'Disability benefits are our lifeline. Taking it away will end in tragedy'
The Government's welfare reforms eventually got over the line after a tense day in the House of Commons yesterday. But dozens of Labour MPs refused to back the bill - a sign of the deep unease within the party about how the changes will affect disabled people and concerns about a 'two tier' benefits system.
Others watching the proceedings closely were those who depend on the state for support as they cope with serious illness and disabilities.
While the rebellion forced PM Keir Starmer to reverse some cuts to universal credit and protect current claimants of personal independence payment (Pip) from stricter eligibility rules, many disabled people are still fearful about the future. Here six of them give their verdicts...
Vie's story
Confidence coach and children's book author Vie Portland, 54, from Hampshire, needs a stick to walk and suffers from multiple conditions including Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB) a group of rare genetic skin conditions causing extra fragile skin that blisters and tears easily; degenerative spinal disease and ADHD.
She receives PIP, which covers treatments outside the NHS, special underwear and clothes because of her fragile skin, dressings and transport.
She tells The Mirror: 'News that MPs aren't voting on PIP yet could be a victory for common sense, but I worry it could also be an attempt to put making a decision off and to distract us with something else. It does feel very messy.
"Everyone is so at risk from going from non-disabled to disabled, due to something like an accident or a cancer diagnosis, and I am concerned for new claimants.
'What about the young people that will now not qualify for PIP, so will not be able to afford to go to university because they won't have the PIP to cover the additional costs we, as disabled people, have to pay?
'I have been a Labour supporter all of my life, yet this current government disappoints and appalls me, so I will not be voting for them until their policies return to ones that are true Labour policies - ones that don't just support privileged people.'
Dena's story
Dena Britcliffe, 32, lives in Kent, with partner Max, 32, a full-time carer and their five children: Mia, 13, Teddy, 12, Harlow, 8, Franky, 5 and Hallie-Rose, 4.
Dena has functional neurological disorder (FND), fibromyalgia and suspected Ehlers Danlos syndromes, causing hypermobility and dislocations. Frankie has global development delay, autism and pathological demand avoidance (PDA) and is currently unable to cope with school.
Dena, who receives PIP and Universal Credit, says: 'Another u-turn makes it so much more confusing for the disabled and vulnerable. Surely they should pull the bill completely until it is a better thought out plan with real life people taken into consideration.
'PIP is my lifeline – I use the financial help to pay for aids and equipment including a wheelchair and walking frame and travel to hospital appointments in London. Life costs a lot more when you are disabled.
'The new points system worries me. Assessors are not doctors, they don't have medical training and the new points system will be harsher with even stricter targets because they want to keep the costs down. The Government has treated disabled families with contempt – they have no idea what it's like to be disabled. If I didn't have PIP I wouldn't be able to leave the house, I wouldn't able to pay for all our food.
'We need a whole Government overhaul. The Government is disregarding thousands of disabled people.'
Lianne's story
Lianne White, 46, from Hampshire, is blind and took four years to get PIP, finally being awarded it after a tribunal.
She says: ''What just happened in Parliament makes no sense. Their own MPs are telling them to pull the bill, yet they're still voting on it with none of the promised changes.The so-called concessions were an absolute joke.
'Lots of people use PIP to buy mobility aids so that they can stay in work – stripping PIP will do the opposite to what the government wants to achieve. It's going to screw up a lot of lives.
"When you are blind you rely on voice operated devices and specialist computers but these are all very expensive – even second hand they cost £2,000. I can't use buses on my own – I have to use taxis if I'm by myself and they are very expensive and PIP helps towards this cost.
"It's really hard to get PIP – I applied in 2021 and was declined – I appealed and it went to tribunal. I had to wait four years!
"The Government is discriminating against disabled people. They are gaslighting and just trying to appease the rebel MPs. I think people will be driven to suicide if they lose PIP.'
Georgia's story
Georgia Bondy, 30, from East London is secretary of the Disabled People's Organisations (DPO) Forum England. She has Multiple Sclerosis and Ehlers Danlos syndrome and is often bedbound, but was refused PIP as her assessor didn't feel her condition was severe enough.
She says: 'It's already an incredibly hostile system for disabled people and the Government is proposing to make it even harsher. The narrative being pedalled out is that disabled people are asking for too much, are too greedy, don't want to work.. but it's really difficult to get PIP. When I applied for PIP I was bedbound and having to crawl to the bathroom, my joints were dislocating and I was passing out. But I was ruled not eligible.
'I have very little faith that any scheme in the future. People are saying the Government has done a u-turn but it's not a u-turn, it's just to calm the rebel MPs down so they are back on side. What the Government is proposing is to damn our children to a future where many of them will be unable to buy food or pay rent if they become disabled.'
