Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

"Benefit cuts: Monday will be the day that defines this government..." Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Powerchairs have nothing to do with DLA or the Motability Scooter scheme. They remain the domain of NHS Wheelchair Services and are subject of clinical assessment .

    Blue Badge and ENCTS are seperate from DLA/PIP.

    Higher rate mobility however has become unaffordable on present criteria, Hence the tightening of criteria. That said the gutter press have not helped with their repeated outright lies over the relationship between DLA and the criteria to access Motability ( which is independent of the Government )

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    Powerchairs have nothing to do with DLA or the Motability Scooter scheme. They remain the domain of NHS Wheelchair Services and are subject of clinical assessment .
    Only people who need an electric chair both inside and outside the house are eligible to recieve one via the NHS criteria source. Someone who can stagger around their house with no problem but can't walk around the block is assumed to be able to claim HRM DLA and use it for motabilities lease scheme: http://www.motability.co.uk/scooters...d-wheelchairs/
    Blue Badge and ENCTS are seperate from DLA/PIP.
    HRM DLA/Enhanced rate PIP are called passport benefits. This was included in the consultation over the move from DLA to PIP and the DWP have made it clear that this will remain.

    Getting a blue badge/disabled bus pass etc without HRM DLA/ERM PIP is down to local government discretion. There are already discrepencies between local authorities on how and when a disabled person can use their bus pass (in my area you can use your bus pass any time, in some areas they're only valid off-peak which isn't much help if you need to get the bus to work because your mobility problems prevent you from driving).

    Higher rate mobility however has become unaffordable on present criteria, Hence the tightening of criteria. That said the gutter press have not helped with their repeated outright lies over the relationship between DLA and the criteria to access Motability ( which is independent of the Government )
    The economic impact of removing HRM from so many people (and therefore cutting the number of people able to get support/help with getting to work/study/local amenities) is enormous and was not considered as part of the scoping by the DWP when coming up with the criteria or the impact on their own budget. http://wearespartacus.org.uk/emergency-stop/ looks into this (based on comparing the DWP estimates of changes to claimant numbers with a report in 2010 by Oxford Economics on the economic impact of the motability scheme.)
    (Original post by emergency stop press release)
    The ‘Emergency Stop’ report analyses figures supplied by the DWP and Motability, the organisation that supplies lease cars and specialist converted vehicles to disabled people claiming the higher mobility rate of Disability Living Allowance.

    The analysis estimates that, under PIP, 428,000 fewer working age disabled people will qualify for the higher PIP rate (which allows access to the Motability scheme) by 2018. This could lead to 160,000 fewer Motability cars on the road.

    Oxford Economics’ report ‘Economic and social impact of the Motability Car Scheme’ (2010) identified the Motability scheme’s contribution to the economy through car sales, employment generation and tax receipts. The new report shows that welfare reform plans will lead to a domino effect including the loss of:

    * 5,692 jobs (from 21,080 jobs to 15,388 jobs in Motability-related industries)
    * £544 million contribution to GDP (from around £2 billion to £1.45 billion)
    * £126 million in tax receipts

    It also highlights that the cost to the public purse of enabling disabled people to get to medical appointments could alone amount to about £8 million.

    It’s not just disabled people who will lose out under the Government’s welfare reform plans. Changing from DLA to PIP means fewer people qualifying for Motability cars to the tune of about 50,000 fewer vehicles a year. Less demand means fewer jobs in the motor industry, a lower contribution to GDP and the exchequer, and a knock on effect on the second hand market, which also contributes to the economy.
    Of course all of this work was done based on the consultation ERM distances of 50m - the post consultation change to 20m will only increase the impact by removing even more people from eligibility to the scheme.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oschene23)
    That's the point, for the most part is it not measurable and is simply a product of the quality of person/training given of nurses these days, yet there has been a sharp rise in abuse (esp. in care homes) and an increase in complaints.

    Subjectively, many who have been inside a hospital recently for a mid-long period would tend to agree.
    Well, with cuts to budgets and nurses/doctors working obscene hours to begin with, I just hope that's taken into account. Abuse by staff is a personal basis, but yes, that's beneficial to compare.

