DWP admin and salaries cost twice JSA

Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
3

DWP admin and salaries cost twice JSA
Topic Started: Dec 23 2014, 08:31 PM (1,027 Views)
papasmurf	Dec 23 2014, 08:31 PM Post #1
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	The DWP spent almost twice as much on salaries, welfare-to-work schemes and administration last year than they did on JobSeekers Allowance. The department’s latest six monthly report shows that £7.7 billion was spent on administration costs in 2013/14 compared to £4.3 billion on Jobseeker’s Allowance. In the current year administration spending is expected to hit £8 billion, whilst spending on JSA is forecast to fall to £3.7 billion as hundreds of thousands of people are harassed off of benefits with sanctions and mandatory work activity. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389260/DWP-mid-year-report-2014-2015.pdf Edited by papasmurf, Dec 23 2014, 08:41 PM.

Replies:
Malum Unus	Dec 25 2014, 03:57 PM Post #41
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese Posts: 1,389 Group: Members Member #24 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	HIGHWAY Dec 25 2014, 10:25 AM Malum Unus Dec 25 2014, 03:17 AM ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 01:25 PM Malum Unus Dec 24 2014, 01:09 PM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep So what is the nature of the 'testing' and what is it meant to establish? Did you not read what I posted?, it's a medical examination by a supposedly trained doctor to determine a persons capability for work. As PS said and I'm pretty sure he's right, it's meant to take people off of benefits, regardless of whether or not they need them. The 'doctors' (and I use that term extremely loosely), they send are clearly unqualified if they ARE even doctors, as I fail to understand how any of them could find a person with no limbs or Marfan Syndrome capable of work is beyond me. I know people who work with missing limbs,,if someone told them there not allowed to work,they would be insulted Yes I can understand someone with a leg or arm missing could still work, but how could someone with no arms nor legs work? What are they supposed to work at, being a door stop? How could someone with Marfan syndrome work, given the seriousness of the condition (even in 'mild' cases)? Edited by Malum Unus, Dec 25 2014, 03:58 PM.



ranger121	Dec 25 2014, 06:20 PM Post #42
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	It is plain that you are discussing something called the Work Capability Assessment. This is not a medical examination, although it is carried out by someone with medical qualifications. It is ludicrous of you to suggest that these people are not qualified to do this work as it is a condition of their employment that they produce qualifications approved by the NHS and the GMC. Most of the people working for the WCA providers are ex-NHS staff, or have been trained to NHS standards and certainly all of them are registered with the appropriate professional bodies. As to what the test is, the clue is in the title - Work Capability............. Assessment. It's an assessment of a person's suitability for employment, whether they can do certain tasks, how 'capable' they are of getting a job, or returning to work after a period of illness. People having the WCA are not 'medically' examined as they might be in a GP surgery or a hospital, it's a completely different process. If you don't know what you're talking about, time to shut up.



papasmurf	Dec 25 2014, 06:35 PM Post #43
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 25 2014, 06:20 PM This is not a medical examination, although it is carried out by someone with medical qualifications. It is ludicrous of you to suggest that these people are not qualified to do this work as it is a condition of their employment that they produce qualifications approved by the NHS and the GMC. Ranger the now very long line of cock-ups, deaths and suicides of people found "fit for work" proves otherwise. The 60 deaths that the DWP are currently investigating because coroners have stated categorically they are the DWP/ATOS's fault is just the tip of the iceberg, at the end of the day a lot of people in the DWP/ATOS and Iain Duncan Smith are have to going to "man up" and take responsibility for the carnage they have caused. Edited by papasmurf, Dec 25 2014, 06:36 PM.



ranger121	Dec 25 2014, 06:39 PM Post #44
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	Malum Unus Dec 25 2014, 03:57 PM HIGHWAY Dec 25 2014, 10:25 AM Malum Unus Dec 25 2014, 03:17 AM ranger121 Dec 24 2014, 01:25 PM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep Did you not read what I posted?, it's a medical examination by a supposedly trained doctor to determine a persons capability for work. As PS said and I'm pretty sure he's right, it's meant to take people off of benefits, regardless of whether or not they need them. The 'doctors' (and I use that term extremely loosely), they send are clearly unqualified if they ARE even doctors, as I fail to understand how any of them could find a person with no limbs or Marfan Syndrome capable of work is beyond me. I know people who work with missing limbs,,if someone told them there not allowed to work,they would be insulted Yes I can understand someone with a leg or arm missing could still work, but how could someone with no arms nor legs work? What are they supposed to work at, being a door stop? How could someone with Marfan syndrome work, given the seriousness of the condition (even in 'mild' cases)? Indeed, single and double amputees are capable of finding work. It's unlikely, but they certainly are capable. The other suggestion is that people with no limbs would automatically 'fail' a WCA and be denied benefit. Utter rubbish. They wouldn't even be called in for it.



