We have read much in the last few days about how the benefits system, is about to undergo a radical overhaul. What we are just starting to hear about though is the poor way in which this overhaul will be delivered.
The last government (yes Labour people, that is you) started to look at disability living allowance (DLA) and made the system, "tougher" on people. This toughness though was done on the cheap, with non medically trained people doing one hour assessments on people on DLA to ascertain whether they were entitled to continue claiming DLA. Quite how a non medically trained individual can make an assessment on someone's mental health by following a tick box approach to checking claims it beyond me.
On Radio 5 this morning they were discussing this issue, and focussing in heavily on Burnley, an area that will be targeted by the government to see how many people can be got off benefits and back in to work.
The fact that Burnley is something of a unemployment blackspot and is hardly fertile ground for a jobseeker at the moment is by the by for the government. So focusing in on Burnley they reported that of those people being denied DLA and other similar benefits after a one hour interview, hundreds were appealing their decisions, with 85% of people winning their appeals. Apparently there is a backlog of over 300 people awaiting their appeal to be heard.
According to Radio 5, the appeals involve seeing a proper doctor, with a full and appropriate examination, followed by proper questioning and a removal of the tick box approach to checking the claimant. One caller said the initial one hour interview had seen her score just three points, well short of the fifteen required to claim the allowance she was one. When she went to an appeal, she scored nineteen points !
My question is, surely we have a Social Security Minister who can do something about this issue ? How on earth can we have a system where 85% of people who appeal have been wrongly labelled as fit for work when they are clearly not. How can we have a system where non medically trained people are making medical judgements on the health of individuals ? In short, where is the Lib Dem influence that Nick Clegg and other lovers of the coalition keep going on about, because if this is happening and we are supporting it, then nobody should be proud of the coalition.
Showing posts with label benefits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label benefits. Show all posts
9/16/2009
Why Iain Duncan Smith is right
I used to love IDS when he was leader of the Tory Party. Slightly hapless, vague, lacking direction, uninspiring & ineffectual were words that summed up (probably unfairly) his stewardship of the Tory Party. However, opinions can change.
In recent years IDS has cleverly created a niche of expertise for himself by becoming the Tories equivalent of Labour's Frank Field in becoming an independent minded expert on Social Security and benefits who is able to say the things that their party leaders are not brave enough to say. And so it is today in the latest proposals from IDS.
I note the Tory Party were quick to disown his ideas and said 2they will be looked at but are not currently Party policy", but I think they were wrong to do so.
The IDS plans involve the benefits system actually helping people back to work (rather then telling people to get a job but cutting of their benefits immediately upon employment leaving people high, dry and broke for several weeks until they are paid) whilst also simplifying the whole confused and complicated system.
In my opinion, the proposals could have gone further as I think that the current benefits system encourages people who have never worked to stay on benefits whilst also incentivising having more and more children in order to avoid work.
So well done IDS. Perhaps not such a bad chap after all.
In recent years IDS has cleverly created a niche of expertise for himself by becoming the Tories equivalent of Labour's Frank Field in becoming an independent minded expert on Social Security and benefits who is able to say the things that their party leaders are not brave enough to say. And so it is today in the latest proposals from IDS.
I note the Tory Party were quick to disown his ideas and said 2they will be looked at but are not currently Party policy", but I think they were wrong to do so.
The IDS plans involve the benefits system actually helping people back to work (rather then telling people to get a job but cutting of their benefits immediately upon employment leaving people high, dry and broke for several weeks until they are paid) whilst also simplifying the whole confused and complicated system.
In my opinion, the proposals could have gone further as I think that the current benefits system encourages people who have never worked to stay on benefits whilst also incentivising having more and more children in order to avoid work.
So well done IDS. Perhaps not such a bad chap after all.
1/02/2009
The immigrant myth
The story today about a survey of just 43 people who mistakenly believe that immigrants are given better benefits, access to housing and basically an easy time compared to white British people.
Of course these are myths, but more must be done to dispel the fact that benefits are not piled up high in to wheelbarrows for every immigrant who visits the DSS, but likewise, people ought to know better than to believe every rumour they hear.
I remember when I was a councillor in Fakenham (North Norfolk) that a new social housing scheme was the subject of some criticism from a few local people who went around town telling everyone that the local council was filling the houses with Portuguese immigrant workers.
The fact that this scheme was actually filled with British people off the council housing list, and I was unaware of a single Portuguese family living in town (being a local teacher also meant I knew there were no Portuguese kids at our school), but it did not stop a small number of people spreading utterly false rumours.
