Benefits and Work has published a supplementary guide for carers of young people on DLA who are being reassessed  for PIP, as our research highlights the huge variations in success rates.  Claiming PIP is not like claiming DLA and being fully prepared for the unfamiliar processes and award criteria can make a real difference to the outcome.  

Overall results

DWP statistics for young DLA claimants being reassessed for PIP over the last five years show that, overall:

  • 62.8% received a higher award.
  • 11.8% received the same award.
  • 4.7% received a lower award.
  • 20.7% received no PIP award.

So, almost two thirds of young people moving from DLA to PIP get a higher award – but one in five get no PIP at all. 

A higher award is one where the young person’s PIP award is worth more money than their DLA award.  (These figures only include initial PIP claims, they do not include appeals or repeat applications).

However, the variation in success rates based on health conditions is particularly striking. 

For each DLA award, the DWP record the main disabling condition.  Where a young person has more than one disability or health condition the DWP decide which health condition they consider to be the main disabling one.

This is where the huge differences show up.

Lower awards

At one extreme, a shocking 85% of young people with diabetes get no award of PIP at all when they move from DLA.

And 61% of young people with cystic fibrosis also get no award.

For asthma, 47% get no award and 13% get a lower award, leaving 60% worse off.

For epilepsy, 25% get a lower award and 20% get no award, meaning 45% are worse off.  On the other hand 48% get a higher award, meaning that only 7% remained in the same position.

Higher awards

The majority of young people are better-off as a result of being reassessed for PIP.

So, 73% of young people whose main disabling condition was listed by the DWP as learning difficulties got a higher award. 

However, learning difficulties for DLA can cover a very wide range of issues, including Down’s syndrome,  fragile X syndrome, autism and Rett disorder.

Unfortunately, much of the DWP’s conditions terminology is outdated and some categories are very broad.  You can see a detailed list, with explanations, of DLA health conditions here.

There are similar, though slightly less pronounced, results for:

  • Blindness: 65.4% higher award
  • Behavioral Disorder (broad DWP category including eating disorders and conduct disorders): 65.1% higher
  • Hyperkinetic Syndrome (largely corresponds to ADHD): 65.0% higher
  • Deafness: 62.1% higher
  • Psychosis (DWP term covering depressive disorder, bipolar affective disorder, other mood disorders): 58.9% higher
  • Psychoneurosis (umbrella category for a wide range of anxiety, stress-related and other non-psychotic mental health conditions): 58.7% higher

You can see a full chart of DLA to PIP reassessment outcomes here.

DLA to PIP guide

Our 36 page supplementary guide is aimed at parents and carers supporting young people through the move from DLA to PIP.

The guide gives a clear overview of the whole process, so that you can safely navigate your way through the different stages leading to a PIP award.

It also highlights important differences between the two benefits, including:

  • PIP is based on a points system
  • The idea of the “average child” is no longer relevant
  • Day and night don’t matter anymore
  • Aids are assessed very differently
  • Supervision is harder to get awards for
  • Medical assessments play a much larger role

Case studies are used to show how these differences work in practice.

In addition, the supplementary guide looks at the PIP activities that can be most challenging when making the move from DLA and clearly sets out how to approach explaining your child’s difficulties.  Activities covered include:

  • Preparing food
  • Managing therapy and monitoring a health condition
  • Engaging with other people face to face
  • Making budgeting decisions
  • Planning and following journeys

There’s also a valuable section on how evidence from schools, colleges and apprenticeships can be used to help make the correct award more likely.

Many thanks to Keely Gabriel for creating the new guide.

Members can download a copy of “Child DLA to PIP Reassessments – A supplementary guide for those supporting young people” from this page.

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.
    · 12 days ago
    What the hell are we supposed to do now I'm so scared, I just want to be left alone by this disgraceful governmental attitude.....please.

    My pip runs until Nov.29. with potential contact from DWP regarding potential renewal etc from Nov.28 to Nov.29.

