The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[JamesT]

This isn't true though. Look at the last budget. Fuel duty remained the same. But the £2 bus fare cap, which was scheduled to end at the end of 2024, was replaced with a £3 bus fare cap.

Fuel prices have remained remarkably static. In 2024 the average price for a litre of unleaded was 141p. In 2012 it was 136p. However 136p in 2012 would now be worth 197p. So, in real terms, petrol now is about 50p a litre cheaper than it was 12 years ago.

You can do wonderful things picking and choosing your dates. 2012 was a peak of petrol prices. If instead you choose January 2016 when petrol was 102p, with inflation that would now be 141p.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Personally, I have no problem with a scheme to help disabled people have improved mobility and access to work via adapted vehicles (if required) that we pay for (I would pay for it all!) but it should be basic and cheap models/vehicles only.

Most people with mobility problems don't need an adapted vehicle. They are capable of getting in and out of a car. They just can't walk very far once they are out of the car. The only adaptation many people will need is a boot big enough to fit a wheelchair or a walker into it.

The issue is, as I said above, that people don't understand the benefits system because they don't use it and so untruths and partial truths easily take hold.

There are 23 cars you can get on the Motability scheme with no advance payment, i.e. the PIP mobility component alone covers the cost. This includes some basic cars like the Kia Picanto, Dacia Sandero Stepway, or the Hyundai i10. Cars we all agree are at the basic end of the spectrum. But it also includes lower-spec models of cars like the Ford Puma, the Nissan Juke, and the Renault Captur. The Puma is a nice car but if it costs the same as a Dacia crapbox why wouldn't you let a disabled person choose that instead?

For any other car, the disabled person is paying out of their own money for a better model of car.

If we take "the cost to the taxpayer" to be the PIP mobility component then it matters not a jot whether someone is driving a Dacia or a BMW. The "cost to the taxpayer" is the same. If someone wants to pay extra from their own money to upgrade then why would anyone object to that?

The trouble is when you get 30p Lee and the likes saying "the taxpayer gives people a free BMW for being a bit depressed". This really isn't true. But if you are told it is true then, yeah, you will feel aggrieved when you can't afford a BMW.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I saw this interview: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8jrw21lx0xo with a disabled person regarding Motability. The gist was "I am disabled, why cant I drive the car I want"?

To which the answer is of course that the state provides the basics you need and you can top it up to what you want at a commercial rate like an able bodied person can.

NHS spectacles are a good example of this - the basics are free if you are entitled to them, but if you want an expensive designer pair those are not. I can't remember if it's a top up or pay in full though - with dentistry it's that you either choose NHS or private for given work.

 

[DarloRich]

If we take "the cost to the taxpayer" to be the PIP mobility component then it matters not a jot whether someone is driving a Dacia or a BMW. The "cost to the taxpayer" is the same. If someone wants to pay extra from their own money to upgrade then why would anyone object to that?

Because the perception ( perhaps wrongly but existing within many) is that the Motability user is getting a "better" deal than the rest of us.

Say I am on Motability - how much will a BMW X1 cost me in my own money and how much will the government provide? The list price for me seems to be £37k to £56k.

PS I am not on the reformist bus here. I want this scheme to continue. It is life enhancing for many people and critical in getting disabled people into proper work. It has, however, got to be fair and be seen to be fair.

NHS spectacles are a good example of this - the basics are free if you are entitled to them, but if you want an expensive designer pair those are not. I can't remember if it's a top up or pay in full though - with dentistry it's that you either choose NHS or private for given work.

Same principle. Different scale.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Because the perception ( perhaps wrongly but existing within many) is that the Motability user is getting a better/less fair deal than the rest of us.

Say I am on Motability - how much will a BMW X1 cost me in my own money and how much will the government provide? The list price for me seems to be £37k to £56k.

I agree there is a perception that someone is getting a BMW for free. A perception that is wilfully stoked up by people who know better.

A quick Google search suggests you can lease a BMW X1 from about £450-£475 per month for the cheapest spec. For a 36-month contract it'd cost you roughly £16,200 to £17,100.

Through Motability you pay a £3,999 advance payment for the cheapest spec X1 and then you pay your £77 per week (£333 per month) PIP to Motability for three years. For a 36-month contract it'd cost you £15,987. Higher spec X1s come with a £4,999 advance payment.

So there's not actually all that much difference. Maybe £1000 or so over the entire contract, so maybe £300 or so per year.