Abrigail's story
University student Abigail Holly, 22, from Swansea was diagnosed with cancer in 2020 – aged 16.
She says PIP has been her lifeline, explaining: 'I was in my first year of college when I was diagnosed with a tumour in my finger. I had two lots of surgery to remove the tumour and had no movement in my hands for weeks. I was out of college for months.
'My life completely stopped. PIP allowed me to keep my head above the water – without it I'd have no money to get to the hospital for appointments, to buy food. It was the only thing allowing me to continue living, it was a complete lifeline.
'It's hard to fully comment right now on what the government's doing, as they're not discussing the PIP changes as such. But it's making me wonder, why aren't they? Is it a good thing or a bad thing? It's very strange and worrying at the same time.'
Jamie's story
Remedial therapist Jamie McCormack, 53, from Surrey, is deaf and uses a wheelchair after being hit by a car. He receives PIP, which helps with costs like hydrotherapy, an assisted trike and pain management.
He says: 'After a weekend of chaos & non concessions, I'm not surprised that Starmer was forced into an inevitable last minute climbdown. The concessions are chaotic and confusing.
'What happens if you lose PIP and you have to reapply? You shouldn't be at the mercy of a decision-making assessor.
'Why is the Government putting people through all this, rather than championing disabled lives? They could do so much better.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
32 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Labour sees biggest first-year poll drop for governing party since 1990s
Sir Keir Starmer's party has averaged 24% in polls in the past month, down 10 points from 34% in the weeks following the 2024 election. It is common for political parties to experience a slide in the polls after taking power – it has happened to every UK government bar one in the past 40 years – but a drop of this size is unusual. The last time it was in double digits was 1992-93, when the Tory administration led by Mr Major saw its poll numbers fall 12 points, from an average of 43% in the weeks after the April 1992 election to 31% a year later. The findings have been compiled by the PA news agency, using its own archive of national poll data combined with figures published in the long-running British General Election academic studies. Polls measuring voting intention do not always appear in the immediate aftermath of an election – for instance, the first polls of this parliament were not carried out until the start of August 2024, one month after Labour's victory on July 4. To compare Labour's poll performance fairly with that of previous governments, the average poll numbers in the weeks after a general election have been compared with those for the month leading up to the first anniversary of that election. Almost every government in the past four decades has seen their poll standings slip over this period, but mostly by single digits – and often from a much higher starting point than Labour's 34% in 2024. For example, the Labour government led by Tony Blair saw its vote share in the polls drop by an average of six points during its first year in office in 1997-98, though from the lofty heights of 59% to 53%, still well ahead of all other parties. Labour's second term under Mr Blair saw a larger poll drop of seven points, but from 49% to 42% – again, comfortably ahead of its rivals. The Conservative government led by Boris Johnson elected in 2019 saw its first-year poll ratings also slip by seven points, but from 46% to 39%. There were smaller drops at the start of Labour's third term in 2005-06 (down five points in 12 months) and at the start of Conservative leader David Cameron's first term as PM in 2010 (down three points), though Mr Cameron's second win in 2015 was followed by a larger six-point fall. The one recent exception to this trend was the Conservative minority government led by Theresa May that was elected in 2017, with Tory support in the polls increasing by two points over 12 months, from 40% to 42%. A first-year drop in the polls for a governing party is typically accompanied by a rise in support for the main opposition in Parliament. But the past 12 months have seen something different and new in UK politics: a simultaneous and large fall in support for both the government and the opposition, with the Conservatives slipping from an average of 25% in the aftermath of the 2024 election to 18% over the past month. And while Labour and the Tories have both slid in the polls, smaller parties have risen – notably Reform, which has climbed from third place on 17% to first place on 29%. The Liberal Democrats have also edged up, from 12% to 14%, while the Greens have increased from 6% to 9%. Opinion polls are snapshots of the prevailing public mood, not projections or forecasts – and they do not predict what could happen at the next general election. But the amount of movement in recent polls, in particular the fall in support for both Labour and the Conservatives, points to an unsettled mood among voters and a volatile political landscape. Sir Keir's personal approval ratings make similarly challenging reading for the Prime Minister. Polling company Ipsos has measured public satisfaction with prime ministers since the late 1970s. Its data tracks the proportion of adults in Britain who say they are either satisfied or dissatisfied with how the PM is doing their job. The difference between these two numbers represents the approval score. The most recent Ipsos survey, completed in early June – not quite a full year since the general election – suggests 19% of adults are satisfied with Sir Keir's performance and 73% are dissatisfied, giving him a net approval score of minus 54. This is lower than any other score recorded by Ipsos for a prime minister roughly 12 months after taking office. The next lowest score is minus 48, for Labour's Gordon Brown in June 2008, and minus 37 for the Conservatives' Rishi Sunak in October 2023. The highest approval ratings were for Mr Blair in May 1998 (a plus score of 44) and Mr Major in November 1991 (plus 15). The other scores are minus 3 for Mr Cameron (May 2011); minus 7 for Conservative PM Margaret Thatcher (June 1980) and minus 25 for Mrs May (July 2017), while Mr Johnson had a net approval rating of zero a year into office in July 2020, with the same proportion of people saying they were satisfied and dissatisfied. Sir Keir's current score of minus 54 is not quite the worst ever approval rating for a prime minister reported by Ipsos, however. Mrs Thatcher dropped as low as minus 56 in March 1990, while both Mr Major and Mr Sunak sank as far as minus 59, in August 1994 and April 2024 respectively.