    On issues, such as abuse, cleanliness etc. then those are understandable ideals to compare. Also, a quality of a persons training also largely comes university in initial years in work.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    Powerchairs have nothing to do with DLA or the Motability Scooter scheme. They remain the domain of NHS Wheelchair Services and are subject of clinical assessment .

    Blue Badge and ENCTS are seperate from DLA/PIP.

    Higher rate mobility however has become unaffordable on present criteria, Hence the tightening of criteria. That said the gutter press have not helped with their repeated outright lies over the relationship between DLA and the criteria to access Motability ( which is independent of the Government )
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think PQ has already addressed your bs very well, but i will add -
    So as a country we can now only afford to help some disabled people to be able to leave the house, go to work, etc and the others can rot because we'd rather take that money, give it to atos and fuel the scrounger rhetoric? So if we've got no money why are they going after the most vulnerable? How about making some corporations pay proper tax!

    Ps Motability is an independent charity yes - but they only help people with the high rate/enhanced mobility component so its not gutter press lies at all its fact straight from motability themselves:
    Will the Motability Scheme continue?
    Yes, the Motability Scheme will work with PIP in the same way as it does with
    DLA. Motability will continue to lease cars, powered wheelchairs and scooters to
    disabled people who receive either:
    • theHigher RateMobilityComponentofDLA,
    • the EnhancedRateoftheMobilityCompone ntof PIP (fromApril2013),or
    • theWar Pensioners’Mobility Supplement.
    http://www.motability.co.uk/cs/group.../mo_065734.pdf
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vivavangveing)
    I think PQ has already addressed your bs very well, but i will add -
    So as a country we can now only afford to help some disabled people to be able to leave the house, go to work, etc and the others can rot because we'd rather take that money, give it to atos and fuel the scrounger rhetoric? So if we've got no money why are they going after the most vulnerable? How about making some corporations pay proper tax!
    Well it;s quite clear that debate will not work in your case , due to your brainwashed position , also how old are you ?

    DLA as a system was introduced in 1992 , long before the DDA never mind the Equality act ... in the 20 + years since the world has changed substantially

    in 1992 nearly all public transport was totally inaccessible ( do you remember step entrance buses ? , 'slam door' trains ? no ramps on Taxis and PHVs all being normal cars ?

    In 1992 automatic transmission were often expensive and not easily available on modest cars, only big cars had power steering ...

    in 1992 Personal contract plans weren;t invented ( some of which ape Motability i.e. the 'just add petrol / diesel ' plans )


    Ps Motability is an independent charity yes - but they only help people with the high rate/enhanced mobility component so its not gutter press lies at all its fact straight from motability themselves:
    http://www.motability.co.uk/cs/group.../mo_065734.pdf
    i think you've missed the point

    the gutter press represent as Motability as " Disabled people get free BMWs"

    the reality of course being ;

    a relatively small group of disabled people (DLA_HRM , Certain War Pensioners with mobility needs .. ) get to lease cars / WAVs /Scooters ate reasonably good price in return for paying all of their HRM payment and if you want a BMW rather than none premium brand - a fairly hefty Advance Payment each time the car is due to be changed on completion of the 3 ( cars and moderated adapted cars) or 5 ( heavily adapted cars and WAVS) year term of the lease
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    Well it;s quite clear that debate will not work in your case , due to your brainwashed position , also how old are you ?

    DLA as a system was introduced in 1992 , long before the DDA never mind the Equality act ... in the 20 + years since the world has changed substantially

    in 1992 nearly all public transport was totally inaccessible ( do you remember step entrance buses ? , 'slam door' trains ? no ramps on Taxis and PHVs all being normal cars ?

    In 1992 automatic transmission were often expensive and not easily available on modest cars, only big cars had power steering ...

    in 1992 Personal contract plans weren;t invented ( some of which ape Motability i.e. the 'just add petrol / diesel ' plans )
    Just because access has improved doesn't mean the transport system is fully accessible.

