We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MSE News: Government considers tougher benefit sanctions
Comments
-
earthbound_misfit wrote: »ps. With regards the need to get government expenditure down:
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/The-Billion-Pound-O-Gram1.jpg
Doesn't have ESA on it but you get the picture... I believe ESA is 12bn a year, not sure if that includes ballsing up assessments and cost of tribunals.
Oh and a little quiz:
http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/esa-quiz.html
The quiz seems to be wrong or misleading in some respects (rather unfortunate because the target of the anger nearly always does exactly the same thing.. misinform)...for example ESA claims have definitely risen since 1997.. in 1997 there weren't any claims. To get ESA you do not necessarily have to complete a 40 page form or attend a face to face medical. etc"Do not attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence" - rogerblack0 -
I assumed that the fuss was because those in the support group, who have no requirement to seek work, were being forced into work placements and interviews?
Right, so basically, is it the case that those in the WRAG group are required to consider themselves as a potential employee so it is hacking off those who are basically contesting that they are or will be work ready?
Meaning, they have been officially deemed as capable of some kind of employment but don't agree with it? So the govt have decided if they miss their appointments then they will be sanctioned like someone on JSA would?
Did they think that they could sidestep the basic criteria for receiving WRAG and just sabotage all steps to try and get them into employment?
According to the Direct Gov website, those in the WRAG know that there are WFI and support to prepare them into employment.
Work-Related Activity Group
If you are placed in the Work-Related Activity Group, you will be expected to take part in work-focused interviews with your personal adviser. You will get support to help you prepare for suitable work
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Illorinjured/DG_171894
There is also the issue that for those in the WRAG of ESA their benefit becomes means tested after 12 months so a working partner means the money is lost.
This is the main reason for the scramble to be reassessed when placed in the WRAG as the 365 day rule does not apply to those in the support group.0 -
I assumed that the fuss was because those in the support group, who have no requirement to seek work, were being forced into work placements and interviews?
Right, so basically, is it the case that those in the WRAG group are required to consider themselves as a potential employee so it is hacking off those who are basically contesting that they are or will be work ready?
Meaning, they have been officially deemed as capable of some kind of employment but don't agree with it? So the govt have decided if they miss their appointments then they will be sanctioned like someone on JSA would?
Did they think that they could sidestep the basic criteria for receiving WRAG and just sabotage all steps to try and get them into employment?
According to the Direct Gov website, those in the WRAG know that there are WFI and support to prepare them into employment.
Work-Related Activity Group
If you are placed in the Work-Related Activity Group, you will be expected to take part in work-focused interviews with your personal adviser. You will get support to help you prepare for suitable work
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Illorinjured/DG_171894
It's important to note WRAG doesn't mean you've been found capable of some types of employment... spcifically you've been found to meet the benchmark that is 'you have limited capability for work' but not 'limited capability for work related activity'. There is a loose description for WRAG and Support Group.. the WRAG being for those whom could consider a return to work in the near future with appropriate support.. and Support Group for those who are not considered to be able to return to work in the near future. The reality is it ain't quite that scientific..lol... not in the slightest... just as prognosis isn't anything more than a heavily restricted selection from drop down menu.
As I understand it the closest WRA can get to forcing people to seek paid work or take paid work is to expect them to take voluntary work. The reason many will have a problem with work related activities is going to be wideranging.. but many will struggle to do such due to health problems and many will no doubt see no point in it. The work focussed interviews for example.. I attended all 6 of mine due to delays in assessing me for the main phase of ESA and I just talked about football.. it was clear to me and advisor that I wouldn't be returning to work any time soon if ever. For those that have ended up on government schemes... work programme.. some have reported that the organisation they end up with seems to have no clue what to do with them.. and I would assume that in part will be for financial reasons rather than any disability.
What may also be worth noting is that when ESA was initially designed, the medical had two parts... the second part has been dropped by this government... it was designed not to assess entitlement to ESA but to determine from medical perspective how a return to work could be managed by the claimant. The idea was that the resulting report would be helpful to claimant and their advisor if in WRAG (or otherwise). This dropping of this part of the medical was done under the apparent guise (excuse my cynicism) of efficiency drive with claimants being transferred into ESA from other benefits alongside the new claims... but it seems to run counter to the political claim they want to help sick/disabled people into work where it is possible. This government has effectively stepped up the Work related activities applying to those in WRAG. The government seems to be keeping Support group untouched as probably it would face a potentially damaging claim that the most seriously disabled people are being targetted for some kind of treatment... they tend to repeat a line of the sort 'we will protect the most disabled.. they will not have to face issue x'. The direction the government has taken regarding ESA is to me with their Universal Credit plans in mind where the distinction (at least at face value) between sick people who could work in future and people who can work becomes less. That would seem coherent with their plans regarding disability benefit... PIP will probably set benchmarks higher than DLA... the government seem to have a vision to reduce the number of people who are seen as too sick to work or disabled sufficient to require extra money... but as per often in politics... not in the direct way that makes it obvious to voters and in particular those affected.
This policy announcement seems to just increase the sanction available to a high level for those who refuse to take part in WFA.. just another stick to whip those on ESA with.. with probably limited effect in terms of actual sanctions and significant impact psychologically on claimants as can be evidenced just on MSE. What the government fail to appreciate is that using stick to sick and disabled people might actually just make them sicker and more reliant on state support. If I were to estimate... very difficult of course... but I actually think I'm pretty good at this sort of thing... if I were to estimate the percentage of my disabilities caused by benefits impacting illness then I would say it could be as high as 50%...i.e. I do think that if I were not claiming ESA and DLA I might improve in health by about 50 percent."Do not attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence" - rogerblack0 -
sanctions( I hate that word as it implies a reduction of benefits not a total stopping of benefits for up to 3 years) are mainly given on JSA, but looks like they are moving to ESA, for not taking up voluntary emplyoment or missing an appointment, the conditions that are needed to sanction someone are so vague, "not doing all they can to get back into work" etc the trouble is these people have already been found not able to work but are now expected to work voluntarily, which is crazy.
Another problem is the sanction is at the control of your adviser/decision maker, who is expected to be as good as a doctor in understanding your reasons why voluntary work or a missed appointment may be down to your condition.
I have just started on JSA yesterday, I have been told to apply for 6 jobs a week, if I do not follow that I can/will be sanctioned, it does not matter if I can not find 6 jobs to apply for, they have to be real vacancies, not just handing in a CV or cold calling, how many people can apply for 6 jobs a week! the stress is already starting, not knowing when the adviser will sanction me as it will happen as I know now the condition I have been set is impossible for me to do.
ESA is so hard to get now, after the medical, to start sanctioning these people is cruel, either accept they are unfit for work or put them on JSA but to stop most of their benefit, as with ESA they get around £99 and £71 is stopped, JSA it a total benefit stop.
I still have problems folowing the rules and regs, if you are in pain or have mental problems you stand next to no chance.0 -
MissMoneypenny wrote: »http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19478083
All that welfare money given to the parents for their child and then the child doesn't even get enough of their money, to eat a hot meal. :mad:
We are not lifting these children out of poverty, when we give childrens welfare payments to these type of parents. All we are doing is encouraging more children to be born into poverty; as children are seen as a cash cow and a way to get out of working.
"61% of children in poverty have working parents"
"most children living in poverty have at least one parent in work; it is appalling that those parents can't earn enough to give themselves and their kids a decent life"
But don't let the facts cloud your blinkered view that most children living in poverty do not have working parents, and that the parents have children to increase their income and avoid working.0 -
"61% of children in poverty have working parents"
"most children living in poverty have at least one parent in work; it is appalling that those parents can't earn enough to give themselves and their kids a decent life"
But don't let the facts cloud your blinkered view that most children living in poverty do not have working parents, and that the parents have children to increase their income and avoid working.
Right. The news story doesn't say anything like what Miss Moneypenny says it does, either about who the poor are or about what those that are benefits claimants spend their money on.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=55623609&postcount=93
But guess what? Two of the usual suspects have thanked her.
