Stef Benstead

Labour’s new welfare changes are practical and compassionate – so why not loudly say so? | Polly Toynbee Universal credit to rise faster than inflation, benefit hurdles eased, extra help for children and young people … I bet you had no idea, says Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee

The PIP review will almost certainly make cuts.
There is no intention for the review to result in an increase in the total amount spent on PIP.
Therefore, for any groups of people to get more PIP, another group most lose PIP. Those people face cuts.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

NHS wheelchair services have rejected my referral to them, because they say it is important that I continue to walk indoors in order not to lose the ability to walk indoors.
The problem is, I've already lost the ability to walk indoors, and I lost it whilst continuing to walk indoors.

The DWP has kindly decided, over Christmas and New Year, that it needs to conduct a review of my Universal Credit in the next two weeks.
They want details that they already have, but which mean my landlord has to get back to me within two weeks over Christmas and New Year.

Lies, damned lies and the Telegraph. They posted CSJ figures using an outrageously false comparison of 2 cases. It claimed a benefits family were better off by £18k than a working household when the real figure was £16k worse off. The details benefitsinthefuture.com #benefits #budget

Disabled people already fear engaging in activity, worried that someone will judge us as 'not disabled' for doing something that is vital for our mental health despite the physical harm such as increased pain or muscle weakness.
Sorry we're not robots and need some enjoyable things in life.

This sort of hit piece does a massive disservice to disabled people. By not clearly commenting on the purpose of PIP, the nature of the assessment, nor the difficulties experienced by Mr Rigby, this piece creates room for even more suspicion of disabled people.

There's not enough info here, but a thorough investigative piece could have enquired more about Rigby's ability to walk, as clearly 'playing cricket' does not automatically equate to 'able to walk' when Rigby has to have a runner & take extra painkillers.

Howzat! One-legged father ordered to repay £36,000 in benefits after being filmed playing cricket | LBC Shaun Rigby, from Telford in Shropshire, lost his leg below the knee at the age of two in a tractor accident and had received personal independence payments since 2016

Rigby has 'the help of a runner' in order to play cricket, which suggests he can't run and may struggle to walk.
He is in pain, and has to take extra painkillers in order to play cricket. PIP is supposed to take into account the consequences of an activity, like pain.
www.lbc.co.uk/article/fath...

'Can you change between pyjamas and day-time clothes at the start and end of the day, plus take a jumper off once in the day for a physio exam' is a really poor test for 'can you repeatedly raise your arms above your head without causing pain, weakness, or damage'.

I'm not in such severe pain that to move my shoulders at all is completely intolerable and I can't force myself to do it. But there is pain, weakness, and instability. Over-activity or inappropriate activity would damage my shoulders, even if I can still put a jumper on and off.

I had a physio exam recently for my shoulders. I'm struggling with pain and fatigue, caused by trying to do life from a powerchair, and the weird angles and strains this causes.
But a simple physio exam doesn't reveal #PEM or the cumulative impact of day-to-day life.

How does the physio know there was 'no difficulty'? There could have been pain. The patient may have felt it necessary to comply with removing the jumper in order to get a thorough examination, and then explained the pain/fatigue/stiffness when asked for specific movements.

"Once in the mindset of “I’m too sick to work”, it’s very hard to get back out."
Is it though? Do we actually have evidence of that? Real evidence, not healthy people putting their own interpretations onto the internal reality of living with chronic illness?

For a GP to conclude that there isn't enough evidence to support a sick note requires a much more thorough examination and patient history than "I'm going to deny your experience based off one short observation and no questioning of your symptoms."

A GP whose first response to someone expressing a problem is to deny the problem rather than query how the presentation (patient walked a short distance) compares to reality (is it reliable & repeatable; what about long distances; is there pain or muscle weakness) is a poor GP.

Can you share the intrinsic problems? I'm in the process of applying to the council for a Disabled Facilities Grant, and I imagine they'll want to push a wetroom on me. I do need a wheelchair accessible bathroom, but it needs to be usable.

It's good to see State Pension shown separately to working-age Social Security. So often, politicians and commentators combine the two to justify arguing against working-age SS, whilst ignoring that SP is much larger.

A Bureaucratic State may be a viable option to a Welfare State, though I rarely see anyone argue for it without also wanting a Welfare State to protect those who still fall through the cracks. More typically, people who don't want a Welfare State also hate a Bureaucratic State.

But if you want pre-distribution to be so good that almost no-one is poor, and the few who are poor are there by vicissitudes of life that can be solved by the church, then you're going to need an awful lot of law and enforcement of that law. A very bureaucratic State.

One might argue that the ideal is 'pre-distribution'. This would mean business regulations that stop people from accruing large amounts of wealth to themselves, e.g. via minimum wage and limits on how much the top earner in a company can earn relative to the bottom earner.

But then you say, "Yet although the idea that the poor should be provided for is a biblical one, the belief that this must be done through state-enforced redistribution is not."
And that's where I have to disagree. As stated above, God gave clear state-enforced redistribution.

You seem to recognise the State's role to some extent, when you say, "Of course, rulers should seek to prevent the vulnerable from being exploited - this was a requirement for Old Testament kings."
Naturally, this requires law.
(It was also a requirement for pagan rulers)

If a government wants to run a country based on NAIRU, then it owes something to the people whom it has deliberately put out of work.
It is not the church's responsibility to bail out people whom the State has made unemployed. It is the church's prophetic role to call that out.

For example, economists like to talk about the 'Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment'. Nairu tells us that we need a certain level of unemployment in order to control inflation. Those unemployed people are sacrificed by the State to some sense of a 'greater good'.

So we are left with the Church, ending poverty on its own.
How is it to do that?
The experience of multitudes of poverty-relief workers over centuries of work will tell you that charity has its limits when the issue is a society set up to impoverish some for the gain of others.

So we are left with the church becoming the sole fixer of poverty in the UK.
How is the church to do that? There are three options:
1) Charity, i.e. responding to individual need by donating;
2) Education, i.e. teaching the poor how not to be poor;
3) Working for systemic change

This segregation of the poor into poor families and poor communities has another issue: in your recommendation, the rich cease to have any responsibility for the poor, because the poor aren't in *their* family, and nor do the poor live in *their* community.

Poverty is a rarely a case of a poor individual with an otherwise wealthy family, in an otherwise wealthy area. It's usually a poor person, whose family is poor, living in a poor and deprived area. Family & community have too many demands to solve any given individual's poverty.

When you say that 'community' should take responsibility for the poor, what is that 'community'? People in a geographic area? How big an area? Council ward, local authority, combined authorities, nation?
People of the same ethnic heritage?
People of the same religion?
Same age?

I also wonder, when you say that 'family, community and Church' should take responsibility for the poor, exactly how you see that happening?
How extended is that family? My second or third cousin? My great-niece or nephew? Where does 'family' stop?
What if the family is too poor?