| Non-motoring > Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: bathtub tom | Replies: 93 |
|
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? |
|
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!! |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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? |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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!!! |
|
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. |
|
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
|
|
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. |
|
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
|
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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”. |
|
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"). |
|
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
|
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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
|
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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!! |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
Mon 17 Mar 25 11:29
Welfare: a Perspective - sooty123
|
|
.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 17 Mar 25 at 11:30
|
|
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. |
|
Mon 17 Mar 25 12:00
Welfare: a Perspective - zippy
|
|
>>Interview claimants once a month... It would probably cost more than they would save! |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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? |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
Mon 17 Mar 25 20:20
Welfare: a Perspective - Manatee
|
| It would be a lot cheaper to send them all to Eton. |
|
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. |
|
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... |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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!! |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Tue 24 Jun 25 19:17
The Full Green Paper - sooty123
|
|
news.sky.com/story/kemi-badenoch-says-tories-will-support-sir-keir-starmers-welfare-cuts-on-three-conditions-13388086 Looks like the PM is suffering his difficulty in getting enough votes. |
|
Wed 25 Jun 25 02:52
The Full Green Paper - Terry
|
|
Protestations by Labour of responsible fiscal management are proving a fiction. Either taxes need to increase or expenditure cut. Balancing the books is as important a concept for nations as it is for individuals - albeit with modified timescales, terminology and values. Rachel has tinkered with the fiscal rules she chooses to work within. Perhaps welfare payments may soon be re-classified on a doubtful pretext as investment to enable her to borrow the money. Personal view - public spending as a % of GDP has grown materially since 2016 and services improved little - many would argue they have deteriorated. That expenditure needs to be reduced is a given - even if painful. The alternative in a democratic society is to spend more - entirely legitimate. But at least have the honesty to describe precisely how it will be financed |
|
Wed 25 Jun 25 07:47
The Full Green Paper - Manatee
|
|
Taxes have been increased and cuts are proposed, what's your problem? If it was as simple as you imply, Sunak would not have gone 6 months earlier on the election than he needed to. He swept about £22bn. of deficit spending under the carpet and cleared off. For Labour to cut welfare is incredible but the reason I think is simply numbers. Not just that they don't balance, but that propensity to claim, to put it that way, has doubled costs of some benefits post-Covid. Enough of that. There is a hell of a lot of stuff still to come home to roost, and it will be a miracle if Labour (or any party) could turn it round in 5 years from here. - Deferred maintenance - so much is still broken and represents a hidden deficit. - Debt, public, private, and corporate. - The near impossibility of making cuts without the cost balloon bulging out somewhere else. e.g.the drop in GP appointments (population adjusted) represents past cost saving on GP services but A&E demand is rising still and with it the proportion of people waiting 12 hours or more, currently >10%. The well known impact on hospital services caused by deficiencies in social care. A shortage of cost effective SEN support resources in schools is linked to a doubling in EHC plans which parents apply for when their children can't get basic support - the costs are far higher, in part because many of these services are provided by private firms for which LAs must pay, putting further pressure on resources for mainstream school support. Once embedded, these self-inflicted inefficiencies are very difficult to reverse, as new behaviours become the norm. The demographic pressures that already exist will only get worse in the next few decades. This I'm afraid is probably the new normal. For most of my life, real wages for ordinary folk have increased almost continuously and this has enabled people to feel they have progressed in their lives, as well as making the economy easier to manage. This all hit the buffers in 2008 and essentially real wages have not increased since for many if not most. I'll stop there. The causes and the prospect of anybody being able to do anything about it can wait for another day. But I don't think it's a 'Labour' problem. |
|
Wed 25 Jun 25 10:50
The Full Green Paper - Terry
|
|
