To Think the Tories Are STILL At War With The Disabled?

[JoffreyBaratheon]

As parent of a disabled child, this is what I'm preoccupied with, during a General Election...

Under Cameron and Osborne, and iDS - it was clear the tories were engaging in an all out war on the disabled. Cuts to benefits, and services and of course, the loathed and disgusting PIP replacing DLA...

But what has strong and stable (well, weak an unstable) Theresa May done to reverse the damage? Nothing, so far as I can see.

My son had DLA for life and by some miracle, managed to get PIP but will now have to re-apply in five years. If the tories have the cure for autism and it is going to be made available in 5 years - fair enough. But something tells me - they haven't. We were put through months of hell for that.

Other disabled people and their carers have far worse stories.

Now I might be stupid but I can't see what May has done to address the callous culture of PIP. She is still attacking the disabled. Or am I missing something and AIBU?

I think this should be enough to lose them the election. The fact they have attacked disabled people to the extent they have. Am I the only one not to be hoodwinked by this 'I'm only a vicar's daughter' BS? What she has done to the disabled is the least 'christian' thing I can think of and I want her held to account for it. Anyone else?

f her son gets a fantastic graduate job and by the time he's re-assessed earns £70,000, he shouldn't get the same benefits (or any) as someone who doesn't have the ability to attend university or get a job and needs the money to live.
But whatever wage he is on, it will still cost him more to do the things that everyone else does because of his disabilities. That's what PiP is for, to cover the extra costs associated with having a disability. I don't agree with the poor being penalised, but I don't agree with the rich being penalised in this manner either.

I forgot to add c) you originally called yourself Sparticus, if you want to go down the immature "poke fun at someone's level of education" route. Hypocrite.

Dixie. I see so many elderly people in my job who claim Attendance Allowance for disability. Some of them ( well quite a lot of them) have thousands in the bank!
However because it is non means tested they can claim it.
When my fil died recently he had thousands in the bank. We think most of it was Attendance Allowance that he just didn't need. He hada state pension and occupational pension that was more than enough to live off.

So why should they not receive money to meet their extra costs baby?

Nice that you judge the people you care for.

It is incredibly difficult to find a job while caring. Especially if you have someone who can't be looked after very easily by others.

My son is severely disabled, requires 2:1 care blah blah blah. It was not easy to find people to look after him. You also have mountains of meetings. I have asked for ab urgent meeting regarding my son because the social worker didn't turn up to his final meeting booked months in advance. It has become apparent that he is at risk of not having an identified (by them) need funded because there are two departments (funded by money from the same council) arguing about who should have to pay for it. If no-one pays then he will end up in some dreadful hospital (for those who watched Dispatches under lock and key - one of those). Anyway for that meeting I was offered two times - in the next three weeks. Coming with a large assumption that I don't work.

I haven't received carers for years. First becauSe I was doing a part time masters, then because I worked from home. I never earned enough to have to pay tax but still lost my carers allowance - despite doing exactly the same amount of caring. In the final year ds1 was at home I couldn't even do that, but because I'd been self employed it was just too complex to claim carers so I didn't bother. In that final year DH was having to leave work at 2pm to be here when ds1 was home (needs 2:1 care) - he was senior enough to be able to do that thank god - otherwise I suspect ds1 would have ended up in emergency provision as my mum and dad could no longer cope with him and help me out.

My business - which has served me well for 8 years - has taken a dive this year (it involves a particular type of academic research and needs academics to have funding to contract me - I suspect the dive reflects Tory cuts to Universities - something Brexit will make worse). All I could think was thank god it didn't happen last year as I would have been stuffed and we would have probably had to sell the house. At least now my son has moved out I can retrain (I have a degree, MSc and PhD - but have been out of the workplace for 17 years caring) - start that in September - and in the meantime take on a NMW job to bring in some money to prop up the ailing business & see me through 3 years of being a student again.

