National Coalition against the Welfare Reform Bill launches..
- Thread starter treelover
- Start date
citydreams
on the road again
In my/others defense, it doesn't read as if you posted this as something to discuss.
Anyway, thank you for posting it.
Radio4 have been running stories on this for the better part of a year.
Anyway, thank you for posting it.
Radio4 have been running stories on this for the better part of a year.
More cock ups at the DWP, they are scrapping a 140 million IT project, clearly the DWP is not 'fit for purpose', yet for some reason once again most of the media is not really interested. It should do its job and scrutinise the dept.
£141m benefits computer shelved
The project was set to save more than £60m for the DWP by 2008
A new computer system used to process benefits payments has been scrapped at a cost to the taxpayer of £141m, the BBC has learned. The IT project, key to streamlining payments by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), was quietly axed at an internal meeting last month. The project had been central to delivering savings of more than £60m for the DWP by 2008.
more
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5315280.stm
£141m benefits computer shelved
The project was set to save more than £60m for the DWP by 2008
A new computer system used to process benefits payments has been scrapped at a cost to the taxpayer of £141m, the BBC has learned. The IT project, key to streamlining payments by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), was quietly axed at an internal meeting last month. The project had been central to delivering savings of more than £60m for the DWP by 2008.
more
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5315280.stm
The Black Hand
Unclean
Donna Ferentes said:
You've got to go out of your way somewhat to spell 'mention' wrong as you have done - its not as if e and a are close together...
The Black Hand
Unclean
Donna Ferentes said:
But the left do neither
A pose is what those youngsters with angst do, confronting the powers that be with imaginative means is direct action politics (again something the left doesn't understand).Some very good news, the National Union Of Students (NUS) Disabled Students Campaign are backing the protest and wish to be added to the growing list of groups endorsing the Coalition:. apparently they already have policy on this. Alex Kemp, the current NUS Disabilities Officer will be attending the rally and will be speaking briefly. A number of his NUS colleagues will be attending the
event as well. Looking good
event as well. Looking good
ska invita
back on the other side
does anoyne belive that people with disabilities should be helped back in to work if they can? Many people suffer a loss of confidence after becoming incapacitated.
What does the bill really try and do in this regard to get people back to work?
If they find you a shit job do you have to take it?
What does the bill really try and do in this regard to get people back to work?
If they find you a shit job do you have to take it?
latest info here, including chipping a bit of cash in
http://www.welfare-reform.org.uk/Welafre Reform Bill/CAWRB/Default.aspx
http://www.welfare-reform.org.uk/Welafre Reform Bill/CAWRB/Default.aspx
The Black Hand
Unclean
If, for one instance, you genuinely believed the government cared about disabled people and really wanted them to work... Why then, are they cutting nearly 6000 jobs that disabled people have???
http://www.tgwu.org.uk/Templates/News.asp?NodeID=92746
http://www.tgwu.org.uk/Templates/News.asp?NodeID=92746
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
Your link exposes the empty heart that beats whilst civil servants and charities parade their ineptitude, in actually failing to achieve what they want to achieve.
There are, at most, 2.7million people claiming some variety of incapacity benefit (IB). Of these, by the government's own estimate, at least 1 million want to work, and so, do not need compulsion or conditionality in terms of their benefit claim - they want to work remember. Also, approximately half of these people will have mental health problems.
The government want to reduce the number of people claiming IB. The government states that unless benefit claimants are forced to undertake work related activity, then we'll cut their money. This is rubbish cos there are loads of people on IB who would value and engage with Personal Advisers to try and get a job - yet, a recent DWP research report noted that 1 in 4 employers would not employ someone with a history of mental health issues.
The blame for a lack of jobs is forced upon people who are discriminated against continually, whilst the employers who could make any real difference i.e. by employing disabled people, byh paying proper wages, etc are let off the hook. The one change under the Welfare Reform Bill that affected employers' responsibility for Statutory Sick Pay was removed immediately any dissent was made by them.
And under the new tests, I can predict that life won't get much better. Mental health assessments will become very similar to physical health assessments, but it appears that the DWP don't think that doing both assessments is necessary or possible. They are looking to reduce the numbers of people on IB byway of reducing all of the 3-point scoring descriptors that currently apply with a PCA. This will be an across the board reduction and the exempt groups are also being greatly reduced.
e2a: spelling dur.
There are, at most, 2.7million people claiming some variety of incapacity benefit (IB). Of these, by the government's own estimate, at least 1 million want to work, and so, do not need compulsion or conditionality in terms of their benefit claim - they want to work remember. Also, approximately half of these people will have mental health problems.