    I wish it was a much longer award, at least I'd have more chance of keeping peace of mind. Fat chance now.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 days ago
      @Scorpion If I win £400 million on the Powerball I will treat everyone on this forum.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @Rupert Mine is till Nov.2029

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @N.B.C Got my Pip till 2032 a six year award.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 days ago
      @N.B.C That gives you enough time to win a EuroMillions jackpot, I guess!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    Some snippets from the Labour party conference

    DWP Minister Pat McFadden

    "within weeks in work, through Labour’s Jobs Guarantee, the people I met did believe. They were full of optimism, they were full of confidence and most of all they were full of hope for the future. That’s what work can do, Conference. It’s not just about earning a wage, vital though that is. It’s about pride and purpose. It’s about your identity. It’s about knowing you earned that money, you went out there and you worked for it. This is what Labour has always believed and what we believe today"
    ...
    "I met young people with learning disabilities at Mencap a few weeks ago – every single one of whom wanted to work; when I met all of them I did not see Broken Britain. I saw a Britain full of promise, full of possibility and full of ambition. And that’s the Britain that we believe in."
    ...
    "Young disabled people are often told the kindest thing that Government can do is sign them off and write them off. Well, not any more."

    "Today I can tell you that from next April we will make the Jobs Guarantee available to young disabled people after just three months. Guaranteed paid work for six months at guaranteed living wage rates. Paid work with the support to hold on to it. Not signed off not written off. But backed by us to work, to earn, to build a life. That is the change that we are making."

    "And let me tell you why all of this is so urgent. It’s not just about the financial cost of where we are – although that is too high – but even more urgently it’s about the human cost."

    "A young person who signs on for sickness benefits when they are twenty years old is now more likely to reach the age of thirty and still be on them than to have held down a steady job in any one of the intervening years."

    "A young person under twenty-five on the health element of Universal Credit is now less likely to find work than someone over fifty-five on the very same benefit."

    "And worse of all a young person left out of work is far more likely to die before their time than the friends they sat beside in school."

    "We should not accept it. We have to change it.
    Conference, this status quo is not a system around which to circle the wagons. It’s a system to change so that we can give a chance to life for the people it too often signs off and writes off. Now, let me tell you, for those who can never work – a life of security and dignity should always be there. That is the mark of a decent society. And with us it will always be there. But for those that can, a job is one of the best things that can happen to them. And that’s not just an economic policy. It’s a statement about what we believe and value."

    "I know that growing up can be hard. And I know that parents out there are sometimes struggling. But we should never allow our understanding of that to slide into the low expectations that says the best we can offer you is a life on benefits."

    "We owe people so much more than that. We have two important reviews in place from Alan Milburn and the Timms Panel. And they will report shortly. And when they do, there will be decisions to make and responsibilities to take. How we have a new system focussed on opportunity. How we move from asking what are you entitled to – to asking how do we change your life. And how we offer you not just an income but a future too."

    "That’s what the welfare state must do in this century. And it falls to us, the party which did so much to create it, the party that holds it dear, to embrace the change needed. And when we do it is not because this is some tough decision forced on us by necessity. It is because it is the right decision driven by our beliefs and values.
    Because it is the moral crusade of our times"


    Chancellor John Healey

    "our social security system must always be there for those who can never work.
    But for everyone else, benefits should be a bridge to work, to wider participation, to a better life, not a trap that people can’t escape.
    And Conference, it is simply not progressive to allow a bigger and bigger benefits bill and a system which offers an income but doesn’t offer a future.
    So once again, as a Labour Government it falls to us to act.
    And this is more than an economic must.
    This is a moral duty."
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), there are an estimated 1.78 million unemployed people aged 16 and over in the UK who are actively seeking work.

    Why not start with helping these people if we're really seriously about helping people back into work?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Kevin. The legal age to leave education is not 18. Neither was it changed from 16 to 18 in 2014 ar anytime else. One can legally leave a traditional school at 16 in England, but they must continue in some form of education or training until they turn 18. They do not have to stay at a traditional school, but the law requires them to stay in education or training until their 18th birthday in one of following three ways:

      1.  Stay in full-time education (such as a gov.uk registered college or sixth form).

      2.  Start an The Education Hub apprenticeship.

      3.  Or spend 20 hours or more a week working or volunteering while doing part-time education or training.

      The confusion stems from a change to education law in England rather than employment law. In 2013 and 2014, the government raised the education participation age.

