[arista]

Live SkyNewsHD
BBCnewsHD

[Beso]

Donald will be so proud

[arista]

Live all media
And LBC.


PM Starmer sitting next her

[Cherie]

It is great they have found more staff to do more checks, now while they are rootling around trying to save money why not find the staff to process asylum seekers so they can be sent back whence they came or go out to work ..

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

It is great they have found more staff to do more checks, now while they are rootling around trying to save money why not find the staff to process asylum seekers so they can be sent back whence they came or go out to work ..

Now Cherie, I assume you mean economic migrants and not actual asylum seekers when you say "sent back whence they came" ... ... right?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

Now Cherie, I assume you mean economic migrants and not actual asylum seekers when you say "sent back whence they came" ... ... right?

No I mean ayslum seekers as I assume not everyone claiming asylum eventually gets asylum or indeed is an actual asylum seeker, unless you know differently? you should be up in arms about this, todays policy will actively discrimate against people like your daughter, I know you live in Scotland so are probably protected ...but still ...they can find staff to check on citizens, but there are huge backlogs on asylum claims...how can that be right and who is benefitting? I have written to my MP, you should too

[arista]

Yes Cherie
Illegal Migrants

Or costing even more.

and it's Never Ending

SB
Silly post

[arista]

It's Ł5 Billion
of Cuts


To pay for War in Ukraine

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

No I mean ayslum seekers as I assume not everyone claiming asylum eventually gets asylum or indeed is an actual asylum seeker, unless you know differently? you should be up in arms about this, todays policy will actively discrimate against people like your daughter, I know you live in Scotland so are probably protected ...but still ...they can find staff to check on citizens, but there are huge backlogs on asylum claims...how can that be right and who is benefitting? I have written to my MP, you should too

At the point that they would be "sent back" then their asylum claim would have failed, so they would no longer be an asylum seeker. If they're sent back before that, then no one has any way of knowing whether the claim is genuine or not. I'm not saying the current system is good or sustainable but the answer is speeding up the process to sort out the genuine claims - not just saying a blanket "no to all" when some will indeed be genuine requests for asylum with lives at risk if "sent back". Honestly, looking a few years down the line, AI could massively speed up the process.

Taking any other stance might seem "more pragmatic" but I find it a short-sighted view on things... it assumes that the shoe will never be on the other foot. That we will always be the ones taking people in, rather than looking for somewhere to run.

[Liam-]

After all the scare tactics the media and activists spread for the past week or so about this I watched the announcements live and what was said and put forward wasn’t that bad, the majority of it was actually reasonable and sensible, the most in need will be looked after, the assessments will be changed to be less humiliating, no more periodical assessments for people deemed not fit to ever work and sick and disabled people who can and are wanting to try to work will be helped with doing so, it all seems quite sensible

[joeysteele]

While I'm not happy about the tightening up of points needed to claim PIP.

Overall IF this is done with some compassion in place, this wasn't as horrific as has been presented in the media over recent weeks.
Although I know, there has been intense pressure made known by Labour backbenchers on this.

It's not as severe as the absolutely hateful criteria put in place by the Coalition between 2010-2015.
Which really the Cons never relaxed at all.

There's more to learn about it and also the views of so called experts as to it's effects.
However what I've picked up so far is, it's not as bad as was predicted.

I'm still concerned at the assessment and re-assessment process/interviewing.
I've attended them in the past with claimants and they can get extremely stressful and unnecessarily intrusive as to the questioning.

[user104658]

This part - "Right to Try" Guarantee: Disabled individuals on benefits will be able to try employment without risking a reassessment or losing their benefits - is actually really vital and has been missing for the UK benefits system for a long, long time. No one is going to give something a shot if they're not sure they can do it, if trying and failing means they're going to end up homeless or unable to put food on the table. Even if they're 80% sure it'll work out.

One of the few things that Universal Credit actually got right when it "took over" from the old Tax Credits system is "full tapering" (you earn more you get less In benefits proportionately all the way down to zero) where the old system was absolutely full of arbitrary cut-offs that meant people taking a few hours of work a week, or even an extra shift if they already had a job, could mean ending up worse off (sometimes disastrously so - e.g. losing several hundred Ł of support for going Ł5 over some cut off or other).

[Beso]

Seems totally pointless. How much is it costing to set up?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Beso

Seems totally pointless. How much is it costing to set up?

That's always the question - when they set these things up, it often ends up costing more to fund and staff than the eventual saving. They usually discover that there's far less "invalid claiming and fraud" going on than they expected. However,they are claiming that for people who are properly assessed as being permanently unable to work, they'll get life-long benefits issued, which would save a fair bit of wasted time and resources. They currently reassess every x-number-of-years even when it's very clear that nothing will have changed whatsoever, which is a total waste of resources. You don't need to "reassess" quadriplegic people or those with significant developmental / learning disability to see if they've magically become able to work.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Liam-

After all the scare tactics the media and activists spread for the past week or so about this I watched the announcements live and what was said and put forward wasn’t that bad, the majority of it was actually reasonable and sensible, the most in need will be looked after, the assessments will be changed to be less humiliating, no more periodical assessments for people deemed not fit to ever work and sick and disabled people who can and are wanting to try to work will be helped with doing so, it all seems quite sensible

You forgot to mention the 1 million people who will no longer be eligible for PIP just like pensioners.... you know damn well if it were the Tories targetting the elderly and the disabled you would be fuming, meanwhile working age able young men are put up in hotels with no sign of any urgency is getting the backlog seen to

You know you can become disabled at any time in life, lets hope it doesnt happen to you and you just come under the points criteria

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

At the point that they would be "sent back" then their asylum claim would have failed, so they would no longer be an asylum seeker. If they're sent back before that, then no one has any way of knowing whether the claim is genuine or not. I'm not saying the current system is good or sustainable but the answer is speeding up the process to sort out the genuine claims - not just saying a blanket "no to all" when some will indeed be genuine requests for asylum with lives at risk if "sent back". Honestly, looking a few years down the line, AI could massively speed up the process.

Taking any other stance might seem "more pragmatic" but I find it a short-sighted view on things... it assumes that the shoe will never be on the other foot. That we will always be the ones taking people in, rather than looking for somewhere to run.

what are you prattling on about, of course if their asylum claim in denied they will no longer be deemed an asylum seeker but until they start processing these people we will never know ..I never once said a blanket no either you just decided I did, I said find the staff to speed up the checking process......just like they have with welfare ..as for the shoe on the other foot that can happen too, lets see how generous countries are taking the Brits in....I can tell you in advance ...no Crystal Ball required

[arista]

Ch5HDnews
Broke it down

In 2028
if you can wash your upper body
the PIP payment will be removed

[Cherie]

For QB

now while they are rootling around trying to save money why not find the staff to process asylum seekers


No idea how you decided this was a blanket no.... You are worse than Sherriff for reading my posts and telling me what I am saying when I am not saying anything of the sort

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

what are you prattling on about, of course if their asylum claim in denied they will no longer be deemed an asylum seeker but until they start processing these people we will never know ..I never once said a blanket no either you just decided I did, I said find the staff to speed up the checking process......just like they have with welfare ..as for the shoe on the other foot that can happen too, lets see how generous countries are taking the Brits in....I can tell you in advance ...no Crystal Ball required

So you send people who have been denied asylum back from whence they came - not asylum seekers. It may seem pedantic / purely down to wording but the distinction is important, because one is advocating for better, quicker, more efficient processes and one is advocating for a closed-door policy. One places the blame on inefficient governance and the other on the asylum seekers themselves -- be they legitimate or not.

Also (as always) worth pointing out that the VAST majority of immigration is economic migration, not asylum seekers, and using "asylum seekers" as a catch-all term for immigration is flat out incorrect.

