Sanctions' figures

abrockall

Sanctioning benefits is how the conservatives get away with saying that they have created 1,000 jobs a week.
There are no new jobs. It's just that people on sanctioned benefits are taken off the benefit claimant list.
It's a con

rogerblack

missbiggles1 wrote: »

OK, I'll rise to the bait.

Benefit claimants who don't count LHA/HB/SMI as part of their income.

Much like benefit claimants who are employed that don't.
Or WTC or married couples allowance or ...

Most people claiming HB are employed.

rogerblack

abrockall wrote: »

Sanctioning benefits is how the conservatives get away with saying that they have created 1,000 jobs a week.
There are no new jobs. It's just that people on sanctioned benefits are taken off the benefit claimant list.
It's a con

I note also the recent moves to allow up to six month sickness on JSA rather than ESA.

Want to bet that these will be trumpeted as people who are now looking for work?
And of course who are incidentally getting ~25/week less because they're on JSA.

billywilly

abrockall wrote: »

Sanctioning benefits is how the conservatives get away with saying that they have created 1,000 jobs a week.
There are no new jobs. It's just that people on sanctioned benefits are taken off the benefit claimant list.
It's a con

In the grand scheme of things does it really matter what the previous government claimed?

Back in the days of Thatcher, no one was complaining then when she had the DWP move people from the unemployment register onto the sickness benefit in the name of reducing the unemployment figure.

abrockall

billywilly wrote: »

In the grand scheme of things does it really matter what the previous government claimed?

Back in the days of Thatcher, no one was complaining then when she had the DWP move people from the unemployment register onto the sickness benefit in the name of reducing the unemployment figure.

Yes it does matter, people who moved into sickness benefit under thatcher were actually sick.
Where as cameron moves sick people on to working benefits then claims unemployment is low when they can't work and get sanctioned for not finding work.
Would you employ people who are a danger to themselves and society? Or those who can't even speak properly due to disabilities? No way would you!
Thatcher had her faults, but cameron takes it to a whole new level

billywilly

abrockall wrote: »

Yes it does matter, people who moved into sickness benefit under thatcher were actually sick.
Where as cameron moves sick people on to working benefits then claims unemployment is low when they can't work and get sanctioned for not finding work.
Would you employ people who are a danger to themselves and society? Or those who can't even speak properly due to disabilities? No way would you!
Thatcher had her faults, but cameron takes it to a whole new level

They weren't sick at all, unless you call feeling depressed because you had to sign on and look for work?

You are confusing yourself with those comments. It doesn't matter two hoots if there will never be a job, or if they are unable to communicate properly.
ESA has never been a benefit that compensates for being too sick to work. Labour under Blair/Brown brought ESA in to sort out the benefit dependency that many had whilst claiming IB.
ESA does not test the ability to work, nor does it test if there is a job that you can or can't do.

It is simply a series of descriptors that you pass and are given a score. Get 15 or more points from those descriptors and you get ESA.

Finally people are sanctioned generally because they do not or will not follow the rules and instructions. Certainly not the fault of Cameron if people chose to disregard the conditions of receiving a benefit is it?

FBaby

how many people do you think that miss out on meeting a descriptor by a fraction?
thousands

Maybe, but you could say exactly the same the other way around. How many are in the Support group because they met the descriptors or were experienced enough to fill in the form to make it seem like they meet the descriptors, but are actually perfectly capable to work, albeit part-time, or gradually etc...

People on ESA can be mandated to do everything except actually apply for work, or do work, or undergo medical treatment. (*)

I'm sure I read on this forum about people inquiring about having to attend these meetings and being advised that they don't have to go. Maybe it is when they are in receipt of CA, or looking after children?

If it provides services that the claimant can't access without an extended wait quickly - great!

Can't? All of them? Waiting times are always brought up as an excuse in these circumstances, especially in regards to mental health, yet I know that in my area, almost everyone start treatment within 18 weeks of referral, so if you are referred as you get put in the WRAG (assuming you can't before), surely that gives plenty of time to start treatment before the 12 months are over?

In regards to CFS, surely if evidence is that CBT helps if started within 6 months, then surely it is a good thing that claiming ESA should come with an expectation of seeking treatment as it can only encourage them to be referred asap?

The minimum that should be expected is showing evidence that the claimants has tried something rather than just taking the attitude than just counting all the reasons, however minimal, there might to justify not bothering.

I can't see what would be the incentive for everyone to be put in the Support group to consider that they might be capable of going back to work, unless they really really want to go back to work, but it shouldn't be about want but ability.

missbiggles1

rogerblack wrote: »

Much like benefit claimants who are employed that don't.
Or WTC or married couples allowance or ...

Most people claiming HB are employed.

I said "benefit claimants", I never mentioned working or not.

A tax allowance is rather different in as much as you have to have earnings to set it against.

missbiggles1

abrockall wrote: »

Yes it does matter, people who moved into sickness benefit under thatcher were actually sick.
Where as cameron moves sick people on to working benefits then claims unemployment is low when they can't work and get sanctioned for not finding work.
Would you employ people who are a danger to themselves and society? Or those who can't even speak properly due to disabilities? No way would you!
Thatcher had her faults, but cameron takes it to a whole new level

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Double

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

billywilly

FBaby wrote: »

Maybe, but you could say exactly the same the other way around. How many are in the Support group because they met the descriptors or were experienced enough to fill in the form to make it seem like they meet the descriptors, but are actually perfectly capable to work, albeit part-time, or gradually etc...

I was in the Support Group from 2009 to 2014. On balance I was perfectly fit to work, albeit not with the same employer. I took retirement in 2009 when I claimed ESA and continued in a self employed role until 2014 under the Permitted Work scheme.
I had to close down my ESA claim in 2014 when I became 65, and now hold down three important positions on a voluntary basis. My health hasn't improved, nor has it deteriorated since 2009. However when asked to demonstrate my entitlement to ESA I proved that I qualified under enough descriptors to be awarded more than 15 points as well as qualifying under one of the specific descriptors that saw me get into the Support Group.

Being sick, ill or disabled has nothing to do with ESA. Neither has being able or otherwise to work. It is about points and descriptor boxes only.