      Therefore, the law does not stop 16-year-olds from working.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Scorpion This does not make sense, how can a 16 year old be unemployed when 18 is the legal age to leave education. That being either 6th form or via college or apprenticeships. The legal age was changed from 16 to 18 in 2014. So by that logic they cannot be unemployed as by law 18 is the legal age to leave full time education. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    Your right not too worry.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 days ago
    From McFadden:

    In his speech, McFadden said it was a “moral crusade” to stop so many young people being trapped on disability benefits instead of being helped into work, saying: “A young person who signs on for sickness benefits when they are 20 is now more likely to reach the age of 30 and still be on them than to have held down a steady job in a single year in between.”

    He added: “And a young person left out of work is far more likely to die before their time than the friends they sat beside in school … this is shameful. We should not accept it. We have to change it.”

    I think a disabled persons morality is shortened significantly more by stress and fear (that he’s helping create)

    This quote is a slap in the face
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @D So not a job but a "steady job". Is he by chance only counting full time permanent contract jobs to make the figures look worse. As many disabled people who do work maybe part time or self employed. As for blaming people with chronic illnesses or disabilities dying younger on them not being in work that is just stupid. Does he think chronic illnesses and disabilities don't effect life expectancy.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 days ago
    Erm who is Guy?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Scorpion Fairy nuff
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @N.B.C I wrote, "Guys", but it seems the "s" was lost in the posting. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 days ago
    So do you think we are in real trouble here and if so what on earth are we supposed to do if our current situation is the best we can manage?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @Scorpion 🙏🙏🙏
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @N.B.C This follows my previous comment!

      And most of all, try to stop freaking out each time a think tank scribbles proposals, as making policy proposals to influence government decisions, legislation, and public debate, is the core function and "bread and butter" of think tanks.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @N.B.C My advice to you is to stop feeling overwhelmed by the endless speculation about what the government might do next, as it's incredibly easy to get caught up in the constant cycle of political rumors, predictions, speculations, extrapolations, and public commentary. Ignore the "what-ifs" from commentators and "news" outlets that are desperate to fill in their columns,   and focus only on legislation or policies that have actually been passed or officially announced.

      And to answer your question, no, we're not "in real trouble", business as usual.

      Hope this will help!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 days ago
    Guy, please calm down! There's NO WAY, neither is there any sign to date that Andy Burnham's Labour is considering to adopt the social housing overhaul proposed by the Policy Exchange think tank.

    Their proposals are as follows:

    *  Restricting council and housing association allocations to British citizens, prioritizing those in work, training, caregiving, or volunteering.

    *  Kicking out tenants who no longer meet criteria or whose circumstances change, claiming that this could save taxpayers billions, while ignoring the homelessness and destitution that this would create, which is against

    And don't forget, the Tories are also behind these proposals, urging Andy Burnham to implement this "overhaul"! Why should he embark upon a Tory programme proposed by one of the least transparent and most opaque "dark money" right-wing think tanks in the UK, when he has made eradicating rough sleeping and homelessness a core pillar of his political career and his first policy pledge as prime minister? No WAY!

    Burnham's current housing agenda is focused on a major state-backed push for council and social housebuilding, aiming for post-war delivery, rather than the restrictive allocation and residency criteria pushed by Policy Exchange think tank.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 days ago
    Labour pre-conference announcement includes a pledge to offer quicker access of a guaranteed job to young people receiving health or disability support.

    The offer would be made three months after they start claiming benefits. This approach would be introduced from next April.

    Labour said the government would cover 100% of wage costs for up to 25 hours a week for six months.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 15 days ago
    "The prime minister also reiterated that while he thought the welfare bill was too high, the will among Labour MPs was “not there for crude cuts” because they would push people into crisis, so a longer term approach to reform was required."

    From today's Guardian.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 days ago
      @JBob1234 Thank you very much for your time answering my question, I really appreciate it and you cleared that up nicely for me. 

      Have a good day. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @Kevin. As Burnham is a strong supporter of the Timms and Milburn reviews and wants to cut welfare spending I do expect the government to attempt to make what Burnham calls non crude cuts. But no one knows what the reviews will recommend or what concessions the government will give after any public consultations or to it's own backbenchers. Last time the government offered to make all ongoing/indefinite awards exempt and then offered to make all pre-existing claimants exempt, before giving up and abandoning the 4 point PIP rule, and only applying the changes to UC LCWRA to new claimants. So people worrying today might again find themselves exempt or cuts not happening at all.

