| Non-motoring > Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: bathtub tom | Replies: 65 |
|
New Thu 13 Mar 25 12:51
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - bathtub tom
|
| It's reported that dozens of labour MPs are up in arms because of the proposed cuts. Do you think the MPs know who their electorate are? |
|
New Thu 13 Mar 25 16:02
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> It's reported that dozens of labour MPs are up in arms because of the proposed >> cuts. Do you think the MPs know who their electorate are? Two thoughts: Firstly I'd hope Labour MPs are sufficiently independent minded and thoughtful to follow the facts and not people who believe the latest rubbish in social media. Or the real media for that matter given the nonsense Stig Abel was spouting on Times Radio yesterday. Secondly I think their wider electorate, and particularly those adding to MP's postbags, will have a lot of concern about their own relatives etc. who might be disadvantaged or even impoverished by changes. Right now of course we've only speculation as to what might be involved. One aspect that does alarm me is the probable extent of fraud, with active colusion of car salesmen, affecting Motability. Apparently 50% of cars sold in Northern Ireland are through Motability!! |
|
New Thu 13 Mar 25 16:25
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> >> >> Apparently 50% of cars sold in Northern Ireland are through >> Motability!! >> Back in the bad old days in Northern Ireland the voting turnout at elections used to be as high as 110%, with the slogan "Vote early, vote often " in common use. |
|
New Thu 13 Mar 25 17:22
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - zippy
|
|
Whenever there are Govt or Quango etc. grants there are people who will take advantage. I recall a fortune being lost in the Blair years over learning grants for adults where companies would print cheap learning materials. Sign on scroungers to take the course for an upfront payment of say £50 and bill the govt the full value of the grant - i.e. several thousands of pounds! Same with so called legitimate businesses. A pharmaceuticals wholesaler ripped the NHS out of millions by selling unguents to pharmacies at a monumental price; for example £1000, when the cost price was nearer £100. The pharmacies were on a cost plus agreement for stuff like that and billed the NHS say £1100. The wholesaler then credited the pharmacy £500, splitting the profit with them. When the bank found out they told the wholesaler to re-bank and advised the SFO. Obviously all fraud is bad, but wonder how much is lost to fraud from businesses and / or the rich, as opposed to individuals on benefits. |
|
New Thu 13 Mar 25 18:47
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Terry
|
|
Fraud may be as prevalent amongst the poor as the wealthy or business. Fraud is simply not acceptable. Blaming the rich is no more satisfactory an explanation than blaming the indolent. Both groups are probably partially responsible for excessive spend. The basic issue is that welfare costs are increasing at an unaffordable rate with no credible quantifiable explanation. Choices - either stump up what it costs and fund it by increased taxes or reductions in public spending elsewhere. As a society we have a duty to support those in real need but we have difficult choices to make. I do not believe all public services are efficiently delivered (hence NHS England announcement), nor that policies we currently hold dear are forever sustainable (eg: pensions triple lock). It is something of a surprise that it should be a Labour PM who seems to be taking the initiative - I hope he has the c****** to carry this through. |
|
New Thu 13 Mar 25 19:19
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - sooty123
|
|
>> >> >> >> Firstly I'd hope Labour MPs are sufficiently independent minded and thoughtful to follow the facts >> and not people who believe the latest rubbish in social media. Or the real media >> for that matter given the nonsense Stig Abel was spouting on Times Radio yesterday. >> >> > What was he saying? |
|
New Thu 13 Mar 25 20:02
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> What was he saying? That people who were a bit anxious could get a Motability car. |
|
New Thu 13 Mar 25 19:19
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - sooty123
|
|
I think the PM is feeling squeezed, he wants more headroom for potential tax cuts to show he's not all about increasing taxes. Plus it may give the economy a boost, he also needs to spend big on defence. Welfare spending is a pretty big bill |
|
New Thu 13 Mar 25 21:08
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Manatee
|
|
It's huge and also so has been the growth rate. That's what drives the conclusion that economies must be made. I never thought I would see a Labour government cutting "welfare" to fund a shortfall. The Tories went after the least well off to compensate for the bank bailouts which I thought was despicable. However the growth rate alone, principally around disability related payments, suggests that there is a control issue here around disability and PIP payments (my terminology might be outdated). Crudely, a lot of people over 50 have something wrong with them and when times are tough if they can get signed off there is clearly an advantage and an incentive to doing that. Charitable doctors aside, and there must be a few of those in NI, nobody really knows just how much of a struggle a specific disability for a specific person is apart from that person. Unfortunately it is not easy and will not get any easier to sort the mildly inconvenienced from the real strugglers, some of whom probably could work but