The fact is that if people are told the truth, they don't want to know anyway, and I cannot see why that would be any different in the case reported today.
Of course these are myths, but more must be done to dispel the fact that benefits are not piled up high in to wheelbarrows for every immigrant who visits the DSS, but likewise, people ought to know better than to believe every rumour they hear.
I remember when I was a councillor in Fakenham (North Norfolk) that a new social housing scheme was the subject of some criticism from a few local people who went around town telling everyone that the local council was filling the houses with Portuguese immigrant workers.
The fact that this scheme was actually filled with British people off the council housing list, and I was unaware of a single Portuguese family living in town (being a local teacher also meant I knew there were no Portuguese kids at our school), but it did not stop a small number of people spreading utterly false rumours.
The fact is that if people are told the truth, they don't want to know anyway, and I cannot see why that would be any different in the case reported today.
2/05/2008
Is there some merit in bits of what Labour are saying about making people work ?
I note today that Labour minister Caroline Flint has come in for some deserved criticism of labours announcement that they may wish to make people homeless if they fail to get jobs. This is a slightly odd situation as presumably when they become homeless the council would then be forced to find them a home, but that is not the point.
What Carolin Flint has announced is unworkable and does not make sense on a number of levels. What about carers ? What about people who are on incapacity benefits ? I could go on, but there are all sorts of people who simply cannot and should not be expected to work. Then there is the ludicrous situation of people being dependent on benefits which simply cut off, leaving people waiting with no cash for several weeks, meaning that getting a job can throw people in to poverty.
However, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. There is some merit in the principle of people being encouraged and even coercered in to getting a job rather than excepting benefits, isn't there ? I'm not sure I have the answer, but a a principle the answer ought to be yes.
I heard of a housing officer who recently took a 17 year old girl, with her child, to look at the council flat she would move in to. It was newly decorated, was newly furnished, and was in the housing officer's words, "nicer than his own house", yet the girl's response was that she didn't like it because "it didn't have a dishwasher !"
Isn't this just the problem ? There is an attitude that people demand something for nothing, and they really don't want to pay for a dishwasher themselves. And this comes back to the old problem that the only way you can really get a council flat in some parts of the country is, it seems, to be to get pregnant and have no job.
I work in an area which is predominantly council housing and I know that the vast majority of people work bloody hard for everything they have. I also know, because people tell me, that there is a small minority who seem to have everything but have never done a day's work in their lives. Honest hardworking decent council residents think this is unfair and I actually think a good proportion would want to see the state make "those" people actually have to earn the right to their benefits.
This is not the only problem though, because the real problem is the shortage of council/social housing. Perhaps if Labour sorted out the shortage of council housing, halted the right to buy and released council house sale monies to councils, we could build more council houses and stop the need to be on benefits in order to get a house.
What Carolin Flint has announced is unworkable and does not make sense on a number of levels. What about carers ? What about people who are on incapacity benefits ? I could go on, but there are all sorts of people who simply cannot and should not be expected to work. Then there is the ludicrous situation of people being dependent on benefits which simply cut off, leaving people waiting with no cash for several weeks, meaning that getting a job can throw people in to poverty.
However, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. There is some merit in the principle of people being encouraged and even coercered in to getting a job rather than excepting benefits, isn't there ? I'm not sure I have the answer, but a a principle the answer ought to be yes.
I heard of a housing officer who recently took a 17 year old girl, with her child, to look at the council flat she would move in to. It was newly decorated, was newly furnished, and was in the housing officer's words, "nicer than his own house", yet the girl's response was that she didn't like it because "it didn't have a dishwasher !"
Isn't this just the problem ? There is an attitude that people demand something for nothing, and they really don't want to pay for a dishwasher themselves. And this comes back to the old problem that the only way you can really get a council flat in some parts of the country is, it seems, to be to get pregnant and have no job.
I work in an area which is predominantly council housing and I know that the vast majority of people work bloody hard for everything they have. I also know, because people tell me, that there is a small minority who seem to have everything but have never done a day's work in their lives. Honest hardworking decent council residents think this is unfair and I actually think a good proportion would want to see the state make "those" people actually have to earn the right to their benefits.
This is not the only problem though, because the real problem is the shortage of council/social housing. Perhaps if Labour sorted out the shortage of council housing, halted the right to buy and released council house sale monies to councils, we could build more council houses and stop the need to be on benefits in order to get a house.
1/08/2008
Tories "work for benefits" plan does have some merits
Far be it for me to heap praise on the Tories or their usually vacuous leader "Call me Dave" Cameron, but despite the incredulous comments from both the government and the Lib Dems about the Tories proposals for a "work for benefits" scheme for the long term unemployed, I actually think it has some merits on a number of counts, but it cannot work without a root and branch review of the whole benefits system
In the first instance, I genuinely think a policy such as the Tories are proposing will have the effect of giving the proverbial "kick up the arse" to few tens of thousands of professional unemployed. Like it or not, there are a number of people in this country who collect benefits each week who have no intention of getting a job because they receive so much in benefits that they will be worse off if they get a job.
These people therefore contribute nothing to society or make any recompense for the benefits they receive. The plans, as the Tories propose it, will at least ensure that these people will have to give something back to the hand that feeds and clothes them.
The other benefit of the Tory proposal is that for some long term unemployed, it could be a route back in to work. Let us not forget that whilst you can walk in to jobs in whole areas of the country, there are still unemployment black spots where the long term unemployed get stuck being unemployed and employers are loathe to take on someone who has been without work for some time who they perceive to lack the necessary skills. A "work for benefits" system will, I think, help those people.
The problem though, at the moment, is not always that there are not jobs, but the nature of the perverse benefits system which traps people in a benefits dependency state, where it makes you better off to have no job, particularly if you have lots of children. I highlighted last year an example I knew of in Norwich with a refugee family, and to me the system is crazy. We are supposed to have a system of tax credits to help people on low incomes, but the system is still twisted towards making chunks of society better of out of work.
The problems with the benefits system does have its roots in the previous Tory government who were so desperate to massage the unemployment figures, particularly in blackspots where steel mills, coal mines, car factories, were suddenly closed, the Tories encouraged the Social Security teams sent in to these area to put people on Incapacity Benefit so they would not be counted as unemployed. I am also worried that the Tories might be trying to put in to place a system which attempts to intimidate people with genuine health problems. It remains to be seen what the Tories policies will mean for people on Incapacity Benefit.
I am also a little concerned that the Tories want to put their scheme in the hands of private contractors, with the Tories, yet again, obsessed with letting companies make money for shareholders (and million pound payouts for directors no doubt too), but for once I will overlook that and say despite what their political opponents might say, and my better nature, the Tory plans makes more than a little sense.
In the first instance, I genuinely think a policy such as the Tories are proposing will have the effect of giving the proverbial "kick up the arse" to few tens of thousands of professional unemployed. Like it or not, there are a number of people in this country who collect benefits each week who have no intention of getting a job because they receive so much in benefits that they will be worse off if they get a job.
These people therefore contribute nothing to society or make any recompense for the benefits they receive. The plans, as the Tories propose it, will at least ensure that these people will have to give something back to the hand that feeds and clothes them.
The other benefit of the Tory proposal is that for some long term unemployed, it could be a route back in to work. Let us not forget that whilst you can walk in to jobs in whole areas of the country, there are still unemployment black spots where the long term unemployed get stuck being unemployed and employers are loathe to take on someone who has been without work for some time who they perceive to lack the necessary skills. A "work for benefits" system will, I think, help those people.
The problem though, at the moment, is not always that there are not jobs, but the nature of the perverse benefits system which traps people in a benefits dependency state, where it makes you better off to have no job, particularly if you have lots of children. I highlighted last year an example I knew of in Norwich with a refugee family, and to me the system is crazy. We are supposed to have a system of tax credits to help people on low incomes, but the system is still twisted towards making chunks of society better of out of work.
The problems with the benefits system does have its roots in the previous Tory government who were so desperate to massage the unemployment figures, particularly in blackspots where steel mills, coal mines, car factories, were suddenly closed, the Tories encouraged the Social Security teams sent in to these area to put people on Incapacity Benefit so they would not be counted as unemployed. I am also worried that the Tories might be trying to put in to place a system which attempts to intimidate people with genuine health problems. It remains to be seen what the Tories policies will mean for people on Incapacity Benefit.
I am also a little concerned that the Tories want to put their scheme in the hands of private contractors, with the Tories, yet again, obsessed with letting companies make money for shareholders (and million pound payouts for directors no doubt too), but for once I will overlook that and say despite what their political opponents might say, and my better nature, the Tory plans makes more than a little sense.
7/27/2007
Bold policies by the Lib Dems to end dependency culture
For all Labour's posturing and promises over the last ten years, the one thing that stands out for me where nothing has changed is the way in which millions of people are still on benefits, and the way in which the system in this country seems to encourage people to stay on benefits and does little to encourage them to get a job.
So today it is very welcome the the Lib Dems have put forward some bold proposals to tackle the issue of the "dependency culture" in the UK.
Yes, Labour has spent a lot of government on benefits and yes, they have tried to do more to stop benefit fraud. However, Labour's efforts are far too much stick and not enough carrot and at the same time under a deluge of means tested benefits which often means people who actually need benefits are unwilling to claim.
David Laws MP, who launched the policy said: "The Liberal Democrat vision is of a society of genuine opportunity where, instead of treating the symptoms of inequality, we treat its causes - poor educational opportunities, unemployment, bad housing and unstable families."
With plans to raise child benefit and alter the tax credit system that bizarrely seems to reward some high earners, the Lib Dems are being bold in their plans and have certainly got something to shout about in leaflets up to the next election.
If these proposals were acted upon more than 150,000 children would be lifted out of poverty. That has to be worth supporting.
So today it is very welcome the the Lib Dems have put forward some bold proposals to tackle the issue of the "dependency culture" in the UK.
Yes, Labour has spent a lot of government on benefits and yes, they have tried to do more to stop benefit fraud. However, Labour's efforts are far too much stick and not enough carrot and at the same time under a deluge of means tested benefits which often means people who actually need benefits are unwilling to claim.
David Laws MP, who launched the policy said: "The Liberal Democrat vision is of a society of genuine opportunity where, instead of treating the symptoms of inequality, we treat its causes - poor educational opportunities, unemployment, bad housing and unstable families."
With plans to raise child benefit and alter the tax credit system that bizarrely seems to reward some high earners, the Lib Dems are being bold in their plans and have certainly got something to shout about in leaflets up to the next election.
If these proposals were acted upon more than 150,000 children would be lifted out of poverty. That has to be worth supporting.
6/14/2007
The asylum trap - A shocking example of a benefits system that fails everyone
People are so quick to attack people coming to this country as scroungers sponging of this country's wealth, but today I was given a perfect example of the trap our benefits system puts successful asylum seekers in to.
In Norwich, a small number of African refugees have been placed as part of a government scheme to take families from refugee camps to Britain. This is a good scheme as it keeps families together and works as a disincentive to illegal asylum seekers, showing them that the legitimate way can work.
The problem is that these families have all been advised by the benefits agency that they will be much better off staying on benefits and have been advised that getting a job will make them poorer. The benefits agency haven't done this to be difficult, they are simply stating facts and giving impartial advice.
What a crazy system we have in the country.
I happen to know that at least one of the men has ignored this advice and gone out and found himself a job, completely against the advice he was given, but because he wants to provide for his family and he has not come to this country to scrounge a living.
Isn't it an absolute tragedy that refugees who are potentially beneficial people to our society are brought over to Britain and trapped in a system of benefits that makes them reliant on hand outs and completely disincentivises them from getting a job.
We are told by all the charities seeking long term aid solutions in Africa that simply handing out grain does nothing to make people self reliant. They want the West to give tools, irrigation systems, goats, chickens, indeed anything that allows starving people to work and provide for themselves. Yet our benefits system is everything we are told is wrong. It works on a hand to mouth basis.
What a shame it is that we bring African people who want to work to the UK and then make them dependent on hand outs. Why can't our benefits system,work to allow people, all people, to get in to work without them becoming worse off ?
In Norwich, a small number of African refugees have been placed as part of a government scheme to take families from refugee camps to Britain. This is a good scheme as it keeps families together and works as a disincentive to illegal asylum seekers, showing them that the legitimate way can work.
The problem is that these families have all been advised by the benefits agency that they will be much better off staying on benefits and have been advised that getting a job will make them poorer. The benefits agency haven't done this to be difficult, they are simply stating facts and giving impartial advice.
What a crazy system we have in the country.
I happen to know that at least one of the men has ignored this advice and gone out and found himself a job, completely against the advice he was given, but because he wants to provide for his family and he has not come to this country to scrounge a living.
Isn't it an absolute tragedy that refugees who are potentially beneficial people to our society are brought over to Britain and trapped in a system of benefits that makes them reliant on hand outs and completely disincentivises them from getting a job.
We are told by all the charities seeking long term aid solutions in Africa that simply handing out grain does nothing to make people self reliant. They want the West to give tools, irrigation systems, goats, chickens, indeed anything that allows starving people to work and provide for themselves. Yet our benefits system is everything we are told is wrong. It works on a hand to mouth basis.
What a shame it is that we bring African people who want to work to the UK and then make them dependent on hand outs. Why can't our benefits system,work to allow people, all people, to get in to work without them becoming worse off ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)