Theresa May euphemizes savage cuts to PIP when confronted by an angry disabled person demanding democratic accountability

Theresa May

The prime minister has been avoiding confrontation with real citizens and voters so far, and has simply concerned herself with a series of stage-managed media appearances featuring Conservative supporters.

However, Theresa May faced a series of difficult questions after she was confronted by a furious voter over cuts to disability benefits while she was campaigning in Abingdon, Oxfordshire.

Cathy Mohan, who has learning difficulties, challenged the Prime Minister over Conservative cuts, which meant she lost her carer. She also asked about how others had been affected as the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is replaced by the new cost cutting Personal Independence Payment (PIP). She told the PM that she has been forced to live on £100 a month in benefits after being denied essential support with the extra costs of coping with a learning disability.

In the footage captured by Channel 5 News, the voter demanded tht the government return to the DLA payments system, explaining that she couldn’t survive on the PIP scheme that has replaced it. 

Suprisingly, The Express also ran the story, although it was interesting to note the language use and interpretation to describe the exchange, with the Prime Minister “replying”, “saying”, “concluding” and Cathy “continuing her tirade” and “her rant“. Anyone would think that the Express journalist wanted to portray this citizen demanding democratic inclusion as unreasonable. 

Cathy simply asked: “Theresa, are you going to help people with learning difficulties? 

It’s good to see the Prime Minister being held democratically accountable for once by a real member of the public with a real life account of the devastating impacts of Tory austerity cuts, which have fallen disproportionately on those with the very least, and those who are among our most vulnerable citizens. 


You can see Cathy angrily and bravely confronting the Prime Minister here

Cathy says “I’m being serious, I want you to do something for us.”

 May replied: “We’ve got a lot of plans for people with mental health in particular…”

But absolutely furious with being fobbed off,  Cathy swiftly interrupted the Prime Minister and continued: “And learning difficulties? 

Because I’ve got mild learning disabilities and I haven’t got a carer at the moment, and I’m angry.

I would like somebody to help me because I can’t do everything I want to do.

I’m talking about everybody not just me, for everybody who’s got mental health and anybody who’s got learning disabilities.

I want them not to have their money taken away from them, and being crippled.

They just took it all away from me,” she said.

She added: “The fat cats keep the money and us lot get nothing.”

It’s true that the vulture capitalist private companies undertaking disability assessments take millions from the public purse to deliver pseudo-medical assessments that are specifically designed to make it unlikely that your claim will be successful, regardless of how ill and disabled you are. 

An audit report concluded that the Department for Work and Pension’s spending on contracts for disability benefit assessments is expected to double in 2016/17 compared with 2014/15. The government’s flagship welfare-cutting scheme will be actually spending more money on the assessments themselves than it is saving in reductions to the benefits bill – as Frances Ryan pointed out in the Guardian, it’s the political equivalent of burning bundles of £50 notes.

The report also states that only half of all the doctors and nurses hired by Maximus – the US outsourcing company brought in by the Department for Work and Pensions to carry out the assessments – had even completed their training.

The NAO report summarises:

£1.6 billion
Estimated cost of contracted-out health and disability assessments over three years, 2015 to 2018

£0.4 billion
Latest expected reduction in annual disability benefit spending

Proportion of ESA and PIP targets met for assessment report quality meeting contractual standard (September 2014 to August 2015).

See: Doctors bribed with 70-90k salaries to join Maximus and “endorse a political agenda regardless of how it affects patients.”

May responded by using trite and meaningless sloganised reassurances: “The government is “particularly focused on those who are most in need”.

“Focusing on those most in need” is a Conservative euphemism for cutting lifeline support for those who need it, by a series of incremental restrictions to the eligibility criteria for PIP.

The criteria for receiving PIP has recently been restricted by the Conservatives, leading to more than 160,000 vulnerable people being denied the additional financial help that they once received.

May continued: What I can do is ensure that we’re giving more help to people with mental health and learning disabilities.

We want to ensure when we look at the help we’re giving to people with any disability that particularly we focus on those who are most in need.”