would find it very difficult - exactly how much do we expect a disabled person, possible in pain, to struggle to keep working? My own small insight onto this sort of thing is as a pension trustee for 10 years when I reviewed a lot of ill-health retirement cases. This was always done with the benefit of medical reports from occupational health doctors and it wasn't easy. One knew that in reality some were simple early retirement cases in which the member was aware that if their health was judged to be such that they could not, permanently, perform their duties then a higher pension would be the result. In practice we did what the government does. Put the decision back to the doctor as far as possible. In some cases they simply could not say whether the member would recover or not. A regrettable aspect of this is that it looks as if the focus will be on disability payment rather than 'subsistence' payments aka "the dole". So the babies that get thrown out with the bathwater will be the genuinely disabled who appear to be better than they actually are. |
|
New Fri 14 Mar 25 10:29
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Falkirk Bairn
|
|
Some of the targets for Benefit cuts 1 in every 8 "youngsters" (16-24) have left school and are not at University, College, Training or ill - they do not work - they draw benefits &/or other sources casual / cash in hand 8.2 per cent of people aged 16-64 in the UK today (3.4 million people in total) have never had a paid job (besides casual and holiday work) Near neighbour, a widow, lived in a 4 bed home with her 2 teenagers. The house was owned by her parents. Kids left home, after say 5/6 years, and she continued to live in the house for roughly 20 years in total. Council paid the rent and she claimed benefits for all of that time apart from 2 short courses at the local college and a few months reading electric meters. The parents recycled the rent to her plus bought & repaired cars for all that time. Getting money from parents can be taken as income by DWP BUT "those who know the rules" know that they can pay off debt (credit cards/fuel bills etc etc) and this money is disregarded!!! |
|
New Fri 14 Mar 25 12:06
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Getting money from parents can be taken as income by DWP BUT "those who know >> the rules" know that they can pay off debt (credit cards/fuel bills etc etc) and >> this money is disregarded!!! That was the case under legacy benefits and it caused plenty of problems of its own with trying to help people manage their affairs. Universal Credit is more nuanced. It's only unearned income if it's listed in the Regs. |
|
New Fri 14 Mar 25 10:49
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Bobby
|
|
Cutting taxes. At what point are we going to wake up and realise much of what is failing in society is funded by taxes?? Police, justice, court systems, NHS , Heath, potholes, bin collections, education etc etc etc. we can’t just keep trying to reduce taxes time and time again. Those that are very high earners or wealthy can protect themselves from this by paying privately for most things. But the country is going down the dregs in this ever pursuit of lower taxes. Last edited by: Bobby on Fri 14 Mar 25 at 10:51
|
|
New Fri 14 Mar 25 13:32
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Manatee
|
|
If you look at the trend on taxes, then you'll see a rising trend. But I agree with you anyway, the job of government is to do what needs to be done and we have to pay for it or not have it. For 2023 our total tax take/GDP was 35%, France and Denmark were 44%. Saying "we're going to cut your taxes" usually means "we're going to reduce your services". But it seems that welfare is not adequately controlled or targeted, rather than the rates being too high. Any system can be gamed and housing benefit is a prime example on which many landlords get rich. HB also leads to the crazy situation of recipients living in better homes than many who are working, funding their own housing cost, and less well off. |
|
New Sat 15 Mar 25 07:50
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Bromptonaut
|
|
According to The Times today they're doing two things. On PIP they're tightening the assessment process for Daily Living so that you need to score more points on each activity. This means for example you'd need to require supervision or assistance to either prepare or cook a simple meal. At the moment you can score 2 points if you need prompting to cook or need adaptations such as a perching stool. That will also remove current points for people who need an aid to manage their medication or less significant help washing or dressing. The second is to abolish the Work Capability Assessment. This is a process based on (a) a form and (b) an assessment with a Healthcare Professional which looks at the claimants capacity for (a) work and (b) work related activity. If you are found to have Limited Capability for both Work and Work Related Activity you get an extra £420/month in Universal Credit and no longer need to produce fit notes or do activity related to work. Historically, going back decades, extra money for the long term sick has been part of the system. The basic UC/Jobseeker rate which will be about £401/month from April was always seen as a subsistence amount to incentivise people off 'the dole' as it's nigh on impossible to keep body and soul together and one's home warm on that. The plan apparently is to increase the basic rate of UC - called the Standard Allowance - but do away with extra cash for the seriously long term sick. There are some cohorts, principally those receiving Chemo/Radiotherapy for Cancer who get the £419 automatically albeit after a 3-4 month wait. Good luck with headlines on that one Ms Kendall. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 15 Mar 25 at 07:51
