AIBU to hope that able bodied people will support disabled people against the tory attack on PIP?

[Blackcats7]

I have just been reading posts from many terrified disabled people on a facebook group I belong to.
People are afraid for their lives after the government's recent announcement to stop huge numbers of people with mental health issues qualifying for PIP anymore.
This attempt to scapegoat disabled people has a long history in the tory party and is popular with their traditional core but the attack on PIP is a new low.
Even those claiming PIP for other reasons think they will be the next target and that the tory aim is to pretty much eradicate any support for us with the half hearted usual disguise of "concentrating help on those who need it most" when they know they can't get away with saying what they actually are doing.
Disabled people have votes too (being housebound I thank goodness for postal votes) and I think this current tactic will have a big influence on how those votes are used but my question is how many able bodied people will take this attack on us into account when it comes to the election?
Should this nightmare come to pass there will be blood on government hands because I have no doubt people will die bearing in mind the targets are people with mental health problems and the tory propaganda that they are removing a right to benefit from those who feel a little bit depressed and anxious about life as most people will at some point or another is utter nonsense. Claiming PIP is extremely hard and requires a very high bar to succeed, especially for mental health. Popping to your gp for some anti depressants would not cut it.
So we need your support.
YABU we aren't that bothered or think the govenment is quite right to stop you scrounging bastards
YANBU this is disgusting ableism and we have your back

I know, but it feels really wrong when our household income is £110k. We already get child benefit, it feels wrong to get this too. I’ll think about it once we see what the elected party does with it.

Overthebow · Yesterday 15:34

I support Pip getting an overhaul, it’s not fit for purpose and we cant afford to pay for everything for everyone. The limited money we have needs to be targeted at those who genuinely can’t work even part time, and enable them to have a decent standard of living, and not giving money to those who could work and help them in to work instead for example widening the access to work scheme.

Well yes, maybe you might change your mind again.

I stand by what I said, I don’t think I or others like me should be able to get pip, I think those that genuinely can’t work because they’re severely disabled should get the money focused on them. We need to protect those who can’t work, and help those that could do something into work. But I don’t think a households in £100k+ need pip.

Nothing I have seen about the PIP assessment process suggests it is easy to game the system. Quite the opposite.

I would turn the whole thing over to doctors but doubtless people would find a reason to complain about that ... because it would probably make numbers of people getting go up, not down.

Were old people happier in the past? Well, one of my grandmothers checked herself into a mental asylum and a grandfather developed a drink problem after the death of his wife of over 50 years, during which he had rarely even spoken of his experiences fighting in the war ...

All this cutting might indicate that we are a little low on money as a country, 100 Billion a year deficit after we have cut these things

It doesn't matter if labour gets in or we continue the Tories wait to see what happens in the next few years.

For the people that say " oh but we can send 5 billion to Ukraine etc ". Like most western governments if they are all willing to do this with all the intelligence that countries use I would say the threat is real so spent it on national security or cutting PIP will be least if our worries.

Am hoping Labour will at least not waste money on things like the Rwanda scheme. But they are still going to be scrabbling for money.

Exactly this.
If we don't support Ukraine and are dragged into a world war, there's not going to be a lot of money left for the £100 billion benefits bill is there ? It would be catastrophic for the economy and then really tough decisions will need to be made.

I agree with this and a good living wage for all that work (so some shall be topped up if working part time which is what some can manage)

there will always be people that can not work or have periods where they can not work of course more money should be available to support them and to help them engage in studies, groups etc if they can

Guess you don’t really understand the concept of a level playing field.

PIP is for the chopping block regardless of who wins later this year.

A return to means tested DLA linked with jobseeker benefit is likely.

That would be an exceptionally stupid and economically illiterate idea given that - as so many posters have stated - PIP is entirely unrelated to whether people work, and the problem apparently is too many people claiming out of work benefits and not working. In such circumstances only somebody beyond stupid would consider the idea of removing the support that enables many disabled people to continue to work and pay tax, and increase payments to people for not working. What do you think would be the effect of such a peverse incentive?

A return to means tested DLA linked with jobseeker benefit is likely

DLA has been abolished for adults and will not return.

It was never means tested.

DLA, like PIP, was not an income replacement benefit.

DLA, like PIP, was never related to employment status or ability to work.

If you are going to comment, at least educate yourself so you can make informed comments.

PIP is for the chopping block regardless of who wins later this year

Evidence,?

Do you enjoy trying to scare vulnerable people?

Labour will not abolish PIP. I will donate £100 quid to your favourite charity if it does.

What they may reform is out of work benefits (although sadly even their own shadow ministers get PIP and ESA confused).

This thread is a fucking disgrace.

Agree entirely, @IClaudine. There is an astonishing level of ignorance in these comments.

I know, I’m talking about what I think it should be, not what it is. I think it should be means tested. There’s limited money and someone on £100k for example doesn’t need it.

@Overthebow do you realise what care needs cost? PIP does not come close to touching it for many people. The costs a disability can indeed absorb most of a £100k salary after tax. That is why different levels of needs are awarded (or meant to be awarded....) different levels of financial support, based on the needs arising from the disability. PIP is not an out of work benefit and has nothing to do with normal living costs.

Someone can be intellectually capable and earning significant sums of money and simultaneously be physically incapacitated and unable to do essential basic daily tasks that you take for granted. You have literally no clue and your ableism is disgusting.

As PIP is supposed to be money to help cover the extra costs that come with being disabled or living with a long term health condition, why so much angst about the possibility of vouchers for services or expenses being provided instead.

Because the "services" doubtless won't exist except in theory, or won't accept the vouchers, or will severely limit choice to only using substandard and overpriced services, or the prescribed list of services will not actually be those the person needs, or won't have sufficient resource so will try to ration their services illegally despite what the law says as happens now with social care and the NHS, etc. Introducing yet another layer of bureacracy would also - obviously - add even more unnecessary costs to the system with a third party contracted to administer it making it either a) vastly more expensive, or b) meaning even more money that is meant to be spent on supporting disabled people actually being spent on administration of the system.

How would this list of providers willing to accept such vouchers, across the country and varying from sole traders to listed international companies be administered exactly? How would they reclaim the money from the voucher and be paid? How would suitable contractors be approved and monitored? What if the services the disabled person needs won't accept them? Would they be audited and the records matched to invoices and the disabled person's specific needs? What if no local contractor had been approved that met their specific needs? How would they provide change from the nominal value of a voucher? Do you expect e.g. all taxi drivers to do this? Cleaners for those who can't physically clean their own house? Handymen doing odd jobs disabled people can't do for themselves?

It's a completely ridiculous suggestion.

It's also completely against the ethos and purpose of PIP which was to give disabled people a level playing field (it doesn't come close to that as it is) and the dignity to determine for themselves what help they need and how best to spend it in their circumstances given that disabilities are so varied and have such different impacts for different disabled people.

In an ideal world everyone would have enough money for everything, including all luxuries. But we’re not in an ideal world. There isn’t enough money to cover everything, there’s not enough people working and there’s the col crisis. There are lots of people going without, services needing more funding, NHS and education overstretched. We cannot afford to be giving out benefits for luxuries at the moment. We cannot afford for this amount to be off work, or in part time work and claiming, and the number rising. Not without other services getting more stretched and being cut, or people who are already stretched paying higher taxes. It’s not jealousy, it’s just being realistic.

Again, @Overthebow PIP is not an out of work benefit. Many of the people who receive it are still net contributors to the tax system despite receiving it. It is to level the playing field for disabled people. It has nothing to do with the issues you mention about many people not working. If that is your concern then you need to start a separate thread about Universal Credit.

This thread and the many others like it in the last few days are really shocking.

They did cope. How many elderly people did you know growing up who were shaking anxious wrecks? I didn’t know any. Trying to make out everything was probably hidden because you didn’t see it makes no sense. They were just tougher people, less introspective and not encouraged to lie in bed and dwell on feelings. With children and no generous welfare state, people were incredibly resilient.

No. They were traumatised, dysfunctional and in many cases became dissasociated and unempathetic and actually quite abusive, which I suspect is one of the contributory reasons for the generational trauma and mental health issues being so prevalent in society now.

Always the same nasty people I notice, usually of a certain generation, who bang on about "introspection" and "resilience", usually in fact when they in fact are cold and callous even to their own family. "Resilience" is often a rebadging of living with and ignoring trauma and therefore causing huge harm to those around you as well as yourself. It's not something to celebrate, and I am thoroughly sick of this manta (as somebody who had an abusive childhood and had it drummed into me to shut up and be "resilient", and is still trying to unravel the enormous trauma caused through EMDR therapy decades later - while also working full time I might add). Was this a good idea, rather than me being given some support and love when younger so I didn't live my entire life to date in torment? Categorically - NO. It was not.

Total exaggeration. And they got things done - being emotionally incontinent and constantly rehashing your feelings is a totally unrealistic way to live for most of the population. We don’t even have enough counsellors to cater to it. In the meantime our economy suffers as everyone is signed off yet wonders why there’s no money for everything. Let’s stop agonising over feelings and just get on with things, it’s the only way.

That's us told then. No middle ground, no consideration thar humans aren't sodding robots, only the money matters. Ignore decades of research that proves that continual trauma re-wires the brain, observabley, and impacts ability to "just get on with it".

Just shout at people until they do as they're told, and if they don't, sod 'em. Or punish them.

Glad we've sorted that one out.

@Welovecrumpets how nice that you think you're in a position to call my experience of abusive parents which has resulted in me living with trauma for decades a "total exaggeration".

I rest my case about the callous lack of empathy from people who hold such views about "resilience".

Apart from I didn’t do that did I? I said your sweeping generalisation of the elderly as repressed and unempathetic is a total exaggeration which it is.

You don't understand the phrase "in many cases", then? Hardly a "sweeping generalisation". 🙄

It’s more that you didn’t realise that was what I was calling exaggeration, not whatever experience you personally had

Oh for heavens sake. It was "many cases". An entire country of people were impacted by devastating worldwide events. Some on the front line, some at home. It was hidden, self-medicated and denied because "stiff upper lip". Yes "things got done" despite that, not because everyone just dusted themselves off and "got on with it".

I repeat, people are not robots.

Actually, on a society wide level, a stiff upper lip and ignoring things is a far more useful tool to employ for better mental health than a society wide push towards talking therapy and encouraging rumination.

Obviously individuals with poor mental health need mental health interventions but for those with untroubled mental health histories who must overcome trauma, a culture of dwelling on your pain, endlessly rehashing it and building that pain into a narrative of who you are as an individual, is a detrimental and significant driver towards poorer mental health after the event.

I think a culture of a stiff upper lip will have failed many individuals in the post war era who felt stigmatized and discouraged to seek help when they would have benefited it but, on a population wide level, it was probably the best approach to get an entire generation through a fuck load of trauma.

This is only a response to the idea that old people are repressed and deficient as a result of it, it's not a response in any way to the original question of people on pip being hammered.

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/may/06/we-all-want-to-cut-out-the-bad-parts-of-ourselves-it-wont-work-and-it-wont-make-us-happier?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQGsAEggAID#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17149957541048&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flifeandstyle%2Farticle%2F2024%2Fmay%2F06%2Fwe-all-want-to-cut-out-the-bad-parts-of-ourselves-it-wont-work-and-it-wont-make-us-happier

Interesting given some of the assertions made here.

Or you could read some research like this, which demonstrates that those police officers who were forced to attend mandatory therapy sessions in the wake of a police shootings, were still suffering with higher incidence and severity of ptsd than those police officers who didn't attend.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247827040_An_Evaluation_of_a_Police_Debriefing_Programme_Outcomes_for_Police_Officers_Five_Years_after_a_Police_Shooting

The conclusion being that therapy can exacerbate suffering. And there's other similar outcomes in other settings, like women getting therapy support with cancer treatment. Burns victims and anxiety levels after therapy.

These are only ones I know because I listened to a podcast with Abigail Shrier who writes on the topic, with the main point being that it's not good enough to want to help, it has to actually help. And yet we've launched ourselves wholesale into this idea that more and more therapy, therapeutical language and methods - is an unmitigated good thing - a better thing - than doing nothing for everybody.