MSE News: Government considers tougher benefit sanctions

princessdon

I 100% agree with you - the issue is medical (and relevant medical) people at ATOS - not your GP assessing you for work.

To do that - people need to maybe travel further if their medical field isn't availble local - but it's the way to go.

rogerblack

The (scrapped) second part of the work capability assessment was reportedly actually quite useful.
http://www.tameside.gov.uk/esa/wfhra

Unfortunately, this very vital bit of info is now attempted to be inferred from the group you're in.
Which is utterly broken.

ab.da54

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

.

Yeah I did actually.

They still wont get in next time. It will be back to Labour no doubt about it.

Do you think Labour would put a stop to the benefit changes?

Invalidation

ab.da54 wrote: »

Do you think Labour would put a stop to the benefit changes?

No they wont. They will continue to use it and blame it on the Tories.

~Chameleon~

Face1992 wrote: »

Are you serious, are you saying that disabled people will be out doing prostiution, being drug dealers and being muggers?

And why would being disabled bar someone from doing any of the above?

BigAunty

sniggings wrote: »

Doctors are better placed than an Atos worker who is not medically trained and is pressurised into getting people off benefits.

...

I disagree - leave GPs to diagnose Practice General medicine and leave the assessments of the capability of people to work to a systematic programme that judges every applicant on the same objective basis rather than the subjective pleas that GPs receive for sick notes.

If you've ever read an online blog by a GP, you will see how some of them dislike the harassment and exaggeration they get from some sickness claimants who will switch Doctors if they don't cooperate.

GPs need to be free to diagnose and cure the sick rather have the system clogged up by having them as the primary entry point into benefits.

I say beef up the role of occupational therapists who are trained for this sort of thing (keeping people in employment and helping them back) but not our poor beleaguered doctors. In places like Norway, it is OTs that prevent people from dropping out of the workplace in the first place and actively work with employers to encourage them to accommodate their employees - that's what we need.

I'm not saying the ATOS process isn't flawed (it is) but lets have a consistent and single way of assessing all claimants. I know claimants want a personal one on one where they have free space to detail why they think they can't work but this case by case method simply won't work either.

rickbonar.

Face1992 wrote: »

Are you serious, are you saying that disabled people will be out doing prostiution, being drug dealers and being muggers?

In answer to your post #89 which was a comment on my post #84

I actually used the phrase"benefit claimants" which could include any benefit including job seekers.

Certainly I believe a number of young people maybe inner city kids given the choice working in a burger bar for the rest of their lives and maybe making the minimum wage (max) or selling crack where by one deal makes more then a months pay burger selling.

Not mention the street cred amongst his/her friends.
What's he going to do eh! honestly?

Same with a man in a wheelchair ... I see cannabis plants are worth one hell of a lot money ... probably not that hard to cultivate if you've got the space. Bit of a no brainer when your money drops to £21 a week.

Dear old Menzies Campbell can't manage on his £65,000 salary from his job as MP after all.

earthbound_misfit

zagfles wrote: »

Most pressure groups like the JRF prefer after housing costs measures, for (IMCO) two reasons, it makes the poverty line seem lower, and it increases the poverty figures.

Bit confused. If this makes the poverty line appear lower (because after housing costs will obviously be a lower figure) then they should make it very clear on charts/info etc so as not to be misleading - fair enough criticsm.
However, if it increases the poverty figures - doesn't that tell us something? I mean, if people are earning adequately but most of it is swallowed up in housing costs, leaving their day-to-day income at poverty levels - then there is obviously an issue. It may not be just a tax/benefits issue, but there is a problem there all the same, and real people who are struggling.

I'm a bit dubious of measuring poverty by percentages like this - it means, on paper at least, the problem can never be solved as ther will always be a bottom 20% or whatever. (Unless we had totally equal wages and full employment, dream on...!)
But still, arguing over measurements does not solve the problems of
a) people who are really struggling on very low incomes, and b) the very high cost of housing.

sniggings

BigAunty wrote: »

I disagree - leave GPs to diagnose Practice General medicine and leave the assessments of the capability of people to work to a systematic programme that judges every applicant on the same objective basis rather than the subjective pleas that GPs receive for sick notes.

