Labour are claiming that the waiting list for appointments is going down. I can well believe it.
I saw my very nice Cardiac specialist a few weeks ago. He has writen to me and my doctors to say that he doesn't need to see me again. I assume that I am cured !!
Hmm ..... why doesn't he want to see you again? Better put a posting in the 'All Saints' thread .... either 'Prayers ' or 'prayers and thanksgiving'. But which?
I assume he has been ordered to reduce his current patients to make room for new ones.
Labour are claiming that the waiting list for appointments is going down. I can well believe it.
I saw my very nice Cardiac specialist a few weeks ago. He has writen to me and my doctors to say that he doesn't need to see me again. I assume that I am cured !!
Hmm ..... why doesn't he want to see you again? Better put a posting in the 'All Saints' thread .... either 'Prayers ' or 'prayers and thanksgiving'. But which?
I assume he has been ordered to reduce his current patients to make room for new ones.
Or your condition is either getting slightly better or has stabilised.
Labour are claiming that the waiting list for appointments is going down. I can well believe it.
I saw my very nice Cardiac specialist a few weeks ago. He has writen to me and my doctors to say that he doesn't need to see me again. I assume that I am cured !!
Hmm ..... why doesn't he want to see you again? Better put a posting in the 'All Saints' thread .... either 'Prayers ' or 'prayers and thanksgiving'. But which?
I assume he has been ordered to reduce his current patients to make room for new ones.
Or your condition is either getting slightly better or has stabilised.
Not going to be better. It's bit worse than stable but he was reluctant to do anything invasive.
I accept that there will be people with more serious conditions that need help.
Labour are claiming that the waiting list for appointments is going down. I can well believe it.
I saw my very nice Cardiac specialist a few weeks ago. He has writen to me and my doctors to say that he doesn't need to see me again. I assume that I am cured !!
Hmm ..... why doesn't he want to see you again? Better put a posting in the 'All Saints' thread .... either 'Prayers ' or 'prayers and thanksgiving'. But which?
I assume he has been ordered to reduce his current patients to make room for new ones.
Or your condition is either getting slightly better or has stabilised.
Not going to be better. It's bit worse than stable but he was reluctant to do anything invasive.
I accept that there will be people with more serious conditions that need help.
If he was reluctant to operate it would be because the risks outweighed the benefits, given for example age and other risk factors for surgery.
If won't be about rationing the available care. We don't do that. Source - both I and Mrs LB work in the NHS.
The latest this morning is that there will be no cuts to PIP. Unconscionable that it should have been considered in the first place of course but it's encouraging that it won't happen. More interesting to me was a little story that disabled people will be able to start work without benefits being stopped or reduced. That is a very smart move. It addresses one of the great barriers for disabled people finding work so ultimately will save money and it is also the morally right thing to do. Looking for the details of this one.
Labour are claiming that the waiting list for appointments is going down. I can well believe it.
I saw my very nice Cardiac specialist a few weeks ago. He has writen to me and my doctors to say that he doesn't need to see me again. I assume that I am cured !!
Hmm ..... why doesn't he want to see you again? Better put a posting in the 'All Saints' thread .... either 'Prayers ' or 'prayers and thanksgiving'. But which?
I assume he has been ordered to reduce his current patients to make room for new ones.
Or your condition is either getting slightly better or has stabilised.
Not going to be better. It's bit worse than stable but he was reluctant to do anything invasive.
I accept that there will be people with more serious conditions that need help.
If he was reluctant to operate it would be because the risks outweighed the benefits, given for example age and other risk factors for surgery.
If won't be about rationing the available care. We don't do that. Source - both I and Mrs LB work in the NHS.
I got used to him telling me that he would see me in 12 months time. It was comforting. When walking out of the hospital, I realised that he hadn't said anything. I then got a letter. I still think I am being written off, probably for good reasons. Should I have DNR on my forehead ?
Your "writing off" if you want to see it that way will be because the consultant believes it's the most appropriate treatment for you, given the risks of intervention, barring actual malpractice.
Your "writing off" if you want to see it that way will be because the consultant believes it's the most appropriate treatment for you, given the risks of intervention, barring actual malpractice.
