Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: maybe yes ,maybe no .

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    edinburgh
    Posts
    148

    maybe yes ,maybe no .

    the snp have stated that an independant scotland would do away with the dreaded pip and go back to dla.is it not about time the clowns at westminster see the light and do the same.we all know changes had to be made to the dla system but the torries have left everyone suffering.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,512
    Have the SNP really thought through the implications of this? It's an easy thing to say, but potentially problematic to implement.


    PIP has its flaws, but DLA was flawed, too, especially in its vague legal tests, which were difficult for claimants and their families to understand. PIP has criteria that requirements are much clearer, making it easier to know what to demonstrate.

    DLA Mobility component treated physical disability differently from sensory impairment, learning difficulties and mental health problems. PIP has a Mobility component where claimants can be awarded either Mobility rate irrespective of the type of disability.

    The DLA system for adults has been largely dismantled, with no new claims having been accepted for 14 months. In the Borders area, existing DLA claimants needing to renew an expiring award, reporting a change of circumstances or reaching the age of 16 have, since January, been reassessed to PIP. What are the SNP planning to do with all those who have been awarded PIP by the time they implemented a policy reverse? Some of these people would not qualify for DLA at the same rate.

    The biggest problem with DLA is arguably the older awards, which were most commonly indefinite (if you go back 20 years, around three quarters of awards had one or both components awarded indefinitely) and might therefore have resulted in people not being reassessed for over 20 years. The proportion of awards where one or both components were awarded indefinitely fell to around a quarter of DLA awards more recently.


    The uncertainty for those awaiting reassessment or who are stuck in the PIP assessment system now is awful. However, a move back to DLA will arguably create more uncertainty, especially as it could not be implemented immediately.


    I don't agree with all the policy decisions bound up in PIP, but believe that they can be best addressed by adjusting the PIP activities, descriptors and points rather than returning to DLA.

  3. #3
    Senior Member mikeydt1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    976
    more like smoke and daggers to try and win back votes from those where the damage has been done and if they win watch how fast they forget it.

    as for over here in England any party sees cuts to those it is hurting most as a vote winner, going to need something drastic to change hard fast minds here.

    As for PIP along with ESA nothing more than cutting saving money policies designed to inflict as much misery as possible.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    554
    Whilst on here replying and quick read of other posts...

    We now know (the DWP have admitted as much) that change from DLA to PIP would have dire consequences. Indeed, DWP can be quoted as “We were aware that the vast majority of recipients of DLA were individuals with genuine health conditions and disabilities and genuine need, and that removing or reducing that benefit may affect their daily lives.”

    The whole move, DLA to PIP as well as IB to ESA, has nothing at all to do with bringing benefits upto date or because they were no longer fit for for purpose, absolute b???s. It is and only ever was to do with saving money and cutting it from those least able to fight back...how wrong they were!

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,512
    Your comment that a politician's promises are soon forgotten when in office is often very true. There is case law confirming that no promise by a politician is legally binding, and the only remedy is to vote against them at the next election.


    Quote Originally Posted by mikeydt1 View Post
    As for PIP along with ESA nothing more than cutting saving money policies designed to inflict as much misery as possible.
    The shortcomings of the Work Capacity Assessment for ESA are well-known. The recent House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee report has a very high quality explanation of these problems.


    I think portraying PIP as purely a money saving policy is a little unfair, as it's much more of a mixed bag. Some are better off under PIP, some are treated the same and some are worse off than under DLA.

    As I said in my earlier reply, I do not agree with some of the policy decisions bound up in PIP. However, there were flaws in DLA, such as the rather vague legal tests applied and eligibility for the Mobility component depending on the nature of the disabling condition. We've already had one report in the forums of an autistic person being given enhanced rate Mobility PIP - it would have been impossible for this person to get higher rate Mobility DLA.


    Had DLA been reformed rather than replaced without any intention of saving money, it is possible we would still have finished up with something resembling PIP. Even without an imperative to save money, changes as radical as those in PIP will benefit some and not others.


    The legal tests for PIP are very specific in nature, which makes it clear what claimants have to demonstrate for the award of benefit and means a PIP claim can require much less explanation than DLA. For example, on DLA, I had to explain the problems I had with shaving, combing my hair and cleaning my teeth, but PIP looks only at the problems with washing, showing and bathing.

    My last DLA claim required a staggering amount of detail to cover everything - I believe there were 30,000 words in it. Much of that was unlikely to be read, as I'd probably established my right to remain on highest rate Care after a couple of pages of answers about the day and a couple of pages of answers about the night.

    With the cuts to Legal Aid and therefore to welfare rights support, which I deplore, it is questionable how many people would have been able to make effective DLA claims by themselves. Many words and phrases key to understanding the DLA legal tests, such as "frequent", are only defined by case law. I was aware of many cases where someone who had lowest rate Care DLA who probably would have succeeded in getting middle or highest rate Care if only their explanations had been of better quality.


    The disadvantage of the specific legal tests used by PIP is that PIP ignores some needs into account which were relevant to DLA. In many cases, problems with washing, shaving and bathing will accompany other problems looking after your appearance, but this will not always be the case.

    The argument has been made by politicians that DLA had become excessively broad, as shown by the rapid rise in the number of lowest rate Care awards in the last few years DLA was fully operational, but this is questionable at best. Unfortunately "we're focusing help on those who are most in need" is typically spin for "we're giving essentially the same level of support to those in greatest need and removing support from the rest".



    Whatever happens now in Scotland, there will be winners and losers if PIP is abolished and DLA reinstated. Arguably, it is more likely that Scottish ministers will decide to change PIP rather than reinstating DLA.

    If ministers in an independent Scotland wanted to avoid many of the injustices of reassessing people on PIP for DLA, they could simply leave DLA awards in place until they reach their natural end (end of fixed-term award, change of circumstances, child claimant reaching 16 or death of the claimant). However, if they do this, they will not realise most of the projected savings in moving from DLA to PIP. It's very easy to keep making promises that cost money, but once they are in office they will have to find the money to deliver their promises without piling it all onto the national debt.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    edinburgh
    Posts
    148
    to me a country that can spend 100 billion on weapons that will never be used when its people are using foodbanks and are at therelowest ,then there is something far wrong with with the people who are supposed to be runnuing this once great,great country.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •