Hellforms and protest

[penguin_worship]

Have managed to break the back of the accounts bits that have been on the to do list all year. Tax returns for flannelcat and myself now submitted, hopefully with some money to come back *yay* After the Hellform of the DLA i did with eglantinedreams yesterday, the tax returns felt like a breeze

Comments

[anotherusedpage]

Other flaws that I have noticed: no definition of what the 'most disabled' people will be; no critereon and no specificness, this makes it very difficult for any campaigning group to consult usefully because we don't know who these cuts are targeted at.

More vie foreverdirt and vampirekitten: Me: "So, foreverirt: what do we think the key things not in this report are?"
vk: "Any sense of how any of these goals are going to be achieved."

The report says they haven't yet designed the new assessment. (Or, rather, "Our work to develop the detail of the assessment is not complete.") It's hard to produce concrete criticisms of something that doesn't exist. But here are some things to worry about:

1) They talk a lot about being sure to concentrate the help on those with "greatest need", but don't give any criteria for how they will identify greatest need.

2) They talk a lot about making a "newer, fairer, more objective assessment", which are all very nice words, but again, they don't actually give any concrete ways to achieve this.

3) There doesn't appear to be any supporting evidence for why such a costly change is necessary.

4) They talk about being committed to the social model of disability, rather than the medical model. As with many of things they talk about, there's nothing we could find on how they will commit to this model. In this case, it would be nice just to have a definition of what they think this model is. (In particular, it still sounds like the assessment will still place the burden on the individual to know what is medically wrong with them.)