If you want the exact figure - 89% of immigrants are not, and never have been, asylum seekers.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

For QB

now while they are rootling around trying to save money why not find the staff to process asylum seekers


No idea how you decided this was a blanket no.... You are worse than Sherriff for reading my posts and telling me what I am saying when I am not saying anything of the sort

I read it but I think you meant immigrants, not asylum seekers, which is what I tried to clarify in my first post, but you've continued to suggest (IMO) that you don't think it's an important distinction. "Asylum seeker" is not a synonym for "immigrant".

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

I read it but I think you meant immigrants, not asylum seekers, which is what I tried to clarify in my first post, but you've continued to suggest (IMO) that you don't think it's an important distinction. "Asylum seeker" is not a synonym for "immigrant".

Economic Migrants are claiming Asylum are they not? why else would they be put up in hotels, if they just landed and said give us a job I think that wouldn't work so well for them, I understand their are genuine Asylum seekers and I think what has been done for Ukranians has been stand out, the same should have been done for Afghans and Palestinians but it isn't instead people have no way off genuinely coming to the country and instead we have this useless system where everyone lands via boat or lorry, claims asylum, and are stuck in a hotel for ever it seems, its time the government took the system in hand, they said pre election they were no longer going to use hotels but that seems to have been pushed into the long grass, instead they are targetting the elderly and the disabled...and Labour supporters are standing around nodding and saying that is okay even though it isn't okay at all

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Liam-

After all the scare tactics the media and activists spread for the past week or so about this I watched the announcements live and what was said and put forward wasn’t that bad, the majority of it was actually reasonable and sensible, the most in need will be looked after, the assessments will be changed to be less humiliating, no more periodical assessments for people deemed not fit to ever work and sick and disabled people who can and are wanting to try to work will be helped with doing so, it all seems quite sensible

Liz Kendall faced an immediate backlash over the plans, which were branded "cruel and devastating cuts" by disability charities. One Labour MP even warned ministers against seeking to balance the public finances on the backs of some of the poorest people in society. Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, who chairs the Work and Pensions Committee, told MPs the reforms represented the biggest cut to social security in a decade.

Many of the grim details - including the number of people impacted and the consequences on poverty levels - have been delayed. A promised impact assessment of the changes will instead be published next week alongside the Chancellor Rachel Reeves's Spring Statement.

But here The Mirror looks at some of the key changes outlined in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) 84-page green paper published today.


​
PIP eligibility tightened
The most controversial change announced today is the tightening of eligibility for Personal Independence Payments - or PIP - which is paid regardless of employment status.

It is also where the government aims to make the bulk of savings (cuts) to the welfare bill.

The support works in two parts with claimants scored with points by the DWP. The first element is used to help with everyday tasks such as eating and drinking, using the toilet and bathing. A second element is used to help those with mobility problems and have issues with physically moving around and leaving their home.

Liz Kendall confronted by furious Labour MPs over DWP cuts - 'show more compassion'

Under changes unveiled today the DWP says a new requirement will be introduced to "ensure only those who score a a minimum of four points in at least one daily living activity will be eligible for the daily living component of PIP".

The green paper says: "This means that people who have lower needs only in the daily living activities (scoring three or less for each activity) will no longer be eligible for the daily living component of PIP." It adds: "This change means that people could lose entitlement to the daily living element of PIP and potentially other entitlements linked to this award."

The Resolution Foundation think-tank believes the tighter restrictions on PIP benefits could mean around one million people potentially at risk of losing support.



This would have essentially meant a real-terms cut to the benefit next year - with the most severly disabled people potentially impacted. But after a massive backlash from Labour MPs, the government appears to have dropped any plans to freeze the key disability benefit. Instead, it will rise with inflation next year..

Work Capability Assessments to be scrapped
The DWP Secretary announced plans to abolish the controversial Work Capability Assessment for Universal Credit by 2028-2029.

This test determines whether or not someone is deemed eligible for benefit payments for those with ilnesses or disability, who have limited ability to find a job.


Instead, the green paper says the PIP application process will become "the single assessment" to recieve both support in PIP and any extra support related to health and disability through Universal Credit. It adds: "This places additional importance on the PIP assessment and making sure it remains fit for the future."