That may well be, but it may not feel great nonetheless.
I think from the patient's point of view, what you'd really like is for the doctor to tell you face-to-face that they won't be asking you back, and to explain why.
That may well be, but it may not feel great nonetheless.
I think from the patient's point of view, what you'd really like is for the doctor to tell you face-to-face that they won't be asking you back, and to explain why.
Yes you're right. I am having a bit of a moan.
Should I go gentle into that good night? ”
Today (Tuesday 18) the government will announce the PIP cuts. Nothing is official till it has been announced but it is expected to be a modified version of the previous plan. I would say before you drop benefits and expect people to go for jobs you need to provide the jobs. Good jobs that pay enough to live on. PIP aside, why are we letting employers pay so low wages that we are having to sub workers with benefits from public money?
Today (Tuesday 18) the government will announce the PIP cuts. Nothing is official till it has been announced but it is expected to be a modified version of the previous plan. I would say before you drop benefits and expect people to go for jobs you need to provide the jobs. Good jobs that pay enough to live on. PIP aside, why are we letting employers pay so low wages that we are having to sub workers with benefits from public money?
From the BBC News Website:
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall is expected to make an announcement in the Commons after midday, after pledging that her plans to overhaul the benefits system will be fair.
Some current recipients of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) are likely to lose out under the plans, which are expected to tighten eligibility criteria for people with less severe conditions.
It is expected that unemployed people in receipt of Universal Credit, and who are actively looking for work, will see their benefit levels rise - though this is likely to be by a relatively modest amount.
It is also expected that people with disabilities who try out a job will not lose their existing benefit entitlement if it goes wrong.
The Times reports, external that sick and disabled benefit claimants will face more frequent reassessments under the reforms, but that people with "permanent or degenerative conditions" may never have to be reassessed.
The devil is so totally in the detail here.
I don't know what tightened eligibility criteria means, but in theory, at least, PIP is a benefit paid on the basis of medical need. It is not means-tested. It simply reflects a recognition that disability makes life more expensive and supports this. As such, it is often a good investment as it helps people in their daily lives and makes it more likely they can work. It may be fair to change the criteria, depending on what they change it to. However this is a worrying statement.
An increase in UC is welcome. Even if modest, it's still a good thing.
The bridge into work for disabled people not losing benefits when they start work is - as I said before - a very smart move.
The reassessments is a mixed bag. More frequent reassessment could be very punitive and harmful. Not to mention expensive. Conversely, the removal of reassessments from people with permanent conditions is a long overdue reform.
PIP aside, why are we letting employers pay so low wages that we are having to sub workers with benefits from public money?
Because government seems to exist to funnel tax revenues into the pockets of business owners. Letting employers pay staff so little that the difference between salary and what they need to live on is taken up by tax payers is a slightly indirect version of the same mechanism.
PIP aside, why are we letting employers pay so low wages that we are having to sub workers with benefits from public money?
Because government seems to exist to funnel tax revenues into the pockets of business owners. Letting employers pay staff so little that the difference between salary and what they need to live on is taken up by tax payers is a slightly indirect version of the same mechanism.
To the extent that the largest benefit recipients in the country are effectively private landlords and low paying employers.
I think there would be an argument for saying that business should be surgcharged for the cost of benefits required for their workforce to live - if those benefits are required because their salary is too low to live on.
Today (Tuesday 18) the government will announce the PIP cuts. Nothing is official till it has been announced but it is expected to be a modified version of the previous plan. I would say before you drop benefits and expect people to go for jobs you need to provide the jobs. Good jobs that pay enough to live on. PIP aside, why are we letting employers pay so low wages that we are having to sub workers with benefits from public money?
From the BBC News Website:
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall is expected to make an announcement in the Commons after midday, after pledging that her plans to overhaul the benefits system will be fair.
Some current recipients of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) are likely to lose out under the plans, which are expected to tighten eligibility criteria for people with less severe conditions.
It is expected that unemployed people in receipt of Universal Credit, and who are actively looking for work, will see their benefit levels rise - though this is likely to be by a relatively modest amount.
It is also expected that people with disabilities who try out a job will not lose their existing benefit entitlement if it goes wrong.
The Times reports, external that sick and disabled benefit claimants will face more frequent reassessments under the reforms, but that people with "permanent or degenerative conditions" may never have to be reassessed.
The devil is so totally in the detail here.
I don't know what tightened eligibility criteria means, but in theory, at least, PIP is a benefit paid on the basis of medical need. It is not means-tested. It simply reflects a recognition that disability makes life more expensive and supports this. As such, it is often a good investment as it helps people in their daily lives and makes it more likely they can work. It may be fair to change the criteria, depending on what they change it to. However this is a worrying statement.
An increase in UC is welcome. Even if modest, it's still a good thing.
The bridge into work for disabled people not losing benefits when they start work is - as I said before - a very smart move.
The reassessments is a mixed bag. More frequent reassessment could be very punitive and harmful. Not to mention expensive. Conversely, the removal of reassessments from people with permanent conditions is a long overdue reform.
I watch with interest.
AFZ
I have a colleague who required reasonable adjustments owing to a long term condition, and we provided these - but access to work took 12months from his start of employment date to get back to him. (We didn’t wait for this for the reasonable adjustments we were aware he needed.)
If they want to get people with disabilities back into the workforce, they need to prioritise addressing the adjustments they need. Many of the disabled people I know, very much want to be able to get paid work.
Access to work is a joke at the moment. I was assessed as needing stuff for my job over a year and 8 months ago and it hasn't materialised. Luckily my employer was able to find me other less demanding duties but that was very lucky.
They're also meant to have put in place reasonable accommodations at the office - that simply didn't happen - so I have to predominantly work from home - again luckily it's possible. Not everyone has a quiet home with room to do their job.
There have been a lot of cost-cutting changes in the workplace which have increased burdens on people yet employers and the government then act puzzled when that issues out into ill health, absence and disability.
The problems I need help with wouldn't have arisen in my workplace as it was twenty years ago because there was greater flexibility, better budgets, a better workspace and more support staff. My employer got rid of all that and now expects the government to pay for them having disabled a significant number of their staff with these changes. However government cuts also contributed to my employers decisions to cut. So the government helped create a fair bit of this themselves and now blame disabled workers.
I think there would be an argument for saying that business should be surgcharged for the cost of benefits required for their workforce to live - if those benefits are required because their salary is too low to live on.
The grubby little problem there is that a lot of the employers involved are contracted to the public sector (care workers at the top of the list, followed by classroom assistants). Unless the surcharge is redirected to council budgets it will just accelerate council insolvency.
This lends credence to the claim in the Pogrund/Maguire book that policy in the Middle East was one of the few things being driven almost solely by the PM.
This lends credence to the claim in the Pogrund/Maguire book that policy in the Middle East was one of the few things being driven almost solely by the PM.
Zionism, particularly in its Likudnik form, is in a roundabout way, how Starmer comes to hold his current office. I guess you dance with the girl who brung you.
There are already some straightforward cuts in there
I don't think so.
From what I've heard, the 'narrowing of criteria' will apply to new claimants not current ones.
I have not verified this at all. I've not been able to. I do not think I agree with the policy at all*, however, that - if correct - is not a straightforward cut.
AFZ
*only 'think' here as I don't know what the policy actually is yet.
There are already some straightforward cuts in there
I don't think so.
From what I've heard, the 'narrowing of criteria' will apply to new claimants not current ones.
They're cutting the sickness bit of UC, a bit for current claimants, drastically for new claimants and entirely for under 22s. This is the bit that, effectively, recognises that this is your long term income, not just a stop gap between jobs. It means that young disabled adults will be less able to live independently. It treats people who can't work almost the same as the healthy people they're trying to coerce into work (that mostly doesn't exist) by forcing them into destitution.
From hanging out in autism/ADHD communities I often see young adults in terrible situations because they can't afford to live separately from parents/ carers who either deny they are ND or abuse them or have inappropriate expectations or make things unliveable from a sensory aspect - so this will likely make things much worse for people like them - besides all the other people affected.
There are already some straightforward cuts in there
I don't think so.
From what I've heard, the 'narrowing of criteria' will apply to new claimants not current ones.
I was actually thinking of the issue @Arethosemyfeet mentions above; but you have to play some pretty fancy games to avoid describing an actual reduction in benefits available as a "straightforward cut".
There are already some straightforward cuts in there
I don't think so.
From what I've heard, the 'narrowing of criteria' will apply to new claimants not current ones.
They're cutting the sickness bit of UC, a bit for current claimants, drastically for new claimants and entirely for under 22s. This is the bit that, effectively, recognises that this is your long term income, not just a stop gap between jobs. It means that young disabled adults will be less able to live independently. It treats people who can't work almost the same as the healthy people they're trying to coerce into work (that mostly doesn't exist) by forcing them into destitution.
The non-existence of jobs is a good point. My experience of people trying to get into work - disabled or otherwise - is that the main barrier is actually getting someone to offer you a job - a factor frequently ignored, especially by the sort of people whose response to unemployment is "just get a job". When even McJobs are filtering down the hundreds of applications per position by ridiculous three stage interviews and personality tests, even a job shovelling chips into paper bags has become hard to actually get.
The cynical bastard in me says that faced with only having jobs for 80% of the people needing them, you want to try to make the unlucky 20% be the ones who cost the least in benefits - hence the attack on the people who cost more because of additional disability benefits.
I'm sure our politicians aren't really that scheming, he lied.
Presumably they are assuming anyone who is “really ill” will be on an EHCP plan and therefore would stay in education.
I think this assumption is mistaken.
That is a very good point.
Most of what she said sounded sensible but there's a lot that could be ok or could be horrific.
This - to me - is the problem.
But still - I want details and facts. Of which, I currently have very little.
AFZ
I think the idea of the “right to try” to allow you to get a job without immediately losing benefits is helpful, the billion pounds to improve access to work and also simplifying the benefit system - so pip is the disability benefit and they phase out incapacity benefit. Also getting rid of fit to work assessments and reassessments for pip if you have a severe or degenerative condition.
Presumably they are assuming anyone who is “really ill” will be on an EHCP plan and therefore would stay in education.
I think this assumption is mistaken.
That is a very good point.
Most of what she said sounded sensible but there's a lot that could be ok or could be horrific.
This - to me - is the problem.
But still - I want details and facts. Of which, I currently have very little.
AFZ
I think the idea of the “right to try” to allow you to get a job without immediately losing benefits is helpful, the billion pounds to improve access to work and also simplifying the benefit system - so pip is the disability benefit and they phase out incapacity benefit. Also getting rid of fit to work assessments and reassessments for pip if you have a severe or degenerative condition.
The non-existence of jobs is a good point. My experience of people trying to get into work - disabled or otherwise - is that the main barrier is actually getting someone to offer you a job - a factor frequently ignored, especially by the sort of people whose response to unemployment is "just get a job". When even McJobs are filtering down the hundreds of applications per position by ridiculous three stage interviews and personality tests, even a job shovelling chips into paper bags has become hard to actually get.
I still find it hard to square this reality with the idea that we need to be bringing in high numbers of immigrants to fill gaps in the job market. If there are gaps, why can't we get all those British people who struggle to get into work to fill them? Alternatively, if there aren't enough jobs out there then why would we want to increase the number of people applying for them?
The only logical conclusion is that we have an invincibly stupid population who needs to be forced to the point of starvation to accept education. In the meantime we rely on educated people from elsewhere. I don't like saying this at all but it's just about the only explanation of that conundrum.
Well, I don't see that it is so difficult to understand. Say you want a large number of people to pick strawberries over a two-month period in the summer. This is obviously no good for a physically disabled UK job seeker looking for a long-term position. But it might be perfect for a migrant worker from Eastern Europe prepared to tolerate an uncomfortable short-term stint for reasonable remuneration.
