to think that people who depend on benefits will be better off under a Tory government than a Labour one?

[Trapper]

Labour were clear that they would be tougher on benefits than the tories, were clear that they would cut benefits, and were clear that they would continue with austerity measures:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare

www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/12/labour-benefits-tories-labour-rachel-reeves-welfare

and dear GF op don't forget we have another few years of all discussion about how disabled people are being shafted being shut down by cameron

We live solely on benefits. Esa, pip (for me), cb and tax credits. Cuts to any of them will leave us worse off.

Have you heard something about an increase or benefits being omitted from the cuts? Because they plan £12bn of cuts from welfare. Welfare is benefits. Just in case you missed that.

To put this in context. We are managing, just, to remain in our house. We have a mortgage and get no help to pay it. If we lose our home we will be forced into private rent accommodation which will mean £1200 a month rent rather than £300 a month mortgage. £900 will be paid by housing benefit leaving us to find £300 a month we now can't afford because of the cuts.

No, they won't be better off. Normal people who need to claim any benefits, or tax credits, or those on lower wages etc will be worse off. Because all of those groups are seen as just not trying hard enough.

What's the point of the what ifs? We know what it was like under the Tories because it's very recent. We know what it's going to be like, because they told us. And still. People voted for them because they thought everyone else was a scrounger and not as much worth as their own good selves. Never imagining that it may be little Toby or Toni who ends up uneducated, unemployed, with mental health problems, a disability etc etc.

Well, as pensions are now considered benefits, and they make up the biggest part of the welfare budget and the Tories have pledged to protect them, you're probably right.

Labour quite clearly stated that they would be tougher on welfare for the unemployed i.e. people who were capable of working, by creating opportunities for them to get work

The Tories have proposed a much higher level of welfare reduction, without stating where the money will come from, but with a history of screwing over the people who need it most i.e. the sick and disabled.

It's quite a different kettle of fish don't you think?

Hi Marmite:

Some lib-dem debate about bedroom tax here debating the ethics of it and pointing out that it was a new labour policy originally: www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-the-bedroom-tax-a-great-socialist-policy-40012.html
Here's Helen Goodman acknowledging Labour support and confirming they first introduced the scheme for private rentals.
brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/2013/03/labour-party-backs-bedroom-tax/
Incedently, I agree with Helen, that the bedroom tax should not apply if there are no houses available locally to downsize to, and I think some of the local council interpretations of what constitutes a 'bedroom' have been unfair.

Articles below on Labour supporting the benefits cap:
www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/labours-disastrous-new-line-attack-benefit-cap-its-too-soft
www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/labour-and-libdems-back-benefit-cap.1428854486

Note: I'm trying to get a mix of news sources - left and right.

Well all the disabled people who are magically cured by government sponsored companies like Atos/Capita will be much better off....

The changes that have been made in the past few years get even worse and the ridiculous decisions will get even more ridiculous. I have no idea why more people are not up in arms at the number of people having to go to appeal and winning.

I accompanied my friend for her DLA appeal - 12 rooms, each room containing a tribunal judge, who was a lawyer in friend's case, a doctor and some had a welfare rights advisor. The person before us was in and out in 20 minutes and was successful, as were a lot o people whilst we waited. My friend was in and out in 15 minutes and the tribunal judge was openly annoyed that she had been put through an appeal (my friend had no extra evidence to add - her professor, GP & support worker had already given supporting evidence. The woman asked her a few questions to clarify some things and then asked us to wait outside for a few minutes. Less than 5 minutes later she was called back in and told she was successful.) Now it's all very well that the money is hen backdated, but that doesn't change the fact she was unable to attend her support group for the months it took for the appeal or do any of the other things she uses that cash for.

How much does that cost? How much does it cost to hire 12 legal people, 12 doctors and some welfare rights people to sit there all day, every day, correcting errors? The figures on people winning appeals is shocking. There's your big waste of money.

One of the girls at her support group gave up on her claim after it was rejected as she couldn't face another round of appealing (she'd won an appeal and the wait meant her 2 year award only lasted another year). I suspect that is very much the point...

Great post LaLyra from first-hand knowledge rarity on mn these days

One of my family was told they'd need to attend a 'help back to work' assessment after their consultant had written that they should not consider this an option as it would definitely result in a renewed hospital admission.

The assessor asked when my family member planned to return to work and were they going about that?

A. Complete. Waste. Of. Resources.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Bunch, herein lies the problem. Lack of common sense, joined up thinking. It must be so frustrating.

LaLyra, the DLA appeal process is appalling. A friend of mine got into a vicious cycle of being paranoid about doctors as a result of DLA assessments. She then found that her condition was being attributed to 'panic attacks' as that was all the doctors were observing!
This was an issue under labour too though. The friend is someone I lost touch with around 2009 and she had been through two rounds of appeals processes. I also found this personal account of an appeal being resolved in 2010 (which presumabl started before the coalition government came in) showing the situation was bad under labour too: www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?242255-DLA-Appeal-Tribunal-Decision

How many of us would want people with severe MH or other problems (severe pain, on strong painkillers with their side effects etc) in charge of our children, finances, airplanes and so on? What sort of suitable jobs are out there when they all carry massive amounts of responsibility and paperwork? The service industry, finance, this is what the UK relies on now. How many part-time, flexible jobs with adequate support and mentoring are out there?

I think some people may be better off, it depends on your circs.
I know that personally for me, I will be entitled to a working benefit whilst being a sahp and not losing money when the new UC comes in.

I intend to donate the benefit to local organisations or individuals when I start to read their stories in the paper, which is bound to happen soon. It's not a huge amount but will no doubt help those who are struggling.
One week it may all go to a food bank, then I might save for a few weeks and donate to a children's unit or hospital.

The article in the OP talks about fairness with the cuts, which would be ok if it was to those who don't need the benefit, but unfortunately whilst Labour would have made fair cuts, conservatives would go for the weak such as disabled, carers, ill people etc.

I did wonder whether to just let the benefit go unclaimed but it would only serve the fat cats.

I just don't understand why they don't aim that money at the initial procedure. The HCP who did her assessment initially didn't know what Narcolepsy was and was a physio rather than a doctor. She also felt that it was an incredibly rushed appointment after a huge wait.

If you spend a bit more (probably by not outsourcing to the cheapest option) on getting it right first time they'd save a lot on the appeals set up.

Although with my cynical hat on I wonder about the fact that that would impact the "number of people removed from ESA/DLA" figure. Funny how we never hear the "given their ESA/DLA back after appeal" figure from the government.

ATOS assessment was one of the worst things the coalition did. It simply doesn't work. It was flawed to begin with because its a private company with targets (no place in a compassionate welfare system), and who cares if it forces people who fiddle disability benefits off the system- thats not worth it if it causes misery to thousands in my view.

Fancy getting cancer patients, MS sufferers and people with other long term disabilities to go into an office and answer questions from a sheet about their 'pain levels' Christ sake.

I don't know why they touch disability benefits at all, especially from people who have doctors and consultant notes explaining why they can't fucking work. I mean its a given isn't it? It costs more to assess them, and causes stress!

People who have been unlucky enough to suffer a debilitating injury or develop a terrible disease, or were born with one, just need to be supported, and left out of this with some dignity.

That ended up being no more than just a rant really.

Plus surely the (tiny amount of) people who are on the fiddle are the ones with the energy to jump through the hoops?

Don't think there'd have been that much difference really between Dave Cameron and Ed Milliband for those claiming benefits.
The big difference was though Ed was going to abolish the wicked hated bedroom tax. These cronies will not be moved so it looks like it's here to stAy.
However on toughness with those on benefits I have to agree with the point you're making I think ed Milliband would have been every bit as tough on claimants as call me Dave. Every word out his mouth we care about hard working people never a mention of the disabled mentally ill sick and the unemployed apart. No mention by Ed about ending the cruel sanctions regime. So aside from the bedroom tax I don't think people saw a difference really.
I voted labour because I am from a fAmily or strong labour voters and to help save people from the bedroom tax.

I predict a riot.......

Since Labour hasn't got in and won't get a chance to implement anything it's difficult to say what they would have done. I think the genuinely needy will be fine. Opting for a lifestyle choice on benefits then you won't be fine under the new scheme.

LaLyra exactly. To me its not worth stopping them. I bet most are shopped in by their neighbours anyway- someone on my parents street who didn't declare his leg had healed and he had gone back to full time work yet still claimed DLA was reported and had to pay it back.

"I think the genuinely needy will be fine." Based on what? They aren't now and plans are for worse in the future.

I'm not looking forward to these cuts at all to be honest.

But I do think they wont be as exaggerated as some have stated.

Note: partner and I are visually impaired so lack of AtW and Disability benefits really would mess us up.

Lets hope it doesn't happen, hey?

"I think the genuinely needy will be fine. Opting for a lifestyle choice on benefits then you won't be fine under the new scheme."

I think it will be the other way around. As someone said upthread, the bogus claimants have the energy to work the system to their advantage. The genuinely sick and disabled don't, and they are the ones who will be worn down and either go without, or worsen their health just to receive the basic support they need.

A lifestyle choice? How is working your arse off in a minimum wage job and having to rely on working tax credits, a lifestyle choice? How is being disabled a lifestyle choice?

Do you pay your cleaner a living wage?