There was rightly concern last week when OBR & DWP documents revealed that £4.8bn of cuts to benefits for ill & disabled people would push 250k people into poverty, including 50k children

But @NEF analysis suggests the true scale & impact of these cuts will be even greater... 🧵 The headline figures take the cuts to PIP & the UC health top-up but offset these against a decision not to proceed with changes to the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) proposed by the previous government & pencilled in, but never fully confirmed, by this government 2/8

This clip encapsulates the dishonesty at the heart of the government's benefits announcements last week

Ill & disabled people should be offered more support to return to work, but doing so is in no way contingent on cutting their benefits or imposing conditionality... 🧵 If people are judged by DWP to have 'limited capability for work related activity', they get the UC health top up payment & (currently) cannot be mandated to undertake activities under the threat of sanction

But they absolutely can be offered voluntary employment support /2

The government's '£5bn of savings' figure is being widely taken as the scale of benefit cuts for ill & disabled people

But as @AnushkaAsthana revealed on @itvpeston last night, @NEF analysis shows the loss of income for this group is likely to be much greater than this... 🧵 From April 2026, existing recipients of the UC health top up will have this payment frozen, while the rate will be cut by £47-a-week for new claims

Based on figures from the IFS and DWP, we estimate this could equate to a total cut for this group of £1.48bn by 2029-30 (2/5)

Hi @DavidTWilcock. I just wanted to flag that your @MailOnline piece from Thursday is hugely misleading & seems to be based off a fundamental misunderstanding of the statistics

I'll explain why, then maybe you can retract the piece & issue an apology... 🧵1/6 Here's the chart you use to justify the claim you're making. Putting aside the fact that you're giving a distorted picture of the rise in incapacity benefits by not including legacy benefits, the part of the chart labelled 'acceptable medical evidence' had me baffled at first 2/6

This, from a DWP press release yesterday (), is outrageous

In two short paragraphs it peddles multiple falsehoods about the current system that will be used to justify upcoming cuts & changes

Here's what MPs & journalists should be challenging... 🧵 gov.uk/government/new… First of all, people are not "placed in binary categories of either “fit for work” or “not fit for work”" - there is a middle category where people are expected to engage with employment support but not to apply for work - there's a reason DWP may want to gloss over this... /2

It's understandable, given that I think the Government has wilfully blurred the lines, but there's been some misreading of what yesterday's announcements will mean for ill & disabled people so I thought it was worth offering my interpretation of where things stand... 🧵 The key announcement was planned changes to the criteria for the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), to kick in from 2025, meaning fewer people with mobility issues & mental health problems will be declared to have 'limited capability for work related activity' (LCWRA) [2/10]

Beyond the nastiness & terrible impact of the two child limit itself (& therefore the disappointment that it may be around even longer), I think there are three deeper reasons why Labour's position has caused so much concern among those working on poverty & social security...🧵 Firstly, the two child limit was seen by many as 'low hanging fruit' in the social security space - one of a the changes that would be quick & easy to act on for a new Labour government, with a relatively low price tag but a guaranteed significant impact on (child) poverty 2/9

Here's a thread of my initial thoughts & reflections on the government's proposed reforms to disability benefits & employment support

Having worked on these issues for 15 odd years, including 18 months at DWP, I'm starting from a position of scepticism!🧵
gov.uk/government/pub… I'm focusing on the big structural changes to the system floated in the white paper

One positive is that these are framed as 'transforming the system for the future' & the paper suggests that the changes wouldn't be introduced until 2026/27 (i.e. after the next election) 2/12

We now have the highest rate of economic inactivity due to long-term health issues for over 20yrs - almost 2.4m people

This is increasingly due to #MentalHealth, something I spent 18 frustrating months advising the DWP on a few years ago

Here's where things are going wrong...🧵 First of all, there are a whole range of factors causing more people to struggle with their mental health:
-poverty & inequality
-poor living conditions
-loneliness & isolation
-the impact of the pandemic
-stressful & insecure work
-difficulty accessing mental health support
2/11

I've been interviewing people using #FoodBanks about the circumstances that have led them there & the impact on their #MentalHealth

In a new @IFAN_UK & @jrf_uk report, out today & covered by @BigIssue, I describe what I heard - here are the headlines 🧵 bigissue.com/news/social-ju… Everyone I spoke to described experiencing some feelings of shame & embarrassment about using a food bank, particularly on their first visit. Many had put off seeking support that they desperately needed because of the stigma associated with poverty & accessing food aid. 2/10

Behind each of these overturned decisions is a person enduring months of uncertainty, anxiety & insufficient income. People often feel invalidated & even question their own disability. Their #MentalHealth suffers, sometimes to the point of feeling suicidal independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n… Other services, particularly NHS #MentalHealth services, often have to step in to both support someone through the process of challenging a decision & to respond to the psychological fallout of the stress this situation causes. This puts a further strain on public finances

Reflecting on #DWP's mindless return to conditionality & sanctions (despite it being a totally inappropriate response at this time & an ineffective & often counter-productive approach for many people) got me thinking about policy driven by a misplaced sense of morality 1/10

https://twitter.com/patrickjbutler/status/1277671792816132098

The assumption behind conditionality & sanctions is that people need the threat of losing their benefits to motivate them to find work. This is implicitly justified on the basis that people are getting something from the state & so have a moral duty to do something in return 2/10