Well, I don't see that it is so difficult to understand. Say you want a large number of people to pick strawberries over a two-month period in the summer. This is obviously no good for a physically disabled UK job seeker looking for a long-term position. But it might be perfect for a migrant worker from Eastern Europe prepared to tolerate an uncomfortable short-term stint for reasonable remuneration.
Especially if the people recruiting said migrant workers are also arranging accommodation and transporting them to a field seven miles from the nearest bus route at 5am three hours before the one bus a day leaves the depot.
The only logical conclusion is that we have an invincibly stupid population who needs to be forced to the point of starvation to accept education. In the meantime we rely on educated people from elsewhere. I don't like saying this at all but it's just about the only explanation of that conundrum.
I know enough intelligent and well educated people who can't get a job to know it isn't that.
The non-existence of jobs is a good point. My experience of people trying to get into work - disabled or otherwise - is that the main barrier is actually getting someone to offer you a job - a factor frequently ignored, especially by the sort of people whose response to unemployment is "just get a job". When even McJobs are filtering down the hundreds of applications per position by ridiculous three stage interviews and personality tests, even a job shovelling chips into paper bags has become hard to actually get.
I still find it hard to square this reality with the idea that we need to be bringing in high numbers of immigrants to fill gaps in the job market. If there are gaps, why can't we get all those British people who struggle to get into work to fill them? Alternatively, if there aren't enough jobs out there then why would we want to increase the number of people applying for them?
It's a mismatch of time, skills and place. Sure you could solve most of it, but it would involve government to take things like industrial and housing policy very seriously.
If the aim is to get people into work to cut the benefit budget then work has to pay enough to live on. If not an amount of benefit will have to be paid. As pointed out there are jobs that won’t be able to do that. Also you can’t just go for any old job. Relevant qualifications and experience will be needed, or at least preferred. Not all jobs are suitable for all people. Different people need different things from a job. It may have to work around school times for instance. Also employers may not take someone who is over qualified for the job. Just saying there are this many jobs and this many people is not a good way to look at it.
Comments
I assume he has been ordered to reduce his current patients to make room for new ones.
Or your condition is either getting slightly better or has stabilised.
Not going to be better. It's bit worse than stable but he was reluctant to do anything invasive.
I accept that there will be people with more serious conditions that need help.
If he was reluctant to operate it would be because the risks outweighed the benefits, given for example age and other risk factors for surgery.
If won't be about rationing the available care. We don't do that. Source - both I and Mrs LB work in the NHS.
AFZ
Yes I believe you
I think from the patient's point of view, what you'd really like is for the doctor to tell you face-to-face that they won't be asking you back, and to explain why.
Yes you're right. I am having a bit of a moan.
Should I go gentle into that good night? ”
I would have thought though, that if your demise was imminent the consultant would have said so.
I'd go with what @KarlLB says as both he and his wife work in the NHS.
You could always ask if you were concerned.
and this is nothing to do with the government
Thanks very much
Seconded with prayers and blessings from someone in the same state of limbo!
Take care, look after yourself and do those things you enjoy.
I don't know what post you are on about but I have not taken offence. Thanks
From the BBC News Website:
The devil is so totally in the detail here.
I don't know what tightened eligibility criteria means, but in theory, at least, PIP is a benefit paid on the basis of medical need. It is not means-tested. It simply reflects a recognition that disability makes life more expensive and supports this. As such, it is often a good investment as it helps people in their daily lives and makes it more likely they can work. It may be fair to change the criteria, depending on what they change it to. However this is a worrying statement.
An increase in UC is welcome. Even if modest, it's still a good thing.
The bridge into work for disabled people not losing benefits when they start work is - as I said before - a very smart move.
The reassessments is a mixed bag. More frequent reassessment could be very punitive and harmful. Not to mention expensive. Conversely, the removal of reassessments from people with permanent conditions is a long overdue reform.
I watch with interest.
AFZ
To the extent that the largest benefit recipients in the country are effectively private landlords and low paying employers.
I have a colleague who required reasonable adjustments owing to a long term condition, and we provided these - but access to work took 12months from his start of employment date to get back to him. (We didn’t wait for this for the reasonable adjustments we were aware he needed.)
