I1L2T3 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 The government is changing the assessment criteria for the daily living component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) to ensure the system is fairer with money targeted at those who need it most. Paul Gray’s independent review found that the assessment criteria may not be working as planned. A subsequent review of cases by DWP health professionals identified that a significant number of people are likely to be getting the benefit despite having minimal to no ongoing daily living extra costs. DWP health professionals reviewed a number of these cases and in 96% of them the likely ongoing extra costs of daily living were nil, low or minimal. So where is the evidence that proves it wouldn't achieve its desired goal? I wouldn't bother trying to argue this one. The policy is as dead as a dodo. In fact even deader. But anyway, we all know what happens when the government changes assessment criteria for benefits don't we. This was another Atos. They've probably had a lucky escape all told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 I wouldn't bother trying to argue this one. The policy is as dead as a dodo. In fact even deader. But anyway, we all know what happens when the government changes assessment criteria for benefits don't we. This was another Atos. They've probably had a lucky escape all told. It doesn't change the fact that on paper it was a good and fair policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 I wouldn't bother trying to argue this one. The policy is as dead as a dodo. In fact even deader. But anyway, we all know what happens when the government changes assessment criteria for benefits don't we. This was another Atos. They've probably had a lucky escape all told. But their colours have been shown, and the people will not forget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 It doesn't change the fact that on paper it was a good and fair policy. I assume by 'paper' you meant the back of a fag packet? With all due respect it was a stupid policy because it was driven by a desire to make cuts rather than an evidence-based desire to make (much needed) reforms to PiP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 I assume by 'paper' you meant the back of a fag packet? With all due respect it was a stupid policy because it was driven by a desire to make cuts rather than an evidence-based desire to make (much needed) reforms to PiP. You are entitled to your opinion but without evidence it doesn't counter the evidence in the PIP consultation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 You are entitled to your opinion but without evidence it doesn't counter the evidence in the PIP consultation. It's not just my opinion. I think you've found yourself on the wrong side of this argument to nearly everybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 It's not just my opinion. I think you've found yourself on the wrong side of this argument to nearly everybody else. Its also not an opinion shared by everyone, and it still doesn't counter the evidence backed PIP consultation. So other than speculation what is wrong with the idea of not giving someone free money that they don't need, whilst making sure the people that need it get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Its also not an opinion shared by everyone, and it still doesn't counter the evidence backed PIP consultation. So other than speculation what is wrong with the idea of not giving someone free money that they don't need, whilst making sure the people that need it get it? Didnt David Cameron get money for his disabled child? i am sure he didnt need it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Its also not an opinion shared by everyone, and it still doesn't counter the evidence backed PIP consultation. So other than speculation what is wrong with the idea of not giving someone free money that they don't need, whilst making sure the people that need it get it? Can you provide a link to this evidence-based PIP consultation. We wouldn't want to think that you're making things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 (edited) Didnt David Cameron get money for his disabled child? i am sure he didnt need it Did he get the PIP? Personal Independence Payment (PIP) helps with some of the extra costs caused by long-term ill-health or a disability if you’re aged 16 to 64. So if there are no extra costs then clearly the payment isn't justified. ---------- Post added 20-03-2016 at 21:18 ---------- Can you provide a link to this evidence-based PIP consultation. We wouldn't want to think that you're making things up. I already did that on the topic about PIP. Edited March 20, 2016 by sutty27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now