>> Taxes have been increased and cuts are proposed, what's your problem? Taxes have increased despite electoral rhetoric suggesting otherwise. Labour explicitly excluded PAYE, 'ees NI, VAT - leaving 'ers NI as the main lever to balance the books. Whether it made sense from a business or growth perspective is debateable. >> If it was as simple as you imply, Sunak would not have gone 6 months >> earlier on the election than he needed to. He swept about £22bn. of deficit spending >> under the carpet and cleared off. That problems were deep rooted at the end of the Tory government is probably true. But the £22bn "black hole" is completely trivial - it is less than 1% of either GDP or public sector borrowing. An example of political BS. That Rachel, following access to Treasury and other senior officials, did not include in her expectations more material problems is incomprehensible - simple observation would lead to the expectation that a material contingency was required. >> For Labour to cut welfare is incredible but the reason I think is simply numbers. >> Not just that they don't balance, but that propensity to claim, to put it that >> way, has doubled costs of some benefits post-Covid. An early initial target should be to return public expenditure levels to ~2016/17 levels, with any increase clearly justified by service improvements. >> Enough of that. There is a hell of a lot of stuff still to come >> home to roost, and it will be a miracle if Labour (or any party) could >> turn it round in 5 years from here. I agree it would take (any party) more than 5 years to recover all services to an acceptable quality, fix infrastructure weaknesses, etc etc. But unless in 4 years time Labour have made convincing progress, they will not deserve re-election. >> - Deferred maintenance - so much is still broken and represents a hidden deficit. >> - Debt, public, private, and corporate. >> - The near impossibility of making cuts without the cost balloon bulging out somewhere else. >> e.g.the drop in GP appointments (population adjusted) represents past cost saving on GP services but >> A&E demand is rising still and with it the proportion of people waiting 12 hours >> or more, currently >10%. The well known impact on hospital services caused by deficiencies in >> social care. A shortage of cost effective SEN support resources in schools is linked to >> a doubling in EHC plans which parents apply for when their children can't get basic >> support - the costs are far higher, in part because many of these services are >> provided by private firms for which LAs must pay, putting further pressure on resources for >> mainstream school support. Once embedded, these self-inflicted inefficiencies are very difficult to reverse, as new >> behaviours become the norm. >> >> The demographic pressures that already exist will only get worse in the next few decades. Government and leadership should be unambiguously about seeking the best outcomes for the community despite barriers and constraints. That political, economic, international and social environment changes is a challenge to be overcome, not a barrier to improvement. >> >> I'll stop there. The causes and the prospect of anybody being able to do anything >> about it can wait for another day. But I don't think it's a 'Labour' problem. It is our problem - but Labour should be leading the charge!! |
|
Wed 25 Jun 25 15:19
The Full Green Paper - Manatee
|
|
There is never a contingency is there? These numbers are a bit like pension scheme valuations. Changes in growth, inflation, interest rates among other things all affect both income, and costs of both services and borrowing. The only thing you can definitely say about the forecasts is that they are wrong, and whilst all chancellors do it, especially when desperate, to bank any positive movements as 'headroom' is silly. 1% of GDP is not trivial BTW. If it was, increasing defence expenditure to 2.6% would be easy too. GDP is not income, and the income that matters here is the equivalent of 'disposable' income in domestic terms. I'm not sure you've got my point anyway, which is possibly my fault for not saying it in so many words. Things are likely to get worse, almost regardless. The world has turned to Micawberism, waiting for something to turn up. If more people knew the difference between a million and a billion, I guarantee there would be many fewer billionaires and they would pay a lot more tax. That needs to happen. Taking money off the people who don't have any is futile and unsustainable. And whilst any situation is capable of being 'improved' trying to get the costs to go down faster than the income to balance the books never works IME. |
|
Wed 25 Jun 25 18:03
The Full Green Paper - Manatee
|
|
Incidentally, I went to the Irish workhouse museum at Portumna a couple of weeks ago. It's a subject I have read a lot on, so I can't say I learned a lot, but it really brought home how cruel welfare can be, and some still believe has to be to be afforded. The design of the workhouse system, which was copied in Ireland from England, was such as to provide a safety net that would sustain life but which nobody would actually want to be thrown on. Almost the ultimate "hostile environment". Quite a depressing afternoon that was. |
|
Tue 1 Jul 25 19:25
The Full Green Paper - sooty123
|
| Looks like the gov has done a full u turn. Pretty embarrassing having another u turn so soon after winter fuel payment. |
|
Tue 1 Jul 25 20:21
The Full Green Paper - Manatee
|
|