The issue really is that people don't understand how Motability works. The government gives you enhanced rate PIP for the mobility component at £77 per week. What you do with it is up to you.

You can choose to use the Motability scheme and give that £77 per week to them. In exchange they will lease you a car. You won't have to 'top up' if you get a cheaper car. If you get a more expensive car you will have to 'top up' from your own money.

You can also choose not to use Motability at all and the government are still giving you that £77 per week.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I agree there is a perception that someone is getting a BMW for free

Darren Grimes was at it yesterday on Twitter - something along the lines of “I’m anxious about the budget so I’m going to get PIP and get a free BMW, that’s how it works right?”

And he is a serving councillor, making rubbish jokes at the expense of some of his more vulnerable constituents. He really is an odious little grifter

 

[Tetchytyke]

NHS spectacles are a good example of this - the basics are free if you are entitled to them, but if you want an expensive designer pair those are not.

That's simply not true, though.

If you are entitled to NHS glasses you get a voucher which has a monetary value attached to it. You take that voucher to a spectacles retailer. You choose your spectacles. If the spectacles cost the same price or less than the value of the voucher then you don't pay any extra.

If you want the designer glasses then the voucher is applied to the overall cost and you pay the difference out of your own pocket.

There are 10 optical voucher values. The value of a voucher ranges from £42.40 to £233.56, depending on the strength of the lenses you need.

If, for clinical reasons, you need tints or prisms in your glasses, the value of the voucher will be higher to reflect this.

If you receive an NHS optical voucher, you're free to take it to any supplier of your choice, provided they accept NHS optical vouchers. They'll ask you to show proof of your entitlement to optical vouchers.

If your glasses or contact lenses cost more than the value of your voucher, you'll have to pay the difference.

NHS voucher values for glasses and lenses

Find out about the NHS voucher values for glasses and contact lenses.

www.nhs.uk

 

[DarloRich]

Maybe £1000 or so over the entire contract, so maybe £300 or so per year.

That is still quite a bit if you are struggling to make ends meet. I know when I was really struggling I would have been really angry about this. It isn't petty jealousy when the bailiffs are after you for the gas bill!

There is a sperate argument about whether a person on benefits should be able to pay a £4k uplift payment. If they can pay that much should they get benefits but lets not go there!

And he is a serving councillor, making rubbish jokes at the expense of some of his more vulnerable constituents. He really is an odious little grifter

That is why this issue has to be dealt with. It is an open goal for these clowns. IF they get in the Motability rate will be 0. I would rather we sorted out the system so people thought it was fair rather than bin it!

 

[SuspectUsual]

I would rather we sorted out the system so people thought it was fair rather than bin it!

At the moment, I don’t think even doing this would make much of a difference. Reform have their audience eating out of the palms of their hands. Reasoning with these people will make no difference, because Nigel, because immigrants, because taking back control of are country, because flags

Thoroughly depressing

 

[ainsworth74]

That is still quite a bit if you are struggling to make ends meet. I know when I was really struggling I would have been really angry about this. It isn't petty jealousy when the bailiffs are after you for the gas bill!

It is but then the people that are struggling and on PIP would not be paying that charge they'd just be swapping their Mobility payment for the base model car rather than paying for a fancy one.

There is a sperate argument about whether a person on benefits should be able to pay a £4k uplift payment. If they can pay that much should they get benefits but lets not go there!

PIP is not means tested but even the lower capital limit on means tested benefits (primarily Universal Credit these days) is £6,000 above that there's a deduction (currently at the rate of £4.35 per month per £250 over the limit) until either your award hits nil or you reach the upper limit of £16,000 after which there is no entitlement. Perfectly possible for someone to be on UC to afford the £4k payment. I think it would be unwise and they'd be better harbouring their money for a rainy day but perfectly allowable. Though someone in that position is far more likely to be getting one of the base models where the only "cost" is your Enhanced Mobility payment.

At the moment, I don’t think even doing this would make much of a difference. Reform have their audience eating out of the palms of their hands. Reasoning with these people will make no difference, because Nigel, because immigrants, because taking back control of are country, because flags

Quite, I'm far from convinced that just kowtowing and going along with what Reform are saying is actually helping anyone. It would be nice if Labour (and others) actually tried to come out and rubbish some of this nonsense that is being peddled about PIP and Motability. Perhaps there are things that need to be tweaked within the current system but we could at least start by pointing out the utter falsehoods being thrown about by the likes of Grimes.