But - even with my son in residential (very close by- I see him about 5 times a week) I have had to take on bank work because of the number of meetings and appointments he has. If you think it's easy to work whilst caring you are completely misunderstanding the difficulties of caring. You don't get a choice in the hours you have to care. When doing my MSc I often turned up on 2-3 hours sleep because my son was often up at that time. We've had sudden placement breakdown which would have been a nightmare if I was working outside the home (it was bad enough running my business from home)

Even now he isn't here it doesn't stop. In the last week I've spent about 5 hours in appointments for him. Next week we have a hospital appointment, the week after we have the emergency appointment with SS (which will be a long one). No regular employer is going to put up with that much time off.

Carers save the State a fortune. In his last few months here we spent hours arguing with SS about a piece of equipment I wanted to buy using direct payments (so I was not asking for additional cash) that costs £800 - without it taking him in the car just was not safe. Eventually they allowed it - but only when I dug up an ancient document written by the council describing the process by which equipment can be bought by dp's. i.e. I had to tell them what their own policies were in order to make a regular daily activity (going for a drive) safe. Now he's not at home he must cost the State at least 8k a month - and they're still arguing about relatively small sums with me (who pays his fuel money to be exact). All the while ignoring the fact that if no-one pays for him to be able to go out (we can't afford to - see story of woe about working above) then the placement will fail - he'll end up in some godawful ATU and that 8k ish a month will become 14k a month to the State - probably for years.

"Carers, when not caring, are simply the unemployed. they shouldn't be left hungry and homeless, but they should, while receiving benefits, be working hard to find a job as opposed to waiting around. "

if only it was that easy. that magic job, that allows you all college/school holidays off, time off when your child is sent home ill, time off for meetings, time off fro looking at future placements....yeah that job is easy to find.
and Im not claiming any benefits. just saving the tax payer thousands. maybe i should have asked for a 52 week placement.

Monkey

I'd like to see you being careful with grammar while coping with my DD

I have no idea what your daughter's like, but you're on AIBU so coping okay ....

Dawndonnaagain

But whatever wage he is on, it will still cost him more to do the things that everyone else does because of his disabilities. That's what PiP is for, to cover the extra costs associated with having a disability. I don't agree with the poor being penalised, but I don't agree with the rich being penalised in this manner either.

I guess we fundamentally disagree. Most people understand that there isn't an endless pot of money (Corbyn hasn't grasped this yet though) and you have to decide where to spend it. Means testing is a good way of doing it. If DH and I were both made redundant tomorrow then we wouldn't dream of claiming JSA and I would be genuinely embarrassed to do so. We wouldn't need carers allowances or PiP either. We've been lucky with our careers and to take money from this limited pot would be unfair.

It isn't about penalising anyone, it's about making difficult decisions and deciding who needs money most and where it can be spent most effectively.

There's OK and then there's proofreading every post and taking time..

It isn't about penalising anyone, it's about making difficult decisions and deciding who needs money most and where it can be spent most effectively.

equality of life choice shouldn't be something which is considered "taking money from a limited pot" and non-obligatory

The Tories are just getting started. Much worse to come. The sick, disabled and poor are being targeted.

It cannot be said enough.

It needs re-stating that there are plenty of centrists that will likely vote Tory that would never stand for more disabled people going into institutions and any sort of concerted policy move in that direction. This rhetoric will cause undue distress to some people.

Characterising all the current Tory vote as disabled hating is understandable given the treatment meted out to a lot on this thread, but there are clear lines most voters won't cross.

After the election we need to have a thread watching and protesting on any more changes to policy in this area.

I think those who go in for the 'there's no endless pot of money' argument genuinely assume the 'most' disabled, are protected in all these cuts. They are not My son is one of these 'most disabled'. He has no voice to argue against any cuts. If I don't 'win' my argument with SS then he will have £25 a week for fuel, activities, clothing and toiletries. That will not begin to cover his fuel (& no he can't use public transport - it would not be safe) - and if he cannot get out his placement will break down. He'll end up locked up in an expensive hospital. All for being non-verbal, severely autistic, severely learning disabled with a dose of epilepsy thrown in for good measure.

Lip service is paid to personalisation. But if your needs are complex and you cannot be cared for in a group - you are expensive and very at risk under this government.