The government want to reduce the number of people claiming IB. The government states that unless benefit claimants are forced to undertake work related activity, then we'll cut their money. This is rubbish cos there are loads of people on IB who would value and engage with Personal Advisers to try and get a job - yet, a recent DWP research report noted that 1 in 4 employers would not employ someone with a history of mental health issues.
The blame for a lack of jobs is forced upon people who are discriminated against continually, whilst the employers who could make any real difference i.e. by employing disabled people, byh paying proper wages, etc are let off the hook. The one change under the Welfare Reform Bill that affected employers' responsibility for Statutory Sick Pay was removed immediately any dissent was made by them.
And under the new tests, I can predict that life won't get much better. Mental health assessments will become very similar to physical health assessments, but it appears that the DWP don't think that doing both assessments is necessary or possible. They are looking to reduce the numbers of people on IB byway of reducing all of the 3-point scoring descriptors that currently apply with a PCA. This will be an across the board reduction and the exempt groups are also being greatly reduced.
e2a: spelling dur.
jiggajagga
Judge_Mental
As a disabled person on long-term IB and DLA, due to a car smash and in varying degrees of chronic pain, all I know is this.
Without my DLA which allows me to run a small car I would be virtually housebound.
Without my IB I would be forced to go into work and live in constant impossible pain and therefore lose my job or worse. ( does the government think people like me like agony?)
I am 55 and never been so scared or unsure of my existance as I am now.
I could have expected some draconian cuts such as these mooted under a right-wing Tory regime but....Hang on, Thats what we have now isn't it?
To all those who are fit enough and understanding enough to fight for those such as me and far worse unfortunately, I salute you. I will be with you in spirit. I wish I could be there with you in body.
Always remember this those that think this reform is OK.
I was one day 45, fit as a fiddle then BANG!! All gone.
" There but for the grace of God go I!
It could be you tomorrow. I never thought it would be me, so you are protecting one of your possible futures if you think about it.
Good Luck and Thank you.
Without my DLA which allows me to run a small car I would be virtually housebound.
Without my IB I would be forced to go into work and live in constant impossible pain and therefore lose my job or worse. ( does the government think people like me like agony?)
I am 55 and never been so scared or unsure of my existance as I am now.
I could have expected some draconian cuts such as these mooted under a right-wing Tory regime but....Hang on, Thats what we have now isn't it?
To all those who are fit enough and understanding enough to fight for those such as me and far worse unfortunately, I salute you. I will be with you in spirit. I wish I could be there with you in body.
Always remember this those that think this reform is OK.
I was one day 45, fit as a fiddle then BANG!! All gone.
" There but for the grace of God go I!
It could be you tomorrow. I never thought it would be me, so you are protecting one of your possible futures if you think about it.
Good Luck and Thank you.
Maybe I don't understand this but...
I run an anti-poverty group in the United States, so this is pretty much my field professionally. I don't know anything about this welfare reform bill beyond what has been described on this thread.
However, I'm interested in the philosophical opposition people are expressing on the thread to the idea that welfare should be temporary rather than permanent for people able to work. Is there any reason why a government should not compel such people, in return for welfare received from the state, to take a job even if it pays the minimum wage? What is the benefit to society of having people otherwise able to work draw welfare benefits on a permanent basis?
(This is of course with the proviso that studying, training courses and being the sole caregiver for a child or a disabled adult can all partially substitute for a hypothetical work requirement).
I run an anti-poverty group in the United States, so this is pretty much my field professionally. I don't know anything about this welfare reform bill beyond what has been described on this thread.
However, I'm interested in the philosophical opposition people are expressing on the thread to the idea that welfare should be temporary rather than permanent for people able to work. Is there any reason why a government should not compel such people, in return for welfare received from the state, to take a job even if it pays the minimum wage? What is the benefit to society of having people otherwise able to work draw welfare benefits on a permanent basis?
(This is of course with the proviso that studying, training courses and being the sole caregiver for a child or a disabled adult can all partially substitute for a hypothetical work requirement).
Zion, what sort of anti-poverty group group do you run, is is faith based? is it a right wing one? Tbh, we are fighting to stop the sort of welfare programmes: such as the US workfare style one you seem to be advocating and indeed the 19th Neo-liberal ideology that underpins. In this country , for over 60 years people who cannot work have had a right to benfits, now they want to force people who may be very ill, particulary those who have mental health and condition like M.E to work or lose benefit, they are also suggesting imposing forced medical treatment, (bit like the nazis!) how would that square with the 'right to liberty' you have in the US(supposedly.) In terms of those who are fit and able to work, thats another question, not really for this thread.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
It is a valid question when you've got Blair and Hutton and all the rest of them, going on about work being the best route out of poverty, even when they're paying tax credits to subsidise the low rates of pay...