 

[TravelDream]

If we take "the cost to the taxpayer" to be the PIP mobility component then it matters not a jot whether someone is driving a Dacia or a BMW. The "cost to the taxpayer" is the same. If someone wants to pay extra from their own money to upgrade then why would anyone object to that?

Here, it's primarily optics that are the issue.

From the government's perspective, it would be best if Motability was only for cars needing physical adjustments and, otherwise, people used their PIP with commercial lessors.

And for all the talk of how it's peoples' rights to the car and how awful Labour is for tinkering around the edges, a Reform government would likely take swinging cuts to the programme and benefits in general.
Don't forget they are the only major party who have not promised to keep the triple lock and have actively spoken about reducing PIP.

 

[Egg Centric]

As for fairness, personally I prefer having to pay the VAT rather than be unwell enough to qualify for PIP.

My issue with applying VAT to Motability is that it will disproportionately affect the poorest disabled people. If you currently take one of the cheaper cars- full PIP mobility payment but no advance payment- then if they start charging VAT on the monthly lease these people will be looking at having to somehow find about £2,750 as an advance payment. This is because the PIP payment will now only cover about 80% of the weekly cost, and any excess of the PIP payment has to be paid upfront in advance. How will they find that?

The obvious thing to do is to cap the VAT exemption. That way everyone gets the necessary car and the people you're talking about are unaffected, but anyone wanting something better can pay the full price for spec enhancements like anyone not on motability would. The wider context here remains our crappy public finances and I don't see how effectively subsidising the upgrade is a good use of resources.

(Out of interest how does this work on Isle of Man?)

 

[Tetchytyke]

That is still quite a bit if you are struggling to make ends meet. I know when I was really struggling I would have been really angry about this. It isn't petty jealousy when the bailiffs are after you for the gas bill!

There is a sperate argument about whether a person on benefits should be able to pay a £4k uplift payment. If they can pay that much should they get benefits but lets not go there!

I'll start with the second point, PIP is paid according to the extent of your additional mobility or personal care needs. PIP is not a work replacement benefit, therefore it is not means-tested. You can- and a significant number of recipients do- receive PIP (more so with the mobility component than the personal care component, for obvious reasons) and also work, either part time or full time.

If you were to move PIP to being a work replacement benefit and if you were to means-test PIP then all you would be doing is further excluding disabled people from employment.

As for your first point, I understand why people would be angry at the perception that disabled people get a free beemer. The perception is not true. The people pushing the perception know it is not true. But the people pushing the perception know that the target audience don't know it is not true.

The government give you £77 a week for your mobility needs. What you do with it is up to you.

Anything else is, in my opinion, nothing more than performative cruelty. A good car like the Ford Puma costs Motability £77 a week to lease to you. A crap car like the Dacia Sandero also costs Motability £77 a week to lease to you. So why on earth would you force people to only have a Dacia?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2025 ==

The obvious thing to do is to cap the VAT exemption. That way everyone gets the necessary car and the people you're talking about are unaffected, but anyone wanting something better can pay the full price for spec enhancements like anyone not on motability would.

I can see the argument for keeping the base lease (i.e. the £77/week) VAT-free but charging VAT on any advance payment. I'm not sure how you could write that into the regulations but VAT is fiendishly complicated anyway so it could be done.

As for the IOM, VAT rules are the same. I don't think Motability operates here but I don't actually know.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2025 ==

Here, it's primarily optics that are the issue.

From the government's perspective, it would be best if Motability was only for cars needing physical adjustments and, otherwise, people used their PIP with commercial lessors.

If you charge VAT on Motability payments then for every £1 of PIP the government immediately get about 17p back.

The government are incredibly happy to go along with the optics because removing the VAT exemption is effectively a net 17% benefit cut for people receiving the enhanced rate of PIP mobility element.

That's why the government aren't countering the absolute nonsense being peddled by the likes of Reform.

Sadly Keir and his lackey Morgan McSweeney still don't grasp the fact that Reform supporters want Reform. They don't want Keir Starmer in a waxed jacket and a flat cap doing his pub karaoke version of Nigel Farage, they want the actual Nigel Farage.