"Carers, when not caring, are simply the unemployed. they shouldn't be left hungry and homeless, but they should, while receiving benefits, be working hard to find a job as opposed to waiting around. "
I care for a 20 year old. Seven days a week, twenty four hours a day. I get the princely sum of 62 quid a week. I am not unemployed, in fact I work bloody hard. In the times that carers are not working, they may be doing other caring duties, ensuring there are clean sheets daily for those who wet, organising doctors appointments, meetings, ensuring the right food is available, that necessary drugs are at hand etc. There are a whole raft of things that Carers do when their charges are at school/college etc. These are still caring duties. Being a carer is a full time job without any of the benefits a job provides: no holidays, no days off, no restrictions on the hours worked. For 62 quid a week. It's laughable, or would be if it weren't that successive governments were just using slave labour.

It isn't about penalising anyone, it's about making difficult decisions and deciding who needs money most and where it can be spent most effectively.
Yes it is. It penalises people with disabilities just because they're earning.

Yes, I'd have expected the most disabled to be protected devilish, is your local councillor and MP involved?

Equality of life choice shouldn't be something which is considered "taking money from a limited pot" and non-obligatory

What does equality of life choice mean? You mean equality of lifestyle or equal opportunites or equal outcomes?

Like it or not, there is a limited pot of money and there's nothing you or I or anyone can do about it. It is taking money from a pot.

We live in a meritocracy and that's only right and correct and it's the government's job to redistribute wealth to provide services that otherwise wouldn't be.

To make the pot go further, you can't give everyone what they want and I would easily, personally explain to a wealthy person why they don't get PiP or JSA or other benefits yet the less wealthy get more. If the OP's son has the wealth to support himself (thanks to support as he was growing up and being educated and getting a degree) then he should be cut off and the money re-directed to people like @devlishpyjamas. It's sad she has to 'win' an argument but of course you should need to prove you need the money as opposed to tell someone you do and expect a cheque in the mail.

@DawnagainDonna

Yes it is. It penalises people with disabilities just because they're earning.

I'm not sure if you're serious. If you're earning enough to support yourself then you should pay for yourself. If you're truly unable to then you should get help.

We pay significantly more per week per child in school fees than the carers allowance. Do you really think I should be able to claim it tomorrow if necessary or do you think I should declare our earnings and it be given to someone to whom it would make a massive difference?

so what do the tory voters say about cameron..he claimed DLA for his son(quite rightly) the led the war on others.

Carers, when not caring, are simply the unemployed. they shouldn't be left hungry and homeless, but they should, while receiving benefits, be working hard to find a job as opposed to waiting around.

I find this attitude quite offensive and naive. Just because the person you are caring for is 'out of the house', eg at school, it doesn't mean your caring responsibilities are on hold until they come home. As mentioned up thread, there are a plethora of other resposibilities that come with being a Carer. In my case, attending meetings, appointments, making and blending food for my DC, trying to maintain some semblance of tidiness after your child has gone from room to room emptying boxes everywhere, doing 3-4 loads of washing per day...and you don't just knock-off at 6pm every day.

Is there a link somewhere with a list of specific changes to policy affecting the various benefits people and children with special needs are entitled to?

I've never had much time for Cameron personally, the sad fact is that I currently dislike Corbyn's basket of daft policies, his incompetence, tactics more than I dislike May but ''tis hardly a welcome choice.

YANBU

There was a women recently who lost her mobility car but they decided they would pay for her taxis to work which cost something like £30k a year more, which is totally ridiculous.

That's yet another dark layer of Tory ideology...it targets people in need, but it also doesn't work.

The same with social housing.

Spartacus you are misunderstanding my situation. My position (that my 18 year old son needs to be funded to be able to go out) is supported by every single agency and professional that has worked with him over the last 3 years. He is currently funded appropriately - after an enormous amount of evidence gathering by children's services (under a year ago - his current provision has been in place for less than a year - and is a huge success as recognised by a agencies and the CTR). The Only difference is one day he is 17 and the next he is 18. Apparently this means his weekly budget can be slashed by 80%. His needs have not changed overnight but 'adults has less money'. They'll have even less if they ignore all the evidence from every single agency as his costs will rocket if he is prevented from going out.

And I have been raising this with them for months. They don't like the evidence so just ignore it or try and deflect onto something else.

So if the Tories are so awful, why was it that the labour government under Tony Blair signed the ATOS contract.

Interestingly that the tories never repealed it.