Hawkeye Pearce
We're your friends man...
The workfare policies introduced by Clinton are a disagrace. They the poorest in society to work long hours for little reward and are a creation of right wing academics like Lawrence Mead and co. My objection to the idea is simple, if a person who is disabled wants to work and feels able to then they should be given every opportunity to do that. However if someone feels unable to work or doesn't want to as a result of whatever disability they have then any kind of decent society should help them live as good a life as possible.
I believe that most people do want to do some sort of work if they can and not just for the financial reward but for the social aspect as well. Blair's plans are designed to press gang peole into work. It's deeply authoratarian and should be opposed by anyone who considers themselves in anyway holding progressive views about the world.
I believe that most people do want to do some sort of work if they can and not just for the financial reward but for the social aspect as well. Blair's plans are designed to press gang peole into work. It's deeply authoratarian and should be opposed by anyone who considers themselves in anyway holding progressive views about the world.
Whoa.
Treelover,
I run a community development corporation which builds affordable housing, helps tenants resist eviction, provides English classes for legal and illegal immigrants, and promotes civic participation by low-income people. It is secular (though we do receive a small portion of our funding from religious groups) and nonpartisan (though most of our members are Democrats). We help a bunch of people in trouble, and I don't see how the question I asked deserved such a suspicious and aggressive answer. While we're at it, what did you do personally to help the poor today?
From my point of view, whether a mental illness prevents you from being able to work depends on the mental illness. Most people can probably do fine in a job with dysthymia, but not with acute psychosis. People with nonspecific back pain can probably hold down a job so long as they take some good quality painkillers and get regular physiotherapy. Accepting that someone cannot work is a way of saying that they have nothing economically useful to contribute. I resist that idea strongly because I don't like writing people off. As you'll read from my post, I was raising the question about people able to work, and if you don't want to talk about that, then I am happy to let that question rest.
As I say, I have no idea about the specific provisions of the UK welfare bill beyond what has been said in the thread, so you cannot assume my support either of the bill or of any specific provision you choose to raise. As you may know, the whole movement to insist on patients' right to refuse treatment originated in the US and is pretty much universally accepted here.
Paulie_Tandoori,
Work is a great route out of poverty, but it has to fit the aspirations of the people in poverty, not the beliefs of people not in poverty about what is appropriate for them. The people I see, and my own parents, wanted out of poverty more than I can express. We provide them with the best tools we can to do so, and that does not generally involve giving them a regular cash handout.
Hawkeye,
By definition, the poorest in society are likely to work long hours for little reward, at least at the beginning. The key, though, is to help them get marketable skills that will enable them to get jobs with better pay, something we have seen happen time and again. No-one on this thread appears to envision any way for people to be less poor apart from receiving welfare, which will never give people enough - in the US or the UK - to support themselves and their families.
Treelover,
I run a community development corporation which builds affordable housing, helps tenants resist eviction, provides English classes for legal and illegal immigrants, and promotes civic participation by low-income people. It is secular (though we do receive a small portion of our funding from religious groups) and nonpartisan (though most of our members are Democrats). We help a bunch of people in trouble, and I don't see how the question I asked deserved such a suspicious and aggressive answer. While we're at it, what did you do personally to help the poor today?
From my point of view, whether a mental illness prevents you from being able to work depends on the mental illness. Most people can probably do fine in a job with dysthymia, but not with acute psychosis. People with nonspecific back pain can probably hold down a job so long as they take some good quality painkillers and get regular physiotherapy. Accepting that someone cannot work is a way of saying that they have nothing economically useful to contribute. I resist that idea strongly because I don't like writing people off. As you'll read from my post, I was raising the question about people able to work, and if you don't want to talk about that, then I am happy to let that question rest.
As I say, I have no idea about the specific provisions of the UK welfare bill beyond what has been said in the thread, so you cannot assume my support either of the bill or of any specific provision you choose to raise. As you may know, the whole movement to insist on patients' right to refuse treatment originated in the US and is pretty much universally accepted here.
Paulie_Tandoori,
Work is a great route out of poverty, but it has to fit the aspirations of the people in poverty, not the beliefs of people not in poverty about what is appropriate for them. The people I see, and my own parents, wanted out of poverty more than I can express. We provide them with the best tools we can to do so, and that does not generally involve giving them a regular cash handout.
Hawkeye,
By definition, the poorest in society are likely to work long hours for little reward, at least at the beginning. The key, though, is to help them get marketable skills that will enable them to get jobs with better pay, something we have seen happen time and again. No-one on this thread appears to envision any way for people to be less poor apart from receiving welfare, which will never give people enough - in the US or the UK - to support themselves and their families.
ska invita
back on the other side
treelover said:
I really would like someoen to present some detail of the bill - the above, if true, should be resisted, but it sounds extreme to me: the only way to settle is to see real detail of the bill.
A parrallel example may be a means tested university tuition fees - which I would support. If you cant afford university you should have the whole thing for free plus a grant. If you can afford it and your parents are wealthy, they should pay. Thats a tax the rich policy in the benefit of redistribution of wealth.
By parrallel, if this bill has a sensitive and complex "means testing" that look at each case and where appropriate gets people back to work (having not seen the detail I dont know what is really proposed) that may be jsutifiable.
I know a few people on long term disability benefits. One friend has lost an arm, and I'd imagine there is little work that he can do, and does need support. But if there was a job he could do, should he be helped to get it? He's a bitter soul who does too much drugs and work can help regain peoples confidence and sense of purpose.
Another friend has back pain (which is perhaps the key reason this bill was introduced I gather) and is able to sit at home and get full benefits, for years now. I get back pain after doing bakery deliveries for 5 years - I had to quit becasue of the pain, but I dont think this really justifies a life time on benefits.
Another friend is on medication, but functions well day to day unless he drinks. He has claimed full time benefits as a result. I do not know the details of his condition well enough to comment, but with mental illnesss there are some cases where work, even part time work, would be a usefull part of the therapy, at an appropriate time within the treatment if progress has been made. Liasing with psychiatrists, or relevant case workers on this issue may prove useful.
Even without seeing the detail of the Bill I have my doubts about it, but I can imagine some situations where it could prove useful - do I trust the government to make a sensitive and constructive bill? NOt really, but, again, I'd need to see the small print before campaigning against.
Sorry for jumping, Zion, (though you are probably in bed now) however, your're proscriptions seem to be basically Clintonian 'tough love' solutions: Working for your benefits, minimum wage, marketables skill, basically workfare and no place for benefits, its interesting that you (who is clearly a progressive) with your US mindset cannot conceive that welfare benefits are a right in this country (at present), particularly for the disabled, though we are going fast down the US route. Further, the idea that welfare makes you feckless,etc is a very American and only recently to a lesser degree, a UK and ireland notion. The welfare state and welfare benefits did not come out of nowhere, a state largesse, they were fought for and won by ordinary people for the most part or given in reaction to fear of communism in others:, Bismarcks Germany. What happens when there is a major recession/crash, as there will be, where do the jobs for the poor/disabled come from then?, if there are no benefits, do they starve or do you just provide more 'marketable skills ?
btw, thank god i don't live in the US, people like me with my condition just woud'nt survive
btw, what have i done to help the poor today,
well just this
www.swansheffield.org.uk
and this
http://www.welfare-reform.org.uk/Welafre Reform Bill/CAWRB/Default.aspx
btw, thank god i don't live in the US, people like me with my condition just woud'nt survive
btw, what have i done to help the poor today,
well just this
www.swansheffield.org.uk
and this
http://www.welfare-reform.org.uk/Welafre Reform Bill/CAWRB/Default.aspx
Niktisava, i must have put these arguments against the bill before, but here they are again, hope they help make your mind up.
This is a draconian bill: the government is targeting millions of disabled people with the threat of losing up to 30 pounds per week if the claimant does not comply with their plans. The proposed replacement to Incapacity Benefit (IB), the Employment Support Allowance (ESA), will only rise above £56 a week (JSA levels) if the claimant meets very strict requirements. The reforms also propose ever more medical assessments through a more stringent Personal Capability Assessment (PCA.) The government also proposes to abolish housing benefit and replace it with a fixed housing allowance so that claimants get a flat allowance rather than the full rent charged by the private landlord
Summary here: http://www.disabilityalliance.org/ibchange.htm
Of course, we should welcome any 'genuine' help for those disabled people who can and want to work,but the experiences of many of those on New Deal has not been promising. One could also ask, why are the reforms ‘target led’ with the arbitrary aim of getting one million back into work? If the reforms are so positive, why do there have to be sanctions and coercion? A target of one million people means that many very sick and disabled people will be caught up in the net, not just the so called 'bad back' brigade' Plus, just where are are all these many jobs going to come from? unemployment is now rising and employers themselves admit they discriminate against people with disabilities. We already have one of the most robust medical assessments, which while described as ‘the toughest in the world’ still wrongly fail 80’ 000 people a year (source: BBC). In fact both Hutton and Blair have said the rationale behind the reforms is largely to save money to offset the pensions crisis! Abolishing housing benefit will mean disabled people will, if in the private rented sector, have to leave their homes, (losing their informal networks of support in the process) and move to unsuitable areas.
Already, one has to fill in 40 page forms which go into the minutae of your personal life and where one has to detail exactly your medical condition, however embarrassing. You can be spied on by fraud investigators to see if you are secretly working. Even if you have nothing to fear, this creates a climate where you can feel a far from benign state is omnipresent in your life. The bill if passed will mean disabled people will have to accept certain forms of medical interventions such as Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) or face benefit cuts, there will be ‘Work Advisers’in G.P’s surgeries and no matter how ill you are, the disabled will have to attend a number of interviews to ‘discuss’ what work the person can do. One can argue as a commentator has that ‘this is a move to 21st Century version of the workhouse. One can point out that the the blame for a lack of jobs is forced upon people who are discriminated against continually, whilst the employers who could make any real difference i.e. by employing disabled people, by paying proper wages, by creating accessible workplaces, etc are let off the hook. Tellingly, the one change under the Welfare Reform Bill that affected employers' responsibility for Statutory Sick Pay was removed immediately afer criticism was made by them.
Many many people are terrified of these reforms, on some disabled discussion boards some people are horrifyingly talking about suicide as they just can’t take any more ‘crap. the housing benefit changes will profoundly affect me I will have to leave the area I am living in with all my informal support mechanisms and be forced into what will basically become ‘welfare ghettoes’ as my locality becomes only for those in very well paid employment. Many of us feel very alone, the T. Unions: often the great defender of rights and social justice seem broadly to be supporting these reforms, the TUC’s Brendan Barber largely endorsing them. M.P’s like Roger Berry who has fought for decent welfare provision in his time is also apparently in favour of them. This contrasts so much with those on the receiving end: I have spoken to a fair few disabled claimants and they are very fearful of the reforms.
a local councillor and friend of mine has said this, i think it sums up all what i think
"the whole of our benefit system is built on the myth that if we are not in paid work we are up to no-good. Swinging the lead. Shirking. Pretending we are ill. And this cruel myth hits the most vulnerable the hardest .We need to have a far more flexible benefit system that breaks down the barrier between paid and unpaid work. That recognises the reality of life with it ups and downs, good days and bad days, our sickness and health. A benefits system that recognises that we are all different."
This is a draconian bill: the government is targeting millions of disabled people with the threat of losing up to 30 pounds per week if the claimant does not comply with their plans. The proposed replacement to Incapacity Benefit (IB), the Employment Support Allowance (ESA), will only rise above £56 a week (JSA levels) if the claimant meets very strict requirements. The reforms also propose ever more medical assessments through a more stringent Personal Capability Assessment (PCA.) The government also proposes to abolish housing benefit and replace it with a fixed housing allowance so that claimants get a flat allowance rather than the full rent charged by the private landlord
Summary here: http://www.disabilityalliance.org/ibchange.htm
Of course, we should welcome any 'genuine' help for those disabled people who can and want to work,but the experiences of many of those on New Deal has not been promising. One could also ask, why are the reforms ‘target led’ with the arbitrary aim of getting one million back into work? If the reforms are so positive, why do there have to be sanctions and coercion? A target of one million people means that many very sick and disabled people will be caught up in the net, not just the so called 'bad back' brigade' Plus, just where are are all these many jobs going to come from? unemployment is now rising and employers themselves admit they discriminate against people with disabilities. We already have one of the most robust medical assessments, which while described as ‘the toughest in the world’ still wrongly fail 80’ 000 people a year (source: BBC). In fact both Hutton and Blair have said the rationale behind the reforms is largely to save money to offset the pensions crisis! Abolishing housing benefit will mean disabled people will, if in the private rented sector, have to leave their homes, (losing their informal networks of support in the process) and move to unsuitable areas.
Already, one has to fill in 40 page forms which go into the minutae of your personal life and where one has to detail exactly your medical condition, however embarrassing. You can be spied on by fraud investigators to see if you are secretly working. Even if you have nothing to fear, this creates a climate where you can feel a far from benign state is omnipresent in your life. The bill if passed will mean disabled people will have to accept certain forms of medical interventions such as Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) or face benefit cuts, there will be ‘Work Advisers’in G.P’s surgeries and no matter how ill you are, the disabled will have to attend a number of interviews to ‘discuss’ what work the person can do. One can argue as a commentator has that ‘this is a move to 21st Century version of the workhouse. One can point out that the the blame for a lack of jobs is forced upon people who are discriminated against continually, whilst the employers who could make any real difference i.e. by employing disabled people, by paying proper wages, by creating accessible workplaces, etc are let off the hook. Tellingly, the one change under the Welfare Reform Bill that affected employers' responsibility for Statutory Sick Pay was removed immediately afer criticism was made by them.
