Thread by @StefBenstead

It's quite something when a government cites *as something to be exceptionally proud of* that it was so kind as to uprate benefits in line with inflation.
Like, that's the very least you can do. You don't seek praise for doing the very basics and the bare minimum.

I'm tired of the 'most needy' trope. You could claim to be helping 'the most needy' by only helping the two most sick or disabled people in the country.
That's not a laudable aim. You have to aim to help everyone in need, by definition of 'need'. This isn't a luxury for us.

I'm also tired of the 'better off in work' line. The issue isn't whether people have more money when in work than on benefits: they always have more money in work, because there are top-up benefits. The issue is the extra costs associated with work, like commuting and childcare.

Oh, and the 'focus on what they can do' line. I'm sorry, but I am sick, and I'm disabled because I'm sick, and what I can't do is what matters here. I can't work and I can't manage my household chores. That's what is needed to know for benefit purposes, not what I can do.

I can read a fiction book (unless my brain is too tired to match up right and left eye images). I can do craft (slowly). I can sit on the ground and pull up weeds one at a time. But none of that really helps with knowing what I need help to do, & why I can’t work enough to live.

Green Paper uses fluffy language as to "whether more can be done to help those most in need to live full and independent lives" but then flips straight into 'argh value for taxpayers' language. Generally the [wants of the ] latter takes precedence over the [needs of the] former.

Unfortunately, all the nicest words in the world don't make reality. Especially when they're juxtaposed with 'value for the taxpayer'. Anyone can say they want fair, compassionate social security. Not everyone actually tries to deliver it.

Govt says that PIP "is not providing support in the way that was intended". It was intended to provide cash support, for extra costs, with increased support for those with mental illness.
PIP has achieved that.
What it hasn't achieved was the ulterior goal of cutting support.

The govt has finally learned to put a qualifier such as 'suitable' in front of 'work is good for people's health'. A better word would have been 'good' or 'decent'.
They're still ignoring their role in harming health, wellbeing, and financial security.

(The Green Paper isn't well-ordered, so back to PIP purposes here)
PIP is non-means-tested; cash; help independent lives; more attention to mental health; flexibility for recipients to spend on what they like.
These are all good things that PIP rightly does.

The govt's objection is basically that PIP didn't cut payments as much as they hoped it would. So it wasn't 'more sustainable' (cheaper; less good). They're upset that the caseload has risen, but there are more disabled people (both % and absolute) now than then.

Has 'the nature of health and disability' really changed that much since 10 years ago?
Apart from an ageing population & the impacts of Covid, neither of which I think the govt want to take into account here; they're looking for excuses to cut spending, not evidence of more need.

There are 2.6mn people on PIP but 8mn working-age people who report a disability. So why is the govt so upset? Maybe there aren't enough people receiving PIP, rather than the govt's assumption of too many.

The govt has three conflicting aims:
1) Providing the right support to the people who need it most.
2) Targeting our resources most effectively.
3) Supporting disabled people to reach their full potential and live independently.

For me, the key aim is no.3. It is right to do that in a cost-effective way. But in govt speak, aim no.2 means intentionally not spending enough money and therefore being unable to achieve no.3. Hence needing no.1, where only the most needy get help.

Does the government really need to use the phrase 'disabled people and people with a health condition'?
Everyone who is disabled has some sort of 'health condition' underpinning it.
Everyone who receives PIP is disabled.
There are no non-disabled 'people with a HC' getting PIP.

I worry that the purpose of the phrase 'people with a health condition' in a document that is entirely about disabled people is an attempt to decieve naive readers into thinking that there people who are mildly ill, and not disabled, who are getting PIP.
There aren't.

I'm intrigued by this idea that 'better, more targeted support could be provided by other local services'. Possibly yes *on top of* PIP (e.g. my bus and train pass), but not *instead of*. How is local support going to help me hire a cleaner or buy a secondhand mobility scooter?

How would "Moving away from a fixed cash benefit system" mean "more tailored support in line with their needs", other than by increasing the amount of support that everyone gets?
Cash is *the* most tailored form of support available. The only issue is there's not enough of it.

Then there's this idea of "improved support of other kinds, such as physical or mental health treatment". This should be available on the NHS.
If someone is cured with a short course of treatment, they weren't eligible for PIP in the first place, as PIP is only for long-term need

Finally: no, dear govt, you cannot "achieve your ambition within the current structure of health and disability benefits". The reason being, the whole social security and wider welfare system has been woefully underfunded and pulled apart by you over the last 14 years.