DWP disability minister Stephen Timms is still desperately trying to hide the truth about pension age PIP claims.  But his answers to an MP’s written questions make it clear that pension age PIP claimants will be subject to the four point rule, no matter how hard the DWP tried to hide that fact. 

From November 2026, Labour proposes that PIP claimants will not be eligible for the daily living component unless they score 4 points or more in at least one activity.

Whenever challenged about the harshness of this rule, the DWP falls back on the assertion that it will encourage claimants with less severe conditions to seek work – in spite of PIP being available to disabled claimants regardless of their employment status.

However, even this spurious justification falls apart if the 4 point rule is applied to pension age claimants, who nobody expects to start looking for work if their PIP is taken from them.

So, up until now, the DWP have repeatedly used a particular form of words to cover the fact that there is no exemption for pension age claimants:  “In keeping with existing policy, people of state pension age are not routinely fully reviewed and will not be affected by these changes.”

It is the case that pension age PIP claimants are supposed to only be subject to a light touch review every ten years.  But a light touch review is still a review and must apply the existing law.

And, as we have pointed out, currently more than 10,000 pension age PIP claimants have a planned award review every year and 20,000 more request a change of circumstances review because their needs have increased.

So, unless they are exempt from the 4 point rule, they risk losing their award if they do not score 4 points or more for any activity.

To try to get the DWP to admit this truth, on 6 May we asked readers to ask their MPs to put two written questions to the secretary of state for work and pensions.  The questions were:

“Will existing PIP claimants of pension age who are subject to a planned award review from November 2026 be required to score at least four points in one daily living activity in order to maintain their award?”

“Will existing PIP claimants of pension age who request a change of circumstances review from November 2026 be required to score at least four points in one daily living activity in order to maintain or increase their award?”

On 8 May Conservative MP Alicia Kearns kindly asked those questions and Timms replied on 16 May.

The responses only needed to be a simple “Yes they will” or “No they won’t”.

Instead, Timms fell back once again on the “not routinely fully reviewed” form of words, but then added:

“All claimants are required to notify the Department of any change to their circumstance, be that an improvement or deterioration in their needs. Upon notification of a change, a Case Manager will consider what further action might be required to ensure the claimant is receiving the correct level of support.”

It is a carefully crafted politician’s answer, designed to obscure the truth without telling an outright lie.

But a case manager considering “what further action might be required to ensure the claimant is receiving the correct level of support” is exactly what happens whenever any PIP claimant requests a change of circumstances review.  Either the case manager will request an assessment of the claimant by the Health Assessment Advisory Service and then make a decision or they will make a decision on the claim using the available evidence, possibly after contacting the claimant and the claimant’s own health professionals.

The decision will be based on the law as it stands at the time and, because Labour are not exempting pension age PIP claimants from the 4 point rule, that is the law that will be applied.

So, if a pension age claimant asks for a change of circumstances review with the aim of moving from standard to enhanced PIP then, unless they are assessed as scoring four points or more for one activity, they will lose their daily living award entirely.

That is the truth that Timms is desperately trying to hide with his politician’s answer.

A much smaller proportion of pension age claimants are likely to be affected by Labour’s proposed change than working age claimants, but some will still be hit. Both pension age claimants and MPs, who will be required to vote on these proposals, have a right to be told that in plain language.

When he became disability minister, Timms claimed that he would create a new era of transparency at the DWP, as part of an effort to restore trust in the department.

But it turns out that being transparent – or trustworthy - is entirely incompatible with being a DWP minister.

You can read the full answers to the written questions here and here

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.
    · 4 hours ago
    So basically if you have a 10 yr award say from April 25 it will still stand and you will be reviewed may be a yr before the award ends say 2034?unless your circumstances change.
    The new rules if passed will affect new claims and any claims ending after Nov 26 is that right please can anyone explain thank you 
    As surely if you have it in writing from dwp an end date this has to be law and cannot just be altered due to new rules being introduced 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    It seems like they’re trying to get pensioners onto AA so they can’t get any mobility.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Bud Bud That's exactly what I think.There is no mention of changes to AA and most with physical health conditions would qualify for it.The bizarre thing is them leaving mobility if they take your daily care away,so most people would be better off on AA although still losing up to £400 a month.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    Some of you may remember that I penned an email to Stephen Timms on Fri 9th May to tell him that I am praying for him, & posted a copy on here. I have reposted it below (in case you didn't see it or have forgotten it).

