Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Incapacity benefit axed in four years: All payouts to go in crackdown on workshy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Places » United Kingdom Donate to DU
 
Hopeless Romantic Donating Member (495 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-10 10:41 AM
Original message
Incapacity benefit axed in four years: All payouts to go in crackdown on workshy
Incapacity benefit will be axed within four years under plans to crack down on the workshy.
All 2.5million claimants will be removed from the scheme by 2014, Chris Grayling said yesterday.
The work and pensions minister told MPs they will be moved on to other benefits, where they will be under stricter requirements to find work or be given greater support to do so.
Mr Grayling said tackling the handouts culture and offering more help to the most vulnerable would be a key priority. He revealed that the process of assessing whether incapacity benefit claimants are fit to work would begin next April.
During the general election, David Cameron pledged within three years to test every recipient on their ability to return to work.
The Conservatives believe that around 400,000 of the country's 2.6million incapacity benefit claimants are incorrectly claiming the handout and are able to take up employment.
However, experts say that this figure is a serious underestimate. Official figures suggest that only one in six adults claiming incapacity benefit may be entitled to do so.
That would mean that more than two million people could be receiving the £89-a-week payments without justification.
The handouts cost around £12.5billion a year. Department of Work and Pension sources confirmed that incapacity benefit would no longer exist 'in its current form' under plans to scrap Labour's myriad of benefit schemes.
The idea is to replace them with a single Work Programme offering support for the jobless.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286664/Chris-Grayling-announces-end-incapacity-benefit-years.html#ixzz0qw8wiM6B

Tory bastard
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
T_i_B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-10 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. Ah, the balanced reporting of the Daily Fail
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-10 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. And see this from the Torygraph
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100043522/incapacity-benefit-is-unfair-and-unworkable/

Sickening.

With any luck, this government may not last four years, and this may not happen. (Not that even New Labour's attitude to disabled people was all that great.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
non sociopath skin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-10 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
3. Let's hope that a not insignificant number of Tory and Lib Dem MPs ...
... are able to take advantage of this generous offer shortly thereafter.

The Skin
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
non sociopath skin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-10 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
4. The Shape of Things To Come?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/14/angela-merkel-germany-coalition-collapse

Criticised at home and abroad for mishandling the euro crisis, Merkel's latest political headache is the four-year €80bn (£67bn) austerity package passed last week in an attempt to reduce Germany's deficit. Many of Merkel's own CDU MPs fear a voter backlash after growing criticism that the cuts are socially imbalanced. Almost 80% believe the cuts to be socially unfair, while 67% want an increase in the top rate of tax, which Merkel has strongly resisted. Public anger at the package spilled over at the weekend when thousands of demonstrators took to the streets.


Hopefully, one or two worried faces in Tory and Lib Dem HQs tonight ....

:eyes:

The Skin
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
miscsoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-10 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'm on incapacity benefit with mental health problems.
My inability to work is as legitimate as can be, but since I don't have any missing body parts I'll bet I'm one of the people who'll be thrown onto the streets by this, unless I have a providential recovery pretty soon. I mean you at least if I was a paraplegic I'd have something to point to.

Who the fuck are these experts cited by the daily mail, by the way?

And I've been evaluated on my ability to work every year or so since I was on this, I wonder what they mean when they say I will be reassessed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-15-10 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. The Department and Work and Pensions costings on Employment Support Allowance.
Something I have previously mentioned.

This is no surprise the DWP figures from Labour days have even been scaled back. The DWP were estimating in the region of 1/2 a million to a million transitioning from incapacity benefit to job-seekers allowance as a result of ESA.

With the recession the work focused interviews were simply not carried out. This meant that those who were entitled to the long term rate after the "assessment phase" were also not being given their additional entitlement but it kept the "claimant count" down. That has now stopped. It stopped shortly after the election was called.