PIP is a non means tested benefit for people with a long-term health condition or impairment, whether physical, sensory, mental, cognitive, intellectual, or any combination of these. It is an essential financial support towards the extra costs that ill and disabled people face, to help them lead as full, active and independent lives as possible, including staying in work. 

Before 2010, policies that entailed cutting lifeline support for disabled people and those with serious illnesses were unthinkable. Now, systematically dismantling social security for those citizens who need support the most has become the political norm.

Any social security policy that is implemented with the expressed aim of “targeting those most in need” and is implemented to replace a policy that is deemed “unsustainable” is invariably about cost cutting, aimed at reducing the eligibility criteria for entitlement. The government were explicit in their statement about the original policy intent behind PIP. However, what it is that defines those “most in need” involves ever-shrinking, constantly redefined categories, pitched at an ever-shifting political goalpost.

Two independent tribunals have ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) should expand the scope and eligibility criteria of PIP, which helps both in-work and out-of work disabled people fund their additional living costs. 

Following a court ruling in favour of disabled people, the government rushed in an “urgent change” to the law to prevent many people with mental health conditions being awarded the mobility component of PIP. Without any parliamentary debate. The court held that people  with conditions such as severe anxiety can qualify for the enhanced rate of the mobility component, on the basis of problems with “planning and following a journey”, or “going out”.  The new regulations were rushed in without any dialogue with the Social Security Advisory Committee, too, via statutory instrument. 

The government’s new regulations will reverse the recent ruling and means that people with mental health conditions such as severe anxiety who can go outdoors, even if they need to have someone with them, are much less likely to get an award of even the standard rate of the PIP mobility component. The new regulations also make changes to the way that the descriptors relating to taking medication are interpreted, again in response to a ruling by a tribunal in favour of disabled people.

The first tribunal said more points should be available in the “mobility” element for people who suffer “overwhelming psychological distress” when travelling alone. The second tribunal recommended more points in the “daily living” element for people who need help to take medication and monitor a health condition. 

The DWP warned that it would cost £3.7bn extra by 2022 to implement the court rulings. The government have responded by formulating an extremely authoritarian “emergency legislation” to stop the legal changes that the upper tribunals had ruled on from happening. From 16 March the law was changed, without any democratic conversation with disabled people and related organisations, or debate in parliament, so that the phrase “For reasons other than psychological distress will be added to the start of descriptors c, d and f in relation to “Planning and following journeys”on the PIP form.

It’s worth noting that the Coalition Government enshrined in law a “commitment” to parity of esteem for mental and physical health in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. In January 2014 it published the policy paper Closing the Gap: priorities for essential change in mental health (Department of Health, 2014), which sets out 25 priorities for change in how children and adults with mental health problems are supported and cared for.

The limiting changes to PIP legislation certainly does not reflect that commitment.  

Let us not forget that last year, the United Nations’ highly critical report confirmed that the UK government has systematically violated the human rights of disabled people.

And let us not forget that this government dismissed the findings of the inquiry and each of the major concerns raised, calling it “offensive”.

It’s rather more offensive that a government of one of the wealthiest so-called democratic nations in the world chooses to disregard its human rights obligations towards disabled people, often leaving them without lifeline support and with devastating consequences, whilst gifting millionaires and rogue multinationals with tax payers money.

Image result for disabled people's rights uk

I don’t make any money from my work. I am disabled because of illness and have a very limited income. But you can help by making a donation to help me continue to research and write informative, insightful and independent articles, and to provide support to others. The smallest amount is much appreciated – thank you.


13 thoughts on “Theresa May euphemizes savage cuts to PIP when confronted by an angry disabled person demanding democratic accountability

  1. What does euphemises mean? I can’t find it in any dictionary and my spell-checker says it is not a real word. Thanks.


    1. “refer to (something unpleasant or embarrassing) by means of a euphemism.”


      a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.
      “the jargon has given us ‘downsizing’ as a euphemism for cuts”
      synonyms: polite term, substitute, mild alternative, indirect term, understatement, underplaying, softening, politeness, genteelism, coy term “‘professional foul’ is just a euphemism for cheating”

      Liked by 2 people

  2. The outsourcing of assessments and denial of the reality of the experience of disability is dogma lead. Theresa May has to wear her party’s blinkers .

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Hey Kitty,

    Thank you for an insightful and informative article.

    I am involved in Welfare provision and daily encounter individuals like yourself who are left distressed and despairing by the PIP process and the administration of it as a Benefit. I personally think it is a very poor, unfair, unreasonable and generally unfit replacement for DLA that is being systematically eroded, and agree with all the points you make including those concerning Maximus (and ATOS) and their pillaging and profiteering of the public purse. It is pure greed.

    That Maximus operate their own complaints process independently of DWP means in effect that it is very difficult indeed to challenge the assessor on the quality of their assessment without incurring further expense and/or obtaining additional evidence from GP’s and Consultants alike. I would however encourage individuals to write even if it is only to acquire evidence should an applicant engage in the Appeals process.

    With regard to making a formal complaint to the DWP about the PIP Application process (and possibly as a result the decision itself) your letter will receive a reply, but be advised that the DWP will generally not seek redress of your decision unless you have already engaged in the disputes process, or there has been a service level failure or a failure to meet due process, or unless your issues and concerns are supported by your MP and presented in letter by them to the DWP directly. I would suggest going to your Labour MP rather than a Conservative MP where your issues and concerns may find a greater sense of fairness and support. I would however urge everyone to write to the DWP complaining about PIP, and I would encourage as many people as possible to write to their MP’s as well and voice their concerns directly. ALL letters to the DWP written by your MP will be answered, and once the reply is received it is yours to do with as you will.

    I am sorry to hear of your upset Kitty and to feel something of your anger and resentment. Believe me there are many working within Welfare provision who feel similarly and support your views, and many also working within the Medical profession who identify the failings of PIP as well. One hopes the replacement government for the fat-cat Tories will be wholly sympathetic and start to piece back together again a Welfare State that is the envy of the world and supportive to those that depend upon it. I hold out for hope for one and all.

    Thanks again for the article, I look forward to reading more at another time. Take care of you and of one and all and have an enjoyable week.

    Namaste 🙂


    Liked by 3 people

  4. If people do not think it is wrong to take money from those who need it and pay out to private companies even more than they state they are saving then god help us. I also suspect the amount they state they are saving which is below what they are paying out to their pals/donors is not taking into account decisions overturned through mandatory reconsiderations and overturned on appeal.I would not trust the Tories as far as I could throw them.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. The PIP assessments are a disgrace.

    I personally have not had one yet. Am still on DLA and was given life time award back in 1993 I think when the benefit first came out. Still waiting to be contacted while hoping that June as they say will be the end of May. I think one way or the other it will be.

    I’ve heard first hand how unfair the PIP assessments can be,

    I’m on the Autism Spectrum and have problems with executive function and suffer with high anxiety. Have done all my life.

    As such I go to a regular support/social group that I help run in the Trafford area.

    Three friends of mine from that group have undergone the PIP assessment and been deemed as not impaired enough to warrant the award. One scored 7 points and the other scored one point.

    The one that only got the one point has appealed the decision and won the standard care award.

    The one that scored 7 points is awaiting mandatory consideration. But have told him to ask the person that runs are group to help him with the appeals process should the mandatory consideration not work out. She is a trained psychologist and social worker and the point person in Trafford that deals with autism.

    Both these people are quite seriously impaired but can communicate verbally. One of them is always worried about something or other and was already worrying about whether he will get the award again when he has to re apply in two years. On the day he was given the award there was something in the news about more cuts to benefits. I remember telling him to just try not to worry about it until they contact him again for the mandatory re assessment.

    What’s apparent is the assessors at ATOS have zero understanding or training when it comes to dealing with mental health issues and Autism. My friend who got 7 points said that the report commented on his communication skills being adequate. Which is bullshit. He finds it really hard to communicate on a day to day basis and does a lot through his poetry and drama to help with that. But when not in those groups and conversing as normal. He’s fine on a one to one, but when it is group conversations he struggles.

    He also has auditory sensitivities like myself and has to wear ear plugs when out and a bout.

    Lets all hope that the polls narrowing is enough to given Corbyn a real shot at getting into No 10. Then hopefully some of these things can get addressed.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s