News

Starmer's response to Labour's historic defeat in Caerphilly is that voters are disappointed in the slow pace of change. That is MPs that are slowing down the changes he wants to make, like cutting disability benefits, are the problem. Not his changed Labour party moving to the right.

So it looks like he blames losing voters to reform, rather than to Plaid Cymru.

While other right wing Labour people are saying Reform losing to Plaid Cymru shows left wing voters will vote tactically for whoever will stop Reform. Which in a general election means they will vote Labour regardless of whatever Labour does that left wing voters disagree with. 

shame on you, trying to imply a publication is legislation that has the power to remove benefits. 

This amendment was agreed in the House of Lords – click on the link to read the Hansard Report.

The public authorities (fraud, error and recovery) bill is going through the Lords it apparently gives DWP staff the  power to use reasonable force to go into benefit claimant's homes, search their homes and seize anything that might be evidence of benefit fraud. 

The policy exchange is proposing drastic cuts to welfare, state pensions, raising retirement age, as well as freezing all benefits for 3 years, a fee to see your GP to mention a few of their recommendations.

I think it would really help to send up these dour, humourless politicians like Reeves and Starmer.

Means test all benefits including state pension 

Yet they want Disabled people to work? As most who receive the high rate mobility are probably unable to use public transport alone, so the answer She has come up with is add more tax?? Perfect! I'm sorry but the woman isn't right. Please do your research, ask Disabled people who have mobility issues and have adapted cars. Just a basic automatic car is £1000"s more than a manual one.

I think the government is missing the fundamental point of the need for a mobility car. It’s people’s lifeline to the outside world.

If the ending of exemption from VAT and insurance tax premiums for Motability cars does happen, I will be unable to keep my vehicle. Its not possible for me to use public transport, due to the combination of my multiple disabilities. I am only able to work part-time, again, due to the combination of my multiple disabilities, and would not be able to afford to tax and insure my vehicle. As it is, the cost of filling up on fuel for my WAV is significant. No WAV means my world would shrink to the distance of the battery power of my electric wheelchair. I would not be able to get to essential medical appointments, work commitments, volunteering commitments etc. (You know, the things that add up to actually living a life, and contributing to society?) The annual servicing, maintenance, and repair of my electric wheelchair uses up a significant portion of my DLA/PIP. I am dreading the budget announcements in November.

It always seems as though theses  government ministers never seem to know what they’re talking about, the make of a Mobility car generally has very little to do with it, it’s more to do with the safety features ie:, collision avoidance, autonomous emergency, breaking,etc etc, and if you can get a wheelchair in the boot. (That’s what I take into consideration,infact the car my husband used to have,which was a Citroen berllingo , with wheelchair access , I couldn’t afford , as it was over £5000 pounds Advanced payment)Why they’ve targeted Mercedes and BMWs is anyone’s guess., that can only be described as be misguided prejudice, as far as the Advanced payments are concerned, BMWs and Mercedes are no more expensive than anything else.infact they were found to be quite considerably cheaper than a lot of the other so-called non-luxury makes, you’ve got the Vauxhall and Skoda that’s have an advanced payments of nearly £5000 pound., Fords can  be £7254 the Citroen C4 is £7999 where is the Mercedes GLA for instance, is £3999,a BMW 1 series 120 sports  is £2999 perhaps what they’re really saying is that the Mobility allowance should only be used for the old-fashioned Invalid car, if your memory, can go back that far, which was really no more than a glorified motorbike with the cover on it.

I'm a powered wheelchair user and need a vehicle to maintain contact with family and friends, shop, visit medical appointments etc. I am not in a position to be able to pay for VAT on a new car or on the insurance premium element of the car. I already struggle to pay the AVP on a car and cannot afford a WAV. I'm already worried about what happens in 18 months when I have to start the new car order and payment process.