The number failing the test and in many cases there is no right of appeal are actually exceeding original expectations. It has also increased the level of work in local authorities who have to deal with the transfer of claimants from Incapacity Benefit/ESA to Job Seekers Allowance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-10 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. So were the Tory bastards those that introduced ESA?
The chancellor has conceded in an interview with me that if Labour is re-elected, public spending cuts will be tougher and deeper than those implemented by Margaret Thatcher.

I asked Alistair Darling to spell out how tough spending cuts could be:

Robinson: "The Treasury's own figures suggest deeper, tougher than Thatcher's - do you accept that?"

Darling: "They will be deeper and tougher - where we make the precise comparison I think is secondary to an acknowledgement that these reductions will be tough."
The independent think tank, the Institute of Fiscal Studies, has noted that that total public spending increased by an average of 1.1% a year in real terms over the Thatcher era. This is almost three times the increase of 0.4% a year that Alistair Darling has pencilled in for the next Parliament.

The IFS went on to observe that:

"f we subtract spending on welfare and debt interest then we estimate that the rest of public spending would be cut in real terms by an average of 1.4% a year compared to an average increase of 0.7% in the Thatcher era. We have not seen five years with an average annual real cut as big as this since the mid-1970s."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/03/chancellor.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-18-10 04:13 AM
Response to Original message
8. Libcon seems to be following in New Labour's footsteps
Bully the disabled while asset-strip the public sector for the welfare of big business.

The Lib Dems and the Tories will probably fulfill Mandelson's dream of selling off the Royal Mail, something the Labour Party wouldn't stand for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-18-10 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Actually that was something Thatcher would not stand for.
It was after all "Royal Mail". Neo Con Labour, the Libertarian Dems and the Camservatives who knows?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-18-10 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
9. The thing that first alerted me to the fact that Tony was a Tory...
was that he cut benefits to working disabled people, ignoring the fact that for disabled people, being able to work generally *costs more money* (e.g. they are more likely to need to own a car, or to take taxis).

I think that we can agree that, with the one exception of the passage of the Disability Discrimination Act, most recent governments have ranged from rather bad to absolutely fucking awful on disability issues. There are, I think two reasons for this. One is that disabled people are easy to ignore or exploit, because they lack collective power. They are usually poorer than most of the population; often not in a position to raise hell and demand their rights (though happily some have); and don't even have a powerful union to back them. On the whole, disabled people, especially those with mental health problems, are less likely to vote, or at least are seen as less likely to vote, so that politicians are less likely to be inhibited by the thought that 'there goes the disabled people's vote!' than by the equivalent for some other groups.

This first reason encompasses all political parties. The second is most explicitly associated with the Tories, especially the Thatcherite branch: it is a harshly moralistic idea that it is *good* to be 'tough' with people seen as 'weaklings'; that all they need to do is pull themselves together and 'get on their bikes'; and that depriving them of their benefits is really doing them a favour. Such Tories of course tend to think this of the poor in general, but disability, especially invisible disabilities, can bring out some of the pure venom. For example, the 'workshy' allegation in the Daily Mail article in the OP, or the more wordy, and utterly vile, comments in the Ed West article that I linked:



'Of the 2.5m on this benefit, nearly 1.1 million people are unable to work due to mental disorders and behavioural problems, with the number of people off work suffering stress trebling under Labour, and half a million people now off because of “Depressive episodes”. ..

There are, of course, people for whom the world of work is just too much, but there is no effective system that can justly help them without eventually collapsing under its own weight. Most of these psychological problems are spectrum disorders, some of which we all suffer from to a certain extent – many of us are anxious, stressed, depressed and drinking too much, but we labour on nonetheless, accepting these woes as part of life. This makes it extremely hard for the state bureaucracy to disprove someone is eligible to claim – for example, has anyone heard of a doctor telling someone who is “stressed” to just pull themselves together, rather than signing them off? Add to this the fact that incapacity benefit pays out more than jobseeker’s allowance, and you have a recipe for disaster.

And disaster is what it is, trapping the weak into a life of idleness on £70 a week. Socialists are often accused of promoting a “nanny state” but that is unfair to nannies – what we have now is a state that acts like indulgent parents to grown-up children.'

