Daily Mail at it again...

MaxwellBygraves

Ha! Bet you all thought you knew what was coming.

I freely admit I'm usually the first to criticize the DM for some of the bile it publishes. But this post is in praise of the Daily Mail. One of the best articles I have read on the Welfare Reform Bill. Well done them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ve-it.html

Well said Sonia. Perhaps some of the papers staff could do with actually reading it! I won't get my hopes up

rick_chasey

The welfare reform bill got pwned in the HoL anyway.

Quote of the day for that is this:

The means test would have applied to cancer patients and stroke survivors, and was denounced by Lord Patel, a crossbencher and former president of the Royal College of Obstetricians, as an immoral attack on the sick, the vulnerable and the poor. "If we are going to rob the poor to pay the rich, then we enter into a different form of morality," Patel said.

MaxwellBygraves

Rick Chasey wrote:

The welfare reform bill got pwned in the HoL anyway.

Quote of the day for that is this:

The means test would have applied to cancer patients and stroke survivors, and was denounced by Lord Patel, a crossbencher and former president of the Royal College of Obstetricians, as an immoral attack on the sick, the vulnerable and the poor. "If we are going to rob the poor to pay the rich, then we enter into a different form of morality," Patel said.

Thanks Rick, had not yet seen this. I am relieved.

Nice quote as well, just about sums everything up really.

symo

To be honest the DLA would easily be covered by removing Winter fuel payments to pensioners living in Southern Spain, the Caribbean etc.

DLA doesn't need to be scrapped we just need to look at how the money is spent.

rjsterry

symo wrote:

To be honest the DLA would easily be covered by removing Winter fuel payments to pensioners living in Southern Spain, the Caribbean etc.

DLA doesn't need to be scrapped we just need to look at how the money is spent.

Or just scrap the £2.7bn Winter Fuel Allowance altogether, put a small proportion of the money into insulating the homes and replacing the boilers of those that really are in fuel poverty, and spend the rest on something less like a bribe. It's not as though it even that effective fro those who really are at risk of hypothermia.

DonDaddyD

Educate me, what's wrong with the winter fuel allowance?

bails87

It's not means tested, I'd say was the main fault. So money goes to people who don't need it, meaning there's less to go to the people who really do need help over the winter.

DonDaddyD

Ah OK, yes it doesn't seem like an effetive use of funds.

W1

The problem with means testing is that it's very expensive to do properly - hence a universal benefit which, whilst it does go to some people who do not need it, is in fact cheaper overall.

I'd say scrap it too, and child benefit for that matter. Benefits are not designed to be "universal" - that's a mockery of the fundamental reason for them!

Wallace1492

Far too many benefits go to those that either do not require them or should not qualify for them.

The DLA gets paid to may who are fully fit but manage to hoodwink a GP into writing a letter.

Benefits should get back to basics. Maybe be vouchers rather than cash, as many benefits get spent on booze/fags /drugs. I for one don't want to be subsidising someone else's substance abuse.

rick_chasey

Wallace1492 wrote:

Far too many benefits go to those that either do not require them or should not qualify for them.

The DLA gets paid to may who are fully fit but manage to hoodwink a GP into writing a letter.

Benefits should get back to basics. Maybe be vouchers rather than cash, as many benefits get spent on booze/fags /drugs. I for one don't want to be subsidising someone else's substance abuse.

Yeah, because being made redundant isn't humiliating enough.

alfablue

My step-son has a severe learning disability and receives DLA and ESA (employment support allowance). He has a chromosomal disorder responsible for his disability, and his chromosomes are not likely to change any time soon! Nevertheless he was put through the utter humiliation of the Work Capability Assessment, which is carried out by a private contractor on behalf of the government for ESA claimants. The whole interview was a nonsense, my step-son said yes to everything. One of the questions the doctor had to ask him was "how do you feel about your disability", this young man doesn't even know what a disability is, let alone that he has one! Whilst not the doctors fault (its on the check list) the question was a disgusting example of the total lack of insight those who created the assessment have into aspects of disability. I found it to be a highly offensive, humiliating and cruel process.

The whole process was a farce, instructions on the location were poor, we were nearly late because we couldn't find the location, and there would be serious problems if we missed our appointment. When we were there we saw several other claimants in the waiting room. Most were very poorly, having obvious health problems, such as breathing difficulties, dense hemiplegias etc, and others with less visible but as likely to be disabling physical or mental health problems. During our wait an ambulance had to attend one claimant who's condition took a turn for the worse. We saw people in the car park aftewards, leaving the assessment in tears.

Yes, this will catch a few people who get this benefit inappropriately, but at the cost of humiliating and victimising the many genuine claimants. This system will be used to test DLA claimants in future so will spread the misery further. We need to trust the judgements of GPs who know these people (and if some GPs act irresponsibly, then sort them out). As far as I can see we have already got to Lord Patel's scenario that we are robbing the poor to pay the rich. Make no mistake, receiving such benefits is no walk in the park! Many worthy recipients will opt out because of this virtual criminalisation. Maybe that's the plan. . .

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Far too many benefits go to those that either do not require them or should not qualify for them.

The DLA gets paid to may who are fully fit but manage to hoodwink a GP into writing a letter.

Benefits should get back to basics. Maybe be vouchers rather than cash, as many benefits get spent on booze/fags /drugs. I for one don't want to be subsidising someone else's substance abuse.

Yeah, because being made redundant isn't humiliating enough.

You're presuming they've had a job in the first place.

What are the arguments against vouchers? Pride?

bails87

Thanks for the insight alfablue, sorry to hear how crappy it was.

I know there have been cases of people claiming due to condition X, their claim is refused, they appeal and fail to make it all the way through the appeal process because they die of the condition that ATOS or whoever has said they don't have.

alfablue

bails87 wrote:

I know there have been cases of people claiming due to condition X, their claim is refused, they appeal and fail to make it all the way through the appeal process because they die of the condition that ATOS or whoever has said they don't have.

This does not surprise me

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Far too many benefits go to those that either do not require them or should not qualify for them.

The DLA gets paid to may who are fully fit but manage to hoodwink a GP into writing a letter.

Benefits should get back to basics. Maybe be vouchers rather than cash, as many benefits get spent on booze/fags /drugs. I for one don't want to be subsidising someone else's substance abuse.

Yeah, because being made redundant isn't humiliating enough.

You're presuming they've had a job in the first place.

What are the arguments against vouchers? Pride?

Given the big rise in unemployment recently, it's not an insignificant proportion.

Vouchers are complicated. How do you decide what they can buy and what can't? I can think of a lot of situations where people need something unusual.

They're also more expensive to manage etc.

There's a reason why luncheon vouchers are disappearing.

It's not the gov't position to decide what you are allowed or not to buy just because you are not in employment. You can't deny people basic human rights just because they don't work. Like it or not.

People have a right to live in minimum conditions.

Especially given how hard it is to find work now, with unemployment rates at at 8.3% of the labour force, it's ridiculous to suggest that.

The sentiment that gets echoed about social security echoes some of the sentiment used to justify poor-houses in 19th Century.

Seriously, how far has society come? More unequal than it's ever been since the 19th Century, the poorest 40% have seen flat growth in living standards since the 1970s, and now people are hating on the poor as a 'burden' on society.

No wonder Dickens is all over the TV.

rick_chasey

You can see how it comes about.

A large proportion of the growth seen in the US and the UK has been down to working longer hours and has been credit fueled.

In reality that means everyone's working their face off just to pay off the mortgage, to keep up (with their own aspirationalism).

All that work to make ends meet makes people naturally more over-tight fisted about their taxes, and get angry about petty stuff that helps people live when they're hard up.

Cafewanda

It also occurs to me that people at the bottom are penalised for having aspirations or penalised for not having them. It's as if the poor should stay poor but jump through hoops for any benefits/goodwill given to them (I'm generalising, I know).

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Far too many benefits go to those that either do not require them or should not qualify for them.

The DLA gets paid to may who are fully fit but manage to hoodwink a GP into writing a letter.

Benefits should get back to basics. Maybe be vouchers rather than cash, as many benefits get spent on booze/fags /drugs. I for one don't want to be subsidising someone else's substance abuse.

Yeah, because being made redundant isn't humiliating enough.

You're presuming they've had a job in the first place.

What are the arguments against vouchers? Pride?

Given the big rise in unemployment recently, it's not an insignificant proportion.

Vouchers are complicated. How do you decide what they can buy and what can't? I can think of a lot of situations where people need something unusual.

They're also more expensive to manage etc.

There's a reason why luncheon vouchers are disappearing.

It's not the gov't position to decide what you are allowed or not to buy just because you are not in employment. You can't deny people basic human rights just because they don't work. Like it or not.

People have a right to live in minimum conditions.

Especially given how hard it is to find work now, with unemployment rates at at 8.3% of the labour force, it's ridiculous to suggest that.

The sentiment that gets echoed about social security echoes some of the sentiment used to justify poor-houses in 19th Century.

Seriously, how far has society come? More unequal than it's ever been since the 19th Century, the poorest 40% have seen flat growth in living standards since the 1970s, and now people are hating on the poor as a 'burden' on society.

No wonder Dickens is all over the TV.

What the government should not be paying for:
- Sky
- Fags
- Booze
- Big TVs
- games consoles
- plastic surgery
- savings

None of those are required for "minimum conditions".

What people need is:
- a roof
- food
- bills paid

I can't see why that can't be done directly or through non-cash means.

"It's not the gov't position to decide what you are allowed or not to buy just because you are not in employment. You can't deny people basic human rights just because they don't work. Like it or not."

Yes it is, if it's the government's (sorry, our) money. That's not a denial of "basic human rights".

W1

Cafewanda wrote:

It also occurs to me that people at the bottom are penalised for having aspirations or penalised for not having them. It's as if the poor should stay poor but jump through hoops for any benefits/goodwill given to them (I'm generalising, I know).

How is anyone penalised for having aspirations? Except for the disproportionate tax they'll pay if their aspirations are successful of course.

It's not a bad thing for people to have to prove their need for benefits - otherwise you undermine the very point of them. How that is done is another matter, but in principle there should be no objections to anyone needing to evidence why they are reliant on the state and if they don't want to do that they can opt not to receive benefits. As usual it will be done in a hamfisted and insensitive way, which will lead to much complaining, a relaxation of the tests and a return to the status quo. Obviously.

rjsterry

It's also treating people like little children who can't be trusted to spend their pocket money wisely. Granted some need some help with this area, but even you can see that if you've, say, lost the use of the left hand side of your body due to illness or (I dunno) being knocked off your bike, being told that you're not allowed grown-up money is pretty insulting.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

It's also treating people like little children who can't be trusted to spend their pocket money wisely. Granted some need some help with this area, but even you can see that if you've, say, lost the use of the left hand side of your body due to illness or (I dunno) being knocked off your bike, being told that you're not allowed grown-up money is pretty insulting.

I don't agree. If you rely on the state, it's not unreasonable for the state to determine what that money is spent on.

There are no doubt to and fro arguments about all this (and maybe some distinction needs to be drawn between those who are unable to work again, and those temporarily on benefits), but clearly the cash based system is rife for abuse.

rjsterry

Can't see why it's a problem to provide a benefit that is sufficient to pay for food, lodgings and bills and then let grown-ups sort it out from there. If they want to blow it all on booze then they'll go hungry. Don't kid yourself that vouchers are somehow fraud-proof - I'm sure there are plenty of dodgy characters that'll take them off your hands for a few quid. I'm surprised you are so pro-nanny state.

Jez mon

How are vouchers better, it's a system which will cause money to implement, so it won't save the taxpayer money. It will be an extra bit of salt in the wounds of those who have just been made redundant, who already feel pretty low about claiming JSA, but probably won't have much effect on those who are career job seekers.

To top it off, it wouldn't be foolproof.

I know, when you have a large percentage of your salary syphoned off every month, it can feel pretty galling when you open up certain newspapers, to find that benefit claimants are living in million pound mansions and driving Ferraris (OK slight exaggeration) but vouchers are not the solution.

MaxwellBygraves

Jez mon wrote:

I know, when you have a large percentage of your salary syphoned off every month, it can feel pretty galling when you open up certain newspapers, to find that benefit claimants are living in million pound mansions and driving Ferraris (OK slight exaggeration) but vouchers are not the solution.

The masters of propoganda.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... propaganda