging the decision” to tighten the criteria for PIP.
But he added: “We think there may be a handful of people whose appeals have gone through the courts in this very, very small period.”
While “that money will not be clawed back from them” they would receive lower PIP payments once those appeals were struck out by the new regulations.
|
|
|
Replies - In Chronological Order ( Show Newest Messages First)
One Word
10:56 Wed Mar 15
Re: Nasty Party
|
https://youtu.be/ETSl8gWsFZ0
|
riosleftsock
11:01 Wed Mar 15
Re: Nasty Party
|
I went to a nasty party once. My brother got chucked out over some kung fu shit and I went to sleep in the front room on a promise only to woken by my brother throwing the house owners bike through the front room window which was exactly where i was trying to root said doris
|
BRANDED
11:02 Wed Mar 15
Re: Nasty Party
|
Prosecutors are sent files from TWELVE police forces looking into allegations of general election expenses fraud against Tory MPs
|
ray winstone
11:47 Wed Mar 15
Re: Nasty Party
|
LOCK THIS SHIT.
|
Baggins
11:49 Wed Mar 15
Re: Nasty Party
|
Must be able to do better than this with Tory bashing, surely?
|
Hammer and Pickle
11:51 Wed Mar 15
Re: Nasty Party
|
The Tories are only electable because the opposition is so weak, Baggins.
You forced me to say it too, son.
|
Baggins
12:01 Thu Mar 16
Re: Nasty Party
|
Well, yeah, Hammer son. The main opposition are currently run by a bunch of leftie clowns who live in a dream world.
If they sort themselves out, perhaps people will vote for them.
|
ray winstone
12:15 Thu Mar 16
Re: Nasty Party
|
Lefty clowns eh? How many u turns constitute incompetence?
|
Johnson
12:21 Thu Mar 16
Re: Nasty Party
|
How many lies about seats on trains win votes, ray, you sad little man?
|
ray winstone
12:22 Thu Mar 16
Re: Nasty Party
|
Ooh, here's my stalker.
|
Baggins
12:29 Thu Mar 16
Re: Nasty Party
|
Oh look, here's ray, who definitely does not support Labour, honest guv.
It's been a pretty poor week for the Tories ray, son. The sad thing is none of this has been brought about because of the opposition - in fact they've managed to miss several open goals in that time and prove, again, just how useless they all are.
|
,
12:34 Thu Mar 16
Re: Nasty Party
|
It's not the opposition per se it's Corbyn in particular. The bloke is patently not up to the job of being opposition leader. Week by week he stands at the dispatch box and misses open goals.
In the meantime the capable people on the opposition benches have to sit on their hands.
|
ray winstone
12:39 Thu Mar 16
Re: Nasty Party
|
Baggins, it's irrelevant if I support Labour or The Monster Raving Loony Party, I hate the Tories and all they stand for, it's as simple as that.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
12:43 Thu Mar 16
Re: Nasty Party
|
It is irrelevant at all. If you support Labour (which your Pavlovian responses to any criticism of them makes obvious) then you have to justify why they would do a better job than the hated Tories.
But you can't, so flying in the face of the bleedin' obvious, you persistently deny you do support Labour, which is why nobody takes you seriously.
|
ray winstone
1:13 Thu Mar 16
Re: Nasty Party
|
Nobody takes me seriously? Well why the fuck not just ignore me then you boring shit cunt instead of writing your monotonous drivel?
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
1:19 Thu Mar 16
Re: Nasty Party
|
Aw, don't get sore. You claim you are on a wind-up most of the time. You've got to expect to get a bit back.
|
chim chim cha boo
1:27 Thu Mar 16
Re: Nasty Party
|
Ray is right though Surface, to give him his due - you ARE a boring shit cunt.
Nice swerve by the way all- 160,000 of our most vunerable mentally ill citizens get their money deplorably cut (and if you live in London you can't not have noticed how many are already out on the streets begging) and it turns immediately into an argument about how shit Corbyn is.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
1:30 Thu Mar 16
Re: Nasty Party
|
Don't recall you at all, mate. But thanks for reading.
|
Saul Bollox
2:33 Thu Mar 16
Re: Nasty Party
|
"......boring shit cunt ......."
HA HA HA HA HA HA
|
|
|
|
