Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

And so it begins...

96 replies

Dawndonnaagain · 08/05/2015 17:59

The first round of cuts affecting those with disabilities.

OP posts:

Aliiiii · 08/05/2015 18:01

Dear god they have no shame!!

Griphook · 08/05/2015 18:02

It's hard to see where it will all end, I often think that poor houses aren't that far round the corner.

It's a disgrace, and it saddens me how so many people have an 'I'm alright' attitude when it comes to voting

magoria · 08/05/2015 18:04

Wouldn't that have been put on there not matter which party won today?

CloserToFiftyThanTwenty · 08/05/2015 18:04

"Looking at" is not the same as doing - particularly when the ministerial team isn't in place to decide whether to pursue any of the options or do something different

MrsNextDoor · 08/05/2015 18:07

Arseholes.

amicissimma · 08/05/2015 18:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

caroldecker · 08/05/2015 18:13

This was made up and leaked by civil servants and was prepared for whoever won the election.

MeggyMooAndTinkerToo · 08/05/2015 18:14

The article did not say there were cuts. It clearly said "looking at". Stop scaremongering people for goodness sake!

fuckthetaps · 08/05/2015 18:18

News from March already been shown to be made up

26Point2Miles · 08/05/2015 18:28

More MN frothing and scaremongering....

BreconBeBuggered · 08/05/2015 18:36

I didn't come across it on MN, but I knew there'd be a thread here.

amici, I'm confused by your post. The proposals involve restricting the help to remove barriers to employment.

No reversal of the closure of the Independent Living Fund either, I take it?

partialderivative · 08/05/2015 18:39

I have my tin hat and powdered provisions at the ready .

All children have been instructed as to what to do should a bye-election be announced.

Icimoi · 08/05/2015 18:44

That link seems to be talking about helping employers and organisations remove barriers to access for the disabled.

No, the link is about proposals to cut the funding previously available for that purpose.

MissDemelzaCarne · 08/05/2015 18:58

You're mistaken amicissimma, the DWP wants to reduce the amount they spend on helping disabled people into work.
see here.

ilovechristmas1 · 08/05/2015 19:11

i wish they would make their mind up,i thought they wanted the disabled working,then propose to take the help away

Hillingdon · 08/05/2015 19:12

Here the lefties go again...

vdbfamily · 08/05/2015 19:14

can someone please highlight which bit of that document talks of cuts. It seems to be trying to work out how more people can be helped and at the end suggests that wtih an extra £3m they could also help 1000's with mental health needs. I do not read cuts anywhere.Confused!?

Original poster

Dawndonnaagain · 08/05/2015 19:19

The DWP has revealed that it is looking at cutting a scheme that helps disabled people into work – just hours after the Conservatives won the election.

In a nondescript PDF file slipped onto Department’s website on election results day, officials revealed they were looking at capping the £108m Access to Work fund.

OP posts:

ginghamcricketbox · 08/05/2015 19:19

It doesn't mention cuts but it is a nice Tory bashing headline, no doubt the OP didn't even bother reading the article.

caroldecker · 08/05/2015 19:22

That paper is lloking at how to help the most people without spending more, not cutting anything

Original poster

Dawndonnaagain · 08/05/2015 19:23

The OP did read the article. She read it properly too. The first sentence states cuts. The last paragraph is from the manifesto, not the document.

OP posts:

BreconBeBuggered · 08/05/2015 19:23

First sentence, for the easily confused: The DWP has revealed it is looking into cutting a scheme that helps disabled people into work... Also setting a cap on the amount of support per individual.

Hillingdon · 08/05/2015 19:24

The usual suspects are on the thread saying the cuts cannot of course fall to them. Everyone else, just not them.

I feared Labour and SNP and their huge spending list. I fear it no more. Ed and Ed have gone already. Labour need to have better advisers.

It's funny how the stock markets like this tesult. If Labour had got in shares and the £ would have fallen.

SauvignonBlanche · 08/05/2015 19:34

If high-value awards are limited, some of the cost of support may fall back on employers. There is a risk that this may discourage employers from employing disabled people, increasing the likelihood of unlawful discrimination and reducing equality of opportunity. If current Access to Work customers are no longer able to remain in employment, where they are likely to come into contact with non-disabled people and foster good relations, this may also damage relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. There may also be an impact upon the ability of disabled people to enter into employment in the first place which may have an impact upon independent living, inclusion in the wider community and the ability to work on an equal basis with others

I created a £3.5k AtW cost due to one disability and am currently costing AtW £1.5k a month in transport costs (which will be short-term) - that's me fucked, isn't it?

vdbfamily · 08/05/2015 19:36

the newspaper article says 'cuts' but the pdf does not.

Flip

1 2 3 4