(So has challfour, but s/he doesn't count.)0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19478083"61% of children in poverty have working parents"
"most children living in poverty have at least one parent in work; it is appalling that those parents can't earn enough to give themselves and their kids a decent life"
But don't let the facts cloud your blinkered view that most children living in poverty do not have working parents, and that the parents have children to increase their income and avoid working.
These numbers don't make sense. An out of work single parent with 2 kids on benefits would typically get more than £17k. And since when has £17k been any sort of poverty line, it's always been measured in terms of a percentage of average household income equivalised to account for household size, and is a lot higher than £17k for the average family.0 -
I would agree with some of the comments in this thread that ESA is abused by some claimants, just as JSA is abused. I have anecdotal experience of people who blatantly play the system, getting diagnosed with various questionable illnesses which may or may not be real and may or may not cause a genuine inability to work. I also know very genuine claimants who suffer dreadfully in their day to day lives and certainly could not gain paid employment however much they might wish to. My question though, is how can we actually distinguish between these two types in any meaningful way on a macro level? Whilst I agree that the WCA seems not to be fit for purpose in may cases, what is the alternative? I don't think GPs would be much better at telling whether someone is putting it on if we are talking about nebulous things like "mental health" which is a perfect example of an area where you can have shammers and genuine cases side by side getting the same diagnosis. So what do we do to improve the situation?0
-
If you go to the horse's mouth, ie the report which is the source of this news story, you can put the figures in context:That isn't what the news item says, is it? (No, it isn't.)
http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/child_poverty_2012.pdf
For the purposes of the report they split families into 3 groups, those earning below £17k (which they define as "in poverty"), those earning 17-30k and those earning £30k+
Interestingly, a higher percentage of those earning £17-30k (not "in poverty" as defined by this report) said the same - (63.6%)!! And 54.5% of those earning over £30k said the same!! So the correlation to income/poverty seems pretty weak, for this question at least. So a disingenuous bit of spin there I think. Or maybe just lazy journalism.It says
"More than half the parents in poverty surveyed (61%) said they had cut back on what they ate
Better correlation there, but still telling how higher income groups are also affected. Income is obviously not the only factor, something which policies to attack the symptoms of poverty never seem to tackle.and more than a quarter (26%) had skipped meals in the past year."
It appears quite a lot of parents who earn reasonable incomes aren't spending on the children! What's the solution to that?What they, the parents, ate. They, the parents, had skipped meals.
43% of the poorest children "'strongly agreed' that their parents were cutting back on things for themselves such as clothes or food"
the parents -- were cutting back on things, such as clothes and food, for themselves.
"Just under a fifth (19%) of the parents said their children sometimes had to go without new shoes when they needed them."
"Some 19% of children in poverty said they had missed out on school trips and 14% said they did not have a warm coat to wear in the winter."
Now, Miss Moneypenny, you tell me where/how this story says parents are not spending welfare payments on their children.
Whereas quite a lot of those in "poverty" aren't having to cut back. In fact for all the "have you had to cut back/miss out on stuff" type questions, other than the spending on food (which the majority of all income groups had cut back on), the majority of those "in poverty" hadn't cut back, yet a significant minority of the richest group had.
To me the lesson of the report is perhaps we ought to get the majority of the "poor" who are able to manage to teach the rest, including the minority of the "rich" who can't manage, how to budget
0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19478083
These numbers don't make sense. An out of work single parent with 2 kids on benefits would typically get more than £17k. And since when has £17k been any sort of poverty line, it's always been measured in terms of a percentage of average household income equivalised to account for household size, and is a lot higher than £17k for the average family.
It's (officially) less than 60% of median household income. And yes it varies with the number of children. Here that 60% is given, for 2009/10 , after taxes and housing costs have been deducted, as £300 a week for a couple with two children under 14.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/monitoring-poverty-2011?gclid=CI2YvKiXn7ICFQQLfAodWT0AEg0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.9K Spending & Discounts
- 244.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards