DLA Reforms : Severe ME Form Letter. (Please Repost)

25% Severe ME Group and Stonebird
(Please  repost widely)

Introduction :

In December, the Government launched a consultation on replacing Disability Living Allowance (DLA) with a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) which will have a new method for assessment, including 'independent medical assessment' and more reviews of claimants.

Disability Living Allowance is essential for  people with Severe ME  as it provides tax-free financial support for care or mobility needs  and is not related to an ability to work.

The closing date for the Consultation is Friday 18th February . It is crucial that the voice of the Severely Affected be heard by the DWP and the Government. We have created a form letter and if you are in agreement please feel free to send this or your own response  to the DWP and a copy to your MP  , before Friday  18th February. 

You can send this letter  by post and or by email as follows :

DLA Reform Team
1st Floor
Caxton House
Tothill Street

Email: consultation.dlareform@dwp.gsi.gov.uk

Please also  send a copy to your MP (you can email them by entering your postcode into www.writetothem.com).

The full consultation can be found here :


Dear DLA Reform Team,


I have severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME), a neurological disease that affects multiple systems of the body, and I am severely disabled. There is no known cure for my disease. Severe ME brings profound cognitive problems as well as functional disabilities, severe ongoing malaise that is amplified on even minor exertion, and many other complex symptoms that can make life a torment.

Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is an essential payment that people with severe ME rely upon to help meet their care and mobility needs.  There are no compelling grounds to abolish it. The suggestion that the DWP can justifiably slash the welfare budget under the banner of replacing DLA with a system of  ‘Personal Independence Payments’ (PIP) that is ‘simpler’ and ‘fairer’ is fundamentally flawed and disingenuous. It would appear that many people who face additional costs of living as a result of having a long term disabling disorder will no longer qualify for help when DLA is replaced with PIP. The predictable impact of the PIP system on people with prolonged ill health and disabilities will be enormously detrimental and unacceptable.

There are also potential adverse knock on consequences. If a person loses their benefits under PIP, then their carer may loose Carer's Allowance, then making it impossible to pay basic bills and to carry on caring.

The administrative costs of replacing DLA with the new system will be hugely expensive and a poor use of taxpayer’s money.

The Ministerial foreword to the consultation paper states: “We are steadfast in our support for the principles of DLA, as a non-means-tested cash benefit contributing to the cash costs incurred by disabled people.”  If this support is to progress beyond lip service then the government require to radically rethink their legislative plans for a new system.

I ask you not to abandon the Disability Living Allowance and replace it with Personal Independence Payment. The government’s plans amount to the introduction of an inferior, unreasonable and unfair system. The introduction of PIP may act to reduce the budget deficit but unlike DLA it will not meet the needs of people who are chronically sick or disabled. 

Yours sincerely,


  1. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23096


    Currently, the vitality of the liberal welfare state has been the focus of many discussions. A liberal welfare state is a state that essentially is one that has programs to reduce inequalities amongst its citizens. These programs include state focus on the poorer strata or members of a society and a much broader focus on social programs to reduce inequalities amongst the citizenry.

    After the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the liberal welfare state has been in decline. This was attributed to so-called fiscal crises, which instituted containment policies that would later evolve into government liquidation of social programs. There is, however, a very good case to argue the opposite.

    The liberal welfare state arose at a time when there was a serious communist option in Europe and globally. After the Second World War in Europe and Asia, there were strong communist movements and a great deal of support for communism. Workers were radicalizing since 1900. The creation of the liberal welfare state neutralized any drive towards communism in Western Europe and Japan by satisfying the demands of vast segments of mainstream society. It was in effect a lulling of working class demands.

    After the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union, the ruling capitalist classes in the Western Bloc no longer needed the liberal welfare state to placate mainstream society from imposing communism. After the start of the current economic crisis, cutbacks to social programs and even broader austerity measures have been applied further against the liberal welfare state. From the perspective of a Marxist historical analysis, the liberal welfare states served the capitalist class in eroding the demands of the working class and mainstream society.



Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Linda's response to the BMJ

The psychiatric abuse of Children with ME

We Remember: A poem for 8th August, Severe ME Understanding and Remembrance Day