I still think the Labour right believe that they'll be OK in a general election because the left won't have anywhere else to take their vote. I think they're very badly mistaken.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

At the moment, I don’t think even doing this would make much of a difference. Reform have their audience eating out of the palms of their hands. Reasoning with these people will make no difference, because Nigel, because immigrants, because taking back control of are country, because flags

Thoroughly depressing

And one of the main reasons for the rise of Reform is that the two main parties have proved utterly inept at sorting a wide range of issues, and in many cases have simply ignored them for years. It's not really any surprise that a lot of people decide to follow a new entrant which claims it will address some of these issues.

Don't blame the potential Reform voters. Blame the Tories and Labour for their woeful record of government in recent years.

 

[jfollows]

Yes, Labour was elected on the basis of “change” but hasn’t really changed anything. As we saw yesterday, the criminal justice system is still a mess, caused by the Tories, especially Grayling, but nothing has changed.
Labour is heading towards a LibDem annihilation by breaking a manifesto promise. If it does, why should anyone believe a word they say? All the more galling since the manifesto promise was stupid and unnecessary.

 

[Egg Centric]

And one of the main reasons for the rise of Reform is that the two main parties have proved utterly inept at sorting a wide range of issues, and in many cases have simply ignored them for years. It's not really any surprise that a lot of people decide to follow a new entrant which claims it will address some of these issues.

Don't blame the potential Reform voters. Blame the Tories and Labour for their woeful record of government in recent years.

Let's wait to see the Reform manifesto.

If it turns out to be doing good things like quietly keeping ILR indefinite rather than their current absurd policy, abolishing the triple lock, care reform, massive simplification to planning, removing the cliff edges in tax/UC, abolishing motorway speed lmiits and legalising cannabis then heck I might even vote for them. If as is far more likely it's full of bungs to the client vote and pensioners, cuts to the most vulnerable and populist nonsense then I absolutely will blame Reform voters when things get even worse as it was entirely predictable.

 

[DarloRich]

Anything else is, in my opinion, nothing more than performative cruelty.

Maybe. However, we have to acknowledge there is a perception issue and because of that the government must be seen to do something. Doing nothing will get us Farage.

A good car like the Ford Puma costs Motability £77 a week to lease to you. A crap car like the Dacia Sandero also costs Motability £77 a week to lease to you. So why on earth would you force people to only have a Dacia?

No issue with that. I would be happy to have a "free" Ford Puma or even a Dacia Sandero!

To be really clear: If I get a base model car in exchange for my PIP payment I pay nothing out of my pocket for it? To all intents and purposes I get a "free" car. Do I pay for servicing?

 

[jfollows]

Let's wait to see the Reform manifesto.

I might even vote for them.

Although I probably won’t, I’ve given up making definitive statements, I agree. I’ve voted for parties that the younger me said I’d never vote for, for sure. The comfortable status quo of two party politics went many years ago.

 

[Yew]

Maybe. However, we have to acknowledge there is a perception issue and because of that the government must be seen to do something. Doing nothing will get us Farage.

But "something" can be getting someone who knows how the system works to do some explainers about how it actually works, to tackle disinformation, as opposed to cutting a relatively reasonable scheme because of a (possible fabricated) perception of being unreasonable.

 

[DarloRich]

But "something" can be getting someone who knows how the system works to do some explainers about how it actually works, to tackle disinformation, as opposed to cutting a relatively reasonable scheme because of a (possible fabricated) perception of being unreasonable.

yes, that could be an option. Not one that will work though. We are way past that.

People, especially those working hard and struggling, are angry and feel they are having the urine extracted by this and other items. I understand that and I worry about what that means for all of us. I am not sure others do.

 

[Yew]

To be really clear: If I get a base model car in exchange for my PIP payment I pay nothing out of my pocket for it?

If you didn't have the car, you would have the entirety of your PIP payment, which you could spend of other things.

 

[Egg Centric]

Although I probably won’t, I’ve given up making definitive statements, I agree. I’ve voted for parties that the younger me said I’d never vote for, for sure. The comfortable status quo of two party politics went many years ago.

I've voted for every mainstream party in the past. I've even had my vote make a difference - I made an independent come joint last rather than last once

 

[brad465]

Yes, Labour was elected on the basis of “change” but hasn’t really changed anything. As we saw yesterday, the criminal justice system is still a mess, caused by the Tories, especially Grayling, but nothing has changed.
Labour is heading towards a LibDem annihilation by breaking a manifesto promise. If it does, why should anyone believe a word they say? All the more galling since the manifesto promise was stupid and unnecessary.

Every government that has got in, has got in on the basis voters punished the previous one more than they desired the winner. When Labour are voted out this will be the same reason, then everyone will complain about who they have as a result. Voters need to realise that "wait and hope" does not work, they have to actively be part of the solution and campaign through the grassroots for the specific wants to stand a chance of happening.

I'm actually wondering if what we need is a 1-2 year government of national unity focused on constitutional reform to bring about the conditions to improve politics and in turn the country. It would focus solely on introducing electoral reform, reforming the standards MPs and Ministers are held account to, rules around party funding and lobby group influence, plus on second jobs/income, among other things. Once these are done, a general election is held with all the reforms now in place in law. There are obvious problems with this, like working out who would head such an operation (it would probably have to be someone independent of parliament), but the downward doom loop cannot go on forever.

 

[Egg Centric]

I'm actually wondering if what we need is a 1-2 year government of national unity focused on constitutional reform to bring about the conditions to improve politics and in turn the country. It would focus solely on introducing electoral reform, reforming the standards MPs and Ministers are held account to, rules around party funding and lobby group influence, plus on second jobs/income, among other things. Once these are done, a general election is held with all the reforms now in place in law. There are obvious problems with this, like working out who would head such an operation (it would probably have to be someone independent of parliament), but the downward doom loop cannot go on forever.

While I *personally* would find this really interesting, it would go down like a bowl of cold sick to 95% of the population. I don't see why government needs to be put on hold to do it either?

 

[RT4038]

While I *personally* would find this really interesting, it would go down like a bowl of cold sick to 95% of the population. I don't see why government needs to be put on hold to do it either?

Or why Government would actually want to initiate it either?

 

[brad465]

While I *personally* would find this really interesting, it would go down like a bowl of cold sick to 95% of the population. I don't see why government needs to be put on hold to do it either?

At the moment it would be roundly rejected, but if an apparent downward spiral goes on long enough, it won't take much to convince a critical mass of the need. Trouble is, they could easily be convinced of something just as significant but the wrong course entirely.

Or why Government would actually want to initiate it either?

They wouldn't initiate it willingly, it would happen after a collapse and/or revolution.

 

[ainsworth74]

No issue with that. I would be happy to have a "free" Ford Puma or even a Dacia Sandero!

Free in that you're exchanging your Mobility component for it and not paying anything else (it includes insurance, MOT, service and breakdown cover).

But it's also "free" in that to get that level of award you can only stand and then move more than 1 metre but no more than 20 metres, cannot stand at all or cannot move more than 1m. Alternatively it's "free" but then you cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid. Or some combination of slightly less limited movement along with an issue with planning or following the route of a journey (perhaps you can move up to 50m but still need support to plan a journey due to a cognitive impairment).

Personally speaking I'd rather skip the "free" car and be able to walk further than 20m or be able to actually leave my house at all.

As a reminder (aimed more generally than just you!) the qualifying criteria for the Motability scheme is an award of the Enhanced Rate of Mobility. To get that you need to score 12 points in the PIP assessment (carried out following the completion of a claim form, a medical assessment with a DWP contractor, and review of any submitted medical evidence). The criteria for PIP aren't secret and neither is the assessment guide. You can find it here (that link goes directly to the mobility activities, I wouldn't read the whole thing!).

Here are the criteria that score you 12 points under activity 11 (relating to mental health):

Descriptor F (12 points): Cannot follow the route of a familiar journey without another person, an assistance dog or an orientation aid.​

‘Follow the route’ means make one’s way along a route to a destination. This involves more than just navigation of the route. Safety should be considered in respect of risks that relate to making ones’ way along a route (for example, tendency to wander into the road, inability to safely cross a road or risk of self-harm due to overwhelming psychological distress caused). For example, a claimant with a severe visual or profound hearing impairment may be at a substantial risk from traffic when crossing a road.

The familiar route does not need to be planned – it is familiar. Any significant diversions from that route are therefore irrelevant – it is no longer the familiar route. However, making one’s way around road works, or a change of train platform (i.e. minor diversions) are part of being able to follow the route of a journey.

The descriptor refers to “a familiar journey” rather than “any familiar journey”. Accordingly, claimants can satisfy the descriptor by showing that they typically need to be accompanied by another person or an assistance dog or to use an orientation aid on the majority of days when undertaking familiar journeys (it’s not necessary to show that they need such support for every possible familiar journey on most days).

This descriptor is most likely to apply to claimants with cognitive, sensory or developmental impairments, or a mental health condition that results in overwhelming psychological distress, who cannot, due to their impairment, work out where to go, follow directions, follow a journey safely or deal with unexpected changes in their journey, even when the journey is familiar. A claimant who suffers overwhelming psychological distress whilst on the familiar journey and who needs to be accompanied to overcome the overwhelming psychological distress may satisfy descriptor 1F.

A claimant who is actively suicidal or who is at substantial risk of exhibiting violent behaviour and who needs to be accompanied by another person to prevent them harming themselves or others when undertaking a journey would meet this descriptor. In cases such as this, the HP should look for evidence of suicidal thoughts and/or behaviour. In cases of violent behaviour there must be evidence that they’re unable to control their behaviour and that being accompanied by another person, who can intervene if necessary, reduces a substantial risk of the person committing a violent act.

Orientation aids are specialist aids. Ordinary satellite navigation systems such as those found in mobile phones do not count as specialist. Maps or lists of directions do not count as specialist. A long cane (as used by person with sight impairment) is an example of a specialist orientation aid (NB – a symbol cane, which is used to signal to others the person has some sight impairment, is not an orientation aid as it does not actually help the person orient themselves).

And here they are for Activity 12 (physical mobility):

This activity considers a claimant’s physical ability to move around without severe discomfort, such as breathlessness, pain or fatigue. This includes the ability to stand and then move up to 20 metres, up to 50 metres, up to 200 metres and over 200 metres.

If an individual cannot reliably complete an activity in the way described in a descriptor then they should be considered unable to complete it at that level and an alternative descriptor selected.

Notes
This activity should be judged in relation to a type of surface normally expected out of doors, such as pavements on the flat and includes the consideration of kerbs.

‘Standing’ means to stand upright with at least one biological foot on the ground with or without suitable aids and appliances (note – a prosthesis is considered an appliance, so a claimant with a unilateral prosthetic leg may be able to stand, whereas a bilateral lower limb amputee would be unable to stand under this definition).

‘Stand and then move’ requires an individual to stand and then move independently while remaining standing. It does not include a claimant who stands and then transfers into a wheelchair or similar device. Individuals who require a wheelchair or similar device to move a distance should not be considered able to stand and move that distance.

Limited pauses do not necessarily mean the bout of moving has come to an end. For example, a claimant who has some difficulty with balance may pause before avoiding a small obstacle or stepping up onto a kerb – the claimant should not be viewed as completely stopping at that point. The reliability criteria should be applied when assessing what distances the claimant can achieve.

Aids or appliances that a person uses to support their physical mobility may include walking sticks, crutches and prostheses.

When assessing whether the activity can be carried out reliably, consideration should be given to the manner in which the activity is completed. This includes, but is not limited to, the claimant’s gait, their speed, the risk of falls and symptoms or side effects that could affect their ability to complete the activity, such as pain, breathlessness and fatigue. However, for this activity, this only refers to the physical act of moving. For example, danger awareness is considered as part of activity 11.

Posture should only be taken into account if it affects the person’s ability to mobilise and to an acceptable standard (e.g. without severe discomfort). Physical symptoms arising from overwhelming psychological distress which have been considered for activity 11 should be disregarded for the purposes of activity 12.

[...]

Descriptor E (12 points): Can stand and then move more than 1 metre but no more than 20 metres, either aided or unaided​

Descriptor F (12 points): Cannot, either aided or unaided:​

i. stand; or​

ii. move more than 1 metre​

You can mix and match (score 8 points in one and 4 points in another to make 12 in total) but read those criteria and tell me that even if you're not quite as disabled as the top end of those activities but score enough points to gain an Enhanced Rate it is really worth the "free" car. I don't think it is.

Which is why it would be nice to see some spine from politicians and media types who know better to call out the likes of Grimes or Farage or any of the others that are wittering on about this at the moment. Would be nice to see what they might say if someone asked them if they'd like to be limited to mobilising 20m so they could get the "free" car or if maybe they might value their mobility a bit more highly than a Dacia Sandero.

 

[Tetchytyke]

To be really clear: If I get a base model car in exchange for my PIP payment I pay nothing out of my pocket for it? To all intents and purposes I get a "free" car. Do I pay for servicing?

The government have decided that someone with significant mobility problems should get £77 a week to help them with the cost of dealing with those problems.

Motability offer a scheme where, for £77 a week, they will lease you a car. This lease is all-inclusive and includes insurance, roadside assistance, and routine maintenance. At the end of the 36-month lease Motability take the car back and sell it.

The use of the car isn't free. It costs the disabled person £77 per week.

The Motability scheme is voluntary and, if you don't join it, you have that £77 a week to spend on whatever you want.

people, especially those working hard and struggling, are angry and feel they are having the urine extracted by this and other items. I understand that

Parts of the media and certain political parties are very much pushing the line that if you say you're a bit depressed or a bit autistic then the government will give you a free beemer. And you mugs are the ones who are going to pay for it.

If I saw that and believed it to be true- after all, the Daily Mail never lies- I'd be absolutely livid about it too.

I understand the optics, I understand why people who simply don't understand the system (and why would they, they've never used it) will take these stories at face value and will be raging about it. But successive governments have never challenged this misinformation, instead they've encouraged it and so it becomes perceived as truth.

As I've said before, for fifteen years I worked as a debt and benefits adviser before I moved to the Isle of Man. The look of shock on middle class people's faces when they were told what they would actually receive on unemployment benefits, or what they would actually receive for their seriously disabled child, told its own story. Turns out unemployment and disability isn't a land of milk and honey. Who knew?

But this is why the misinformation about the welfare benefits system grinds my gears as much as it does. It's not just the outright lies, either. Ever notice how the government and the DWP always refer to the cost of "fraud and error", rather than just the cost of fraud, and how they imply error is on the part of the claimant and therefore it is basically the same as fraud? "Fraud and error" is a much bigger number because most of it is actually DWP error, where the DWP haven't assessed a claim properly and have paid someone too much money.

It's exactly the same as the misinformation about immigrants being "put up in four star hotels". In some cases it is true that they are being accommodated in mid-range hotels. I stayed in one quite recently which is a four-star hotel of a major international chain in a major northern city centre. Half the building was given to immigrant accommodation, half was being operated as a hotel with all the trappings of a hotel. Of course the migrants weren't allowed in the hotel bit. But who is really benefitting from this? The migrants have no choice where they are allocated. They (understandably) were excluded from all the hotel's facilities, so it's not like they were sipping pina coladas by the hotel pool on someone else's dime. I saw a family of five sharing a single hotel bedroom. It was heart-breakingly desolate.

But the hotel itself will be making a lot of money from accommodating them; they will be making more money than operating as a hotel. That's not the migrants' fault, most of whom appeared to be Syrian or Iranian, about as legitimate a war refugee as you'd ever see. They all looked like they'd rather be in proper suitable accommodation rather than an entire family stuck in a small hotel room. But if I saw the story "migrant holidaying in [relatively nice hotel] in [vibrant attractive city] and you're paying for it suckers!" I'd be fuming too.

 

[ainsworth74]

As I've said before, for fifteen years I worked as a debt and benefits adviser before I moved to the Isle of Man. The look of shock on middle class people's faces when they were told what they would actually receive on unemployment benefits, or what they would actually receive for their seriously disabled child, told its own story. Turns out unemployment and disability isn't a land of milk and honey. Who knew?

I've not done this for fifteen years (though it's getting scarily close, where has the time gone) and would 100% echo this. I've told a lot of people how much they'll actually get and they struggle to believe I'm telling the truth. After all benefits is easy street according to the Daily Mail and lots of politicians and other media types....

 

[DarloRich]

Free in that you're exchanging your Mobility component for it and not paying anything else (it includes insurance, MOT, service and breakdown cover).

so free then

As I said I don't mind that disabled people get help and support to join the workplace and live as "normal" a life as they can. I simply state I understand why the fact that there is a "free" car involved upsets lots of people who cant afford a car despite working hard. It doesn't seem/feel "fair" to many.

We as lefties have to acknowledge that. I think, sadly, we are beyond tyring to explain. We have to do something and be seen to do something. Same as the boats.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2025 ==

I've not done this for fifteen years (though it's getting scarily close, where has the time gone) and would 100% echo this. I've told a lot of people how much they'll actually get and they struggle to believe I'm telling the truth. After all benefits is easy street according to the Daily Mail and lots of politicians and other media types....

I suspect unlike many here I have been there! Luckily I didn't believe the media.