If they want to get people with disabilities back into the workforce, they need to prioritise addressing the adjustments they need. Many of the disabled people I know, very much want to be able to get paid work.
They're also meant to have put in place reasonable accommodations at the office - that simply didn't happen - so I have to predominantly work from home - again luckily it's possible. Not everyone has a quiet home with room to do their job.
There have been a lot of cost-cutting changes in the workplace which have increased burdens on people yet employers and the government then act puzzled when that issues out into ill health, absence and disability.
The problems I need help with wouldn't have arisen in my workplace as it was twenty years ago because there was greater flexibility, better budgets, a better workspace and more support staff. My employer got rid of all that and now expects the government to pay for them having disabled a significant number of their staff with these changes. However government cuts also contributed to my employers decisions to cut. So the government helped create a fair bit of this themselves and now blame disabled workers.
The grubby little problem there is that a lot of the employers involved are contracted to the public sector (care workers at the top of the list, followed by classroom assistants). Unless the surcharge is redirected to council budgets it will just accelerate council insolvency.
I still do not have enough detail to judge where this is going.
There are definitely some good elements. There are some concerning areas.
We shall see.
However, the BBC's live reporting is abysmal.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/18/downing-street-rejects-lammy-claim-israel-broke-international-law-gaza
Zionism, particularly in its Likudnik form, is in a roundabout way, how Starmer comes to hold his current office. I guess you dance with the girl who brung you.
I don't think so.
From what I've heard, the 'narrowing of criteria' will apply to new claimants not current ones.
I have not verified this at all. I've not been able to. I do not think I agree with the policy at all*, however, that - if correct - is not a straightforward cut.
AFZ
*only 'think' here as I don't know what the policy actually is yet.
They're cutting the sickness bit of UC, a bit for current claimants, drastically for new claimants and entirely for under 22s. This is the bit that, effectively, recognises that this is your long term income, not just a stop gap between jobs. It means that young disabled adults will be less able to live independently. It treats people who can't work almost the same as the healthy people they're trying to coerce into work (that mostly doesn't exist) by forcing them into destitution.
I think this assumption is mistaken.
That is a very good point.
Most of what she said sounded sensible but there's a lot that could be ok or could be horrific.
This - to me - is the problem.
But still - I want details and facts. Of which, I currently have very little.
AFZ
I was actually thinking of the issue @Arethosemyfeet mentions above; but you have to play some pretty fancy games to avoid describing an actual reduction in benefits available as a "straightforward cut".
The non-existence of jobs is a good point. My experience of people trying to get into work - disabled or otherwise - is that the main barrier is actually getting someone to offer you a job - a factor frequently ignored, especially by the sort of people whose response to unemployment is "just get a job". When even McJobs are filtering down the hundreds of applications per position by ridiculous three stage interviews and personality tests, even a job shovelling chips into paper bags has become hard to actually get.
The cynical bastard in me says that faced with only having jobs for 80% of the people needing them, you want to try to make the unlucky 20% be the ones who cost the least in benefits - hence the attack on the people who cost more because of additional disability benefits.
I'm sure our politicians aren't really that scheming, he lied.
I think the idea of the “right to try” to allow you to get a job without immediately losing benefits is helpful, the billion pounds to improve access to work and also simplifying the benefit system - so pip is the disability benefit and they phase out incapacity benefit. Also getting rid of fit to work assessments and reassessments for pip if you have a severe or degenerative condition.
(Alongside the raise to UC.)
This.
And Definitely THIS.
I still find it hard to square this reality with the idea that we need to be bringing in high numbers of immigrants to fill gaps in the job market. If there are gaps, why can't we get all those British people who struggle to get into work to fill them? Alternatively, if there aren't enough jobs out there then why would we want to increase the number of people applying for them?
Especially if the people recruiting said migrant workers are also arranging accommodation and transporting them to a field seven miles from the nearest bus route at 5am three hours before the one bus a day leaves the depot.
I know enough intelligent and well educated people who can't get a job to know it isn't that.
It's a mismatch of time, skills and place. Sure you could solve most of it, but it would involve government to take things like industrial and housing policy very seriously.