To think that this survey is at odds with what the government is telling us ?

[ThreadGuardDog]

The results of a major UK survey into disability benefits has suggested that 49% of the public support these benefits and would support more being spent on them in the future even if it meant higher taxes. This seems to fly in the face of everything the government is telling us about the need to reduce them.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4grdk95vgno

Depends on the wording of the question which, to suit their agenda, the BBC don't tell us.

I think this is because, on the whole, most of us aren't shits.

I would hope so. My background is disability support and there is a lack of understanding of disability and the often considerable extra expense it can generate. Public opinion seems to be in favour of cutting these benefits - at least that’s the narrative we’re being fed - but this survey result seems to belie that. I can’t find much information beyond the headline, so l suppose a lot depends on how the questions were worded.

Is "the government" saying we have to reduce them ?

No it doesn't. It flies in the face of what the tabloid media are telling us. The reality is that I doubt anyone would deny those who genuinely need benefits receiving more. The issue people with disabilities have is that there are so many people claiming when they shouldn't be or manipulating the system to maximise their sponging that those who have a genuine need feel like they're being persecuted. They're not. It's the spongers and the people who choose a life on benefits that we want to cut, not the people who actually need it.

Twenty years experience in disability support and I’m sad to say that’s not my experience. The people manipulating the system and ‘sponging’ are always the ones who are one step ahead, and the cuts that are being planned in disability support are absolutely going to affect the genuinely disabled because they’re going to find it much harder to satisfy eligibility.

I certainly think the benefit bill shouldn’t be increased, but money taken from those without serious lifelong disabilities and illness and given to those that do. Less for ADHD, more for MND, terminal cancer, profound mental handicap etc.

The government has talked about trying to reduce the rate at which benefits (as a whole) are rising (which is obviously not the same as reducing). I don’t think I’ve heard anyone in government talking about reducing benefits overall. Also, this survey is talking about disability benefits which is a group of people that the public are most likely to support vs say benefits for healthy people who are not working.

Benefits as a whole take up around 5% of GDP and have done for over forty years. That’s remained flat, but the problem is that disability benefits have taken more and more of that 5% figure as time has gone on. I agree, the conversation isn’t about reducing benefits overall, but there’s a lot of attention on disability benefits and there have been two major consultations which are both now looking at ways of reducing cash payments in favour of ‘support’.

I'll admit to being pleasantly surprised when I hears this - certainly not the vibe you usually get when disability benefits are discussed in the media. Did make me wonder if there's been some "social engineering" going on.

Yes, that's exactly my point! People want people who need benefits to have more but there are too many people sponging so we can't. The spongers are basically picking the pockets of the needy.

You may be right, but the problem, as ever, is that the rhetoric and measures implemented to crack down on those playing the system will inevitably also impact genuine cases as criteria become even harsher than they already are!

Spending on working-age health and disability benefits has risen sharply since the pandemic - perhaps bringing back face to face assessments would help cut out fraud?

I am completely in support of people who have genuine disabilities receiving benefits. It's certainly not a life I would want to live. But I think our definition of disability has been stretched beyond what most people would consider always reasonable.

I wouldn’t trust anything the BBC says anymore. But I imagine most people would not want to see someone with genuine disabilities go without social welfare. I think it’s the increase in applications from people with ADHD or god forbid “anxiety”.
The reality is that benefit caps don’t apply when there is a disability in the household so people are cottoning on about what a goldmine disability benefit is.
So suddenly a naughty, badly parented kid who has been shoved in front of an iPad since birth is diagnosed with ADHD and the benefits flood in. Disability, DLA, carers allowance, and not a benefit cap in sight. THAT is what annoys people. Not someone in a wheelchair getting PIP.

I don't disagree with that, I'm not sure what the answer is although I do feel we could do so much more to raise tax and lower the broader benefits bill so that we put more into fewer people. The first thing I would stop is people choosing to maximise their benefits by keeping their hours/salary low. I would also make all council housing temporary so that people cannot keep them for life. Then I'd tackle the rich who are avoiding tax through, for example, pouring huge amounts into pensions. The government also needs to find ways to get those who have a disability but who could work into jobs. Not working is generally more unhealthy than working. We need to find ways of being more supportive of people with disabilities and long-term health issues into work. There's a lot that could and should be done.

I don’t disagree with that, but the problem has always been that disabled people are being short changed in the assessment process. Assessment providers are paid to provide reports to decision makers at DWP and the staff they recruit as assessors are general nurses, physios, paramedics etc. They don’t recruit doctors as it’s too expensive. These assessors receive only a few days training as ‘disability analysts’.

As a consequence many disabled people who genuinely qualify for disability benefits are denied them because the assessors don’t really understand the full extent of the condition, and instead rely on a ‘snapshot’ of how the claimant presents on the day. This is reflected in the number of hugely expensive appeals tribunals currently taking place. For some disabled people, it’s the only way to get a fair decision from properly qualified medics, legal and social care experts, which is how the tribunal panels are made up. At the moment two out of every three benefit decisions are overturned at tribunal, indicating a significant problem at the decision making stage.

Interesting- but you must remember that something like 25% of British people claim to be disabled and I guess they would all want more benefits

would nearly 50% of the fully healthy public support this?

I wouldn’t - I would support more taxation to provide the mental and physical health service that people need to get out disabled population - only 14% of the European population consider themselves disabled

which would suggest nearly half the people in the uk with a disability shouldn’t be

The definition of disability is set by the Equality Act 2010. I guess other countries have a different and much narrower definition. Basically ours says that it’s not the medical condition that qualifies someone as disabled but that the effect on everyday life is the consideration. There are a couple of conditions such as MS and cancer which automatically meet this definition but wouldn’t automatically qualify for disability benefits unless the condition was terminal within the next twelve months.

I do think a poster upthread identified a problem that needs sorting out, in that the benefit cap doesn’t apply to any household where someone is in receipt of disability benefits. That, among other things is a disincentive to work, despite the fact that disability benefits don’t assess the ability to work of the person claiming them. They’re purely to support the extra cost of living with a disability.

ETA. I also think another problem with the definition of disability is that it includes health conditions which are short term and from which people can and do recover. At one time disability benefits were just that - meant for those who had life long disability from which they would not recover.

The PIP system has a built in safeguard in the length of benefit award being linked to how likely the condition is to improve in the short term, but in the interim the onus is still on the claimant to report any change which would affect their entitlement - which doesn’t happen for obvious reasons. To my mind better savings would be achievable if the minimum duration of a condition (currently 12 months) was increased - this would filter out the more minor conditions which fly under the radar of self reported recovery.

Better designed assessments using properly qualified medics would be a money saver too. It result in better and fairer benefit decisions, and there wouldn’t be the need for hugely expensive appeals in order to get a fair decision.

I strongly doubt that the EU has a broadly different definition of disability - what a bizzare assumption- given how close we have been aligned legally for so long

on average it spends more on health than we do and is probably still more socially minded - less individualistic - than we are.

@backformoreofthesame Why would you think it a bizarre assumption ? Other European countries have a different approach than our own to disability benefits, so why would it not make sense that their approach to the definition of disability would vary from that of the UK, since the latter, to some extent, defines the parameters for the former.

In France, for example the definition of disability is close to our own in that the effect rather than the condition itself is what matters, but the definition is much narrower than ours - the condition itself must be substantial, permanent or definitive. The French equivalent to PIP, is Disabled Adult Allowance and has very different eligibility criteria to our own, relying on assessment of the reduction in capacity to work directly caused by disability. It’s means tested and there are much stricter age and residency conditions. It’s also not possible to claim DAA past retirement age - it then transitions into a retirement pension for unfitness to work.

If this system is broadly similar across Europe it’s not hard to see why the number of people who consider themselves disabled is very much lower than in the UK.

So 1 in 4 people are disabled. There is not 1 in 4 people claiming PIP.
Having cancer, even if it was a small mole that was removed, you are classed as disabled for the rest of your life under the Equality Act . 1 in 2 people getting cancer now.

I only see people want cuts to benefits on here, or on FB. Easy to be abliest when you are hiding behind a keyboard.

Yes I find the idea that having cancer in the past automatically qualifies you as disabled. And yes I know some people in remission have life long symptoms from the treatment, but others don't.

For example friend with very early stage bladder cancer. Day surgery to remove it with one hour of chemo during procedure. Felt tired for about a month after and then totally normal afterwards. Had regular check ups for a few years, but no longer has check ups and been told she has the same risk of bladder cancer as anyone else now.

Yep, and that was my point too. You can have the cancer removed, but be declared as disabled for the rest of your life.
That does not mean benefis though.
I think many people think disabled = PIP, but that is not true at all.

Or the number is genuinely higher in the uk due to lifestyle choices, poor diets, lack of exercise, generational poverty and lack of education.