      I expect any cuts might be aimed at specific groups. Possibly less severe cases of depression, anxiety, ADHD, Autism, and maybe muscular skeletal conditions.
      Although how they might do this is unclear given the equality act makes treating different health conditions that result in the same level of incapability differently unlawful.

      I also expect they might target the young aged under 25, and new claimants.

      Any cuts would probably be justified by claiming they are making disability benefits sustainable for the future, and justified by increasing support and help towards working. And in addition to any cuts further savings achieved via attempts at earlier intervention targeted at the young and the employed. And further savings via voluntary measures like people having the option of giving up a bit of their PIP in exchange for a service they want to receive, in the same fashion as Motability currently operates.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @JBob1234 So does that mean the PM will go ahead with cutting UC health element and PIP money or cutting PIP full stop. I am getting confused as one comment is positive and your comment makes it look like shady behind closed door cuts. I am no critasing yours or the other people who have commented just wanted some clarity on the cuts and where and what you believe these cuts will be. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @Paul Burnham's opposition to crude cuts is not an opposition to all cuts. It is a opposition to cuts that do not achieve a reduction in claimant numbers, be that by changing the incentives in the system or by increasing help, support and encouragement into work.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @Paul I truly hope you are right about this I really hope so 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 15 days ago
    Do people have any idea what this housing policy would do to those who are currently long term sick and disabled ? Would they get thrown out on the street just coz they don't fit neatly into a barbaric think tank pigeon hole.? Why don't they try living like we have to, they'd change their tune BLOODY QUICK... this is pissing me right off so much, I'm absolutely terrified at this. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 15 days ago
    Policy Exchange think tank Fairer Housing Support. Policy recommendations.

    Local Housing Allowance uprating frozen until it falls from 30th percentile (lowest 30% of rents) to 10th percentile (lowest 10% of rents). I think that is a recipe for over crowding, slum housing and homelessness.

    Housing support for those deemed work capable for both those in work and out of work reduced for long term claimants. After 2 years reducing by 20%, after a total of 4 years reducing by a total of 40%. I think that is a formula for poverty and homelessness. Especially as people deemed work capable are not necessary work capable, and not everyone work capable can get a job no matter how hard they try to. Employer discrimination is the other side of the problem they seem unwilling to fix.

    Social Housing new tenancies reserved for British citizens. Something unthinkable years ago due to being thinly veiled racism somehow has become a socially acceptable policy suggestion.

    Social Housing ending of lifelong tenancies as the default. I don't have a problem with this as long as for life remains for those who will never be able to work. I think social housing should be based on current need not previous need.

    Social Housing social rents (the lowest rents not the higher so called affordable rents) formula changed for new lets and relets to use current house prices and market rents and incomes. For pre-existing tenancy agreements the rents to be slowly increased to the new formula. Currently the formula uses data from 1999 and 2000 that has been uprated and had the uprating the increase in rents capped. So updating the data used looks likely to cause a big increase in social rents. Along with the reduction of housing support this is a recipe for poverty and homelessness.

    Social Housing rents increased for those on higher than UK gross mean household income. Tapered so that for every £1,000 over the mean household income, rent is increased by £130. With full market rent paid by those with a household income of £88,000. I don't have a problem with this and actually think it does not go far enough. Social housing in my view should primarily be for those unable to work and support themselves not those just as able to support themselves as everyone else.

    I would actually go further and retrospectively change tenancy agreements so those who do not need social housing or have social housing excessive to need can have their tenancies ended. It is ridiculous in my opinion that we have for example working couples earning good money living in social housing renting out spare bedrooms rooms in their social housing and getting to pocket the money. While people earning far less or unable to work are having to privately rent.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @JBob1234 @JBob1234 One of the principles of council housing available to all was to have a cross section of society in a neighbourhood, so as not to create ghettos of the needy.

      Social housing is therefore allocated prioritising accommodation requirements, although some account is now taken of income and capital because of having to provide for the very poorest when so much of housing is unattainable.

      Ending tenancies of people who had improved their situation would be very dispiriting and create really run down areas with no aspiration.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @JBob1234 That post was cut.

      Even if people in social housing do manage to have buy to let properties, they are providing homes and perhaps somewhere to downsize to or for their children so they don't have to go into social housing when the family's accommodation needs change.

