Unless the government is setting up a Jobs Guarantee (in the public/charitable sector, not subsidising private companies) and intends to end NAIRU as a policy approach, refusing 'hand outs' to the unemployed is just cruel. They're unemployed because of government policy.

Absolutely dismayed that the Assisted Dying Bill is being re-introduced. Not a single one of our major medical or professional bodies support it. A deeply flawed and dangerous bill that poses a real risk to the most vulnerable in our society.

You can't claim PIP or UC HE without providing evidence. If the govt has lost that evidence, that's on them. Some people have complex conditions which don't fit an obvious diagnostic category. It's appropriate that they still get support for extra costs and limited capacity.

When they tried this before there was an outcry - from the Work Program Providers - who had been led to believe that the people they would see would have minor health conditions. They were horrified by the levels of sickness and disability they encountered in their clients.

So according to the I paper, Meg Hillier would back new benefit reforms if they included conditionality for young people to engage with employment support programs in order to receive benefits. How does she not realise that this is already a thing? It's called The limited capability for work group. People in this group, although disabled have to do the very thing she is claiming to want to bring in. The only people who currently don't have to do this are the ones who have been assessed as not fit for activity through the rigourous capabilities assessment administered by the DWP. People are already routinely reassessed as well if medical evidence suggests that improvement is likely in the short to medium term future. So the only thing I can think they're going to do would be to reclassify pretty much every young person as being fit for work related activity, although I think this would only be able to apply to new Clements or those existing claimants who are about to undergo reassessment. If they did do this, and I must save it no policy has been formally announced yet, so I am reading between the lines, it would be both dangerous and ridiculous waste of money. It would be dangerous because people would be potentially forced into doing something they simply can't, and it would be ridiculous and a waste of money because, as I've constantly said , changing criteria doesn't change the reality of peoples lives. Somebody who couldn't do something before, can't magically do it because a bureaucrat has decided that they should be able to based on vibes. Anyway, all I can say is I really hope I'm wrong. 

Politicians endlessly repeat the idea that all the politicians before them just wanted to cut Social Security, whilst they're the first one ever to want to focus instead on getting people into work. It's disappointing to see Burnham join this bandwagon.

David Lammy’s proposals to restrict the right to jury trial have been examined by the Justice Committee of the House of Commons. And. Well. Um. It’s *quite* the report. I think it’s actually worse than politely scathing. It’s embarrassing 👇🏼🪡🧵

I wrote some papers I am truly proud of before I had to stop work. Illness meant I could not continue. But it was becoming very clear that lack of funds and support for a disability needing carers would have scuppered my career anyway.

I had a job like his in academia, but unlike him no private funds. I couldn't do my job well. No conferences as couldn't get carers paid for. Grants too expensive as disability costs had to be included. Banned from my office as a fire risk. And I was ill so in hospital too often.

thetimes.com/article/7757ef6… I have read both the Sunday Times article and the underlying Centre for Social Justice report. The report raises important questions. But I do not think it proves what many people will claim it proves. The headline narrative is that autism and ADHD are being overdiagnosed. Yet much of the evidence presented is GP opinion polling, SEND growth data, disability benefit data, waiting list data, interviews and system-level analysis. The report cites concerns from over 1,000 GPs, a Cambridge study on SEND referrals, the 2022 SEND Review and a range of statistics showing rapid growth in diagnoses, EHCPs and disability benefits. Those are all legitimate things to discuss. But they are not the same thing as demonstrating widespread autism or ADHD misdiagnosis. The report relies heavily on the views of GPs. Their experience matters, but GPs are usually referrers into autism and ADHD assessment pathways, not the clinicians carrying out most specialist assessments. One obvious question is whether the report asked the clinicians actually conducting autism and ADHD assessments whether they agree with these claims. The report repeatedly combines ADHD and autism into a single discussion, despite them being different neurodevelopmental conditions with different diagnostic pathways, evidence bases and research literatures. It also moves between SEND, EHCPs, disability benefits, behavioural difficulties, ADHD and autism, often treating them as part of the same broader trend. What I did not find was a diagnostic audit showing how many children diagnosed with autism or ADHD were later found not to meet diagnostic criteria, or evidence establishing the false-positive rate and scale of misdiagnosis needed to support some of the stronger public claims now being made. England's SEND system is in serious trouble. Incentives are distorted. Assessment pathways are weak. Some children need earlier practical support long before families are pushed into diagnosis, EHCPs, tribunals or welfare claims. But none of that proves that large numbers of autistic or ADHD children have been wrongly diagnosed. That is a much bigger claim, and if people are going to make it, we should expect equally big evidence.

The article also doesn’t mention that when claims of harassment were tested in court, they were found to be “grossly exaggerated”. PACE author Trudie Chalder acknowledged that no threats had been made to the PACE researchers.

In 1988, Ean Proctor, a 13-year-old boy with ME, was removed from his parents and institutionalised for over 5 months. Wessely was one of the psychiatrists, he said Ean didn’t have ME and supported the separation from his parents. See excerpts from Malcolm Hooper.

One of the grimmest political tricks of the last 15 years has been convincing the public that disabled people are a bigger economic threat than tax avoidance, private outsourcing failures, or housing costs.

Cutting welfare does not reduce disability, illness, caring responsibilities, or housing costs. Those realities remain. The question is whether the costs are met early through support or later through crisis, deterioration, and emergency intervention.

Cut welfare to the bone and you do not create a stronger economy. You create unpaid bills, empty tills, worsening health, deeper poverty, and more pressure on councils, the NHS, charities, schools, and families. Poverty is expensive. Extreme poverty is even worse.

Poverty inadequate support are already destroying disabled people's lives It has destroyed mine Yet we have media/politicians who do nothing but misrepresent disability benefits AND ignore mountain of evidence of inadequate support opportunities Anyone can become disabled

A country that spends too little preventing poverty ends up spending far more dealing with its consequences. Prevention is cheaper than crisis. That is true in healthcare, housing, disability support, and the wider economy.

I'd rather vote for a Labour MP who wants the rich to be taxed so that benefits don't get cut than a Labour MP who wants benefits to be cut so the rich don't get taxed

Now McFadden has a point, in isolation, about asking the right questions. Questions always have presuppositions, which are generally accepted when an answer is given, but often one presupposition is included to bar an answer from challenging it, often by design.

It took more than two days to generate this correction from the community notes process, after the lies had all that time to spread.