|
|
New Sat 15 Mar 25 12:00
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Manatee
|
|
It's certainly challenging given how fenced in Labour is on tax pledges and fiscal rules...which might have got them elected but which they are now getting no credit for and is making the budget almost irreconcilable, simply because of rising demand and cost. I adhere to my belief that we should still aspire to give everyone the chance of a decent life, to use my usual phrase. But ultimately I think that comes with a repositioning of the tax take at a level nearer to that of say Denmark than the current level, if though that is apparently a record high for the UK. |
|
New Sat 15 Mar 25 12:55
Welfare: a Perspective - Bromptonaut
|
|
Longish piece from the New Statesman about where we are now and how we got to be there: www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2025/03/why-britain-isnt-working-2 Hopefully those not subscribers can get sufficient access foc to read an article or two. |
|
New Sun 16 Mar 25 14:13
Welfare: a Perspective - sooty123
|
| I think that article is quite interesting, but doesn't really propose any solutions . I think this is a tough challenge for any government. |
|
New Sun 16 Mar 25 15:07
Welfare: a Perspective - Manatee
|
|
"By far the most common type of condition recorded during work capability assessments is “mental and behavioural disorders”, which include depression, mental disorders related to the use of drugs or alcohol, and generalised anxiety. In work capability assessments in which any health issue is recorded, 85 per cent record a mental or behavioural disorder." Anecdotally, 40 or 50 years ago it was always 'bad backs' and revelations in the tabloids of lead swingers who had been signed off working as window cleaners. Some had 'nervous breakdowns' but my parents' generation seemed not to believe in depression or if they did it wasn't spoken of. I don't recall hearing about e.g. 'anxiety', ADHD, SPD (sensory processing disorder, which I learned about recently. Looking down the other end of the telescope, there were presumably material numbers of people with real difficulties that were never acknowledged or diagnosed. Sorting the sheep from the goats is not going to be easy, even if it's possible, and some genuine people will suffer while the more expert fakers will continue to get away with it. |
|
New Sun 16 Mar 25 19:06
Welfare: a Perspective - CGNorwich
|
|
Mental health conditions are overdiagnosed, Streeting says www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7ejvr3y0zo This has to be right doesn’t it? We seem to have turned into a nation where so many seem to have “mental issues”. |
|
New Sun 16 Mar 25 19:32
Welfare: a Perspective - tyrednemotional
|
|
LMF, as one of the managers who used to work for me termed it. I always thought the term/concept dated from WW1 but Wiki says WW2 RAF. An interesting parallel, albeit one might have more sympathy with the fly-boys. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lack_of_Moral_Fibre. (And though the government might be retreating somewhat, PIP is widely abused and most certainly should come under scrutiny - and that coming from someone who considers himself a socialist, albeit definitely with a small "S"). |
|
New Sun 16 Mar 25 22:04
Welfare: a Perspective - sooty123
|
|
Yes>> LMF, as one of the managers who used to work for me termed it. >> >> I always thought the term/concept dated from WW1 but Wiki says WW2 RAF. >> Yes it was definitely a WW2 phrase. Officers and SNCOs were often 'cashiered' on full station parades. Some station commanders allowed them to disappear quietly. Many were sent to RAF Jurby on the IoM to perform menial duties under Canadian army guard. Although almost all the records relating to this were destroyed during an air raid on the air ministry. So not that much is known about their time at RAF Jurby. Anyway back to benefits :-) Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 16 Mar 25 at 22:07
|
|
New Sun 16 Mar 25 22:34
Welfare: a Perspective - sooty123
|
|
>> >> (And though the government might be retreating somewhat, PIP is widely abused and most certainly >> should come under scrutiny - and that coming from someone who considers himself a socialist, >> albeit definitely with a small "S"). >> You could probably add attendance allowance into that, i think in most cases all you to do is fill in a form. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 07:27
Welfare: a Perspective - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> And though the government might be retreating somewhat, PIP is widely abused and most certainly >> should come under scrutiny - and that coming from someone who considers himself a socialist, >> albeit definitely with a small "S". The thing with PIP is that once you understand the scoring system and ask the right questions it suddenly becomes quite straightforward. If you can't chop vegetables, need a device to help with managing pills, cannot get in/out of an unadapted shower without help and struggle with dressing you're well on the way to the Standard Rate for Daily Living. It was set up that way so as to be more focussed on specific issues and therefore more difficult to qualify for than it's predecessor Disability Living Allowance. Where we are now is in a place of unintended consequence. There is a defined process, guides available on line and even 'influencers' who take money for their help get bad press. In reality they are doing no more than I would wearing a CAB hat. The Mobility Element and more specifically Motability cars seems to be industrial scale fraud. To get 12 points you need to either have massive cognitive problems or be unable, or virtually unable, to walk. The motor industry and Motability Specialists in retail garages are colluding in this and facilitating explicit fraud. I've been asked more than once if I, or a member of my family has mobility problems nudge/wink. It needs publicising and stopping. A few high profile prosecutions, not just of the front of house staff who try and pitch mobility cars where people are not in reality eligible but the Managers setting unrealistic targets are needed. A few years in HM Prison for the guilty. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 09:12
Welfare: a Perspective - bathtub tom
|
|
>>The Mobility Element and more specifically Motability cars seems to be industrial scale fraud. To get 12 points you >>need to either have massive cognitive problems or be unable, or virtually unable, to walk. I know someone with a cancer that's been given a blue badge, because their GP described them as having a 'life limiting condition'. I've every sympathy for them, but there's no way they meet the criteria. Similarly, a neighbour with a Motability car who walks their dog round the park twice a day! Another with a Motability car, whose son uses it as their personal transport. They live over 100 miles away and won't visit unless the parents pay for his petrol. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 11:14
Welfare: a Perspective - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I know someone with a cancer that's been given a blue badge, because their GP >> described them as having a 'life limiting condition'. I've every sympathy for them, but there's >> no way they meet the criteria. Councils have a fair amount of discretion around Blue Badges. Ours will give you a Blue Badge if you have a form SR1 for a terminal diagnosis and a life expectancy of less than 12 months. >> Similarly, a neighbour with a Motability car who walks their dog round the park twice >> a day! >> Another with a Motability car, whose son uses it as their personal transport. They live >> over 100 miles away and won't visit unless the parents pay for his petrol. The second certainly needs reporting as abuse. The previous government were going to restrict permitted drivers to those within a relatively tight radius of the claimant. I suspect, like restrictions on the type/size of car it failed the practicality test as wherever the limit was set there's be hard cases who were just outside. The first probably does too though there can be issues with fluctuating conditions like MS. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 09:35
Welfare: a Perspective - sooty123
|
|
>> The Mobility Element and more specifically Motability cars seems to be industrial scale fraud. To >> get 12 points you need to either have massive cognitive problems or be unable, or >> virtually unable, to walk. >> >> The motor industry and Motability Specialists in retail garages are colluding in this and facilitating >> explicit fraud. I've been asked more than once if I, or a member of my >> family has mobility problems nudge/wink. >> >> It needs publicising and stopping. A few high profile prosecutions, not just of the front >> of house staff who try and pitch mobility cars where people are not in reality >> eligible but the Managers setting unrealistic targets are needed. >> >> A few years in HM Prison for the guilty. >> That's interesting, reading elsewhere many struggle to get salesman interested in a motorbility sale. Apparently the commissions are fixed pretty low, much less than a regular sale. Having said that I believe 1 in 5 new car sales are motorbility in certain parts of the country, which seems very high. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 11:16
Welfare: a Perspective - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> That's interesting, reading elsewhere many struggle to get salesman interested in a motorbility sale. Apparently >> the commissions are fixed pretty low, much less than a regular sale. Marshall Skoda in both Leicester and Northampton have salesmen dedicated to Motability. I'm pretty sure Bristol Street who do Citroen round here have the same. >> Having said that I believe 1 in 5 new car sales are motorbility in certain >> parts of the country, which seems very high. One in five is, I think, England. In NI I believe it's one in two. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 11:33
Welfare: a Perspective - sooty123
|
|
>> One in five is, I think, England. In NI I believe it's one in two. >> >> No shortage of interested salesmen in NI! Mind you it's always been a bit about stuffing their mouths with gold to keep the peace. |
|
New Sun 16 Mar 25 19:35
Welfare: a Perspective - bathtub tom
|
|
I seem to come across an increasing number of folk that have 'emotional support' dogs and feel they should be treated like assistance (i.e. guide) dogs. I thought every pet's 'emotional support' as soon as you fuss it. |
|
New Sun 16 Mar 25 19:45
Welfare: a Perspective - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> Mental health conditions are overdiagnosed, Streeting says www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7ejvr3y0zo >> >> This has to be right doesn’t it? We seem to have turned into a nation >> where so many seem to have “mental issues”. >> The number of paper boys we have had in the shop in recent years who claim "Mental health issues" is unbelievable. They wear it like a badge of honour. "Dad had a go at me because my room was a mess", "I got detention for swearing in class", "it isn't my fault, it's my mental health." I told the most recent one that there was nothing wrong with his mental health, he was just a pain in the backside like we all were at his age. Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Sun 16 Mar 25 at 19:45
