The state benefits system mega-thread.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by martyh

So because the chief of the citizens advice bureau doesn't agree with the changes that makes it wrong ? , not the most unbiased source really is she

No not because of her opinion but because of her experience which is greater than either of ours

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

No not because of her opinion but because of her experience which is greater than either of ours

Her experience is limited to those who have problems and to issue such a statement as " The regime is self defeating and poorly administered " is quite obviously rubbish and probably politically motivated because she is completely ignoring the fact that for the vast majority the system simply works as it should

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

No not because of her opinion but because of her experience which is greater than either of ours

We used to have to deal with a volunteer youth worker whose day job was in A&E. It was a complete nightmare organising any kind of outdoor activity, because this person would constantly quote all the horrendous injuries they had seen, incurred as a result of all the various activities we wanted to put on.

People who deal with the consequences when things go wrong are rarely the best people to go to for a balanced view of whether there is a systemic problem. They are too closely acquainted with one small but highly traumatic part of the issue and their perspective is inevitably skewed.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by martyh

Her experience is limited to those who have problems and to issue such a statement as " The regime is self defeating and poorly administered " is quite obviously rubbish and probably politically motivated because she is completely ignoring the fact that for the vast majority the system simply works as it should

400 000 people sanctioned a 64% increase these are not small minority numbers

[RichardCoulter]

http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2015/04...qWU3_M.twitter

An interesting article about the Government considering the taxation of DLA and PIP.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

400 000 people sanctioned a 64% increase these are not small minority numbers

Simply churning that figure out means nothing at all ,what is the context ? what type of sanction? what did the claimant do to get sanctioned?

Here are some actual figures ,I'm sure there are more upto date ones if you look these are simply ones I came across with a quick google

Today’s publication details the number of sanctions imposed from when the new regime was introduced in October 2012 up until September 2013.
They show that:

• there has been a rise in the number of sanctions compared with last year – between November 2012 (the first full month of the new sanctions) and September 2013 there were 789,000 sanctions. This compares to 705,000 between November 2011 – September 2012
• the number of the most severe sanctions (refusing employment, leaving employment voluntarily or losing employment through misconduct) has reduced – there were a third less high level sanctions in the 3 months July to September 2013, compared to the same period in 2012
• the most common reason for a JSA sanction (36%) was a failure on the part of the jobseeker to actively look for work
• 30% were sanctioned because they failed to participate in employment programmes (including the Work Programme) designed to help people back to work
• 19% were sanctioned because they didn’t have a good reason for missing a meeting at the Jobcentre

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/b...ing-culture--2

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2015/04...qWU3_M.twitter

An interesting article about the Government considering the taxation of DLA and PIP.

It is merely a suggestion as an option to be considered. The list of options was created by civil servants. It is NOT a statement of intent.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by nomadking

It is merely a suggestion as an option to be considered. The list of options was created by civil servants. It is NOT a statement of intent.

And was never presented as anything else.

As the Government refuse to say where the 12 billion pounds of further cuts to the welfare budget will come from, it's only natural that people will speculate.

Why don't they just come clean and let the electorate decide if their cuts are acceptable or not?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by martyh

Simply churning that figure out means nothing at all ,what is the context ? what type of sanction? what did the claimant do to get sanctioned?

Here are some actual figures ,I'm sure there are more upto date ones if you look these are simply ones I came across with a quick google
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/b...ing-culture--2

Got any info on how many got their money reinstated on appeal, that'd be the best indication of frivolous sanctioning

[Kabaal]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

And was never presented as anything else.

As the Government refuse to say where the 12 billion pounds of further cuts to the welfare budget will come from, it's only natural that people will speculate.

Why don't they just come clean and let the electorate decide if their cuts are acceptable or not?

Ahead of a general election? No chance.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

And was never presented as anything else.

As the Government refuse to say where the 12 billion pounds of further cuts to the welfare budget will come from, it's only natural that people will speculate.

Why don't they just come clean and let the electorate decide if their cuts are acceptable or not?

Because a party should be elected on a manifesto, I.e. a broad programme for government underpinned by a particular ideology or outlook. Presenting the minutiae of one specific policy (assuming they even have it finalised in that level of detail, it is actually possible that they haven't) turns the entire election debate into a referendum on £12 billion, when it ought to be about electing a government that will be responsible for annual planned expenditure of around 60 times that figure.

In any case, it's a red herring. I think you either agree in principle that £12 billion of cuts in welfare spending is desirable and achievable, or else you don't. I think it highly unlikely that anyone is going to jump from one side of the argument to the other, based on the precise detail of where the cuts would be made.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chris

I think it highly unlikely that anyone is going to jump from one side of the argument to the other, based on the precise detail of where the cuts would be made.

I suspect if it were announced that pensioners were going to feel said cuts given the predictable Conservative preoccupation with keeping them, their core vote, happy, they'd rather rapidly jump.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I suspect if it were announced that pensioners were going to feel said cuts given the predictable Conservative preoccupation with keeping them, their core vote, happy, they'd rather rapidly jump.

That would depend on the exact nature of the cuts, I suspect.

Either way, love it or hate it, it's democracy in action. Pensioners vote, so politicians develop policies to attract those votes. Meanwhile the social media generation listens to idiots like Russell Brand, telling them that not voting is a great way of changing anything.

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by Chris

That would depend on the exact nature of the cuts, I suspect.

Either way, love it or hate it, it's democracy in action. Pensioners vote, so politicians develop policies to attract those votes. Meanwhile the social media generation listens to idiots like Russell Brand, telling them that not voting is a great way of changing anything.

I'd rather spoil my vote, than give it to any of the current shower of ****.

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

I'd rather spoil my vote, than give it to any of the current shower of ****.

Then put up a deposit, put down your name and hit the streets.