Many many people are terrified of these reforms, on some disabled discussion boards some people are horrifyingly talking about suicide as they just can’t take any more ‘crap. the housing benefit changes will profoundly affect me I will have to leave the area I am living in with all my informal support mechanisms and be forced into what will basically become ‘welfare ghettoes’ as my locality becomes only for those in very well paid employment. Many of us feel very alone, the T. Unions: often the great defender of rights and social justice seem broadly to be supporting these reforms, the TUC’s Brendan Barber largely endorsing them. M.P’s like Roger Berry who has fought for decent welfare provision in his time is also apparently in favour of them. This contrasts so much with those on the receiving end: I have spoken to a fair few disabled claimants and they are very fearful of the reforms.
a local councillor and friend of mine has said this, i think it sums up all what i think
"the whole of our benefit system is built on the myth that if we are not in paid work we are up to no-good. Swinging the lead. Shirking. Pretending we are ill. And this cruel myth hits the most vulnerable the hardest .We need to have a far more flexible benefit system that breaks down the barrier between paid and unpaid work. That recognises the reality of life with it ups and downs, good days and bad days, our sickness and health. A benefits system that recognises that we are all different."
BTw, Niktivska, why do you not act on gut instinct as you would presumably do about the war, poverty, etc, there seems to be a more punitive less altruistic attitude even among liberal, progressives, etc, than other 'moral issues. Did you read the small print before supporting refugees for instance. No, i imagine you went with your feelings, intuition.
jiggajagga
Judge_Mental
Below is a copy of a letter I sent to my MP. I am an existing claimant. The bill states that only NEW claiments will be under the new bill.
Once again I feel the need to contact you over the governments Welfare Reform Bill.
I received a letter from you dated 18th April 2006 in which it is stated by you that;
“However, existing claimants will have the opportunity to voluntarily take advantage of the support on offer to new claimants.” (I enclose a copy of the letter).
The letter you sent to me also had a reply from Margaret Hodge MP in which the word ‘volunteer’ appears in the first paragraph. ( I also enclose a copy of the letter).
On perusing the DWP website on 2nd August 2006 I came across this ‘Green Paper Response’;
23 Existing claimants will remain on their existing benefits. However, many have potentially manageable conditions which may have changed or improved while they have been on benefits. We propose to work more proactively with this group of people, balancing their responsibilities to prepare for a return to work with the need to treat them fairly. (what about those whose disabilities have worsened? Are they still going to be ‘encouraged’ to work?)
24 We will:
· protect the level of benefits of existing claimants but will encourage them, as in the Pathways to Work pilots now, to volunteer for the help available to return to work;
· ensure that existing claimants are having regular Personal Capability Assessment re-assessments;
· ensure that claimants each have a work-focused interview and develop a personal action plan over the next few years, so that they are clear about what help is available;
· establish a unit to undertake periodic checks of those claiming benefits to confirm ongoing eligibility, seeking renewed medical evidence as appropriate;
· pilot a new initiative that will provide a leadership role for cities in tackling worklessness; and
· protect the level of benefits payment should people enter work and find that they need to return to benefits.
Sir, I have no objections to much of what is here. I just wonder what has happened to the word ‘volunteer’?
I can see the word ‘proactive’!
I can see the words ‘encourage them’!
I can see the word ‘ensure’?
I can see the word ‘volunteer’ nowhere except in the term ‘encourage them to volunteer’?
If you are ‘encouraging’ someone to volunteer are you not ‘coercing’?
I include the link for you to peruse at your leisure
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/aboutus/welfarereform/executive_sum.asp
Sir, It appears that once again the goalposts are being moved and it looks more and more likely that this ‘reform’ will go the same way as the great ‘Benefit integrity project of 1999’. Remember that sir? You know, taking £6 off single mums and people in wheelchairs losing their benefits.
More and more often the ‘£7 Billion of savings’ is mentioned which I suppose we need to fight all these wars eh? It just seems to many in my position that it’s a cost cutting exercise and it’s easier to take it off us because we have no muscle to fight back.
I just hope you realize that every time you MPs change things ‘in committee’ genuinely disabled and ill people are becoming ever more fearful that this is just the latest Tory wheeze of destroying the Welfare State, one of the greatest weapons ever created to fight poverty which the true Labour party should be and is truly proud of.
We both know that in every walk of life there are those who take unfair advantage (some not to far from you when you are sitting in the house eh!) but just as I am sure you are a decent honest man, so are most of those disabled and ill people out here. I fear and feel it is a sad day indeed and hope you will continue fighting not just for those who can look after themselves but those that can’t.
Once again I feel the need to contact you over the governments Welfare Reform Bill.
I received a letter from you dated 18th April 2006 in which it is stated by you that;
“However, existing claimants will have the opportunity to voluntarily take advantage of the support on offer to new claimants.” (I enclose a copy of the letter).
The letter you sent to me also had a reply from Margaret Hodge MP in which the word ‘volunteer’ appears in the first paragraph. ( I also enclose a copy of the letter).
On perusing the DWP website on 2nd August 2006 I came across this ‘Green Paper Response’;
23 Existing claimants will remain on their existing benefits. However, many have potentially manageable conditions which may have changed or improved while they have been on benefits. We propose to work more proactively with this group of people, balancing their responsibilities to prepare for a return to work with the need to treat them fairly. (what about those whose disabilities have worsened? Are they still going to be ‘encouraged’ to work?)
24 We will:
· protect the level of benefits of existing claimants but will encourage them, as in the Pathways to Work pilots now, to volunteer for the help available to return to work;
· ensure that existing claimants are having regular Personal Capability Assessment re-assessments;
· ensure that claimants each have a work-focused interview and develop a personal action plan over the next few years, so that they are clear about what help is available;
· establish a unit to undertake periodic checks of those claiming benefits to confirm ongoing eligibility, seeking renewed medical evidence as appropriate;
· pilot a new initiative that will provide a leadership role for cities in tackling worklessness; and
· protect the level of benefits payment should people enter work and find that they need to return to benefits.
Sir, I have no objections to much of what is here. I just wonder what has happened to the word ‘volunteer’?
I can see the word ‘proactive’!
I can see the words ‘encourage them’!
I can see the word ‘ensure’?
I can see the word ‘volunteer’ nowhere except in the term ‘encourage them to volunteer’?
If you are ‘encouraging’ someone to volunteer are you not ‘coercing’?
I include the link for you to peruse at your leisure
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/aboutus/welfarereform/executive_sum.asp
Sir, It appears that once again the goalposts are being moved and it looks more and more likely that this ‘reform’ will go the same way as the great ‘Benefit integrity project of 1999’. Remember that sir? You know, taking £6 off single mums and people in wheelchairs losing their benefits.
More and more often the ‘£7 Billion of savings’ is mentioned which I suppose we need to fight all these wars eh? It just seems to many in my position that it’s a cost cutting exercise and it’s easier to take it off us because we have no muscle to fight back.
I just hope you realize that every time you MPs change things ‘in committee’ genuinely disabled and ill people are becoming ever more fearful that this is just the latest Tory wheeze of destroying the Welfare State, one of the greatest weapons ever created to fight poverty which the true Labour party should be and is truly proud of.
We both know that in every walk of life there are those who take unfair advantage (some not to far from you when you are sitting in the house eh!) but just as I am sure you are a decent honest man, so are most of those disabled and ill people out here. I fear and feel it is a sad day indeed and hope you will continue fighting not just for those who can look after themselves but those that can’t.
I wasn't aware that "Clintonian" had become a way of saying "right-wing". I would have thought that Bush would fit that bill rather better.
Since I lived in Britain for over twenty years, I am quite capable of conceiving a situation where welfare is a right; I simply don't agree with it for anyone who is capable of work. I did not say that not working makes you "feckless": I said that you have no hope of rising out of poverty without at least being in the workplace. Winning the lottery doesn't count as a valid life plan.
What happens when there is a major recession/crash, as there will be, where do the jobs for the poor/disabled come from then?, if there are no benefits, do they starve or do you just provide more 'marketable skills ?
A generous welfare state, by decreasing productivity, makes growth more anemic and recessions more likely. Over time, this has created large disparities between the median wage in the US and the median wage in several European countries. The United States creates jobs at a furious rate, year in, year out, partly because the incentives to work are strong. If there were to be a major recession or crash, then it would be appropriate to change the policies to address the temporary need for greater cash assistance.
In the US, assistance that would be provided in the UK by government is provided by community-supported nonprofits like mine, and I believe that there are great merits to having an enormously strong and varied nonprofit sector.
Since I lived in Britain for over twenty years, I am quite capable of conceiving a situation where welfare is a right; I simply don't agree with it for anyone who is capable of work. I did not say that not working makes you "feckless": I said that you have no hope of rising out of poverty without at least being in the workplace. Winning the lottery doesn't count as a valid life plan.
What happens when there is a major recession/crash, as there will be, where do the jobs for the poor/disabled come from then?, if there are no benefits, do they starve or do you just provide more 'marketable skills ?
A generous welfare state, by decreasing productivity, makes growth more anemic and recessions more likely. Over time, this has created large disparities between the median wage in the US and the median wage in several European countries. The United States creates jobs at a furious rate, year in, year out, partly because the incentives to work are strong. If there were to be a major recession or crash, then it would be appropriate to change the policies to address the temporary need for greater cash assistance.
