I am disgusted and feel sick to my stomach but I am not surprised that this so-called Labour government have turned their back on Labour values and targeted ill and disabled people in order to be seen to be 'saving' money.

I have a lot of thoughts and feelings about their proposals but I am just too appalled right now to put it into words.

Hi everyone. I hope everyone is doing good regardless of our daily challenges. Keep going.

I feel like is really not fair. People are already struggling and to cut the benefits it's going to affect a lot of people in a very bad stage. I feel like they have to reconsider their decision.

How do I feel about the announcement of the disability benefit cuts? I am horrified. One of my children is 16 (almost 17) and she's autistic and she's got severe trauma which was caused by being in the wrong school environment and she's been denied education for the last three years. I've been fighting CAMHS and school.

I know, because she's out of compulsory school age, I've also lost Universal Credit for her because she's not in school or education of any thought. Now, the DWP get picky for her, because we haven't been able to access the mental health support that she desperately needs and a therapeutic understanding education.

We're looking at starting with a tutor so she can gradually work up to hopefully going to college. She's a wonderfully bright kid.

Now it is the education system and the healthcare system's direct fault that she's in the situation she's in. And yet, the government thinks the solution is to cut her money or deny her access to being able to claim PIP. It's horrific.

And it's not just that - it's the fact that now we have to see in the media and on programs and everywhere people discuss us as people who scam the system and are ripping people off, and it's just disgusting. I'd say it's a disability hate crime that we're experiencing.

It just needs to stop.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has issued a second misleading press release in consecutive weeks as it tries to trick the mainstream media into supporting its controversial cuts to disability benefits.

This time, work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall included at least four misleading statements in her short press release, which was headed “Almost two million people on Universal Credit not supported to look for work”.

The press release was published five days before Kendall launched her reforms of the disability benefits system (see separate stories).

DWP stated that the number of disabled people on universal credit who were “too sick to look for work” had risen by 383 per cent since the start of the pandemic, from 363,000 to 1.8 million.

But it only managed to reach that striking calculation by ignoring those who had been found not fit for work and were still receiving employment and support allowance (ESA) in 2019-20 (of which there were nearly two million).

The only reference to ESA was in a “further information” note at the bottom of the press release, which admitted that an increase “was anticipated for reasons including people moving from legacy benefits [which include ESA] onto Universal Credit”.

The press release also claimed there were only two choices in the current “dysfunctional” system: “fit for work” or “not fit for work”.

This is not true. There is a third group for those said to have limited capability for work, who have to take part in work-related activity because they are expected to be capable of work in the future.

A third misleading statement in the press release was that disabled people found not fit for work on universal credit “get locked out of help and support”.

Again, this is not true, as they can ask DWP to provide support, including through the Access to Work scheme.

The department’s fourth misleading statement came as it claimed – again in a footnote – that 70 per cent of the increase in the number of disabled people receiving the health element of universal credit and ESA in the past five years “was not expected by the Department”.

But it failed to mention the impact of the pandemic, with research by the respected Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) – published the previous day – finding that “mental health has worsened since the pandemic”, which was “consistent with rising disability benefit claims for mental health”.

The IFS report found that “deaths of despair” – those attributed to alcohol, drugs and suicide – rose by 24 per cent in England and Wales in 2023, compared with the 2015-19 pre-pandemic average.

DWP refused to answer questions about the press release this week, including why Kendall believed she needed to send out misleading press releases to defend her case for the cuts, and whether she would apologise for the misleading statements and untruths.

DWP had also refused to comment last week when it was criticised for an earlier misleading release.

DWP claimed in that press release that there had been a “staggering 319 per cent increase” in the number of working-age people on the health and disability element of universal credit or receiving employment and support allowance.

The department said this showed the “alarming rate at which young and working aged people are increasingly falling out of work and claiming incapacity benefits”.

But although there had been an increase – most likely caused by the impact of growing NHS waiting-lists and the Covid pandemic, among other factors – it was likely to be about 30 to 35 per cent, if comparing 2019-20 with 2023-24.

The 319 per cent figure was quietly removed from the press release last week after DNS questioned its accuracy, but DWP failed to add a note to the website to show that the press release had been corrected, and it refused three times to respond to requests to comment on its use of the exaggerated figure.

Hi, good afternoon, thanks very much for the big question of the week about your question. I hope I remember how the cash-based one, I would like it because if you are being given vouchers or cash, you would be able to get whatever things you want done food. Because when given food, there are some specific food we like to eat and which are not available at the food box.

I use food bank and most of the food are not Nigerian food as in Nigeria and Africa. I want to make food which I know I can eat, not British food generally and that is what we usually get at the food bank. So I think voucher, even if voucher can come get Africa. In Africa stores. I believe that schools are setting healthy cat food, Iceland are selling. So some of these supermarkets are sending which you can collect vouchers for us.

Another thing is, I haven't collected vouchers before from Food Bank. Most is they give you food bank and they give you the food parcel, which you don't even like most of them. So I believe if they can provide vouchers instead of food or provide. The food may be trying to see what kind of food people really want.

And, lastly, I would recommend the voucher instead of giving default, because most things we eat and not given to us. At the end of the day, you still have to go and spend much money to get what you want. Instead of food bank being useful to you. Thank you very much. I hope this change soon and I really like it. If the change is going to be Universal. Thank you. Bye.

I think cash first provides a layer of dignity to the recipient, but the danger is that the money could become easily mis-spent if in the wrong hands. People who are on low incomes are facing a layer of desperation and giving cash, although it would more than likely go to where its needed; would also carry with it a risk. I think providing the actual physical item which is needed (for example white goods) is beneficial- but I would alter it to say that the recipient should be given a choice as to which item they require, out of for example, 3 models. Too often than not, the body in charge of issuing the goods will only have 1 to offer and it may not be suitable. Once we were offered a fridge freezer when ours had broken down - which we were very grateful for, but it didn't fit in the space in the kitchen and no alternative was offered. I think support needs to be tailored wherever possible.

There's definitely something to be said for credit unions or charities acting as credit unions or even credit unions underpinned by government guarantees as an alternative to people seeking horrendously high interest short term loans. I think the flexibility to be able to have a no-strings emergency cash loan that's repayable on sensible, non-punitive terms is the way forward. However currently credit unions are not always easily accessible requiring users to sign up as members, the loans process can seem daunting and, more often than not, these are limited to sums of say £200+ whereas people often need say £50 just to cover an unexpected shortfall (for example being off sick for a day having affected your earnings that month or energy payments higher because its been colder than expected that month or even just an unexpected cost like a school trip to pay for or kid's damaging their uniform/something breaking in the home like a hoover or a kettle).

Tricky questions to answer, however, as someone who has received replacement goods, services and food bank support on a number of occasions, I'd have to say which is best depends on the situation the cash or goods are received and the intention behind why it is being given.

For a start, with choice comes dignity, but also responsibility. Could I choose to spend the money wisely? Who knows if I could trust myself not to blow it on junk.

Although that's not to say I would be keen or happy to receive all my main income in services and goods but if as additional support or replacement goods then I'm quite happy to accept goods instead of cash. Perhaps the "beggers can't be choosers" philosopy is lodged in my brain?

On the one hand, it takes the hassle out of choosing goods and arranging delivery, the flip side is the items are not always as suited to your needs or as you'd like them to be.

However overall, in my opinion, choice is definitely more dignified than being handed goods unless you're able to pick those goods yourself and have them paid for by others.

I’m still waiting on letters to tell me what everything is going up by.

My rent is going up by £50, council tax isn’t too bad as that’s only by £5 a month.



Obviously the cost of food remains high and getting higher.



I’ve noticed with that you have to take advantage of when things are on offer. I shop at Asda and getting washing capsules usually costs me £6-7 for 32 wash’s. There is an offer at £6.88 I think it is for a pack of 60! That’s a saving of £6 for me.



Things just require you to be smarter, put time in and look at what’s out there before just getting. Could save you money

I am feeling very anxious about the proposed cuts to Pip and the changes to the descriptors.

I am saddened by the labour government that they can even have the audacity to cut people who are already on a low income even more.

We are struggling to get by.

Many working families who have disabled family members are struggling to get by and using food banks as it is this is simply not acceptable.

In answer to your question I think a cash first approach is always the best. To offer vouchers or goods is basically a clear message to people on low incomes that 'you are not trusted' with cash. I think that the cost of administering vouchers and goods, depletes the social fund pot. Think back to COVID when some councils outsourced food packages to private companies, and the shocking quality and small amount that these food parcels contained.

I think it is not up to the government to monitor how people spend their money, unless they do not have mental capacity or there are child protection issues. I received cash from Latch cancer charity, for food for myself when I was staying in hospital with my son. I was told not to declare this as the benefits would see this as a source of income, I did not spend all the money on food for myself I put some towards things for my son or for bills. It is the same for cash for items, if someone wants to buy a second hand fridge instead of a new one and save the rest of the money they are entitled to for that item, then I think that is fine. It is helping people to manage budgets and make individual decisions based on what is best for them.