ranger121	Dec 25 2014, 06:52 PM Post #45
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	papasmurf Dec 25 2014, 06:35 PM ranger121 Dec 25 2014, 06:20 PM This is not a medical examination, although it is carried out by someone with medical qualifications. It is ludicrous of you to suggest that these people are not qualified to do this work as it is a condition of their employment that they produce qualifications approved by the NHS and the GMC. Ranger the now very long line of cock-ups, deaths and suicides of people found "fit for work" proves otherwise. The 60 deaths that the DWP are currently investigating because coroners have stated categorically they are the DWP/ATOS's fault is just the tip of the iceberg, at the end of the day a lot of people in the DWP/ATOS and Iain Duncan Smith are have to going to "man up" and take responsibility for the carnage they have caused. Nothing has been 'proven' as no case has been in court for any reason, people have made assumptions and gone from there. Prove it. Go right ahead, show some 'proof'. Don't come back with links from activist sites stating co-incidences and assumptions, let's see it in black and white from official sources. The 'investigations' are cases that have been brought to Harper's attention, and the DWP has been asked to ensure that the procedures followed, and the decisions made were lawful, and correct. Yes, they're covering their asses, but with people like you throwing unproven libellous charges around that they are not permitted to reply to, what do you expect them to do?



papasmurf	Dec 25 2014, 06:57 PM Post #46
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 25 2014, 06:39 PM Indeed, single and double amputees are capable of finding work. It's unlikely, but they certainly are capable. The other suggestion is that people with no limbs would automatically 'fail' a WCA and be denied benefit. Utter rubbish. They wouldn't even be called in for it. Not ALL amputees are capable of work Ranger. Whilst SOME can be back to near fully functional with a few months IF they are otherwise fit, SOME cannot ever work because recovery and final outcome depend on whether a limb, has been torn off, blown off, cut off , or rotted off, plus how quickly first aid and medical attention was given. So there is a range of outcomes from able to work within a short period of time to being never able to work. As for people with no limbs never being called in for a "Work Capability Assessment" I would not put a bet on that if I were you, some of the DWP/ATOS cock-ups have been spectacular.



ranger121	Dec 25 2014, 07:02 PM Post #47
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	papasmurf Dec 25 2014, 06:57 PM Not ALL amputees are capable of work Ranger. Whilst SOME can be back to near fully functional with a few months IF they are otherwise fit, SOME cannot ever work because recovery and final outcome depend on whether a limb, has been torn off, blown off, cut off , or rotted off, plus how quickly first aid and medical attention was given. So there is a range of outcomes from able to work within a short period of time to being never able to work. As for people with no limbs never being called in for a "Work Capability Assessment" I would not put a bet on that if I were you, some of the DWP/ATOS cock-ups have been spectacular. Which is why all the claimants are being assessed on an individual basis, and there isn't a 'standard' ruling for amputees. You just need to bring the proof to the table, name the person with no limbs who has actually been to a WCA assessment. Can't be hard, can it?



papasmurf	Dec 25 2014, 07:22 PM Post #48
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 25 2014, 07:02 PM Which is why all the claimants are being assessed on an individual basis, and there isn't a 'standard' ruling for amputees. You just need to bring the proof to the table, name the person with no limbs who has actually been to a WCA assessment. Can't be hard, can it? You stated:- "Indeed, single and double amputees are capable of finding work. It's unlikely, but they certainly are capable." Implying all, and as for being "assessed on an individual basis" you really are having a laugh. I also did not state a person with no limbs had been found "fit for work" I merely stated you should not put a bet on that given the cock-ups the DWP/ATOS have managed thus far.



Affa	Dec 25 2014, 07:37 PM Post #49
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	ranger121 Dec 25 2014, 06:20 PM It is plain that you are discussing something called the Work Capability Assessment. This is not a medical examination, although it is carried out by someone with medical qualifications. It is ludicrous of you to suggest that these people are not qualified to do this work as it is a condition of their employment that they produce qualifications approved by the NHS and the GMC. Most of the people working for the WCA providers are ex-NHS staff, or have been trained to NHS standards and certainly all of them are registered with the appropriate professional bodies. As to what the test is, the clue is in the title - Work Capability............. Assessment. It's an assessment of a person's suitability for employment, whether they can do certain tasks, how 'capable' they are of getting a job, or returning to work after a period of illness. People having the WCA are not 'medically' examined as they might be in a GP surgery or a hospital, it's a completely different process. If you don't know what you're talking about, time to shut up. To put in my twopeneth ............. The suspiscion is the those conducting the WCA tests are part of the agenda to reduce claiments costs, the amount paid out in benefits. There cannot be any reasonable objections to this if the results are that those claiming benefits that do have reasonable work capability are filtered out and took off some benefits. Scroungers and lead swingers being frced out. The difficulties in continuing support for the attempt to make the integrity of the system stronger is when it penalises people with a genuine medical reason that inhibits their employment choices are nevertheless denied benefit support. It brings into question the integrity of those operating the WCA programme, their motivations, and those of the systems owners and planners. What are the incentives to them, the prize for hitting targets - targets that are denied exist. There is a smell ....... there is no smoke without fire. Happy New Year all Edited by Affa, Dec 25 2014, 07:41 PM.



