Here's a scholarly analysis of PIP, and it clearly calls for a sharp response grounded in both empathy and evidence

🧭 Reforming PIP is not just policy — it's a moral necessity.

This critique lays bare how fundamentally flawed the current system remains. When your chance to access vital support hinges on whether you had a stroke at 63 or 67, something’s gone terribly wrong.

🔍 PIP was never truly designed to reflect the real costs of disability, nor the lived disadvantages that people face. Calling it an “extra costs” benefit when there’s no actual calculation of those costs is misleading at best — and harmful at worst.

💡 What’s needed isn’t more convoluted points-based assessments. It’s a humane, evidence-informed system that:

• Automatically entitles people with severe, clear diagnoses
• Respects professional medical input over bureaucratic hurdles
• Stops punishing people for the timing of their impairments or for aging

🛑 Abolishing Severe Disablement Allowance and barring older claimants from mobility support only compounds the injustice. If the aim is to “focus help on those most in need,” why are we denying mobility support to someone with profound difficulty walking, simply because they turned 67?

⚖️ Let’s not forget the most important insight here: Disability benefits are not about employment. They’re about equity. About restoring dignity and agency to people living with systemic disadvantage — regardless of whether they can or should work.

📣 True reform begins when we stop pretending the system is working. This piece makes it clear: tinkering isn’t enough. We need compassion, not conditionality. Justice, not jargon.

---