In the US, assistance that would be provided in the UK by government is provided by community-supported nonprofits like mine, and I believe that there are great merits to having an enormously strong and varied nonprofit sector.
btw, this would be considered very right wing in most of Europe, i really am confused, the US attitude to welfare is very extreme and imo, often brutal.
We don't want charity thank you very much,and we don't want US style workfare, though we seem to be on the verge of getting both.
We don't want charity thank you very much,and we don't want US style workfare, though we seem to be on the verge of getting both.
We don't want charity thank you very much
?? And yet you complain about cuts to welfare. What is welfare except charity that comes from government?
we don't want US style workfare
Who's the "we"? Do the views of the people taxed to provide welfare count?
didn't Clinton bring in the bill (or allow it to go through) which cut welfare to single mothers?,
Yes, he did. Why should "left-wing" be considered the same as "willing to give single mothers open-ended benefits whether they work or not"?
Quote:
?? And yet you complain about cuts to welfare. What is welfare except charity that comes from government?
we don't want US style workfare
Who's the "we"? Do the views of the people taxed to provide welfare count?
didn't Clinton bring in the bill (or allow it to go through) which cut welfare to single mothers?,
Yes, he did. Why should "left-wing" be considered the same as "willing to give single mothers open-ended benefits whether they work or not"?
Quote:
philosophical reason for permanent welfare.
A sound reason why welfare should be permanent rather than temporary, is that some people decided to organise society and the economy so that everything is done as efficiently as possible, using the least amount of labour.
This has necessarily caused a lot of people who were previously needed to work, to have become redundant. In the circumstances, given that their society has been organised in such a way as to make them redundant without their consent, in the name of efficiency, (in order to make higher profits for the owners of society) it is only fair that they should be provided for for as long as they wish to be. And until Blair's government reneged on the deal, and spun it as cutting unemployment, this was understood in this country.
I did have this idea recently, which I actually think is quite good, though I'm not sure if it's possible or what to do about it. But I would be interested to hear from treelover about this, and it might be something the campaign might get involved with.
I'm fairly certain that recently, - over the last year or so- a lot of people have had their benefits cut off, leaving them in the shit, and that this is done sometimes 'Accidentally' on purpose, and sometimes with no good reason, and further that when you appeal against it, the appeal is lost, stolen or ignored.
It seems quite possible to me that the "cock-ups" are being deliberately created by the management, who then leave the flunkies unable to do anything about it. And the recipient is often in the position where if he still survives six months later, he has kind of proved that he didn't really need the benefits in the first place.
Tackling the benefits agencies individually doesn't seem to do any good. So how about instead trying to organise a class action, where all the people who have launched an appeal for lost benefits over the last year or so, (and had the appeal dismissed or ignored,) take the government or agencies responsible to court, for criminal negligence.
I don't think this is in any way an exaggeration. A lot of people who are broke and homeless have the impression that the policy of the government is to try to drive them to suicide, and if that's not criminal, what is it?
A sound reason why welfare should be permanent rather than temporary, is that some people decided to organise society and the economy so that everything is done as efficiently as possible, using the least amount of labour.
This has necessarily caused a lot of people who were previously needed to work, to have become redundant. In the circumstances, given that their society has been organised in such a way as to make them redundant without their consent, in the name of efficiency, (in order to make higher profits for the owners of society) it is only fair that they should be provided for for as long as they wish to be. And until Blair's government reneged on the deal, and spun it as cutting unemployment, this was understood in this country.
I did have this idea recently, which I actually think is quite good, though I'm not sure if it's possible or what to do about it. But I would be interested to hear from treelover about this, and it might be something the campaign might get involved with.
I'm fairly certain that recently, - over the last year or so- a lot of people have had their benefits cut off, leaving them in the shit, and that this is done sometimes 'Accidentally' on purpose, and sometimes with no good reason, and further that when you appeal against it, the appeal is lost, stolen or ignored.
It seems quite possible to me that the "cock-ups" are being deliberately created by the management, who then leave the flunkies unable to do anything about it. And the recipient is often in the position where if he still survives six months later, he has kind of proved that he didn't really need the benefits in the first place.
Tackling the benefits agencies individually doesn't seem to do any good. So how about instead trying to organise a class action, where all the people who have launched an appeal for lost benefits over the last year or so, (and had the appeal dismissed or ignored,) take the government or agencies responsible to court, for criminal negligence.
I don't think this is in any way an exaggeration. A lot of people who are broke and homeless have the impression that the policy of the government is to try to drive them to suicide, and if that's not criminal, what is it?
Similar threads
- Poll