|
|
New Sun 16 Mar 25 22:12
Welfare: a Perspective - Fullchat
|
|
Having some sort of 'handle' often brings with it some benefits, reasonable adjustments and being pandered to, so whats not to like if you can spin it? It seems that we have bred a generation, many of whom, don't actually appreciate that there will be mental challenges and tough times through life. |
|
New Sun 16 Mar 25 22:37
Welfare: a Perspective - sooty123
|
|
>> Having some sort of 'handle' often brings with it some benefits, reasonable adjustments and being >> pandered to, so whats not to like if you can spin it? >> It seems that we have bred a generation, many of whom, don't actually appreciate that >> there will be mental challenges and tough times through life. >> I think it's easy to fall into that trap, but I can't help but think the complaints about the youth of today have been complaints since the year dot. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 07:09
Welfare: a Perspective - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Having some sort of 'handle' often brings with it some benefits, reasonable adjustments and being >> pandered to, so whats not to like if you can spin it? I'm using the Reasonable Adjustments phrase on an almost daily basis in my work. Everybody on old 'legacy' benefits like Income Based Job Seekers and Income Support are having those benefits stopped along with Housing Benefit with an effective requirement to move to Universal Credit. The cohort we're working with now are those on Employment Support Allowance in its Earnings Related variant. They were left until last as they include those with long term health conditions who've had no prospect of work for many years and in some cases since they were in full time education. Most are over 40 and many approaching Pension Age. Given the media hoo-hah over UC many are somewhere between seriously alarmed and terrified by the prospect. One big issue is the prospect of having to go to the Job Centre which is often a requirement particularly for those without passport/driving licence type photo ID. If you've got agorophobia or the type of anxiety that means you are overwhelmingly distressed in particular environments you cannot be expected to do that. We advise them what Reasonable Adjustments are and ensure they request them. DWP staff are better than they were in understanding RAs but it's still a battleground. And, in the wider world of work, I'd wager there are far more people refused RAs than abusing them. |
|
New Sun 16 Mar 25 22:22
Welfare: a Perspective - Terry
|
|
Autism, ADHD, Dyslexia (+ a number of other "isms") started to be more widely diagnosed in the 1980s. Mental health seems to be the new "ism" on the block. Whether these are new or increasing problems is debatable - in the 1960s other kids were a bit odd, disruptive or couldn't read. Unremarkable "afflictions" which were mostly regarded as part of a spectrum of normal behaviours. I would not want to be critical of those with clearly deep rooted major problems - but go back 50 years and largely it was a case of "just get on with it". Talent and personal challenges are not evenly or fairly distributed. There is a correlation between professionals (mental, psychiatry, social etc) and folk apparently requiring support. Whether the increase in professionals is a response to the needs of the people, or professionals are driving up the afflicted through over diagnosis is a fair question. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 06:57
Welfare: a Perspective - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Whether these are new or increasing problems is debatable - in the 1960s other kids >> were a bit odd, disruptive or couldn't read. If you were in that category in the sixties you'd be classified as Educationally Sub-Normal and sent off to a Special School. Now they're all in 'mainstream' until they really are too disruptive to manage. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 10:29
Welfare: a Perspective - Terry
|
|
>> >> Whether these are new or increasing problems is debatable - in the 1960s other >> kids >> >> were a bit odd, disruptive or couldn't read. >> >> If you were in that category in the sixties you'd be classified as Educationally Sub-Normal >> and sent off to a Special School. >> >> Now they're all in 'mainstream' until they really are too disruptive to manage. >> Wikipedia quotes 36,000 at these schools in 1962. Difficult to find precise figure, nor would I defend the way they operated. But a very small number compared to the scale of the current problem. We now have 1050 special schools with ~160,000 pupils. NEETs (16-24) now total ~870,000 for which poor mental health is attributed to ~190,000. Something is clearly going wrong: - societal and technology changes - eg: internet, media - rubbish job by schools including special schools - inadequate teachers - inadequate parents - over diagnosis of mental health issues Class sizes have fallen over the last 30-40 years. Putting more money into "sympathetic" solutions is IMHO misplaced. We need to be much tougher and accept that finding a solution may upset a few. As an example - the Spectator article referred to the recruitment of 8500 (I recall) mental health workers. Instead recruit 8500: - to interview all claimants once a month, - challenge them on what they have done to find employment, - provide support where needed (application, interview technique etc) - oblige them to take suitable jobs - be very clear that failure to take and keep a job for which they capable = no more money - 3 strikes and you are out I now await the screams of protest!! |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 10:54
