To be really cross about the proposed cuts?

[Byjimminy]

And feel really effing sorry for those with genuine anxiety and depression - it is disabling!

Already seeing threads in MH with people despairing in anticipation of cuts. As if mental health services haven't already been decimated beyond recognition already. GP appointments as rare as hen's teeth, CAMHS and access to decent therapy is next to non-existent, the conservatiives slashed all the support workers and sure start centres and we've had the worst pandemic in decades (centuries?) - long covid is thing too! And now people are just self diagnosing/making up mental health issues? How the hell anyone believes anyone manages to claim PIP without a proper diagnosis is insanity itself.

I completely agree with this article: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/wes-streeting-overdiagnosis-mental-health-adhd-b2716618.html

I know there will be umpteen threads on this already, but maybe some others like me just want to let stuff out in frustration and have a fresh place to say it. To think this is a labour government making these decisions BEFORE putting the services in place to actually help and treat people is beyond comprehension.

I've not read anything. I was pointing out that in my case, I'd have to then get care from social services which would cost far more than what I get on pio. Hardly reasonable to expect someone to care for me for free. Especially as it involves a hospital trip quiet often.

Agree.
That makes no sense at all. I don’t think Labour have really thought through the workable intricacies of this.

But then they haven’t for other policies either so I’m not surprised

I also think they should be thinking of all these scenarios ( and I’m not talking re just this policy ) before they start leaking stuff to the media and before it’s discussed in Parliament. The unknown causes so many people to live in fear of their future.

We can argue about the rights and wrongs of this till we're blue in the face but the fact of the matter is the country simply cannot afford to sustain the benefits trajectory that we are on.

Sure, we could tax the rich more. But then the rich will have the means to just move to where they are not taxed so much and then we lose their money anyway.

Simply put, less people need to be claiming tax payer funded benefits. That's it.

Everyone who CAN work should work, and not rely on the state to fund them not working.

Completely agree about leaking soundbites. The word "overdiagnosed" I think is going to come back and bite Streeting on the bum. If only people relied more on actual evidence from expertd before bandying around ill-judged and often ignorant opinions.

From the Royal College of Psychiatrists:

“Rise in people with mental illness being driven by real societal challenges and lack of available treatment” says RCPsych President

https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/news-and-features/latest-news/detail/2025/03/17/rise-in-people-with-mental-illness-being-driven-by-real-societal-challenges-and-lack-of-available-treatment--says-rcpsych-president

Professor Joanna Moncrieff (UCL Psychiatry)

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2025/mar/opinion-are-mental-health-conditions-overdiagnosed-uk

"In an interview about government plans to reduce benefits for disabled people, [Streeting] agreed that overdiagnosis accounts for an increase in people on benefits due to mental illness. This appears to mirror those media stereotypes about work-shy millennials.

If that is what Streeting meant, then the evidence is not on his side. Ten years ago, a UK national survey of psychiatric symptoms found that a third of people whose psychological symptoms were severe enough to merit a diagnosis, did not have a diagnosis."

You don’t give a solution though OP. I’m fine with the changes as something had to be done. We cannot go on and on with an exponentially rising sickness benefits bill. It’s not affordable. Do you think the Labour Party would be doing this if they had any other option?

They have to fund improved services first and build it into their long term plan.

Perhaps they could claw back some from those who had excessive furlough support, before they take from people already at the bottom. Make it more of a loan.

Not sure whether it was this thread or another, but a post about capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich comes to mind.

With respect to the president of RCPsych, yes societal challenges DO account for more mental health difficulties — BUT, and a very big but… the issue of a growing welfare state isn’t being addressed here, nor is it sustainable.

Of course there are REAL and huge challenges facing us all such as cost of living, climate change, political conflicts and wars etc. However, this does not necessarily mean the answer is claiming benefits. We must find a way of coping. Monies saved could go towards better funding for mental health and other means of support.

@9fthighfence I am completely with you.

The issue is… the money has got to come from
somewhere in the first place to fund improvements made to services. I really don’t think there’s an easy answer here.

Personally, I like balance and gradual change, and I think we ought to target many areas to “claw back” money, not savagely attack one area, namely the most vulnerable. In a way, I think we as a country all need to come together to bear the brunt of these challenges tbh. I am a middle earner, and we as a family are so squeezed. I can’t afford to not work as I’ll lose our home. We simply have to cut every month, or work additional hours. No hand outs here. I have to find my own ways of coping.

What about the idea of those having recieved furlough support contributing a bit extra in some way? (I expect those most affected by this green paper didn't receive any, were told to claim benefits and have probably already lost their homes). Lots of rope ladders being hoicked up perhaps?

Hopefully they are going to fund improved services.
However
Theres no money to pump into the system first ….
They need the money
That will perhaps come from the reduced benefit bill

Exactly

That sounds like a very expensive administrative strategy for a one off payment from them. That doesn’t make financial sense
We need a year on year reduction in the welfare bill…..not a plaster

Some people are already bearing the brunt if you look at policies already enacted by Labour

I’ve never claimed a benefit in my life so I don’t know what the furlough deal was, but if they were told at the outset they didn’t have to repay it you can’t go asking for a repayment now. That’s not how it works.

And overhauling pip is administratively simple?

Yes
The parameters worked to will change
There are existing ones, those will change.
People will still need to apply, people will still need to be assessed just to a more stringent parameter

What about the idea of those having recieved furlough support contributing a bit extra in some way?

From businesses or individuals? The furlough support helped companies stay afloat when they couldn’t trade - that money will be long gone, and businesses are having to fund additional NI costs, so don’t have a slush fund to dip in to.

My main point was around the disturbing narrative that "overdiagnosing" has created and is snowballing through the media, for an already stigmatised and marginalised group. There are many genuine , hardworking people who lost loved ones, their livelihoods and their homes during covid, who are now being told they and their children are snowflakes for being unable to access the support they needed, when they needed it and told to claim benefits instead. Unsurprisingly a lot of these people are still struggling! I thought better of Labour than this.

It's hard to believe posters here are unaware of what the furlough scheme even was!! People were paid by via their employers through the government, their full wage to sit at home and do Jack shit. In the millions. But that's fine because they are now safely back in their jobs and all those who weren't lucky enough and are unsurpisingly taking longer to get back on their feet are now just feckless snowflakes.

No
They aren’t
and no one is saying that
The country just can’t afford to fund so many people any more.

Thats it
Its really very simple

But that's fine because they are now safely back in their jobs and all those who weren't lucky enough and are unsurpisingly taking longer to get back on their feet are now just feckless snowflakes.

We’re 5 years down the line, that’s not “taking longer”, if folk are still struggling after 3 years of no/low restrictions there’s something else at play and they need help to deal with that. We can’t leave people indefinitely - 3 years is long enough to access psychological support even with shitty NHS waiting lists. How long do you suggest we fund people to stay at home?

Exactly.

So the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists doesn't know what they're talking about?

Why does this matter? Ten years ago the number of claimants was significantly lower and welfare bill was also dramatically lower.
Again, average taxpayer paid £1900 in 2024 for welfare bill only. This doesn't include state pensions, NHS, education etc etc. By 2029 this is projected to be £3000 per average taxpayer.

There is nothing else to give in the system. If there was a way to tax super rich without killing economy all together the governments (past, current, in UK or elsewhere) would have done this. There isn't such way, it can only be done at a global level. True wealth is globally mobile.

The only way to tax is your middle/high earners and they actively change behavior now and give up, they can't sustain it anymore so the overall tax take might drop leaving even less in the pot. The real way to increase tax take is to grow economy and to do this we need more productive people and taxes to drop.

It doesn't matter a jot who said what and when, current welfare bill is by far the biggest spend and it can't be sustained anymore.

@Jellycatspyjamas
3 years is long enough to access psychological support even with shitty NHS waiting lists.

With respect, you don't seem to understand how poor mental health services are. People cannot get appropriate psychological support at all. Not just a case of waiting for it.

People are excluded from primary care/IAPT services if they are considered too risky, complex, or needing something more than a few sessions of CBT or brief counselling. There's a lot of people who fall into this gap between services. They cannot access secondary services/CMHT unless they become very unwell, and even then often not allowed therapy due to being too ill to engage at that point, or too high risk/don't have appropriate support to be going through therapy safely. People are also deemed "inappropriate" for therapy, and any other reason the CMHT can come up with as they have to ration the resources somehow. Even if the person manages to get appropriate therapy, it can take a long time to get better (generally getting worse for a bit as they start to dig deeper).

Sure, we could tax the rich more. But then the rich will have the means to just move to where they are not taxed so much and then we lose their money anyway.

An additional 2% tax on wealth over £10 million would raise over £24 billion a year. Those people wouldn’t even notice it.