    Sir Stephen Timms,

    I have just discovered that you are a member of Christians in Parliament group and have seen the group's website's recommendation that I should:

    Pray for your MP: that they will make wise decisions for the good of their constituents and that they will be able to cope with the stresses and strains of public office. Why not write to your MP to let them know that you are praying for them?

    So Sir Stephen, I am writing to tell you that I am praying for you.

    The website also suggests that I should:

    Pray for integrity, truth and compassion throughout Government.

    Sir Stephen, I am really. really praying for this.

    The only trouble is that I have, unlike you, no religion, so I can only offer up a sort of Humanitarian prayer.

    The Labour Government has truly lost it's way with regard to integrity, truth and compassion given that it has chosen to attack vulnerable disabled people who are currently in receipt of PIP.

    PIP is not an out of work benefit - I could seek work tomorrow, if my condition allowed, and still receive PIP. The proposed changes will not help people into work at all.

    Your Government is fast becoming adept at using smoke and mirrors - I despair!

    In the words of Dave Allen,

    "Goodnight and may your God go with you"


    In order to get rid of the usual spam and rubbish, I have just checked my junk mail folder. 
    GUESS WHAT? A REPLY FROM STEPHEN TIMMS!!!

    Dear

    Thank you for your email.

    According to survey evidence, there are currently some 200,000 people out of work on health and disability grounds who would love to be in work, and believe they could be if they had the support to make it possible for them to get a job. We are determined to provide that support. The last Labour Government provided that support, in the New Deal for Disabled People. This Labour Government will provide it again.


    That wouldn’t be possible if the current, unsustainable rate of increase in spending on PIP carried on. Spending has almost doubled in real terms since the year before the pandemic, and it increased by £2.8 billion, above inflation, in the last year alone. The changes we have proposed will mean, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, that an estimated 10% of those who currently receive PIP Daily Living will lose it by 2029-30. The cost of PIP will continue to increase every year in real terms, but the rate of increase will no longer be unsustainable.

    Best wishes,

    Sir Stephen Timms

    Minister for Social Security and Disability


    An estimated 10% of those who currently receive PIP Daily Living will lose it by 2029-30

    Does he really believe these figures?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @Yorkie Bard He didn't thank you for praying for him. Rude.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    It is imperative that disabled and sick people register themselves to vote and also take up the options to do postal votes. Since many of us will have ids as the government forced that upon us then it is a good time to use that to register and be ready as a bloc to vote for either the greens or libdems in any and all elections and stand up and be counted. I cannot implore everyone enough to do this as this is the only way we can legitimately get this government out. Also ask your own family and friends to do this so that we become a political force like all other groups with a strong voice of our own.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @James And in Scotland and Wales for the SNP and Plaid.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @James yes, we can rant here (and believe me, I love ranting), which often does hold value in sharing important information, but the real power is in wider campaigning and voting. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    Thanks Benefits and Work for updating us on the latest duplicitous bs from the government.  

    Brilliant article link below: 

    https://nation.cymru/opinion/you-cant-cut-your-way-to-health-disability-benefits-and-the-politics-of-prevention-in-wales/
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    Just a thought that we could send SLBs excellent x letter to our MPs by email.  I have also added a bit about the added consequences of their actions.  

    Subject: Thank you, if you are one of the 100 Labour MPs

    Dear 

    If you have been one of those who have signed the letter protesting against the disability benefit cuts – thank you.

    However, I hope you are fully aware of the true costs of the proposed changes. A disability campaigner has posted the following on X:


    ---

    Dear Labour MP
    It has been reported that 100 Labour MPs have signed a letter about their concerns regarding the disability benefit cuts, in particular the cut in amount for new claimants to LCWRA (health element) of Universal Credit. This worries me, because this part of the cuts is, in many ways, one of the least damaging.

    The benefit system for the disabled and long-term ill is ridiculously complicated, and I ask you to spend just three minutes of your time reading this post, which explains why the eligibility changes to PIP are far more worrying than the cut in amount paid through LCWRA UC. If you are going to be voting for or against changes that could devastate the lives of an estimated million-plus people, I’d like to think three minutes of your time is a fair exchange.