If you've ever read an online blog by a GP, you will see how some of them dislike the harassment and exaggeration they get from some sickness claimants who will switch Doctors if they don't cooperate.

GPs need to be free to diagnose and cure the sick rather have the system clogged up by having them as the primary entry point into benefits.

I say beef up the role of occupational therapists who are trained for this sort of thing (keeping people in employment and helping them back) but not our poor beleaguered doctors. In places like Norway, it is OTs that prevent people from dropping out of the workplace in the first place and actively work with employers to encourage them to accommodate their employees - that's what we need.

I'm not saying the ATOS process isn't flawed (it is) but lets have a consistent and single way of assessing all claimants. I know claimants want a personal one on one where they have free space to detail why they think they can't work but this case by case method simply won't work either.

the answer is easy and we both know it, set up a totally independent system to assess these people, not one that is target based and profit lead.

We know the government's aim is to save money and atos's is to make it.

We can either afford to support those that need it or we can't, there is no half ground, which is what he have at the minute, if we can't afford it then the government needs to say so.

zagfles

earthbound_misfit wrote: »

Bit confused. If this makes the poverty line appear lower (because after housing costs will obviously be a lower figure) then they should make it very clear on charts/info etc so as not to be misleading - fair enough criticsm.
However, if it increases the poverty figures - doesn't that tell us something? I mean, if people are earning adequately but most of it is swallowed up in housing costs, leaving their day-to-day income at poverty levels - then there is obviously an issue. It may not be just a tax/benefits issue, but there is a problem there all the same, and real people who are struggling.

Yes, the higher "after housing costs" poverty figure is basically saying that those on lower incomes spend a higher proportion of their income on housing, which isn't really surprising. It's not really about the cost of housing on average, because that it reflected in the difference between the before and after housing costs values of the medians themselves.

The after housing costs measure does drag a lot more working people under the poverty line, particularly those with mortgages in high cost areas, since there's no taper with SMI like there is with LHA/HB.

I'm a bit dubious of measuring poverty by percentages like this - it means, on paper at least, the problem can never be solved as ther will always be a bottom 20% or whatever. (Unless we had totally equal wages and full employment, dream on...!)

Yes. Although as the measurement is simply a measurement of the gap between the middle and the bottom, anyone above the median can get as rich as they want and it doesn't affect the poverty figures at all! It's a cunning choice of measurement, to use median income rather than mean.

And it explains New Labour's policies which were basically redistributive, but not in a traditional socialist way of from the rich to the poor, but from middle income people to the poor (while leaving their rich mates alone). Since that is much more effective at reducing the poverty measure they defined, as it attacks the gap from both ends, ie it reduces the median as well as increasing the incomes at the bottom. Taking off the rich and giving to the poor would only have attacked the gap from one end.

But still, arguing over measurements does not solve the problems of
a) people who are really struggling on very low incomes, and b) the very high cost of housing.

But the measurement actually causes bad policy. One of the biggest problems with the UK system is very high marginal deduction rates for those at the bottom, ie for every extra £1 low income people earn they only gain a few pence in income as most of it is taken off them in tax, NI, and benefits & tax credits reduction. This destroys incentives to work.

For a family with 2 kids, their marginal deduction rate is well over 70% until their income is over £32k - ie about average household income. Once over £32k the MDR plummets to 32%, so they at last start keeping most of what they earn over this.

The STC report called for lower MDRs for low income families, but this simply isn't possible while we have the current child poverty targets. Because the targets mandate high MDRs for people on lower than average incomes, since lowering the MDRs will obviously increase the income gap between the middle and bottom, and hence increase child poverty!

So the real problem of "poverty trap" is in part caused by badly thought out poverty targets.