ranger121	Dec 25 2014, 07:46 PM Post #50
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	papasmurf Dec 25 2014, 07:22 PM ranger121 Dec 25 2014, 07:02 PM Which is why all the claimants are being assessed on an individual basis, and there isn't a 'standard' ruling for amputees. You just need to bring the proof to the table, name the person with no limbs who has actually been to a WCA assessment. Can't be hard, can it? You stated:- "Indeed, single and double amputees are capable of finding work. It's unlikely, but they certainly are capable." Implying all, and as for being "assessed on an individual basis" you really are having a laugh. I also did not state a person with no limbs had been found "fit for work" I merely stated you should not put a bet on that given the cock-ups the DWP/ATOS have managed thus far. There was no implication that ALL amputees are capable of work. Claimants are assessed on an individual basis as the assessments are carried out on a one-to-one format. The argument is not whether a quad-amputee has ever been found 'fit for work' or not, that is obviously not the case, but whether a person with such a condition has ever been called in for an assessment at all. As far as I am aware, it hasn't happened, and if you have evidence that one has been called, and actually assessed, please bring the proof. It won't be hard, the press love things like this.



ranger121	Dec 25 2014, 07:57 PM Post #51
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	Affa Dec 25 2014, 07:37 PM ranger121 Dec 25 2014, 06:20 PM It is plain that you are discussing something called the Work Capability Assessment. This is not a medical examination, although it is carried out by someone with medical qualifications. It is ludicrous of you to suggest that these people are not qualified to do this work as it is a condition of their employment that they produce qualifications approved by the NHS and the GMC. Most of the people working for the WCA providers are ex-NHS staff, or have been trained to NHS standards and certainly all of them are registered with the appropriate professional bodies. As to what the test is, the clue is in the title - Work Capability............. Assessment. It's an assessment of a person's suitability for employment, whether they can do certain tasks, how 'capable' they are of getting a job, or returning to work after a period of illness. People having the WCA are not 'medically' examined as they might be in a GP surgery or a hospital, it's a completely different process. If you don't know what you're talking about, time to shut up. To put in my twopeneth ............. The suspiscion is the those conducting the WCA tests are part of the agenda to reduce claiments costs, the amount paid out in benefits. There cannot be any reasonable objections to this if the results are that those claiming benefits that do have reasonable work capability are filtered out and took off some benefits. Scroungers and lead swingers being frced out. The difficulties in continuing support for the attempt to make the integrity of the system stronger is when it penalises people with a genuine medical reason that inhibits their employment choices are nevertheless denied benefit support. It brings into question the integrity of those operating the WCA programme, their motivations, and those of the systems owners and planners. What are the incentives to them, the prize for hitting targets - targets that are denied exist. There is a smell ....... there is no smoke without fire. Happy New Year all Your implication is that there's a conspiracy in goverment to remove people off benefits by unlawful means, using the WCA, ATOS (or whoever is doing it now) and the DWP as tools. You question the motivation of the medical examiners. They're just providing an opinion for the DWP, using the software approved by the DWP and the goverment, in a format that a lay person can understand. 'Targets' for the WCA assessors are set by their employers, who are not the DWP. For there to be some sort of 'conspiracy', thousands upon thousands of people would have to be in on it. It's ludicrous.