      Downsizing when one finds oneself in an 'empty nest' might not necessarily be financially beneficial and can be premature when the employment and housing of children newly out of education is precarious, so taking in a lodger can be a way to offset the bedroom tax and is strictly regulated.

      It feels like warped and jealous thinking to want to pull people down and put them under pressure when they've made the best of their situation. Making people worse off like that is not the way to make other people better off.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @JBob1234 I cannot see any long term good coming from subjecting a family with the means to pay their social housing rent to homelessness and insecurity which leaves them vulnerable to being thrown back onto the housing list. It's not as simple as adjusting financial assistance according to fluctuating need.

      No doubt there are examples of profiteering as there are with all benefits and in all walks of life but social housing do have buy to let properties,
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @Clockoholic
      @Clockoholic

      I'm very sorry to hear that. I hope you and your family were able to recover and find secure homes. It's very damaging for families to be separated in that way and I can't see any good coming from making people homeless.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @Scorpion Thank you..that's much appreciated. 🙏
      And yes, i totally agree with the points you make too
      Solidarity! 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 15 days ago
    Policy Exchange think tank also want the freeze in local housing allowance continued until local housing allowance falls from the 30th percentile (enough to pay for the lowest 30% of rents) to the 10th percentile (enough to pay for the lowest 10% of rents). That strikes me as a recipe for overcrowding, slum housing, and homelessness.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @JBob1234 Thank you for your time answering me, it is much appreciate. 

      These suggestions are rather concerning and very punitive for those at the bottom end of society who are already classed as in poverty. There seems to be no end to making those in poverty be they working families, working single people, disabled or mentally ill who are too ill to work sink deeper into poverty. The decisions are made by the wealthy and privileged who have no idea or empathy whatsoever for those who's lives they ruin. These polices time and time again do absolutely nothing to help the economy or people into long-term sustainable work, in fact it causes the opposite as less money is spent into the economy.  

      Fingers crossed this suggestion does not come to pass, I don't think it is a vote winner for Bernham and that seems to be the way dreadful suggestions like this don't get past. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @Kevin. Just a think tank suggestion. Policy Exchange is however regarded as the most influencial think tank. For example a total of 34 Policy Exchange policies were in the 2024 general election manifestoes of the Conservatives, Labour, LibDems, Reform.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @JBob1234 Is this a policy that the government are considering or just a think tank policy suggestion? 

      Would this not also go against what Burnham has promised about ending homelessness? If he is serious about ending homelessness then wouldn’t this be counterproductive? 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 15 days ago
    Policy Exchange think tank is recommending the government reduces housing support for the long term unemployed. By 20% after 2 years rising to 40% after 4 years. I guess the idea is to have more homeless people sleeping in the gutter as a visible incentive to people to work or end up in the gutter.

    Are think tanks and political parties having a competition on who can come up with the policy that causes the most visible poverty and suffering. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @JBob1234 I hope this isn't going to even remotely happen, coz can you imagine the damage that would happen to potentially thousands of people caused by those who would conveniently never be affected by such. Do they not realise it only takes one wrong move from them in order for them to end up in much the same position as many of us currently are?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    The government is apparently looking at announcing more help towards energy bills in the udget (28th October). The extra help will be targeted at the poorest households.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Mintro man No it will be support in addition to the £150 warm homes discount. For how much and who will get it we will have to wait for the budget to find out.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @JBob1234 @JB1234 will be that £150 off the electric again like last year best time to ring up was 4pm got straight threw I did 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    The 700 page Fonagy review which was due to be released today Thursday has been unexpectedly delayed until next month.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @rookie I am hoping it is a result of their pre release media briefings possibly getting a negative response from the medical profession. The media reported they planned to triage people. And only give people who are a danger to themselves or who are incapable of working an official diagnosis and specialist treatment, with everyone else getting holistic help instead. I found that plan jaw dropping. Something they would never do for physical health conditions.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @JBob1234 Surprise,surprise, how convenient wonder if that was deliberate so as to less likely have a negative impact on the budget statement coming up
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @JBob1234 "unexpectedly delayed" so they can reconcile it with the budget.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    Kemi Badenoch has taken Germany and the Netherlands as examples for making social security payments to people out of work contingent to their work history and contribution, which also exist in France and Sweden and maybe other countries too.

    But what she apparently doesn't know is that in these countries there are two types of social security payments for people who have been out of work.

