Carers allowance and PIP

Next week the new personal independence payment trials start. Although I have seen, and been involved in some of the campaigning around this I have yet to see one theme being covered. Carers.

Carers are the hidden workforce that the government employs for 50 pounds a week to support disabled people in receipt of higher or middle rate care DLA. This, of course saves the government a whole lot of money, as they don't need to bring in external providers to support disabled people. In fact, as a disabled person myself, I wasn't given the choice as to who cared for me when I needed it, it was a family member or no one. Carers allowance went some way to cushioning the financial impact of this drastic change in circumstances.

For those who dont know Disability living Allowance is seen as a passported benefit. In that, when in reciept of DLA, it entitles you to other things. I have a cinema discount, a bus pass and a coachcard thanks to my DLA. It provides society with an easy label ie. DLA= Disabled person.

So, how will this change under PIP? I went to my trusted friend google and found these:
www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/pip-briefing-passporting.pdf

In this document it highlights the passporting effect of DLA and the aims to bring it forward into PIP, especially in relation to carers allowance. That was in 2011.

www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/pip-briefing-carers-allowance.pdf

In this document from 2013, things seem to have changed. In this table it shows that ten thousand carers will no longer be entitled to the allowance. My question is, what will happen to those 10,000 disabled people who previously needed middle or higher rate levels of care. They wont get better, or not be in need of it because the governement stops the allowance. They will still need this, and surely it will have to come from somewhere? Have the government forgotten about this cheap labour source they have? Changing these people from disabled people into 'non disabled people' is pretty easy on paper. It only takes a change of entitlement. However in real life, these people, and the needs they have are still there, and will presumably need to be met from somwhere?

it saddens me to see.. (editied to stop offence being caused)

edited to stop offence being caused. . It saddens me to see someone attacking benefit claimaints in such an angry and aggressive way.It is the governments aim to turn benefit claimant against benefit claimant and disabled person against disabled person.  It is their hope that by dividing us they will conquer us and win. They want to justify taking peoples right to benefits away. They are doing this already. Do people really think, are they naive enough to think that the government will make such concessions and make such distinctions as the type of benefit claimant. Crys of 'we didn't mean them' will be too late and not listened to. The homogenization of benefit claimants already happens so why would it change when universal credit comes in? The general consensus is that vouchers should be used for claimants to determine what they buy and where they buy it from. The conversations, now removed from this blog detailed a conversation where it was being argued this exact point. The thought that the state, or other people should determine what someone else can buy with their benefit is just wrong for me. Being a 'taxpayer' doesn't make a person different. We should all be in this together. Unfortunately, my argument that I should be able to go to marks and spencers and get my food fell on deaf ears.  Who amongst us seriously thinks that our beloved government will make it so benefits vouchers will be accepted in marks and spencers? I don't.

Benefits claimaints are right now being given vouchers in the event of a crisis. I can see this as a trial run to doing this for all benefit claimaints in the future, regardless of the reason why they are claiming or for any other reason. Right now, these vouchers are being restricted by shop and by item. If they come in to all claimaints, and its a real possibility that they could *anythings possible with this governement) I cant see this changing. Disabled people, all people need to be able to be in control of their own finances and their own futures. This is infantilising and degenratig a persons already low self esteem who finds themselves on benefits
.
This reminds me of a time when I was working part time in a supermarket some years ago now (pre impairment). It was about 15 years ago and yet its still there. People who come to this country as asylum seekers use this voucher system. They are only allowed to buy "essentials" and given "enough" for them to live on. I had to sit there and help this person decide what out of the meager shopping they had decide what to put back. They weren't spending this on much. It was value things, essentials. And yet it still wasnt enough money to get everything.

That is why I argue that despite people using the phrase "o, I didn't mean it like that" or "I dont mean that you should be affected" etc. that it still will affect everyone. Regardless of the reason for claiming benefit, regardless of everyones personal circumstances, the governement are already treating everyone THE SAME but not equally.

Although I disagree with people buying booze and cigs with their money (sorry I cant spell the proper words) I can forsee a time where similar videos of benefits claimaints such as myself being interviewed and the disgust and outrage at my shopping habits. It is not that different. Who should determine what a luxury is? Why should that be decided for you. As benefit claimaints we get 80 pounds a week. It really isnt that much, and if we choose to save up for a while and buy something someone might consider a luxury why shouldn;t we?

It is a scary time. When I recieved my council tax bill and I attempted to work out why I was being forced to pay 20% of it I felt bad. It made me sound like I had some sort of sense of entitlement and not that it would actually have a real detriment to my finances. It is easy to forget that if someone suggested 10 years ago that people on 70 pounds a week should be paying part of their council tax (when that is what the law says people need to live on as a miniumum) or part of their housing benefit because the house they have is the wrong fit, there would be uproar. Now, thanks to the drip drip drip media coverage of the scroungers and benefit claimaints it seems acceptable.

The original comment, and the start of the arguement (now deleted) read this:
"what a bitch! this is why people think everyone on benefits are just scroungers! benefits should be paid in the form of vouchers which cannot be used to buy luxuries like alcohol, cigs and sky tv etc. (link to video)

Council Tax nonbenefit

I received a letter today. I'm still trying to process all of the details, but from what I can make out it basically means I have to use some of my ESA to pay for council tax.

I am in the ESA support group. With all other benefits and with all other services there is some recognition of this, or the fact I am on higher rate care of DLA. However, now the council tax benefit has been devolved to local councils it seems they dont have to do this.

I have to pay about 20 pounds a month from my benefits starting in a months time to the council. I don't like the short notice of this change, ironically thats one of the qualifying reasons for my ESA support group status.

Apart from that I am shocked. I thought this government was all about protecting sick and disabled people. Well, I am one of those sick and disabled people that this definition has been so narrowly focused on. It can't be denied. I have the benefits to prove it.

The last few pages of the letter clearly state for the purposes of my housing benefit (which I am thankfully still entitled to) there is a set ammount (my ESA) that the law says I have to live on. Not using 20 pounds of that for paying council tax, but that exact ammount. It is the basic level of existance for someone in my situation.

So how can anyone justify making sick and disabled people pay out of the money they recieve from the government to support them in day to day life. The money I recieve might be more than other people, but that is in recognition of the fact that my daily living costs are more.

There is no such thing as a value disability. I can;t make the choice to spend money in other ways, or change my lifestyle to accomodate this change. It is not possible. and that is the point of my benefit.

So, government, local council what on earth are you doing?

I don't want to do this...

This post is hard for me to write. I do not like discussing my health, or the ins and outs of my benefits with anyone. But this government, and in particular this document http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/m-1-13.pdf is forcing me to.. Please share so at least its been worth it.

I have an interesting (well thats one way to call it) impairment. I collapse, without warning and for however long. It takes a long time for me to recover from these. Last summer I also starting fitting, alot.

After referal to the hospital and various tests for epilepsy it was concluded that this physical health problem resulted from stress. Or that is it at its most basic level. I have dissociative seizures.

Last summer I filled out my ESA50. Quite rightly I put all the information about the collapses in the box about loss or altered concioussnes. Quite rightly, because of the severity of them, I was put into the support group for a year.

However, the document I referred to above states this:

18 From 28.1.13, when assessing the extent of the claimant’s LCWRA, it is a condition that the claimant’s inability to perform
1.
physical descriptors arises
1.1 from a specific bodily (i.e. physical) disease or disablement or
1.2 as a direct result of treatment by a registered medical practitioner for such a condition and
2.
mental descriptors3 arises
2.1 from a specific mental illness or disablement or
2.2 as a direct result of treatment by a registered medical practitioner for such a condition

So, where does that leave me?

It would appear down a massive black hole created by the government to save yet more money. My needs, condition and ability to work wont have changed from last summer, and I was lucky to even get into the support group in the first place. However, now, that would seem highly impossible, what the hell is going on?

I have to admit this is the same with my bus pass. I get this because of the same condition, and when i went to get my form I was asked if I needed the physical or mental health bus pass forms. In the end I was given both, because neither of us could decide.

The problem, the BIG problem is, that one thing has an impact on the other. It is impossible to split the two areas up and think that they wont impact on each other. I am currently sitting here, snowbound. Whatever the reason behind it (whether phyiscal or mental health) it still leaves me feeling depressed and isolated, a mental health problem).

It is simply impossible and stupid to try and do this, unless of course they are trying to save money. And heres me thinking that the benefit was there to help people who cant work because they are sick.

damn those boxes they want to put us in are getting smaller huh?

The security of information from the government

Aside from the current farce i am experiencing from the jobcentre regarding my actual claim, the phone call i just made to the jcp tops my list of stupidity.
You see, we have this new fangled system when you ring up the jobcentre, where you divulge your personal information to a robot before being connected to a human. It is, meant to make things simpler and easier on both sides, quite simply though, it doesn't.
Having gone through the process and queued in the conga line of joyous music for five minutes i was met by a jobsworth only found working at the government.

"you have failed the security questions, so i will have to ask you some more"

fair enough me thinks, im dyslexic so am prone to making stupid mistakes. After reeling off everything from my address, shoe size and inside leg measurement to the lovely guy on the end of the phone he came to the conclusion i must have been a fraud.

"im sorry madam, you have failed to answer these questions correctly so i am sorry i wont be able to help you today"

i politely requested that we start from scratch and actually check that he was actually trying to access my records.
"im sorry madam, i cant do that. You will have to ring again and repeat the process"
obviously getting upset by this point i tried explaining to him that i am dislexic and am sometimes unable to put numbers into their correct order. The reply?

"im sorry, if you cant do it yourself, then youll need to have someone else to help you"

i was so upset by this i terminated the call and curled up into a disheveled state.

The problem is, ironically, that the jobcentre demands this level of security to prevent fraudulent access to my claim. I am meant to be the only person who can access it. So, failing that, and having to divulge this information to someone else, surely defeats the object of the system? (apart from anything else the only person i trust is more dislexic than me, go figure).

I feel like its the same as those situations you hear about where shop and bank workers think its ok to ask a disabled person for their pin number.. If i cant access my own benefit claim anymore (and lets not even go there with the fact i cant telephone people most days) then what hope do i have?

the language of liberation

I attended the disability research forum at sheffield hallam today. As it seems is usual I had some thoughts that didn't quite fit with the discussion theme so I wanted to put these into words through my blog...

There are lots of parallels between the disability rights movement and other minority groups liberation campaigns. For example, within the LGBT movement the split between the biological and the social construction of gender and sexuality has been made to help understand their position, in the same way, the disability rights movement split impairment and disability with the medical and social model.

The thing that struck me today is that unlike the three liberation campaigns we were discussing today (autistic, LGBT and Deaf peoples liberation) the disabled peoples movement is missing something.

Within the autistic liberation movement (or as I learnt today the neurodiverse movement) they have reconstructed the language around autism completely and reframed it to neurodiverse/neurotypical to differentiate between the two groups that have been constructed.

Within the LGBT movement once again they have reframed the term gay and lesbian to become more positive and the term LGBT is now typically used as a stronger and more powerful liberation group by such organisations as the NUS etc.

Within the deaf community there is a big difference between being Deaf and deaf. Although within english this isnt a distinctive difference, within sign language it is, so it makes more sense in that context. However, this distinction is made to differentiate between  those people who feel more along the lines of wanting to be cured of their deafness, and wanting to fit in with society, and then those who feel that being Deaf is a cultural minority and it is the responsibility of wider society to fit in to their world and learn to sign with them. It is a very similar link to the medical and social model debate.

So, why is this done? Well, by completely changing the language of the argument means that the people changing it become in control. Not only that it stops the confusion that still exists around which 'disability' people actually mean. It makes a clear distinction and definition of difference. As in, we are now working in a different framework and have adjusted our language accordingly. It can create a feeling of community and cohesion amongst those who identify within the new language and a new identity.

Although the disability rights movement has attempted to change the meaning of the word disability by splitting it off from the medical impairment, by not coupling this with a completely new way of defining and describing this change has left people feeling confused and a weird situation where you have to actually define what you mean by disability when you say it. I'm not sure what the answer is, but by looking at the other movements today made me think that perhaps it is this that is lacking from the disability rights movement and that it is something that should be considered?

What price a tenner?

Today is international disabled peoples day (I'm british don't you know), which is also ironically the day I received my yearly insult from the government in the form of the Christmas bonus.

Its ten pounds. Yes really, ten quid. Its quite an insulting and somewhat tokenistic amount of money, and hasn't changed in all the ten years I have been receiving DLA. Now, I appreciate the thought, and it is quite sweet, but in this age of austerity, shouldn't the government be first looking to weird little traditions such as this first when considering how to save money?

Just think, there are 2 million people claiming DLA. So thats.. 20 million pounds. Add another 2 million onto that for postage and admin costs and it all adds up.

Now I'm not begruding my tenner, I really do appreciate it, honest. But choosing between ten pounds and having no DLA at all because its being reformed? I can do without my tenner thanks government. There are better ways to show you care.