As someone like others who could use the Motability scheme but at this time cannot afford to do so I have to use my PIP to finance other mobility needs of mine But I have had a Motability car in the past So I know how the scheme works  So 1. No it is not a free car As it is paid for with PIP You do not get PIP plus a car If it did I would have a Motability car right now  2. Most people cannot afford  the large deposits required for these so called luxury cars Many struggle to even find the lower end of the required deposits So choose a car with the lowest deposit car they can that helps them to deal with their individual disability needs Some could not afford or get a car without Motability 3. Most people choosing a Motability car are more interested in getting their lives more mobile rather than what badge the car might have While the scheme could always be better and it is always worth looking at Calling out everyone on PIP is just out for a shiny new flashy car with a sort after badge is not reasonable or fair So once again playing to the narrative that seems a constant from MPs and the media That those on PIP are are just out for what they can get Rather than  those on PIP just trying to just help their actual disability needs to be met So that they might get the same chance to live a life nearer to those abled bodied people Who often take their own mobility for granted

I agree that much of the benefits system needs to be reviewed, it isn't working and no longer fit for purpose. But I do not think that the small minded assault on the motorbility vehicle scheme for example, is the way to effect change. It is a way to disrupt and distract from what else is happening in society such as access to an effecient and effective NHS system. I work with some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Many use the motorbility element for scooters, taxi fares and some for cars. I haven't come accross anyone who can afford the additional upfront cost associated with luxury item cars. I find that I am challenging perceptions about benefit entitlement, ease of access for claimants (because it is not easy!) and a generic hatred that appears to be directed more and more towards people who need PIP. How often do we hear about PIP enabling people to work, enabling people to attend hospital appointments, or the sense of independence the mobility element affords individuals? Good news stories or success stories don't make the news! 

Governments can print as much money as they like. They can loan money at extremely low interest rates and pay it off over extremely long periods. So Reeves is talking nonsense and doesn't need to cut benefits.

shocking, what they don't mention is these so called luxury brands START at £4000 deposit.  priced in such a way that those who claim benefits cannot afford these brands.

I don’t understand how paying more tax affects mobility users? While there be more cost to us? Can’t charge more then pip element. Or just reducing grants ? I need hand controls and an auto ramp for my car it costs so much those of us with extra needs are already badly affected. If you can walk you can get mobility car no problem. If you need adaptions then it’s very much hit n miss if they consider you are “worthy” multiple rounds of grants etc  I’m not sure I will qualify again so enjoying adaptions while I have them. This sort thing will just take for those who have biggest hurdle with public transport alredy. 

I see the government is planning on removing eligibility for UC from those detained in psychiatric hospitals by order of the courts. That is those who the courts have ruled would be a danger to the public if let out of hospital. Who may have committed a crime and been found not responsible due to being mentally ill. So treating them the same as criminals sentenced to prison. This in my opinion promotes the narrative mentally ill = bad person who should be punished rather than unwell person who should be treated. And in my opinion will highlight cases that will increase public fear and prejudice against those with mental illnesses. At a time when the government wants them to find employment and we already have rising disability hate crime.

And for what purpose it is not going to save much money. So is the purpose to pander to hate and prejudice to help increase public support for wider disability welfare cuts. 

It is beneficial for car manufacturers to have vehicles on the scheme, we are not talking about Rolls Royce and Bentleys. If someone has £4k-£8k to spend on a 3 year lease that's their business. The whole point of Pip is that it isn't means tested. Also of the 13 cars on the scheme costing £8k only one of them is a BMW, the others are an Audi, Citroen, Vauxhall, Mazda, Cupra, Polestar, and Hyundai. Are they going to be removed as well? The most expensive Mercedes is £3999. And to those who say that motability cars should be the most basic models, many base models now have advanced payments so we may as well have the option to spend a bit more and get something nicer or with features that we need. Forcing claimants to order cheap base models will just create huge backlogs which will push prices up for everyone.

The 🇬🇧British Government are not your Friend.. They are after the Pensioners, and Disabled..penny pinching be ready for the Budget 2025 Wednesday NOV 26th..