    So, why am I saying that the cut in amount to the health element of UC is one of the least worrying changes that have been proposed? Well, put simply, because virtually no-one will be eligible to claim it after 2028 anyway if the proposals go through.

    I’ll start with Personal Independence Payment (PIP). The changes to eligibility for PIP will mean that an estimated 87% of people who currently claim the lower rate of the Daily Living Element will no longer be able to claim it from their first reassessment after November 2026. This is a cut to our income of approximately £300 a month.

    This means that people who can’t cook a meal from scratch, can’t wash certain parts of their body, can’t use the toilet without assistance, and can’t cut up the food on their plate will most likely be shut out of PIP. And any illness or disability that affects us in that way most likely means there are many other issues of a similar nature which affect our daily routine – they just aren’t on the form.

    However, what comes next is the real killer (literally). Many people who claim PIP also claim the health element of Universal Credit. But under the new proposals, the Work Capability Assessment to decide whether or not we qualify for that element of UC is being scrapped in 2028. Instead, people will need to have the Daily Living Element of PIP in order to claim it – but, because of the changes to eligibility most people will no longer be able to claim that element of PIP, and therefore won’t be able to claim the health element of UC.

    And perhaps the most bizarre thing is that the mobility element of PIP won’t act as a passport to UC in the same way. So, even if we can only walk one metre, we still won’t be classed as disabled enough to claim the LCWRA/health element of UC.

    So, after losing PIP of £300 a month, we will also lose £400+ a month through our inability to claim the health element of UC. That’s £700+ a month we have lost. The change to the amount of health element of UC is going to be unimportant for most people because they won’t be able to claim it anyway.

    And we’re talking of 1.3 MILLION people.

    What’s more, various members of the government keep repeating the lie that these changes will get disabled people into work. THIS IS NOT TRUE. PIP is NOT an out-of-work benefit. It is money to compensate us for the extra expenditure that our disabilities cost us. If we lose PIP, we lose our independence. If we lose our independence we CAN’T work at all. Many use their PIP to ALLOW them to work.

    The change to PIP is not only shutting people out of that benefit, but also out of the health element of UC. It’s a double blow. One blow we might be able to deal with, but the second will, quite literally, be a killer.

    That’s approximately £8400 a year many of us are losing, or, to put it another way, it’s 28 times the amount that pensioners are losing because of the changes to Winter Fuel Allowance.

    We fully understand how ridiculously complicated the disability benefits system is (and I haven’t even mentioned carer’s allowance that some people will also lose), but it’s ESSENTIAL that you know the basics of it as outlined above before you vote.

    Every Labour MP on X will be tagged/mentioned in a post containing the above explainer. It has been a long process putting that list of close to 400 X handles together, but if just one of you has read the above and now understands the system better, and why the disabled community is so frightened, then it has, of course, been worth it. If nothing else, please don’t get taken in by the lies that this will get people back into work. That will not happen. The only effect the cuts will have is the destruction of people’s lives due to a condition or illness that they have no control over.

    Thank you for your time.


    ---

    The full impact of these proposed changes does not take into account the wider social and economic consequences: increased pressure on the NHS, rising homelessness, mental health crises, addiction, and policing costs. Nor does it consider the loss of informal caring and volunteering roles that many people with fluctuating health conditions currently carry out—quiet contributions that support the most vulnerable and hold whole sections of our society together. The weeks ahead are critical.

    If you agree with the concerns raised in this letter and have already signed something to that effect, thank you again. If you haven’t yet, I hope you will consider doing so—and please do share this with colleagues who may not yet fully grasp the scale of what is unfolding.

    With best wishes
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @CaroA You are certainly welcome to do that, but I think this week probably isn't the time.  I say that because MPs have a ten days or so away from Westminster from Thursday, and it might be better to send them a letter when they return rather than just before they leave, where it might get stuck in a mail box and then discarded with hundreds of others.  It's not quite the same on X, as they'll either see it when it drops (the first one will be 10am tomorrow) or not at all anyway, as social media posts just tend to drop down the screen after a short time.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    BBC news just now

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @Yorkie Bard To expand on my previous comment: I'm not all trivialising this woman's difficulties. I'm sure she gave the BBC a very candid account of her situation which they haven't bothered to report in an equally candid manner. The way they've presented it makes it appear like the PIP assessment is a breeze and any of us can call up DWP, say that we can only survive on microwave meals and pre-chopped vegetables with no context and we get free money. 