    For example, Germany, which she has taken as an example, has:

    1. Contribution-Based, known in Germany as "Arbeitslosengeld I (ALG I)", which is contingent to one's work history and contribution.

    2. . Tax-Funded / Non-Contributory, known as "Grundsicherungsgeld (formerly Bürgergeld)". In germany, if you have not paid sufficient contributions—or if your ALG I coverage has expired—you are not left completely without a safety net.You can apply for basic income support, known as Grundsicherungsgeld (the reformed Bürgergeld system), which is €563 (£484) per month for a single person, while the UC in the UK for a single person who are 25 or over is £424.90, which is less than what Germany pays. This social security is not contingent to anyone's work history of contribution.

    She's misrepresenting and twisting the facts to make it fit her narrative

    She has become addicted to blabbering on about welfare, even though the Tories have zero chances to materialise her evil proposals.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Scorpion It is in any case misleading for politicians to compare other countries' welfare systems, because there are so many contextual variations - concerning things such as childcare, the cost of higher education, health and social care, tax...It's a long list.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @JBob1234 In other words, a horribly hung Parliament. Mind you Belgium seemed to be alright without a Govt for approx 18 months...
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Scorpion ElectoralCalculus has
      1% Conservative majority government
      9% Conservative minority government (presumably reliant on the support of Reform)
      17% Reform minority government (presumably reliant on the support of the Conservatives)

      2% Reform major government
      46% Labour minority government
      16% Labour majority government
      9% No overall control
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    Kemi Badenoch has taken Germany and the Netherlands as examples for making social security paym

    But what she apparently doesn't know is that in these countries there are two types of social security payments for people who have been out of work.

    For example, Germany, which she has taken as an example, has:

    1. Contribution-Based, known in Germany as "Arbeitslosengeld I (ALG I)", which is contingent to one's work history and contribution.

    2. €563 (£484) per month for a single person, while the UC in the UK for a single person who are 25 or over is 
    to make it fit her narrative
    has become addicted to blabbering on about welfare, even though the Tories have zero chances to materialise her evil proposals.

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    Also just seen the front page of tomorrow's Telegraph: Badenoch wants to scrap cash payments for long term unemployed to a pre-payment card system where you will not be able to buy cigarettes, alcohol or gamble. Organised crime must be dearly hoping the Torywin the next GE. I fear UK will become the 51st state at this rate....
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @rookie Words that spring to mind: Shoplifting and Moonshine
      Wheredego Kemi
      Meanwhile...the Lord's pop into the subsidised bar for a G&T, and pick up three hundred quid in expenses...
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Matt Oh, they're all full of bright ideas, aren't they? Don't they see how foolish they look when they haven't thought through how such fantasies might be put into practice?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    The Conservatives are now proposing that those on income based out of work benefits after 6 months would have their benefits reduced by 30% and instead of cash would have prepaid cards which prevent them spending money on gambling, alcohol, cigarettes, etcetera.

    Given how low out of work benefits are this would cause destitution.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @JBob1234 You're right, that's what they're blabbering. However, apart from neurodiversity, I don't think any has ben awarded LCWRA or PIP for mild anxiety or mild depression.

      They're claiming that claimants have been awarded LCWRA or PIP or both for mild anxiety or mild depression to fit it their narrative. Honest Bob is even claiming that claimants have awarded PIP via email.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Scorpion But the Conservatives also want to remove LCWRA and PIP eligibility from what they deem less severe mental health and neurological developmental conditions. So they would lose PIP and UC health and then might have their basic UC dropped by 30%.

      It is unclear what would count as years of working for the extra one year of full UC per two years of working. Will class 1 national insurance credits paid to those not working due to disability or caring responsibilities count as working. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Mintro man She said people on LCWRA and disabled people would be exempted from such cuts and conditionalities.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @JBob1234 @Jbob1234 that’s not it being cut to the bone that’s cutting the bone 30% if not payed in that’s a lot something like £297 a month for uc job seekers also pip too and the milder mental heath again although no mention of vouchers and costs notice also no mention of lcw and lcwra so maybe leaving that one alone because reform wanted to get rid of those groups altogether 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @JBob1234 Indeed, so I don't think they could do that since income replacement benefit amounts are based on the minimum it has been decided you need to live on. It would definitely be impossible to implement any sanctions on top of such a cut.
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.