Hike in Universal Credit - but cut to health top-up for new claimants
In a move that was welcomed by Labour MPs, Ms Kendall announced the Universal Credit standard allowance will increase. From April 2026 it will mean a single person over the age of 26 will see their benefit increase by around Ł7-per-week, the DWP said. Ms Kendal said this would equate to a Ł775 annual increase in cash terms by 2029.

But in a move that is causing deep concern, new claims for the health element of UC will be almost halved. They will receive Ł50-per-week from 2026/27 compared with the current rate of Ł97-per-week - a cut of Ł47-per-week.

For those already in receipt of the benefit, it will be frozen at Ł97-per-week. An "additional premium" will, however, protect the incomes of those who have no prospect of returning to work, the government insisted.

Under 22s could be stopped from claiming UC health top-up
A surprise detail in the DWP's green paper is a proposal to stop young people under 22 from claiming the health element of Universal Credit. The DWP said it will consult on the change, with resources instead diverted to improve work and training opportunities for 18-21 year-olds.

The government's green paper states: "Whilst for a small minority of young people work may never be a realistic goal, for most disabled young people and young people with a health condition, working at some point in the near future must be a credible ambition."

More support to help people into work
One change that will be welcomed by Labour MPs is the government's commitment to plough Ł1billion of savings back into the system. Ms Kendall said this will be used to help sick and disabled people back into the workforce.

The DWP said it is "one of the biggest packages of employment for support for sick and disabled people ever" and will include tailored support for claimants.


And there will also be a new "Unemployment Insurance" scheme for those who have made NI contributions, the DWP said. The green paper states: "This would mean people receive the income they need alongside the right employment support to get back into work. The welfare system was founded upon the contributory principle – the idea of ‘something-for-something."

... including 'Right to Try' work scheme
Work and Pensions Secretary announced a new scheme that will enable people on health and disability benefits the "right to try" work.

This will essentially mean those on health and disability benefits will not face a reassessment or losing their payments if they take a chance on work.

The DWP said the change will require new legislation and "will ensure someone trying work or on a pathway towards employment will never lead to an immediate reassessment or award review". This reform - unlike the major cuts to PIP - is likely to be welcomed by Labour MPs and disability charities.

READ MORE: Join our Mirror politics WhatsApp group to get the latest updates from Westminster

[Cherie]

The aim is to get some of the 642,000 people aged 16 to 24 who are currently unemployed into the armed forces, following concern that youth unemployment is soaring. The number is up by 136,000 in just one year. Ms Kendall made the statement as she responded to a question from Conservative MP Mark Pritchard. He said: "One way of perhaps attracting some people back into work is for her to have discussions with the Defence Secretary. Would she agree with me that getting more young people into his majesty's armed forces, air force, navy, army would be a starting place?"

The Work and Pensions Secretary said: "I absolutely agree. Indeed before I was appointed to this position in opposition, as a constituency MP, I have discussed with my local job centre and the armed forces recruitment precisely these issues because of the really exciting careers and opportunities that are available, I think are really important for young people


join the Army or lose your bennies?

[Livia]

So... Illegals are safe. Pensioners and the disabled... at risk. Labour, what a shower of sh1t they are.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

That's always the question - when they set these things up, it often ends up costing more to fund and staff than the eventual saving. They usually discover that there's far less "invalid claiming and fraud" going on than they expected. However,they are claiming that for people who are properly assessed as being permanently unable to work, they'll get life-long benefits issued, which would save a fair bit of wasted time and resources. They currently reassess every x-number-of-years even when it's very clear that nothing will have changed whatsoever, which is a total waste of resources. You don't need to "reassess" quadriplegic people or those with significant developmental / learning disability to see if they've magically become able to work.

Sounds crass but why pay these people for not working. Isnt that what disability allowance is for.

Seems pointless mentioning them alongside the work shy youth. Who I believe have suffered so much during covid as they would have been going through puberty at that time and assessments on their mental wellbeing should be being made as I believe covid and especially the lockdown whilst going through puberty will have caused all sorts of damage. Lack of mental strength being one.

This to me is just a way of saying your mental illness doesnt count anymore.