      When, in fact, we're subjected to a Spanish Inquisition-style interrogation as to why we can only survive on these things and why exactly we can't cook or prepare anything beyond that. Because these things have to be the result of how our disability affect us. They can't just be the causation of us getting help from the state or else anybody could obviously think we're just claiming out of laziness. As they do already.

      It also feels very much designed to pit us against each other and divide us. I've already seen some disabled people on Reddit respond to this article with outrage, questioning how on earth this woman scored enough points for PIP and they scored none. Which is especially scary and very much missing the wood for the trees.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Yorkie Bard This reads like a bait piece. Simply reporting that this woman uses PIP on special toothpaste, ready meals and pre-chopped vegetables and not bothering to expand is very much waving the red rag at the bull when it comes to people who are critical of benefits. Nice going, BBC.

      You would think this was an article from The Daily Mail were it not for the absence of us being called scroungers. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Yorkie Bard The lies at the end again that they are working with disabled people and, encouraging us to respond to the sham consultation.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 hours ago
    Timms is extremely good at opposing welfare cuts when in opposition. Bit different now he's a DWP minister. What a surprise. NOT!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 hours ago
      @Frances @Frances, Indeed, a very clear article, exposing the party leadership's reluctance to debate or consult. Starmer has relied on a huge numerical majority, and, typically, has shown no regard for the individuals who amassed it. He's taken the support for granted, thinking mps will get behind whatever he says, regardless of whether it's consistent with the grounds on which he, and they, were elected. Well they're not having it. We're not having it.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 22 hours ago
    Timms has now uttered, on several occasions, a two part sentence.

    Part one of Timms's sentence:

    "In keeping with existing policy, people of state pension age are not routinely fully reviewed..."

    That is simply a statement of facts/a giving of information. It is superfluous to an answer to our question. We do not need background; we do not need an explanation which appears to suggest it should be obvious that/why the new rules will not apply to pensioners.

    Part two of Timms's sentence:

    "....and will not be affected by these changes." (my italics)

    That is a statement of fact/intention. Following part one of his sentence, part two of his sentence means people of state pension age - all people of state pension age, not some, not most, not many, never mind whether they are routinely or fully reviewed, never mind what their surname begins with, never mind their postcode or whether they have weatabix for breakfast, never mind anything - will not be affected by these changes.

    It would be very difficult to argue that the meaning of Timms's sentence is anything other than:

    "people of state pension age will not be affected by these changes"

    because all the other words in his sentence contribute nothing to an answer to our question, nor do any of those unnecessary words contradict his statement of fact/intention or state any exceptions.

    If Timms has tried to leave the door open, by being less than concise, to going back on what is a statement he has uttered and put in writing several times, he has done a very bad job, and we must hold him to his own declaration.

    Labour ARE exempting pension age PIP claimants from the 4 point rule:

    "...people of state pension age...will not be affected by these changes".

    According to that several times repeated declaration, any pensioner notifying a change of circumstances - be that a deterioration or a miraculous cure - or indeed being reviewed in some way, would only risk losing all or part of their pip award, or qualify for an enhanced award, in keeping with the rules as they are now, because, when you take the redundant words out of Timms's sentence,

    people of state pension age will not be affected by these changes.










    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @gingin
      @gingin, it might sound a bit like that, and maybe he meant it to, but on several occasions he's committed, whether or not he meant it, to more than "you'll most probably be fine! ".

      He's given us a bit of information about current policy, followed by a conclusive assurance. The information was unnecessary and might be seen as a clumsy explanation, but if it was meant to deceive, it was disarmed by the concluding statement.

      If he wanted wriggle room, he shouldn't have sewn it up. We don't have to trust him, we just need to confront him with his own words. Pedantry is the antidote to politics!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @godgivemestrength I appreciate your analysis seems to conclude this, but I just think that the way Timms is choosing his words and not just giving a very clear and concise answer is a major red flag. To me, 'will not be affected by these changes' in the context of the preceding sentence just reads like 'chillax everyone, you'll most probably be fine!'
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 22 hours ago
    Hi everyone. I have not commented until now as didn't feel I had anything important to add, but have been a member for several years (lifesaving guides B+W, literally) and have been reading all your comments studiously since this utterly disgraceful, lying government came to power on the back of many of our votes, mine included.

    There is a narrative building, in fact well-established already by now, that genuinely disabled folk like us are scroungers, unworthy; somehow an unnecessary drain on an already hampered system. That we are somehow less than human beings. While this idea is in and of itself appalling, and similar in ideology to certain opinions which were held in Europe in the 1930s, it also circumnavigates a point which is crucial and in my view not being emphasised enough to further our cause and stop this madness. Which is the fact that everyone who is able to work at some point in their adult lives usually does, and enters into a social contract with whichever group of politicians happens to be in power at the time. This contract states we will pay a proportion of our wages into the National Insurance system, so that we have access to healthcare whenever we might need it, and also a little help should our jobs, or other life events, make us too physically or mentally unwell to continue working for somebody else and improving their lives with our efforts.

    This is as mentioned a form of contract, and therefore the idea that we are "scroungers" is not only laughable but obscene. In any fair society, it should also imply that any young people who happen to fall ill before they are able to contribute to this said system, should be able to be effectively taken care of proportionately by those of us who have en masse paid into national insurance, until such time as they are ideally made well again by a working healthcare service and are then able to contribute, as most would wish to.

    I watched Keir Starmer's response to a quite horrendous "joke" approximately 18 months ago by then PM Rishi Sunak about a trans victim of murder, while as far as Sunak knew the victim's mother was in the gallery at the time. Starmer recoiled, as if slapped, and sat down without saying anything. When I saw that apparent level of empathy I thought in that moment that he was the ideal person to take us out of the last 14 years of apathetic grim attitude towards us displayed by the self-serving Tories.

    It seems I and many others could not have been more wrong. Never thought I'd be wishing Sunak back!

    Wishing you all love and the courage which we are undoubtedly going to need. Just please all remember, you earned this nominal help, by trying hard until for whatever reason you couldn't. In my humble opinion this is one of those historical situations which really needs fighting for, as hard as we can despite inevitable emotional and physical cost. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @The RealHenrySugar I shared with Carers UK (when we had a meeting after my campaign interview) how utterly betrayed many of you feel. I mercifully am spared the sense of betrayal in that I voted Lib Dem, but that was only a strategic choice as the contest in my area was between them and the Cons. I feel enraged though. Labour has acted in an utterly underhanded and duplicitous way. It reminds me of the Traitors series. Honestly, they've manoeuvred their way around this in exactly the same way. Public servants have forgotten their vocation. Power indeed corrupts. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 hours ago
      @The RealHenrySugar
      The RealHenrySugar Agreed, but Starmer sat and said nothing, was my point, so was perhaps never going to be our champion. Although I believe he did subsequently condemn Sunak's comment, his behaviour has always seemed motivated by politics, rather than principles.

      I believe he's been caught out by this welfare row. After years of tailgating the trend, he's boxed himself in with no room for manoeuvre and run smack up his own rear.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @rookie It felt real at the time, really. I felt I could believe in him and that he would save us from the selfish likes of Sunak and Hunt. That Rayner was genuine to say that she has come from similar background as many of us; ie had to struggle for money while raising kids.
      Now, he is demonstrating that he is the polar opposite of someone who cares about other people. Disappointing doesn't even begin to cover this man's pure, clear betrayal. He is a disgrace.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @rookie The simple fact is that they are trying to penalise us for working hard and becoming ill as a result, while the people whose businesses we work for until we become ill, discard us. There is no way that these crooked people, be it businesses or government (and therefore linked to business, see Starmer) will ever work in our favour. Therefore fighting in whatever manner is the only way. X

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @Old Mother @Old Mother exactly. They are trying to create a scenario where we are scroungers; lazy, undeserving. We have absolutely earned the expectation of relatively small daily support (small compared to most countries in Europe) by working, usually harder than most politicians.
      In most cases for people who have bags of money and manipulate us. And yet because we have more serious things to deal with, like looking after kids for example, we accept certain wages. But continue to work regardless, and now are attacked when we become too ill from self-sacrifice to continue lining their pockets. To be thrown onto the rocks like this is beyond appalling. Truly horrendous, somehow they think they can justify it. The wave of horror by genuine Labour MPs appears to be finally building. Although perhaps sadly it is a wave of horror at the potential of losing their seats.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 23 hours ago
    Thank you to B&W for this. Please could I ask that this be given to the mainstream media? I will ‘again’ contact my MP but the media can maybe help by keeping this front and centre in the news. Much of their blurb is just rehashed old stuff so having this from a respected support service such as B&W would give it more credence. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 23 hours ago
    More in the news about the government rethinking winter fuel- which, although vital for many, pales in comparison to the level of cuts hundreds of thousands  will face if these wider welfare proposals become law. This cheaper option is another attempted trick from Labour to buy their way back into favour. I hope people won’t be blinded to the wider issue. 

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/17/no-10-steps-up-review-of-winter-fuel-payment-cut-amid-unpopularity-with-voters
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 hours ago
      @Barney boy @Barney boy it's just a complete shambles. This guy who professes to have true Labour values has nothing of the sort. He is basically a shoddy crook, a millionaire like many of his colleagues, who sees us as an obstacle to overcome rather than to support. Disingenuous does not even begin to cover it.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 hours ago
      @James Agreed. In a big way. But surely this should inspire us to fight harder. If we do not, there is a downwards staircase. We all EARNED the right to support. It is time to fight.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 23 hours ago
      @Gingin It’s so
      Notable the radio and news programs are only mentioning that starmer may U turn on the heating allowance. They have been told to do 
      Most likely and see if they get away with it. Yes it’s the cheaper option but mr starmer doesn’t realise that only u turning on that and not the benefit reforms isn’t gonna cut it. Nobody trusts starmer now even he u  turned on both matters. The very fact he was willing to even try and slide this green paper through shows he will stoop to any low to protect his own position. 
      Even the wake up call at the council elections doesn’t seem to have set in yet with him. 
      If he doesn’t u turn on both these matters I have more chance of being prime minister at the next election. So now they are gonna  give £300 back to pensioners and take it of them elsewhere. Do they really think we are that stupid we cannot see what their game is. We may be disabled that doesn’t make us stupid. 
      With starmers actions I find myself politically homeless and if his reforms happen I may be actually homeless also. 
      It’s time the people and the
      Mp, s that have any sense of decency stood up to this brutal victimisation of the weakest in society. What happened those with the broadest shoulders will bare the greatest load kier?
      Anyone one impacted by this brutality don’t give in and challenge them through every legal avenue available to you. They know some folk will give up as they are too tired to fight. It’s time to put party politics aside and stand together against these cuts. What’s next if they get away with this is it going to be concentration camps or wear stickers showing we are disabled so society can judge us without walking a day in our shoes. 

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 23 hours ago
      @Gingin These are horse trading tactics and I would not fall for it as they will still hit the sick and disabled hard. I hope people do not fall for this trick as many more will be many more to divert attention away and mislead people and mps.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 23 hours ago
    Another example of the Blessed Stephen's Christianity at work.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Thank you benefits and work. This is an area of great subterfuge by Stephen Timms and the Labour government. Pensioners will be subject to removal of their pip care element under the 4 point rule when being reviewed and that they are also expected to work perhaps through hardship imposed upon them that will induce a behavioural change in them even though they will be past working age and they will have disabilities. This is a very dark picture for all pensioners who may even end up becoming homeless as the care element of pip is a passport benefit for housing benefit. The words of this man and government simply do not measure up to the truth of what they are doing as they hit young and old who are disabled in one of the most devious underhand and deceptive way
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    This is crooked and wicked, but not shocking or even surprising. I hope MPs can be enlightened before they vote. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 10 hours ago
      @Yorkie Bard What is the x handle for SLB please? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Gingin Gingin, I wonder if SLB might include a few words about this in his X missive?

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

Over 110,000 claimants and professionals subscribe to the UK's leading source of benefits news.

 
iContact