Leader Live
32 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Starmer faces Labour turmoil and global volatility as he marks year in Number 10
The Prime Minister led his party back into power with more than 400 MPs on July 4 last year – clinching a majority just short of Sir Tony Blair's landslide in 1997. But with a daunting in-tray of problems including a stuttering economy, creaking public services and global volatility, his political honeymoon period was short-lived. His personal popularity is now the lowest of any British premier after their first 12 months in office, political scientist and polling guru Professor Sir John Curtice said. 'There were pretty clear potential weaknesses before they even started, and most of those weaknesses have basically just been exposed over the course of the last 12 months,' he told the PA news agency. Sir John said part of the problem lay in what he described as a failure of narrative in setting out the Government's vision for change to the public. 'They're portraying themselves as a repair gang rather than the builders of a new Jerusalem. Pessimism doesn't necessarily go down very well,' he told PA. 'The thing with Starmer is, he's a brilliant prosecution lawyer… But prosecution lawyers present cases that have been (put together) by someone else. The problem is that as a political leader you've got to prosecute your own case. 'Maybe he needs new personnel? Either he's got to learn to do it himself or get someone in to do it for him.' That verdict was echoed by some dissenting voices within Labour ranks, where there is lingering discontent among rebels over the Government's Welfare Bill despite Number 10 offering major concessions on the legislation. The Government saw off the threat of a major Commons defeat over the legislation on Tuesday after shelving plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit in England. 'I think he really needs to think about why he wants to be a Labour Prime Minister and what is it he actually cares about,' one long-serving Labour MP said. They said Tuesday had marked 'the lowest point' in Sir Keir's premiership so far and raised questions about his authority, warning that backbenchers may now feel emboldened to demand further U-turns elsewhere. Sir John said that the Government's challenges in passing legislation were unsurprising with the broad but fragile coalition of support on which Labour built its election victory, securing 412 seats on just 35% of the vote. That means many MPs defending narrow majorities and raises the prospect of 'a large body of people who are nervous about their political futures,' he said. The Government's original welfare proposals had been part of a package that ministers expected to save up to £5 billion a year, leaving Chancellor Rachel Reeves needing to look for the money elsewhere. The fallout threatens to cause lasting damage to morale in Labour ranks, with some rebels calling for a reset in relations between the parliamentary party and the leadership before fractures widen. Images of the Chancellor crying in the Commons on Wednesday have also led to questions about her future, although a Treasury spokesman cited a 'personal matter' as the cause of her distress and Number 10 said she would remain in post. Asked whether it was time for a course correction, Downing Street has said the Prime Minister will 'plough on' with the 'very busy agenda' of Government. But the MP quoted above said: 'The idea that they can keep carrying on as they've been carrying on is suicidal. 'They have no real sense of how the party thinks and feels.' Others had a more optimistic view of the year ahead, with a Starmer loyalist who supported the Bill suggesting the upset could be salvaged with a 'measured but solid response' from the Government. 'The worst they can do is nothing,' the backbencher added. The Prime Minister used a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday to defend his record in office, telling ministers the welfare Bill was 'to help those who can work into employment and ensure dignity and security for those who can't work.' He said they could all 'rightly look back with a real sense of pride and achievement' on the last 12 months, pointing to a reduction in NHS waiting lists and a series of economic agreements struck with the US, EU and India. Abroad, the Prime Minister faces a tricky diplomatic balancing act as he seeks to strengthen ties with both Europe and Washington amid global instability from the Ukraine war and Middle East crisis. At home, Labour is staring down a threat from Nigel Farage's Reform UK party, which turned opinion poll momentum into widespread gains at the ballot box during the local elections in May. Sir John said that parties such as Reform and the Greens offer more choice to voters wanting to express their discontent with Labour while the Tories continue to flounder in the polls. 'The character of the challenge is different from what it has been historically,' he said. Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University, said people had been expecting bold change on areas such as workers' rights and growth, and the Government's achievements so far were 'pretty small beer' by comparison. Critics say the first year has instead been marked by a series of U-turns, including a partial reversal of cuts to the winter fuel payment and the move to launch a national inquiry into grooming gangs after months of resisting opposition pressure to do so. The Government disputes that framing, pointing out for example that ministers had never explicitly ruled out a statutory probe into child sexual exploitation but waited for a review to be carried out before making a decision. Prof Bale said he believed the first year had gone 'worse than most people imagined' and warned 'it's difficult for a leader who starts badly to persuade people that he or she is what they need.' But he said the problems were not necessarily fatal, adding that setbacks early on in a premiership have an upside in allowing for more time to 'turn it round'. 