This sort of attitude to 'the weak' is as far as I am concerned, one of the most evil things in the universe, and one of the few things that makes me wish I wasn't an atheist, as I don't even have the comfort of believing that such people will have their come-uppance in the afterlife! ('What you did not unto the least of these...') It is a central reason why I hate Thatcher and Thatcherism so much!

So that there are two villains to fight: the pragmatic, politically selfish dismissal of disabled people as a powerless group, easy to shortchange; and the harshly moralistic desire to *punish* 'weak' (and poor) people. For the first villain, disabled people are collateral damage in the fight for power; for the second they are the actual enemy.

The first villain can and should be fought by giving disabled people more of a political voice; promoting more advocacy and self-advocacy. There is more than there was - but still not enough. The second is even more heartbreaking, and harder to fight.


I am glad to say that the first comment on West's article is scathing:


'Quack-hack preaches prejudice and hatred of all things disabled', would be an altogether more honest title for this article of propaganda.

Having maligned any source of disagreement, the Quack-hack dazzles us with his stunningly in-depth knowledge of all things medical, not least of which being his knowledge of the finer workings of the mind. To think that we have such a shortage of adequate mental health provision in this Country. But for why?...

Hearing voices? Simply tell them to be quiet, problem solved. Agoraphobic, can't get a foot outside the door? Stick a leg out the window and enjoy the breeze. Heart failure, cancer, three months to live? That's three months to work, don't even think of dropping or he'll have to get the whip out...

How staggeringly ingenious, revolutionary and yet so deliciously simple. I am amazed that no other hack has discovered such puritanical tripe before now. In order to save billions from NHS Budgets, could the almighty (he who must not be disagreed with) Mr Ed West, also stamp out some other pesky nuisances.

Perhaps he could tell tumours to stop growing. As that's really rather naughty of them, silly tumours! Could he tell germs to stop spreading, viruses to stop infecting and mutating. That should do to start with...'


Maybe there is hope for the human race after all!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
realcrookswearsuits Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-18-10 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
10. "The idea is to replace them with a single Work Programme offering support for the jobless."
Edited on Fri Jun-18-10 04:51 PM by realcrookswearsuits
The workhouse

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-19-10 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Ah, so THIS fellow is in the Cabinet:
Edited on Sat Jun-19-10 07:50 PM by Ken Burch
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-19-10 05:08 AM
Response to Original message
12. Is the new government assuming that NO ONE is actually incapacitated?
Even Thatcher and Reagan weren't THIS mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-19-10 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. No, They are trying to 'simplify' the system, and in the process toss as many people off benefits as
possible.

They would wish to help the 'genuinely incapacitated' but it's a bit like Reagan wishing to help the 'truly needy'.

Grayling is a particularly nasty member of the government. He was 'demoted' from shadow Home Secretary to Pensions Minister, apparently because of a controversial statement implying that private organizations should have a right to discriminate against gays. Let's hope that if he gets too outrageous on this, he may get kicked out altogether, if only because the Tories and Lib Dems don't want to lose their next election, together or separately. Unfortunately, as I said in another post, disabled people, and especially those with mental health problems, don't have great political power, and are a punching bag for the right-wing press.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-19-10 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Was there ever a widespread belief among ordinary voters in the UK
that most people on incapacity benefit were scamming the system?

I remember Blair starting in on the disabled as soon as he took office, and it really, really puzzled me. Did the man really think that Labour had to be THAT mean-spirited to the worst-off in society just to retain electoral support?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-20-10 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. There were economic considerations also
Britain was running at near full-employment in the early part of the Blair years. They wanted people off incapacity and into work to squeeze a bit more growth and tax receipts out of the economy. Of course it proved to be wishful thinking, and they were rightfully exposed for trying to bully the disabled off benefits.

The current Tory attitude is more of the "let's set them free by kicking the (wheel)chair out from under them."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 22nd 2024, 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » United Kingdom Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC