Welfare reform.

[Workingman]

I guess that something had to be done as the costs are unsustainable - and rising..

It is devastating for those genuinely in need, no doubt about that, but there are many gaming the system. PIPs are a case in point. They have been too easy to get and are there for life when many should only be temporary until the 'emergency' is over. That has only been partially addressed in that they will now be harder to get yet some could be made temporary, as was once the case. Reorganising the agencies involved is also a decent move as there was so much duplication.

The problem for the government, all governments, is that once something is given it is hard if not impossible to roll back or remove them. They become an expectation rather than a genuine need, but to try to change things makes them "heartless" and "immoral" according to those against such moves.

I don't have many problems with what is being attempted so long as those who really need help are protected and do not inadvertently fall through the net. That will be a big test under the new system.

[medsec222]

I would hate to think that someone who was genuinely in need of help could lose their PIP. Yet there are scammers. They seem to know how to beat the system and have no shame in doing it. The motability car scheme needs to be radically overhauled. What started out as help with a small car for someone who could not get out and about has ballooned out of all proportion. Apparently BMWs worth up to £50,000 are on offer and not just for physically disabled people, but they are available to transport children with ADHD. What is wrong with a small, less expensive car.

[miasmum]

Hi

As someone whose son benefits hugely from the motability car scheme I do really appreciate it. You do have to pay quite a hefty deposit for a larger car or one with higher spec, and also you have to have the full mobility PIP to pay.

This might help explain it a bit more https://www.motability.co.uk/find-a-veh ... awardType=[PIP]&f:@makeName=[BMW]

That said, what really makes me angry is parents driving round in their disabled children's cars. When Luke was at his residential home, he didn't have a car, but two of the others did. It wasnt there for the home to use though Oh no, their parents were driving round it them. Their sons were being transported in the homes pool car.

But then Motability need to tighten up on this. The car has to be in the name of the appointee, not the disabled person. So Luke's car is in my name. No one ever contacts him to make sure I am not taking advantage of this loophole though.

[Workingman]

Motability. My brother was wheelchair bound from birth. When my sister passed her test mum applied for Motability and William was awarded a Fiesta L - the cheapest model to suit his needs. - sis was the named driver She could use it to commute but not for any other personal use and the annual mileage was restricted. Those were the rules back then - late 1970s.

When I was knocked off my motorbike some years ago (not my fault) I dislocated my thumb and tore the tendons and ligaments in my right wrist. I was in a brace from my knuckles to my elbow and was unable to do many simple daily tasks. I was awarded a PIP at a low level to help me out a bit, but it was only in place till the consultant signed me off;. and that is how things should be. It was not needed for life and I suspect that many PIPs still fall into that category.

[TheOstrich]

I think what bothers me most about this broad-brush approach to getting people "back into work" is where all these job openings are coming from.

I recall a brief stint I had on unemployment benefit about 20 years ago. The Job Centre kept insisting I apply for jobs; there were very few around at that time. I finished up having to attend interviews for work I was clearly not suitable for, even with retraining. Waste of the employers time, waste of my time.

There needs to be some sort of financial incentive for firms to create multi-level positions for folk trying to come off benefits or being "forced" into work. There have been job creation schemes / incentives in the past but there needs to be renewed energy about this now.

[cromwell]

Good point about the number of job vacancies Os. Last December there were 820,000 vacancies.
Roughly a quarter of the people of working age (16-64) are "economically inactive"; 9.29 million people.

My big worry is means testing the old age pension. You can see they want to do it, but daren't.
Hence all the pensioner bashing articles in the press saying how easy we've always had it, how 1 in 4 pensioners are millionaires, etc etc. They are winding up to do it, imo.

[Workingman]

They are winding up to do it, imo.

No, they are not.

The "bashing" articles and how we have always had it so good are in the right wing press - Mail, Express, Telegraph. There is no indication from government of "means testing" OAPs - that's ballcocks.. The 1 in 4 of us as millionaires is also ballcocks, but it fits the right wing press agenda.

Except that the so-called rich OAPs just happen to be Tory.

[medsec222]

Labour will have to raise money from somewhere. The welfare bill will continue to rise unless there is drastic reform and the present proposed plans around PIP are just tinkering around the edges. Failure to stop the boats is resulting in a huge chunk of taxpayers money being used to fund the processing and housing of illegal immigrants. Likewise the increased spending on defence will have to be found from somewhere, maybe from foreign aid but maybe not. By keeping the personal tax allowance at the same point they will soon be collecting tax from pensioners who are on state pension only. It would have been unthinkable to tax basic rate pensioners not that long ago. Those pensioners with even a small occupational pension are already paying tax. They are calling pensions a benefit now, although most of us have paid national insurance for over 35 years in order to qualify for a state pension. Those who haven't paid the full amount don't get a full pension. As far as I am aware Universal Credits and other state benefits are not taxable but I stand corrected if I am wrong about this. Labour was supposedly very aggrieved when they discovered a black hole left by the Tories but they have had no trouble enlarging that black hole since the election. Loads of money apparently to give to Mauritius to take the Chagos Islands off our hands and pay them rent for the privilege. Its a good deal for the UK apparently.

[Suff]

What I find interesting is that Labour were seen to be the party that would fix jobs and "make the rich pay".

Yet they have set about screwing just about everyone who works on tax/NI and are cutting welfare, potentially for those who need it.

Meanwhile the illegals continue to pour in and are consuming money and services.

Not a success story against expectations as far as I can see. This is Cameron's legacy. He backed away from harsh austerity so instead of a short sharp shock for a few years we have had to suffer a long protracted slog with low funds, budget deficit and limited ability to fund what we need to grow.

Labour has no magic pill for this.

[cromwell]

What I find interesting is that Labour were seen to be the party that would fix jobs and "make the rich pay".

There aren't enough rich people to pay for all the poor people; and the very very rich were already moving their money out of the country before the election.