Welfare: a Perspective - Bobby
|
|
My son in law, slightly but not fully tongue in cheek, says the problem is that there is not enough bullying. Back in my day if you had decided that you were really a girl, or you had poor mental health or whatever you would have been given a slap and told to get on with things. Now they are pandered to. And yes I get bullying is bad etc but you do sometimes wonder if the initial reaction was to tell you to get on with it, would you maybe just have got on with it and actually been fine. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 11:31
Welfare: a Perspective - sooty123
|
|
>> >> And yes I get bullying is bad etc but you do sometimes wonder if the >> initial reaction was to tell you to get on with it, would you maybe just >> have got on with it and actually been fine. >> I doubt it. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 12:19
Welfare: a Perspective - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Back in my day if you had decided that you were really a girl, or >> you had poor mental health or whatever you would have been given a slap and >> told to get on with things. Now they are pandered to. I don't think they're pandered to though I suspect it varies between schools and academy chains. In my day people like for example Mark Almond, who was at the same Grammar School as me but a year or two older, were bullied by staff and fellow pupils alike because they were gay or otherwise outwith 'normal'. Was that right? I got a fair amount of stick along that line becuase I struggled to socialise, play sport etc and, while I knew I was only sexually interested in girls, I couldn't actually join up the dots and get a date etc. One of the MH conditions that crops up again and again is PTSD. How much of that arises from stuff at school. We only began to recognise it in the nineties. With hindsight my partner's Uncle, who saw terrible things in WW2 serving post 1944, had PTSD. How many of us who worked in the seventies with people who drank like fishes or had other quirks? We had one in my first office who was sipping Guinness from 09:00 on. >> And yes I get bullying is bad etc but you do sometimes wonder if the >> initial reaction was to tell you to get on with it, would you maybe just >> have got on with it and actually been fine. Some would. Others might have been either deeply unhappy - see above - or topped themselves. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 11:29
Welfare: a Perspective - sooty123
|
|
.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 17 Mar 25 at 11:30
|
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 11:29
Welfare: a Perspective - sooty123
|
|
> As an example - the Spectator article referred to the recruitment of 8500 (I recall) >> mental health workers. Instead recruit 8500: >> >> - to interview all claimants once a month, >> - challenge them on what they have done to find employment, >> - provide support where needed (application, interview technique etc) >> - oblige them to take suitable jobs >> - be very clear that failure to take and keep a job for which they >> capable = no more money >> - 3 strikes and you are out >> >> I now await the screams of protest!! >> Not really a scream of protest, more pointing out pretty much all that's been done before. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 12:00
Welfare: a Perspective - zippy
|
|
>>Interview claimants once a month... It would probably cost more than they would save! |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 15:08
Welfare: a Perspective - Terry
|
|
>> Not really a scream of protest, more pointing out pretty much all that's been done >> before. >> The impression I get from the media and google is that regular face to face reveiws are a rarity even on an annual basis. There are clearly some whose disability is likely unchanging and it would be unreasonable to subject them to scrutiny at any other than extended periods. For NEETs - the main subject of the comment - and others whose circumstances may or should change, I doubt that face to face happens more than once in a blue moon following initial award. For those who have to provide evidence to support the award it is easier to just sign on the dotted line - it avoids possible confrontation, any risk they may later be found to have misjudged the claimant, and costs them nothing. It is no surprise welfare payments are out of control. It is ultimately damaging to those who have a completely justifiable claim who society should support. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 15:29
Welfare: a Perspective - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> The impression I get from the media and google is that regular face to face >> reveiws are a rarity even on an annual basis. I'm not sure that either the media or Google are good sources :-P First of all it's a condition og getting UC that you agree a Claimant Commitment. That is tailored to your situation and will also depend on which of the four groups for Work Related Activity you're in. If you've been found unable to do either work OR work related activity or you're a Carer or parent of a child under one you've no work related requirements. Your Claimant Commitment isn't likely to be more onerous than 'keep in touch'. It seems to be the subset of that unable to work or do work related activity the reforms might be focussed on. At the other end of the scale if you're fit and well the Claimant Commitment MUST include both availability for work and work search. Tailored CCs mean those most recalcitrant are likely to have requirements to meet F2F. On the other hand if your Job Coach is satisfied you're doing what you can and you live in the middle of nowhere and would struggle to get to a Job Centre then contact by phone is fine. The Pandemic taught us that a lot of stuff that everyone said couldn't possibly be done other than F2F could actually be done perfectly well by phone or video conference; that includes job search appointments. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 19:27
Welfare: a Perspective - Terry
|
|
>> At the other end of the scale if you're fit and well the Claimant Commitment >> MUST include both availability for work and work search. Tailored CCs mean those most recalcitrant >> are likely to have requirements to meet F2F. On the other hand if your Job >> Coach is satisfied you're doing what you can and you live in the middle of >> nowhere and would struggle to get to a Job Centre then contact by phone is >> fine. >> >> The Pandemic taught us that a lot of stuff that everyone said couldn't possibly be >> done other than F2F could actually be done perfectly well by phone or video conference; >> that includes job search appointments. I fully accept you have far more knowledge of the system than I. The group that has grown most quickly are NEETs age 16-24. Quite simply, no matter how much you seek to defend the process, it is not working. Marx - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". I would not classify myself as socialist but entirely apt in terms of welfare. I am interested in solutions - IMHO a decent society supports those in genuine need, not those who are able to take responsibility for their own actions and outcomes. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 20:20
Welfare: a Perspective - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> The group that has grown most quickly are NEETs age 16-24. Quite simply, no matter >> how much you seek to defend the process, it is not working. >> >> Marx - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". I >> would not classify myself as socialist but entirely apt in terms of welfare. No argument with you about NEETS or Marx!!! My worry is about collateral damage to others. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 16:57
Welfare: a Perspective - Manatee
|
|
>> It is no surprise welfare payments are out of control. It is ultimately damaging to >> those who have a completely justifiable claim who society should support. That's the nub of the cost problem and it's another almost impossible mission. As soon as you have a safety net, it will become a lifestyle choice for some. But the image of economically inactive spongers ignores in-work benefits for the working poor. The unintended consequence here being that they are a tax rebate for employers, in that they subsidise low wages. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 11:59
Welfare: a Perspective - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> As an example - the Spectator article referred to the recruitment of 8500 (I recall) >> mental health workers. Instead recruit 8500: >> >> - to interview all claimants once a month, >> - challenge them on what they have done to find employment, >> - provide support where needed (application, interview technique etc) >> - oblige them to take suitable jobs >> - be very clear that failure to take and keep a job for which they >> capable = no more money >> - 3 strikes and you are out >> >> I now await the screams of protest!! Universal Credit puts people into 4 groups: www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/universal-credit/what-youll-need-to-do-on-universal-credit/claimant-commitment-what-group/ It you're in the All Work group ie fit to work but not working or not working enough then most of that happens already. While they may not go as far as three strikes there are significant sanctions. It's also one thing to penalise the man who drinks beer and watches football all day and another to impoverish his family. No work related requirements applies to those with kids under 1, those who are Carers for 35+ hours a week and those who have 'passed' a Work Capability Assessment (WCA) and been found incapable of both Work and Work Related Activity. I think part of the issue is that that last subset have little or no support and that, since the pandemic messed things up getting WCAs reviewed where appropriate isn't happening. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 12:15
Welfare: a Perspective Mental Health - zippy
|
|
Looking back at my work career in both the Govt. sector and the financial industry the number of people with some form of mental illness noticeable. Simple things like blowing up or breaking down at the littlest problem or issue. To more complex psychopathic traits like plotting the downfall of co-workers (placing false documents etc.) as well as control freaks who would probably face charges if they did the same in a domestic environment. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 12:22
Welfare: a Perspective Mental Health - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> To more complex psychopathic traits like plotting the downfall of co-workers (placing false documents etc.) >> as well as control freaks who would probably face charges if they did the same >> in a domestic environment. One of my Civil Service managers was, I now recognise, an industrial psychopath. He wouldn't have gone as far as forging stuff but he had an unhealthy interest in the careers of others in his grade and above. Far more interested in Office Politics than actually delivering a service. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 17:38
Welfare: a Perspective - CGNorwich
|
|
“It's also one thing to penalise the man who drinks beer and watches football all day and another to impoverish his family.” The government is not impoverishing his family. He is. The clue is in the words “his family”. He should be compelled to get a job, not to rely on the State subsidising his indolence. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 17:53
Welfare: a Perspective - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> The government is not impoverishing his family. He is. The clue is in the words >> “his family”. He should be compelled to get a job, not to rely on the >> State subsidising his indolence. And if he won't be compelled? Do his kids starve? |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 18:28
Welfare: a Perspective - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> >> >> And if he won't be compelled? >> >> Do his kids starve? >> As he's unfit to look after them they need to go into care. The threat of losing one's children would soon concentrate the mind. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 19:33
Welfare: a Perspective - sooty123
|
|
>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> As he's unfit to look after them they need to go into care. The threat >> of losing one's children would soon concentrate the mind. >> If they were in local authorities sights, I'd bet that wouldn't be a threat in the slightest. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 20:05
Welfare: a Perspective - zippy
|
|
>> If they were in local authorities sights, I'd bet that wouldn't be a threat in >> the slightest. >> I think you are right. Some of you more fragile forum members may wish to sit down when you read how much keeping a child in care costs..... For one County Council: One child costs on average £281,000 per annum to keep in care. Some up to £1,000,000 per annum!!! www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckmjkpkpzgeo |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 20:20
Welfare: a Perspective - Manatee
|
| It would be a lot cheaper to send them all to Eton. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 20:37
Welfare: a Perspective - zippy
|
|
>> It would be a lot cheaper to send them all to Eton. >> Perversely that probably wouldn't be allowed because it would give them too much of an advantage in the eyes of some tax payers. I also suspect some parents would likely abandon their kids to get them the best education. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 21:02
Welfare: a Perspective - tyrednemotional
|
|
>> It would be a lot cheaper to send them all to Eton. >> They've already got enough kids from dysfunctional families... |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 22:04
Welfare: a Perspective - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> If they were in local authorities sights, I'd bet that wouldn't be a threat in >> the slightest. >> Losing your kids? Even the most workshy lazy types have just as strong a bond to their offspring as anyone else. And those who would happily give theirs up to stay on benefits are not the types who should be allowed to keep them anyway. |
|
New Tue 18 Mar 25 01:17
Welfare: a Perspective - sooty123
|
|
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If they were in local authorities sights, I'd bet that wouldn't be a threat >> in >> >> the slightest. >> >> >> >> Losing your kids? >> >> Yes. There's plenty that walk away from their kids with no state interference at all. |
|
New Tue 18 Mar 25 14:08
Welfare: a Perspective - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes. There's plenty that walk away from their kids with no state interference at all. >> >> Exactly the type who are unfit to be anywhere near children, just like those who would not support them. |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 19:43
Welfare: a Perspective - Terry
|
|
Current system clearly isn't working - pay lots of money to an inadequate parent who will squander the money on beer, fags and TV subs. Unlikely to be a decent role model. Welfare of kids should be priority - may ultimately be better off in care or with mother as single parent. Not an easy choice - but not one we should shy away from making!! |
|
New Tue 18 Mar 25 09:35
Welfare: a Perspective - CGNorwich
|
|
Your view then is that supporting yourself and your family is in effect a purely voluntary activity. If you don’t want to work then you can’t be compelled to and the State will give you sufficient money to keep you and your family. |
|
New Tue 18 Mar 25 18:44
Welfare: a Perspective - Terry
|
|
>> Your view then is that supporting yourself and your family is in effect a purely >> voluntary activity. If you don’t want to work then you can’t be compelled to and >> the State will give you sufficient money to keep you and your family. >> No - there needs to be a mix of support initially to try and modify behaviours, and subsequently enforceable sanctions if this does not work - eg: - the delinquent (probably male) to be forced by court order to vacate the family home and support paid directly to the (probably) mother, or - children into care if this is their best outcome |
|
New Mon 17 Mar 25 12:24
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Bromptonaut
|
|
The url says it all: www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/17/benefit-cuts-will-push-more-people-into-poverty-warns-citizens-advice-boss |
|
New Tue 18 Mar 25 13:44
The Full Green Paper - Bromptonaut
|
|
Ms Kendall's Green Paper on Welfare Reform: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/pathways-to-work-reforming-benefits-and-support-to-get-britain-working-green-paper/pathways-to-work-reforming-benefits-and-support-to-get-britain-working-green-paper |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