Affa	Dec 26 2014, 02:05 PM Post #52
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	ranger121 Dec 25 2014, 07:57 PM Affa Dec 25 2014, 07:37 PM ranger121 Dec 25 2014, 06:20 PM It is plain that you are discussing something called the Work Capability Assessment. This is not a medical examination, although it is carried out by someone with medical qualifications. It is ludicrous of you to suggest that these people are not qualified to do this work as it is a condition of their employment that they produce qualifications approved by the NHS and the GMC. Most of the people working for the WCA providers are ex-NHS staff, or have been trained to NHS standards and certainly all of them are registered with the appropriate professional bodies. As to what the test is, the clue is in the title - Work Capability............. Assessment. It's an assessment of a person's suitability for employment, whether they can do certain tasks, how 'capable' they are of getting a job, or returning to work after a period of illness. People having the WCA are not 'medically' examined as they might be in a GP surgery or a hospital, it's a completely different process. If you don't know what you're talking about, time to shut up. To put in my twopeneth ............. The suspiscion is the those conducting the WCA tests are part of the agenda to reduce claiments costs, the amount paid out in benefits. There cannot be any reasonable objections to this if the results are that those claiming benefits that do have reasonable work capability are filtered out and took off some benefits. Scroungers and lead swingers being frced out. The difficulties in continuing support for the attempt to make the integrity of the system stronger is when it penalises people with a genuine medical reason that inhibits their employment choices are nevertheless denied benefit support. It brings into question the integrity of those operating the WCA programme, their motivations, and those of the systems owners and planners. What are the incentives to them, the prize for hitting targets - targets that are denied exist. There is a smell ....... there is no smoke without fire. Happy New Year all Your implication is that there's a conspiracy in goverment to remove people off benefits by unlawful means, using the WCA, ATOS (or whoever is doing it now) and the DWP as tools. You question the motivation of the medical examiners. They're just providing an opinion for the DWP, using the software approved by the DWP and the goverment, in a format that a lay person can understand. 'Targets' for the WCA assessors are set by their employers, who are not the DWP. For there to be some sort of 'conspiracy', thousands upon thousands of people would have to be in on it. It's ludicrous. It is ludicrous for you to think it ludicrous, imo. Of course government policy can be made to alter the numbers, to change the criteria that either allow or remove claimants from benefits.



ranger121	Dec 26 2014, 07:24 PM Post #53
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	They're doing what they said they would do, approved by a majority of voters who want it done. Some might say they are massaging the figures to make it look as if they are doing it, when actually they're not. Some might say that one cannot trust government statistics at all, as they are always presented in a way that the government wants them to look anyway. The test of whether they still have approval to do what they are doing comes at the next election, does it not?



papasmurf	Dec 26 2014, 07:32 PM Post #54
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 26 2014, 07:24 PM They're doing what they said they would do, approved by a majority of voters who want it done. The majority of the voters are not aware they have been lied to by successive government and the media about benefits.



ranger121	Dec 26 2014, 08:45 PM Post #55
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	papasmurf Dec 26 2014, 07:32 PM ranger121 Dec 26 2014, 07:24 PM They're doing what they said they would do, approved by a majority of voters who want it done. The majority of the voters are not aware they have been lied to by successive government and the media about benefits. Bull. Everyone knows goverments and politicians lie, cheat and fumble their way until the golden pension kicks in or a lordship arrives in the post. Common knowledge.



papasmurf	Dec 26 2014, 08:53 PM Post #56
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 26 2014, 08:45 PM Everyone knows goverments and politicians lie, cheat and fumble their way until the golden pension kicks in or a lordship arrives in the post. Common knowledge. Explain this then:- https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3188/Perceptions-are-not-reality-the-top-10-we-get-wrong.aspx 1. Teenage pregnancy: on average, we think teenage pregnancy is 25 times higher than official estimates: we think that 15% of girls under 16 get pregnant each year, when official figures suggest it is around 0.6%. 2. Crime: 58% do not believe that crime is falling, when the Crime Survey for England and Wales shows that incidents of crime were 19% lower in 2012 than in 2006/07 and 53% lower than in 1995[ii]. 51% think violent crime is rising, when it has fallen from almost 2.5 million incidents in 2006/07 to under 2 million in 2012[iii]. 3. Job-seekers allowance: 29% of people think we spend more on JSA than pensions, when in fact we spend 15 times more on pensions (£4.9bn vs £74.2bn)[iv]. 4. Benefit fraud: people estimate that 34 times more benefit money is claimed fraudulently than official estimates: the public think that £24 out of every £100 spent on benefits is claimed fraudulently, compared with official estimates of £0.70 per £100[v]. 5. Foreign aid: 26% of people think foreign aid is one of the top 2-3 items government spends most money on, when it actually made up 1.1% of expenditure (£7.9bn) in the 2011/12 financial year. More people select this as a top item of expenditure than pensions (which cost nearly ten times as much, £74bn) and education in the UK (£51.5bn)[vi]. 6. Religion: we greatly overestimate the proportion of the population who are Muslims: on average we say 24%, compared with 5% in England and Wales. And we underestimate the proportion of Christians: we estimate 34% on average, compared with the actual proportion of 59% in England and Wales[vii]. 7. Immigration and ethnicity: the public think that 31% of the population are immigrants, when the official figures are 13%[viii]. Even estimates that attempt to account for illegal immigration suggest a figure closer to 15%. There are similar misperceptions on ethnicity: the average estimate is that Black and Asian people make up 30% of the population, when it is actually 11% (or 14% if we include mixed and other non-white ethnic groups)[ix]. 8. Age: we think the population is much older than it actually is – the average estimate is that 36% of the population are 65+, when only 16% are[x]. 9. Benefit bill: people are most likely to think that capping benefits at £26,000 per household will save most money from a list provided (33% pick this option), over twice the level that select raising the pension age to 66 for both men and women or stopping child benefit when someone in the household earns £50k+. In fact, capping household benefits is estimated to save £290m[xi], compared with £5bn[xii] for raising the pension age and £1.7bn[xiii] for stopping child benefit for wealthier households. 10. Voting: we underestimate the proportion of people who voted in the last general election – our average guess is 43%, when 65% of the electorate actually did (51% of the whole population)[xiv]. These misperceptions present clear issues for informed public debate and policy-making, which will be discussed at an event being run by the Royal Statistical Society, King’s College London and Ipsos MORI today, as part of the International Year of Statistics. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-294336 This figure refers to pregnancies resulting in a live birth or legal abortion, not the total number of conceptions. Under 16 refers to women aged 13-15. [ii] http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-december-2012/sty-crime-in-england-and-wales--year-ending-december-2012.html [iii] http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-december-2012/stb-crime-in-england-and-wales--year-ending-december-2012.html#tab-Violence [iv] http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf [v] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-preliminary-201213-estimates [vi] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/04/government-spending-department-2011-12#data [vii] http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/qs208ew [viii] http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_310441.pdf [ix] http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/qs201ew [x] http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/qs208ew [xi] http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6012 [xii] Sharing the burden - How the older generation should suffer its share of the cuts - IEA Discussion Paper No. 34 [xiii] http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf [xiv] http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/elections/turnout-general-elections 65% of adults voted in the 2010 general election. This equates to approximately 51% of the total UK population.



ranger121	Dec 26 2014, 10:18 PM Post #57
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	Where do you think the people that took part in these surveys got their information from? Not primarily the BBC and ITV? Along with the internet?



papasmurf	Dec 26 2014, 11:17 PM Post #58
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 26 2014, 10:18 PM Where do you think the people that took part in these surveys got their information from? Not primarily the BBC and ITV? Along with the internet? You mean their wrong information, 20 years of anti claimant propaganda in the media.



ranger121	Dec 27 2014, 12:29 AM Post #59
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	papasmurf Dec 26 2014, 11:17 PM ranger121 Dec 26 2014, 10:18 PM Where do you think the people that took part in these surveys got their information from? Not primarily the BBC and ITV? Along with the internet? You mean their wrong information, 20 years of anti claimant propaganda in the media. So logically, all of the above is incorrect, because the public don't understand, or are misinformed. Which is it?



Lewis	Dec 27 2014, 08:31 AM Post #60
Senior Member Posts: 3,478 Group: Members Member #10 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 27 2014, 12:29 AM papasmurf Dec 26 2014, 11:17 PM ranger121 Dec 26 2014, 10:18 PM Where do you think the people that took part in these surveys got their information from? Not primarily the BBC and ITV? Along with the internet? You mean their wrong information, 20 years of anti claimant propaganda in the media. So logically, all of the above is incorrect, because the public don't understand, or are misinformed. Which is it? I would say both. People on the dole or on disability are demonised by this crap government, while tax dodgers who are responsible for fiddling far larger sums are barely given a mention.



papasmurf	Dec 27 2014, 09:40 AM Post #61
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Lewis Dec 27 2014, 08:31 AM I would say both. People on the dole or on disability are demonised by this crap government, while tax dodgers who are responsible for fiddling far larger sums are barely given a mention. Nail hit on the head.



Malum Unus	Dec 27 2014, 10:40 AM Post #62
Hater of Political Correctness and Legalese Posts: 1,389 Group: Members Member #24 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	Lewis Dec 27 2014, 08:31 AM ranger121 Dec 27 2014, 12:29 AM papasmurf Dec 26 2014, 11:17 PM ranger121 Dec 26 2014, 10:18 PM Where do you think the people that took part in these surveys got their information from? Not primarily the BBC and ITV? Along with the internet? You mean their wrong information, 20 years of anti claimant propaganda in the media. So logically, all of the above is incorrect, because the public don't understand, or are misinformed. Which is it? I would say both. People on the dole or on disability are demonised by this crap government, while tax dodgers who are responsible for fiddling far larger sums are barely given a mention. You're wasting your time, Ranger seems intent on painting the DWP out to be knights in Shining armor that can do no wrong. The WCA has been criticized by the media, by the government, by the shadow government, by the church, by its victims and by protest groups, but he still sees it as the perfect system that never goes wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_Capability_Assessment http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/shadow-state-dehumanising-degrading-treatment-disabled http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/17/atos-attack-emotional-commons-debate http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140313/debtext/140313-0001.htm Search the part in the link above about 'disable people'. Quote: Mike Penning: That is exactly what I am looking at now, as I alluded to in my answer to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). We want to ensure that when someone has gone to appeal and won at the tribunal, they are not called back in, because there is a suspicion that that is vindictive. We will ensure that that does not happen. http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/disabled-theres-only-one-way-to-make-atos-esa-assessors-understand-your-condition/ http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/archbishop-tartaglia-joins-chorus-protests-1937204 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/04/gp-atos-work-capability-assessment http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19437785 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/braindamaged-amputee-fit-for-work-says-atos-8547539.html https://mikesivier.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/mps-tell-their-own-atos-horror-stories/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189756/Triple-amputee-warned-lose-benefits-unless-prove-disabled.html And all this is just from a cursory glance at google, do you seriously mean to tell me that Ranger hasn't seen ANY cock-ups by the DWP over the WCA?



papasmurf	Dec 27 2014, 11:25 AM Post #63
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Malum Unus Dec 27 2014, 10:40 AM And all this is just from a cursory glance at google, do you seriously mean to tell me that Ranger hasn't seen ANY cock-ups by the DWP over the WCA? It appears not, despite the overwhelming evidence the WCA and it's predecessors have never been fit for purpose. I still have the correspondence filed away somewhere between myself and Peter Lilley before the first iteration of the WCA started to be used because it was obvious to me it was fatally flawed from the start because of it's use of the now thoroughly discredited biopsychosocial model of disability used to design it. It took some time before disability organisations realised they had been conned.



ranger121	Dec 27 2014, 04:18 PM Post #64
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	Quote: You're wasting your time, Ranger seems intent on painting the DWP out to be knights in Shining armor that can do no wrong. The WCA has been criticized by the media, by the government, by the shadow government, by the church, by its victims and by protest groups, but he still sees it as the perfect system that never goes wrong. Actually, no I don't. I believe it is impossible for the government to implement a 'one size fits all' points-based system for the assessment of sickness and capability of taking a job. There are hundreds, nay thousands, of diseases and disabilities, and to think that a simple test will provide enough evidence for a benefit decision to be made is simply ludicrous. Which is why the WCA is not the be-all and end-all of the matter. I am highly critical of people who slag off others who cannot answer back, those people who are simply earning a living by following the rules and procedures given to them by an elected parliament to administer taxpayer's money and yet are being labelled as being a part of some government conspiracy to make people commit suicide, or simply die of shock or starvation by removing their benefits with no excuse, or reason. The equivalent of Nazi concentration camp guards, 'only following orders'. It's a disgrace to hear such things.



papasmurf	Dec 27 2014, 05:12 PM Post #65
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 27 2014, 04:18 PM I am highly critical of people who slag off others who cannot answer back, You can be as critical as you like "I was only obeying orders." is NOT a defence for people who have found people who are visibly incapable of work, fit for work. The tests should have been scrapped a long time ago. Bearing in mind up until recently DWP decision makers were effectively "rubber stamping" the majority of ATOS reports of WCA's and only challenging 3% of them, despite Harrington 1, commenting about it in his first review:- https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/70071/wca-review-2010.pdf The decision gap 7. The review has found that many Decision Makers lack the confidence to make a decision that deviates from the Atos advice. In part this appears an issue of training and investment in the Decision Maker role, but it also reflects the lack of time Decision Makers are allowed to devote to particular cases. Several people the review spoke to referred to Decision Makers as “decision-stampers”, merely ticking through the advice from Atos. “The impression drawn from the cases coming before the Tribunal is that decision-makers are not discharging that responsibility in an independently minded manner, carefully weighing up all the evidence, resolving conflicts of fact and opinion, considering the applicable law and reaching a reasoned conclusion. They are simply rubber-stamping the HCP’s report.”, President, First-tier Tribunal “The design of the WCA is such that Decision Makers are given discretion to place a claimant in either group where there is evidence that they have Limited Capability for Work. However, whether due to a lack of training, a lack of confidence or a lack of authority, they invariably refuse to utilise their discretion, even where there is overwhelming medical evidence from specialist consultants showing the Atos report to be clearly wrong in the circumstances. Instead, in most cases they simply prefer the Atos report without adequate reasons for doing so.”, Disability Solutions Edited by papasmurf, Dec 27 2014, 05:13 PM.



ranger121	Dec 27 2014, 05:29 PM Post #66
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	You should of course then refer to Litchfield's year one report.



papasmurf	Dec 27 2014, 05:31 PM Post #67
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 27 2014, 05:29 PM You should of course then refer to Litchfield's year one report. Why? The situation has only recently changed, despite Harrington's comments.



ranger121	Dec 27 2014, 05:32 PM Post #68
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	papasmurf Dec 27 2014, 05:31 PM ranger121 Dec 27 2014, 05:29 PM You should of course then refer to Litchfield's year one report. Why? The situation has only recently changed, despite Harrington's comments. Changed? In what way? For the worse, or for the better?



papasmurf	Dec 27 2014, 05:48 PM Post #69
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 27 2014, 05:32 PM papasmurf Dec 27 2014, 05:31 PM ranger121 Dec 27 2014, 05:29 PM You should of course then refer to Litchfield's year one report. Why? The situation has only recently changed, despite Harrington's comments. Changed? In what way? For the worse, or for the better? For the worse, since "mandatory reconsideration" came in with no time limit.



Nonsense	Dec 28 2014, 11:13 PM Post #70
Regular Member Posts: 762 Group: Members Member #113 Joined: Nov 27, 2014	Personally, I would never trust gov't statistics, it's not that their sources are wrong, it's the post processing that distorts the FACTS. I used to follow the ONS stats on a regular basis during the last gov'ts period in office, a time when no politician ever looked at them. Think about it, any opposition would want to seek any source of data to use as a weapon against any current gov't, but no, they are all so criminally inept, that it's hard to imagine how the country even survives without internal conflict. The facts speak for themselves, government abuses power corruptly, oppositions do likewise, hence no 'opposition' to the 'corruption'. When NL were in control, the ONS in the run-up to the 2010 election created a hiatus of data, which would have embarrassed the politicians, specifically, the data that reveals the numbers of migrants claiming DLA within 6 months of arriving on these shores was missing. The last lot before that election showed that 6.8% claimed DLA in the first six months, clearly, not all migrants come here to work & that's not including those claiming the myriad of other in\out work benefits. In FACT, the last government gave £ MILLIONS of TAXPAYERS money, to fund 'advice' centres for foreign claimants, along with additional expenditure affording 'translation' services for the migrants who came here to 'work' at claiming our TAXPAYERS money, even if they could not speak our language. Even now, the people 'want' to believe the propaganda, that 'migrants contribute more than they take out of the welfare system', WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH ASSERTIONS FROM POLITICIANS OR THEIR EU FUNDED 'RESEARCHERS'. The FACT is, the last government changed the claim system for DLA, by making it easy for migrants or others to claim online with a nod & a wink. This lax approach gives the necessary ammunition to any opposition party to beat the welfare system to death with. It's what the last Tory government did with 'Blue Badge' policy, they inflated the numbers using them, knowing that New Labour are too inept to see the damage that they are doing, this becomes so great by time they become elected again, that it makes radical change easy, WITHOUT the need to justify it to the public. I would like to see Ed BALLS use the above political 'tool', to impose a 20% tax on the 'buy-to-let' sector that cost TAXPAYERS £26 BILLION annually, equivalent to £130 BILLION over the 5 year term of the coalition, that's fleeced the taxpayers\benefit claimants under this 'rent-to-buy' HEIST carried out by CAMERON'S Tories. It is morally corrupt, to pay 'buy-to-let' opportunist,with TAXPAYERS money, to aquire capital assets, namely the houses in which poorer people need for shelter. DLA under the previous system, apart from the deliberate or criminally inept inability to administer the system, worked in a fashion, indeed, the medicals were properly instituted, the DWP use comprehensive data covering every known medical condition, which to judge claims for DLA. What they cannot do, is ascertain without doubt, who is & who isn't a professional 'malingerer'. That remains the case & I do not include the possibility of 'foreign' doctors being involved in fraudulent cases. It is without any doubt whatsoever, that the Tories are ideologically opposed to the welfare state, they have no empathy with the poor, deserving or not. It's also a FACT, that when tax cuts or allowances are increased, the better-off benefit dis-proportionately to the lower paid & the cost of such windfalls are paid for with benefit cuts. The Tories are in effect at 'war' with the poorer members of society, of that, there is no question. Even pensioners like myself suffer from their policies, they brag about an £8 increase in pensions, well, in the first eighteen months they were in power, 25-30% was lopped of the £'s value, increasing inflation by that amount through price increases that affected everyone. That's only half of it, the Treasury were instructed by Osborne to transfer responsibility for the Council Tax Benefit Scheme to Local Council control, which this government purposely made less generous, costing people like me an extra £4-5 per week, so much for their generosity to pensioners. The election is nearing, the time is approaching when the people will have their say on who runs the country for the next five years, I hate New Labour as much as I do the Tories, as a young person, I made a mistake by voting once, I NEVER make the same 'mistake' twice. Anyone who believes in 'democracy' is naïve in the extreme, speaking for myself 'freedom' is more precious than 'democracy', that's the lesson I have learned from the system over seven decades.



ranger121	Dec 28 2014, 11:38 PM Post #71
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	You might simply note that DLA, as was when you are talking about it, had a residence test, and a 6-month qualifying period. You have to be disabled for 6 months, and also have a disability that is going to last more than 6 months in the future. Hence people with bad backs and broken legs don't qualify. The nationality of the claimant is only used to establish residence criteria. Only people who have permission to stay here are entitled to claim. Everyone is subject to the same criteria for qualifying, and are expected to provide evidence from medical professionals to back up their claim. Every DLA claim form had to be countersigned by a HCP. If it wasn't, the claim would automatically be rejected. The 'nod and a wink' passage of claims through the system didn't and doesn't happen, to suggest that it did or does, or is dependent on what nationality you are or what colour your skin is, is ludicrous.



Rich	Dec 28 2014, 11:55 PM Post #72
Senior Member Posts: 14,463 Group: Members Member #30 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	"It is morally corrupt, to pay 'buy-to-let' opportunist,with TAXPAYERS money, to aquire capital assets, namely the houses in which poorer people need for shelter." But that is precisely what MP's do when "flipping" homes and having the taxpayers pay down their mortgages.



ranger121	Dec 28 2014, 11:59 PM Post #73
Administrator Posts: 3,806 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	Isn't it true that this country has had landlords and tenants since feudal times? Isn't it a fact that people have been 'fiddling' their taxes since those days too? What has changed in several hundred years?



RJD	Dec 29 2014, 05:23 PM Post #74
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Dec 23 2014, 09:14 PM Rich Dec 23 2014, 09:01 PM Well, are you suggesting that staff at the DWP work for nothing? No, I am suggesting they are working inefficiently, which with having Iain Duncan Smith in charge should surprise no-one. I do not think that IDS is the Efficiency Line Manager as such a post, if it existed, would belong to the Civil service. I know you just love to have a pop at IDS and I know he is responsible that your Christmas sprouts were overdone, but this is taking the biscuit.



RJD	Dec 29 2014, 05:24 PM Post #75
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ranger121 Dec 28 2014, 11:59 PM Isn't it true that this country has had landlords and tenants since feudal times? Isn't it a fact that people have been 'fiddling' their taxes since those days too? What has changed in several hundred years? More money and more fiddles.



papasmurf	Dec 29 2014, 05:27 PM Post #76
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 29 2014, 05:23 PM I know you just love to have a pop at IDS I would like to apply rule 303 to IDS.



RJD	Dec 29 2014, 05:30 PM Post #77
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Dec 29 2014, 05:27 PM RJD Dec 29 2014, 05:23 PM I know you just love to have a pop at IDS I would like to apply rule 303 to IDS. I thought you might prefer the Stalinist 10 gramme solution?



papasmurf	Dec 29 2014, 05:33 PM Post #78
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Dec 29 2014, 05:30 PM I thought you might prefer the Stalinist 10 gramme solution? You will have to explain what that is RJD. I have never heard of it. It appears Google doesn't know either. Edited by papasmurf, Dec 29 2014, 05:35 PM.



Nonsense	Dec 30 2014, 01:55 AM Post #79
Regular Member Posts: 762 Group: Members Member #113 Joined: Nov 27, 2014	In reply- Post #71 "Everyone is subject to the same criteria for qualifying, and are expected to provide evidence from medical professionals to back up their claim. Every DLA claim form had to be countersigned by a HCP. If it wasn't, the claim would automatically be rejected". My opinion is that the 'online' system facilitates fraud, it's a convenient system to justify cuts in staff numbers, it reduces the quality of the administrative system. GP's for instance, were far from 'objective' in the information forwarded for consideration, this must be a reasonable conclusion to make when we consider the very considerable number of proven fraudulent claims by & claim dropouts on introduction of the PIP system. Many of the above claims falsely allowed, were by migrants as well as indigenous people, a situation that lends weight to a tougher regime. I don't believe this justifies replacing DLA with PIP, rather, that the system needed tightening up, the 're-assessment' of claims was possibly all that was required as a one-off, along with new claims being the subject of tougher objective scrutiny. My own opinion is that there is more fraud from migrants than can be measured, due in part to the cuts in staff which limit the success of any scheme by government in fulfilling it's objectives to counter such fraud.



Nonsense	Dec 30 2014, 02:04 AM Post #80
Regular Member Posts: 762 Group: Members Member #113 Joined: Nov 27, 2014	Rich Dec 28 2014, 11:55 PM "It is morally corrupt, to pay 'buy-to-let' opportunist,with TAXPAYERS money, to aquire capital assets, namely the houses in which poorer people need for shelter." But that is precisely what MP's do when "flipping" homes and having the taxpayers pay down their mortgages. That is so Rich, it is also the same politicians that currently fail to address the rapidly escalating cost of Housing Benefit that facilitates this heist against taxpayers. Remember, CAMERON & Osborne have signally failed to reduce Housing Benefit that ends up paying these 'buy-to-let' landlords mortgages, that is a deliberate policy decision in the face of massive cuts elsewhere. That 'policy' speaks volumes about the Tory priorities in the period of austerity which they foster upon the British working class.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Create a free forum in seconds. Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3