It's how they make the news newsworthy as they see it. They've promised a review, and predictably many MPs said they should have the review before implementing the changes. That's what I would have said too. Parliament has had its say and the system worked as intended. That should be news! Shame the Americans don't work the same way. |
|
Tue 1 Jul 25 23:53
The Full Green Paper - Terry
|
|
>> They've promised a review, and predictably many MPs said they should have the review before >> implementing the changes. That's what I would have said too. Parliament has had its say >> and the system worked as intended. That should be news! The events of the last week are an unambiguous shambles. That Starmer and Kendall have to make major on the hoof concessions to rebelling party MPs to put legislation through Parliament is testament to a loss of effective leadership, and a lack of preparation and consultation ahead of any debate. This follows the winter fuel U-turn - lessons should have been learned. Starmer seemed decent, sound, but uninspiring - credibility is now seriously damaged. He needs to massively improve performance - there is another 4 years of a Labour government. Reflect on a Labour manifesto promises rapidly becoming fantasy: "manifesto for change to kickstart economic growth, reform Britain’s economy, a decade of renewal". "an ambitious programme driven by belief in our country and its potential for the future. It is the change the country needs". "plan for Britain is a fully costed, fully funded, credible plan to turn the country around .... It contains a tax lock for working people – a pledge not to raise rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT" Last edited by: Terry on Tue 1 Jul 25 at 23:54
|
|
Wed 2 Jul 25 09:37
The Full Green Paper - CGNorwich
|
| Dropping of the cuts is disappointing. I voted Labour because I couldn’t bring myself to vote for another Conservative disaster and with Starmer at the helm I thought Labour would be fiscally responsible and the more extreme left wing reigned in . Looks like I may be proved wrong . I hope not. |
|
Wed 2 Jul 25 10:29
The Full Green Paper - sooty123
|
|
They made a rod for their own backs, now they have to suffer the consequences. All easily avoidable. Now the back benchers know what to do to get their own way. |
|
Wed 2 Jul 25 10:57
The Full Green Paper - smokie
|
|
And all with such a large majority... |
|
Wed 2 Jul 25 10:59
The Full Green Paper - CGNorwich
|
| A large majority is often the source of indiscipline |
|
Wed 2 Jul 25 11:07
The Full Green Paper - sooty123
|
| Indeed too big, more chances for plots and rebellion. I think most PM would half their majority in exchange for getting rid of the 'troublemakers '. |
|
Wed 2 Jul 25 12:37
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Fullchat
|
| So when is someone actually going to get to grips with those where benefits are a lifestyle as it seems that they keep backing away from the issue which is the real concern for the electorate. |
|
Wed 2 Jul 25 13:27
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> So when is someone actually going to get to grips with those where benefits are >> a lifestyle as it seems that they keep backing away from the issue which is >> the real concern for the electorate. Those people for whom it's a lifestyle choice need to be rooted out. Universal Credit has plenty of tools for that if Job Coaches are supported when they use them. The cuts HMG proposed fell exclusively on the sick and disabled. PIP is a gateway for Carer's Allowance and if the Carer gets somebody in the position to do a job of work it may have the opposite intention to what was expected. There was a lot of nonsense in the media (Murdoch's organs) yesterday about people getting PIP with stuff like Acne or other supposedly minor complaints. Although the PIP form asks about diagnoses they've next to do with actually qualifying because the assessment process is functional. It looks at things like ability to prepare food, manage medication etc plus the inevitable was>dress amd bath/toilet stuff. To at least some extent the current mess is due to the failure of the last administration to get to grips after Covid with going back to face to face assessments and review whether people's conditions have changed so that they can be going back to, or moving towards going back to, work. Labour's mess yesterday is due to their own ineptitude. If they'd done anything to take the temperature amongst MPs and their constituents they'd have known that getting brutal cuts through the Commons wouldn't just happen. |
|
Wed 2 Jul 25 14:28
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - sooty123
|
| I'm not sure they are brutal cuts? Not from what I've read anyway, the expected budget was 70bn in 28/29. This bill would reduce it to 66bn, its currently 50bn (?). |
|
Wed 2 Jul 25 14:36
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I'm not sure they are brutal cuts? Not from what I've read anyway, the expected >> budget was 70bn in 28/29. This bill would reduce it to 66bn, its currently 50bn >> (?). Perhaps brutal was the wrong word but from the point of view of eligibility for PIP the requirement of a min score of 4 points under at least one activity in PIP will seem pretty serious to those claiming. More so if, as originally proposed, it would have been applied at review to existing claims. A very large number of people currently getting pip would lose it. For example if you look at washing the body if you cannot get into an unadapted bath or shower you only score 3. 4 would only be attained if you need help to wash between shoulders and waist. |
|
Wed 2 Jul 25 15:05
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - sooty123
|
|
>> A very large number of people currently getting pip would lose it. >> >> That being so it seems surprising, to me anyway, that such a large number of people loosing a benefit has a pretty small impact overall. I guess there's a lot to unpack about the way benefit bills are presented to the public. I suppose the immediate issue, for the gov, is it find money to pay for this decision. The chancellor didn't look well in the HoC today. |
|
Wed 2 Jul 25 15:11
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Bromptonaut
|
|
Sooty, I do this stuff for a living (or at least to support my holiday habit) and I guess its easy to get too much down in the weeds. |
|
Wed 2 Jul 25 19:37
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Bromptonaut
|
|
Not necessarily agreeing with every word but John McDonnell has a point: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/02/labour-government-welfare-bill-democracy-party-election-john-mcdonnell |
|
Thu 3 Jul 25 06:45
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - sooty123
|
|
>> Sooty, I do this stuff for a living (or at least to support my holiday >> habit) and I guess its easy to get too much down in the weeds. >> >> I get that, i was just trying to square the two statements in my head, that this is a devastating cut and that it's a mild reduction in the rate of increase. |
|
Thu 3 Jul 25 11:21
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Terry
|
|
Working age health related benefits were £36bn in 2019/20, rising to £52bn in 2024/25, and projected to be £66bn by 2029/30. A decent society should provide support for those genuinely in need - quite possibly more than some individuals currently receive. However very clear answers are needed to the obvious questions - why have costs increased by ~50% since pre-covid levels, and expected to ~double by the end of this parliament. - was support previously so seriously deficient that large increases were inevitable - is it due to pandemic or other social change - is it due to lax administration, freeloaders and opportunists There is far too much skewed squawking from politicians, interest groups and the self righteous, and far to little evidence or analysis. More money should only follow a clarity of analysis and purpose - not fund the politically expedient lacking in resolve. |
|
Thu 3 Jul 25 14:04
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> However very clear answers are needed to the obvious questions - why have costs increased >> by ~50% since pre-covid levels, and expected to ~double by the end of this parliament. >> >> >> - was support previously so seriously deficient that large increases were inevitable >> - is it due to pandemic or other social change >> - is it due to lax administration, freeloaders and opportunists I suspect all of those are true to some degrees. During the Johnson>Sunak period there was a recognition that both PIP and ESA were treating Mental Health in a way that was not given parity of esteem and treatment with physical health or disability. The assessments for both PIP and ESA/UC were modified to address that. There were also several significant decisions of the Upper Tribunal which forced their hands. It probable the pandemic and/or other changes have driven claim rates. The web and social media raise awareness of benefits and the rise of outlets to help people's claims succeed. Social Media influencers giving advice on how to succeed are, as long as they're not colluding with dishonesty they're only doing what I and hundreds of other Welfare Rights professionals do. Lax admin without a doubt. Phone assessment has gone too far and should have been reeled back after the pandemic. There's also a huge issue with failure to review and re-assess people's capacity for work. The pandemic beggared up the process with loads of new claims but the Sunak government failed to grasp the nettle. Obviously if you're approving loads of new claims but just letting people sit on benefits with laterally no contact with DWP in years and no attempt to help those who might get back to work then you've a problem. If the now abandoned cuts had been backloaded on a well funded programme to review ongoing claims rather than frontloaded as what, form the perspective of the individual claimants were brutal cuts to dave £4bn we might not be where we are now. Freeloaders and opportunists are always with us. I'd start by reviewing claims for DLA mobility where a motability car has been in the mix. Way too many people seem to have used that one. As I've saidthe motor trade is complicit in this too and examples need to be made. |
|
Thu 3 Jul 25 15:28
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Bobby
|
| Yeah saw the report from Guido Fawkes on the Motability use. Frightening (even ignoring the source) |
|
Thu 3 Jul 25 15:47
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Bromptonaut
|
|
Have you got a link to that Bobby? Stig Abel on Times Radio was trying to get a rise from Wes Streeting over the illness for which you can 'get a Motability car' Abel, wilfully or not, misunderstands the PIP process around Mobility and what 'Generalised Anxiety Disorder' is - clue it's not just biting your nails. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 3 Jul 25 at 15:52
|
|
Thu 3 Jul 25 18:58
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Biggles aka B_i_G
|
| Has the reliance on phone assessment been the result of post-pandemic WFH tendencies? |
|
Thu 3 Jul 25 21:21
Starmer's proposed cuts in welfare benefits - Bromptonaut
|
|
No. Next? |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
