Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
I'm pointing out facts.
Any major change to any of the Welfare systems by whichever government, has a "bedding down" period where rules are clarified.
EG People complain about somebody with a recently discovered tumour being denied ESA. The article pointed out that they were denied it because they had a partner who was working. They hadn't been assessed, never mind turned down. The article also stated that they had been awarded PIP anyway.
Whether the system should be changed where there is a partner, so they get some money(not the full ESA amount) is another matter. Labour had a lot of years to implement changes, and didn't.
On the "bedroom tax". Rules that have been in place for decades with the private rented sector, are suddenly complained about. Again, if they were that illegal or unfair, then Labour had plenty of opportunities to change things.
Eg Somebody dies whilst in the Jobcentre. It is claimed by somebody they had diabetes and had been found "fit for work". As my links showed, it doesn't by itself make you "unfit for work". Additionally, it was revealed he hadn't been found "fit for work", and had been attend the jobcentre for around a year.
Time after time, when a specific example is used, the truth is later on in the article. People too readily buy into the tone of the headline, without reading and comprehending the full article. My personal experience with the DWP is similar to that. They buy into the "headlines", and don't read and comprehend the whole application and evidence. The classic one, is where they phone you up to supposedly give a full verbal explanation of their decision, and don't explain a single point of anything. They just keep reiterating the line "we've looked at all the evidence". The legal purpose of the explanation is that it's meant to clearly demonstrate they have looked at all the major points raised, and explained their reasoning. The legal intention is that even if the claimant doesn't agree with it, they must understand it.
I suppose that in essence, is what I try to do in this thread.
|
But you seem only to point out "facts" that align with your agenda. Fair enough, that is the modern condition on social media but what is more disturbing is that you seem to challenge the veracity of the issues that people raise as a starting position irrespective of the relative merits. It is possible and seemingly probable that the Tory welfare system needs more than just "bedding down".
I know it is obvious but you can never apply your own individual experience about anything and use it to make conclusions at the macro level.