    If you can't walk to the nearest bus stop then id doesn't make any difference if you can get on the bus or not (and yes I remember step up buses - I've also been present to see buses drive straight past wheelchair users at bus stops because the wheelchair space was crammed full of pushchairs, or because the ramp was broken, or because it was raining and they didn't want to put the ramp out manually, or because they were driving the bus that doesn't have wheelchair access (the deadline for full access on all buses is 2017, for coaches it is 2020))

    If you can't get affordable insurance to drive a car due to your disability then cheap transmission and personal contracts doesn't make any difference.

    There are still huge additional costs incurred by disabled people due to living in an inaccessible society/world. DLA and PIP are supposed to address these additional costs - whether that's through a motability car, money to pay for taxis, paying for a wheelchair because the NHS won't provide what you need, paying for a carer to drive you to the shops, paying a co-worker to drive you to work etc etc.

    The DLA bill wont be reduced through the introduction of PIP (the DWP are very clear that the transition isn't to save money). What will happen is 20-25% of current recipients will recieve less or nothing and the money this saves will go towards private companies who will conduct "tests" (instead of the current system where assessment is through documentary evidence from healthcare professionals, GPs, consultants, social workers etc).

    The cost is the same - the benefits to disabled people (and therefore the amount they can contribute to society) are cut. The only winners are private contracters...the cost to the tax payer is likely to increase as the needs not met by PIP will end up putting more pressure on public funds through different routes.

    The entire reform is false economy, packaged up and sold to the public as "fraud reduction" (which is complete BS when you consider it is FAR easier for someone to fool an Atos physio in a 20 minute test than to fool their GP or consultant who will likely see them regularly).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    Well it;s quite clear that debate will not work in your case , due to your brainwashed position , also how old are you ?

    DLA as a system was introduced in 1992 , long before the DDA never mind the Equality act ... in the 20 + years since the world has changed substantially

    in 1992 nearly all public transport was totally inaccessible ( do you remember step entrance buses ? , 'slam door' trains ? no ramps on Taxis and PHVs all being normal cars ?

    In 1992 automatic transmission were often expensive and not easily available on modest cars, only big cars had power steering ...

    in 1992 Personal contract plans weren;t invented ( some of which ape Motability i.e. the 'just add petrol / diesel ' plans )

    i think you've missed the point

    the gutter press represent as Motability as " Disabled people get free BMWs"

    the reality of course being ;

    a relatively small group of disabled people (DLA_HRM , Certain War Pensioners with mobility needs .. ) get to lease cars / WAVs /Scooters ate reasonably good price in return for paying all of their HRM payment and if you want a BMW rather than none premium brand - a fairly hefty Advance Payment each time the car is due to be changed on completion of the 3 ( cars and moderated adapted cars) or 5 ( heavily adapted cars and WAVS) year term of the lease
    I'm not brainwashed, i'm 22 and in the last 5 months I've gone from the 40% tax bracket to being a benefit scrounger; i was born with a degenerative disease. All i'm doing is giving a point of view of the human cost of these changes - it may come across as emotionally charged but it's real life - i have my own car and a good support network, i'll be ok but most people aren't so lucky.

    I'm very aware that access and equality have substantially improved but its not good to me because i can't walk to the bus stop and still be able to function. I could take a train from my local station but i couldn't return because it has a big step bridge over the platform to get to the exit. When i was in a wheelchair i couldn't go into various local shops including subway because they had no ramps.

    What i was saying about motabillity and passport benefits, is that it's estimated that over 400 000 people will loose the high rate component when it changes to to pip, these people will also loose their motabillity cars/scooters/wheelchairs, and may loose passport benefits at the discretion of local authorities. The government changed the mobility criteria after all consultations had finished, suddenly only being able to walk between 21-50 meters isn't disabled enough.

    Honestly there is so much that goes into it before a disabled can leave the house, the effort, pain and exhaustion just from getting ready. There are so many things that people take for granted that they just don't need to think about when they're not disabled.
    Name:  87a80efd4f44ec7549a524145bb7a162.jpg
Views: 54
Size:  154.0 KB


    There's more too; changes to the care component, cutting of local services, esa, atos and the work programme, 0845 number for the job center, council tax, bedroom tax for people with adapted homes or a partner who can't stay in the same room as them due to their disability, my local council are even charging for brown bin collection!

    Disabled people are being penalised yet big corporations are being supported in mass tax evasion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    - Asylum seekers have no choice where they are allocated housing. It is a condition of them seeking asylum that they are given housing so the state can monitor them effectively. The state also pays for utilities etc. associated with that housing so they can reduce the amount of money they give them to spend (it is even lower than means-tested Jobseeker's Allowance for under 25s).

    - Most social housing is looked after by arms-length organisations for local authorities. This means there is a mix of housing stock allocated on a choice-based system (i.e. the housing could be owned by a charity, the local authority, or housing associations). In fact, there are lots of organisations which now look after private rental properties too. Each of these owners stipulate their own requirements and there is absolutely nothing the government can do to get around this. If a housing association wants to give their house to someone with a local connection then it will go to someone with a local connection unless there is no one interested in it. It is that simple.

    - These arms-length organisations operate a transparent choice-based allocation system based on housing need. Not being able to speak English does not push you up the list. That is complete nonsense. For instance, take the arms-length organisation that looks after social housing in Barnsley, you can access their lettings policy here. In addition, they have gone out of their way to combat prejudice by publishing statistics of their allocations: for example, between April and December 2012 they relet 5.6%*of available homes to non white British people.

    If your dad is honestly a housing officer for a local authority then he is designated a specific ward to look after. This means he has limited knowledge about a small area and who is allocated those properties. You have taken his 'primary research' and suggested it applies to every area of the UK. That is complete nonsense.

    My Nan works for Berneslaihomes for Housing and Benefits and she gets this all the time down the phone. If she denies a white family something the first response is "Oh but if I was an immigrant i'd get it" There are SO many checks laws and whatever else, she struggles to understand how "If I was an immigrant you'd do it" comes from!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sammyjade92)
    My Nan works for Berneslaihomes for Housing and Benefits and she gets this all the time down the phone. If she denies a white family something the first response is "Oh but if I was an immigrant i'd get it" There are SO many checks laws and whatever else, she struggles to understand how "If I was an immigrant you'd do it" comes from!
    That does not surprise me at all!

    My girlfriend comes from Barnsley (near the hospital in Gawber) and we tried to get social housing there but they are so short of houses that they do not even count children needing their own room until they are one! My local council do and we got housing with them not long after thankfully.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    That does not surprise me at all!

    My girlfriend comes from Barnsley (near the hospital in Gawber) and we tried to get social housing there but they are so short of houses that they do not even count children needing their own room until they are one! My local council do and we got housing with them not long after thankfully.
    I know that when I was younger my mum had her name down for all areas of barnsley, as far as every border for both 3 and 4 bedroom houses and she was waiting for almost 5 years. :| it's madness. But obviously, "it's because we were white" ... As some people would claim...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Despite the fact barnsley's social housing difficulties are more to do with the small stock it had as theNCB was a major eesidential landlord in the district.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Not only are the cuts going to increase the division of society, it may potentially affect the growth of the economy. I believe in Keynesian style economics, so I believe in injecting more money into the economy rather than introducing cuts. Especially cuts which affect the lives of many (however, I do agree that there are those that 'sponge' off of the government which ruins things completely).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheStudent1289)
    Not only are the cuts going to increase the division of society, it may potentially affect the growth of the economy. I believe in Keynesian style economics, so I believe in injecting more money into the economy rather than introducing cuts. Especially cuts which affect the lives of many (however, I do agree that there are those that 'sponge' off of the government which ruins things completely).
    The proportion of those is very small. This is a cut to anyone on welfare, even if they are looking for a job. But I still support it as it inventivizes those looking for work to look harder. Critic : There is not enough demand for labour to meet the supply. True however the reforms will increase labour mobility ( people moving to different areas to find work) more as they will be heavily financially incentivised to do so, thus the supply of labour will be more respondent to demand so employment will increase. However there will be people unable to find work, even when they are trying extremely hard.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    The proportion of those is very small. This is a cut to anyone on welfare, even if they are looking for a job. But I still support it as it inventivizes those looking for work to look harder. Critic : There is not enough demand for labour to meet the supply. True however the reforms will increase labour mobility ( people moving to different areas to find work) more as they will be heavily financially incentivised to do so, thus the supply of labour will be more respondent to demand so employment will increase. However there will be people unable to find work, even when they are trying extremely hard.
    I don't think the incentive to find work will increase that much in all seriousness. It's being capped at what? £500? This figure is more than enough needed to get through one week. If the individual is living in a house, with no mortgage, that's an income of roughly £2000 a month...a month! My friend works for the health service (they're qualified, went to university etc.) and they're only earning around £1400 a month. So for someone to be qualified and work in the health service (public or private) to be earning less than one who doesn't have a job, I think it's wrong. However, I am going to contradict myself here, I feel that those who are wealthier and better off should have the responsibility to help those who are currently unemployed through tax payments for job seekers allowance etc. as I would like to see an increase in equality.

    I know these views I'm expressing are in some-what, 'government failure' and sound quite right-wing. But I just think that even with it capped at £500, I don't think the incentive will increase that much...although I accept your point that it is only a small proportion of the population who are not actually doing anything about their unemployment.


    Sorry, I rambled a bit...I'm tired... Lol
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheStudent1289)
    I don't think the incentive to find work will increase that much in all seriousness. It's being capped at what? £500? This figure is more than enough needed to get through one week. If the individual is living in a house, with no mortgage, that's an income of roughly £2000 a month...a month! My friend works for the health service (they're qualified, went to university etc.) and they're only earning around £1400 a month. So for someone to be qualified and work in the health service (public or private) to be earning less than one who doesn't have a job, I think it's wrong. However, I am going to contradict myself here, I feel that those who are wealthier and better off should have the responsibility to help those who are currently unemployed through tax payments for job seekers allowance etc. as I would like to see an increase in equality.

    I know these views I'm expressing are in some-what, 'government failure' and sound quite right-wing. But I just think that even with it capped at £500, I don't think the incentive will increase that much...although I accept your point that it is only a small proportion of the population who are not actually doing anything about their unemployment.


    Sorry, I rambled a bit...I'm tired... Lol
    There are those who live in relatively expensive housing on benefit who will face the choice between moving to a lower quality house of finding a job. So lots of people who were made redundant and went on benefits then were unable to find employment but kept their old house etc will have to find work to get help with rent etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    There are those who live in relatively expensive housing on benefit who will face the choice between moving to a lower quality house of finding a job. So lots of people who were made redundant and went on benefits then were unable to find employment but kept their old house etc will have to find work to get help with rent etc.
    Yes I accept that. But in the short run, surely a cut in benefits will affect the level of consumption in the economy thus leading to recession? Which will create more job loss? (cyclical unemployment).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheStudent1289)
    Yes I accept that. But in the short run, surely a cut in benefits will affect the level of consumption in the economy thus leading to recession? Which will create more job loss? (cyclical unemployment).
    200m cut it isn't much. Effect on AD will be minimal. Also our main macro-economic objective is currently deficit reduction not economic growth.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    200m cut it isn't much. Effect on AD will be minimal.
    Well it's enough... I wouldn't be taking money out of the economy, I'd be putting more in. I can see more sense in that in terms of increasing employment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheStudent1289)
    Well it's enough... I wouldn't be taking money out of the economy, I'd be putting more in. I can see more sense in that in terms of increasing employment.
    200m is not allot of money in relation to the the whole of AD in the UK economy. By increasing employment you are stimulating AD, as those who go into employment will be closing the output gap and their incomes will go on spending within the economy constituting to AD.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    200m is not allot of money in relation to the the whole of AD in the UK economy. By increasing employment you are stimulating AD, as those who go into employment will be closing the output gap and their incomes will go on spending within the economy constituting to AD.
    Well if £200 million is not that much, why make the divide in society even bigger? Cuts in benefits will just result in more inequality. And if that sum of money doesn't really affect AD, surely it's not worth cutting the benefits even if it reduces the deficit? Bearing in mind that people's lives will be severely affected? Think about the elderly, disabled, unemployed or the poor who have to decide between switching on their radiators to prevent themselves freezing, or to switch on their cookers to cook a meal for themselves. These are real situations, it should not be happening in the 21st Century.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 17, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.