'If you look back to Margaret Thatcher, she was able to do that, so it's not a foregone conclusion that all is lost, even for Keir Starmer himself,' he said. Arguing that the Government could recover in the polls if its plans for the economy and public services pay off, he added: 'I think you can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but it's a very long tunnel.' Sir Keir has pledged to lead a 'decade of national renewal' through a phased approach to Government, the first year of which he said would involve 'cleaning up the mess' his administration had inherited. In a speech last week seeking to set the tone for the future, he said: 'We've wiped the state clean, we've stabilised the economy, and now we can go on to the next phase of government, building on that foundation.' A Government spokesperson said: 'We were elected with a commitment to deliver change and security for working people – and we are getting on with the job. 'We are delivering our Plan for Change – wages are rising faster than prices, interest rates have been cut four times, immigration has come down with 30,000 people with no right to be here removed and over four million NHS appointments have been delivered. 'Progress has been made, but we know people are impatient for change – and we are too – so we will continue to govern in the national interest for British people and deliver a decade of national renewal.'
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Reeves in tears as Starmer fails to back her at PMQs
The Prime Minister faced MPs after being forced to scrap key planks of his welfare reforms, leaving an almost £5 billion black hole in Ms Reeves' spending plans and fuelling speculation she could be forced to hike taxes. Chancellor Rachel Reeves was in tears in the Commons as Sir Keir Starmer failed to back her to remain in place until the election. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said Ms Reeves looked 'absolutely miserable' and challenged the Prime Minister to say whether the Chancellor would keep her job until the next election. Sir Keir dodged the question about whether Ms Reeves would be in place for the remainder of the Parliament, saying Mrs Badenoch 'certainly won't'. Chancellor Rachel Reeves was left in floods of tears in the Commons on Wednesday. (Image: PA) The Tory leader said: 'How awful for the Chancellor that he couldn't confirm that she would stay in place.' Changes to restrict eligibility to the personal independence payment (Pip) were abandoned on Tuesday night to limit a Labour revolt, wiping out the savings that Ms Reeves had counted on to help meet her goal of funding day-to-day spending through tax receipts rather than borrowing. READ MORE: Mrs Badenoch said the welfare reforms were designed 'to plug a black hole created by the Chancellor' but 'instead they're creating new ones'. She told Sir Keir: 'Labour MPs are going on the record saying that the Chancellor is toast, and the reality is that she is a human shield for his incompetence. 'In January, he said that she would be in post until the next election. Will she really?' Sir Keir replied by suggesting that Mrs Badenoch herself 'certainly won't' remain as Conservative leader, adding: 'I'm always cheered up when she asks me questions or responds to a statement because she always makes a complete mess of it and shows just how unserious and irrelevant they are.' The Prime Minister did not directly comment on Ms Reeves's position. Mrs Badenoch noted: "How awful for the Chancellor that he couldn't confirm she would remain in place." As the Chancellor left the Commons following the Prime Minister's Questions session her sister Ellie Reeves took her hand in an apparent show of support. After Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister's press secretary said Rachel Reeves 'is going nowhere' as Chancellor and retains the Prime Minister's 'full backing'. Asked about Ms Reeves' tears, a spokesman for the Chancellor said it was a 'personal matter'. Earlier, Pat McFadden said taxes on 'working people' will not rise, but he left the door open to other types of revenue raising. Mr McFadden, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, told Times Radio that Labour would stick by its promise not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT on 'working people'. He said: 'This is a decision that will have financial consequences. The process of the last couple of weeks does have financial consequences. They will all be taken together with all the other moving parts that there are in the economy and the fiscal picture of the budget. And that will be set out at the time.' The Institute for Fiscal Studies' incoming director Helen Miller said: 'Since departmental spending plans are now effectively locked in, and the Government has already had to row back on planned cuts to pensioner benefits and working-age benefits, tax rises would look increasingly likely. 'This will doubtless intensify the speculation over the summer about which taxes may rise and by how much.' Shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride said: 'Tax rises are on the way to pay for Labour's mismanagement of the economy. 'Hard-working families will have an agonising summer waiting to hear how Rachel Reeves will claw back the cash to make up for the failings of this weak Prime Minister.'
