General Election 2017

[Buzzer]

No, the 80% is for cases going to mandatory reconsideration.

Sigh....

 

[Silk]

Sigh....

If 80% were upheld, by, for example, completely independent reviewers, and no pi or target existed, that would not be an issue.

Reviews​ by the same department, plus the existence of what could be interpreted as a target? That's suspicious.

 

[Ernest]

I can't wait to see the BBC/C4 news etc all forensically examining the Tory manifesto with such vigour

 

[Buzzer]

If 80% were upheld, by, for example, completely independent reviewers, and no pi or target existed, that would not be an issue.

Reviews​ by the same department, plus the existence of what could be interpreted as a target? That's suspicious.

I don't want to labour the point as I suspect that we're both meaning the same thing but I'm not sure why the 80% as a target would be a bad thing. If...if I've misread the memo and it does mean that the depts reviewing are under pressure to uphold DWP decisions then I'll be first in line to complain.

But I read it as this...the DWP want to improve accuracy of decisions and one way of measuring this empirically would be to look at cases that have gone to appeal. They can't control the number that are submitted for review but they can measure whether the original decision is correct or not. I really would be for setting a target figure because it can provide a benchmark for continuous improvement. Next year 81% etc...

Just because a review department sits within the same department as those they are reviewing, doesn't mean that there's necessarily collusion or a lack of independence, They may well have different managers, different offices, different buildings. I would expect a level of professionalism and a set of guidelines with best practice and rules for conflicts of interest. I hope those exist, if not then yes...the figures are meaningless.

 

[Silk]

I don't want to labour the point as I suspect that we're both meaning the same thing but I'm not sure why the 80% as a target would be a bad thing. If...if I've misread the memo and it does mean that the depts reviewing are under pressure to uphold DWP decisions then I'll be first in line to complain.

But I read it as this...the DWP want to improve accuracy of decisions and one way of measuring this empirically would be to look at cases that have gone to appeal. They can't control the number that are submitted for review but they can measure whether the original decision is correct or not. I really would be for setting a target figure because it can provide a benchmark for continuous improvement. Next year 81% etc...

Just because a review department sits within the same department as those they are reviewing, doesn't mean that there's necessarily collusion or a lack of independence, They may well have different managers, different offices, different buildings. I would expect a level of professionalism and a set of guidelines with best practice and rules for conflicts of interest. I hope those exist, if not then yes...the figures are meaningless.

Sure. Well, clearly we know that even hitting that 80% is no guarantee of correctness: we know that a significant proportion go to appeal and that between 60-70% of those appeals find against the DWP. Meaning they got it wrong twice. So I would guess that something's wrong somewhere. And the effects of those mistakes on disabled people and their families can be devastating.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I don't want to labour the point as I suspect that we're both meaning the same thing but I'm not sure why the 80% as a target would be a bad thing. If...if I've misread the memo and it does mean that the depts reviewing are under pressure to uphold DWP decisions then I'll be first in line to complain.

But I read it as this...the DWP want to improve accuracy of decisions and one way of measuring this empirically would be to look at cases that have gone to appeal. They can't control the number that are submitted for review but they can measure whether the original decision is correct or not. I really would be for setting a target figure because it can provide a benchmark for continuous improvement. Next year 81% etc...

Just because a review department sits within the same department as those they are reviewing, doesn't mean that there's necessarily collusion or a lack of independence, They may well have different managers, different offices, different buildings. I would expect a level of professionalism and a set of guidelines with best practice and rules for conflicts of interest. I hope those exist, if not then yes...the figures are meaningless.

These 'decision's' are not made by The DWP though -It's ATOS & Capita. It's in their interests as part of the contracts to f**k people over. I seriously do not understand how someone with a metal health issue, with no realistic short to medium term opportunity of working again, being placed and getting £30 a week less ESA is in anyone's interests. We have enough homeless with mental health problems.

 

[Buzzer]

Sure. Well, clearly we know that even hitting that 80% is no guarantee of correctness: we know that a significant proportion go to appeal and that between 60-70% of those appeals find against the DWP. Meaning they got it wrong twice. So I would guess that something's wrong somewhere. And the effects of those mistakes on disabled people and their families can be devastating.

In which case the system is broken. If a target is set of 80% for first appeal then second appeal needs to be 90% at least or there is no point having a first appeal. You'll find no arguments from me about the importance in the DWP getting this right. We're not talking about mistakes in tax codes, this is about those on very fixed incomes.

 

[Jim D]

I can't wait to see the BBC/C4 news etc all forensically examining the Tory manifesto with such vigour

It'll be three words 'Brexit means brexit'

 

[ManOfSussex]

#gottalovethetories - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/po...-to-prove-they-were-raped-to-claim-child-ben/

#strongandstable
#brexitmeansbrexit
#bestdaysareahesdofus

 

[Ernest]

It'll be three words 'Brexit means brexit'

Strong and Stable

 

[Ernest]

#gottalovethetories - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/po...-to-prove-they-were-raped-to-claim-child-ben/

#strongandstable
#brexitmeansbrexit
#bestdaysareahesdofus

Coalition of chaos

 

[ManOfSussex]

Coalition of chaos

#eniemiesofthepeople

 

[Ernest]

#eniemiesofthepeople

Strengthen my hand

 

[Buzzer]

#gottalovethetories - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/po...-to-prove-they-were-raped-to-claim-child-ben/

#strongandstable
#brexitmeansbrexit
#bestdaysareahesdofus

Is this not just a well-meaning but badly written clause to try to protect those who have unusual and extenuating circumstances for having a 3rd child? And how many women will it really affect? And without trying to be emotive why is it so difficult to prove a child is born from rape? By its very nature, rape is a crime so if a woman makes a claim under this clause then there would be a record of it. If a woman makes a claim that she has had a child from rape but hasn't gone to the police about the actual rape then as harrowing as it must be, what exactly do you expect to happen?

Sometimes I do wonder if this foaming at the mouth about nasty Tories is all so much bluster. The attack on disability benefits is a genuine reason to pull them apart but stuff like this just strikes me as tabloid stuff designed to play on emotions given the subject matter but very peripheral and certainly not intended maliciously.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Is this not just a well-meaning but badly written clause to try to protect those who have unusual and extenuating circumstances for having a 3rd child? And how many women will it really affect? And without trying to be emotive why is it so difficult to prove a child is born from rape? By its very nature, rape is a crime so if a woman makes a claim under this clause then there would be a record of it. If a woman makes a claim that she has had a child from rape but hasn't gone to the police about the actual rape then as harrowing as it must be, what exactly do you expect to happen?

Sometimes I do wonder if this foaming at the mouth about nasty Tories is all so much bluster. The attack on disability benefits is a genuine reason to pull them apart but stuff like this just strikes me as tabloid stuff designed to play on emotions given the subject matter but very peripheral and certainly not intended maliciously.

Well meaning? Should she disclose what she was wearing that night too, just to make sure?

 

[Ernest]

Well meaning? Should she disclose what she was wearing that night too, just to make sure?

Or how much alcohol she had drunk that night to see if she deserved it ?

 

[Buzzer]

Well meaning? Should she disclose what she was wearing that night too, just to make sure?

See. You've shown how silly the arguments can get. The government want to restrict child tax credits to 2 children but realise that there might be extenuating circumstances where women have 3 or more children so they have tried to put in measures to help them. One such circumstance is where a child is born from rape. There's absolutely nothing malicious in trying to put this clause in and yes...it is well-meaning albeit a minefield to administer and fraught with all sorts of dangers.

But it really isn't the answer to accuse those who are trying to put in this extra measure of forcing women to go through some sort of trial all over again when none of us have got any idea how this is going to be dealt with. You're going completely OTT without any knowledge of how this is going to be run, how many it will affect or how those affected feel about it.

In your parlance you've gone Daily Mail.

 

[ManOfSussex]

See. You've shown how silly the arguments can get. The government want to restrict child tax credits to 2 children but realise that there might be extenuating circumstances where women have 3 or more children so they have tried to put in measures to help them. One such circumstance is where a child is born from rape. There's absolutely nothing malicious in trying to put this clause in and yes...it is well-meaning albeit a minefield to administer and fraught with all sorts of dangers.

But it really isn't the answer to accuse those who are trying to strike this balance of having to go through some sort of trial all over again when none of us have got any idea how this is going to be dealt with. You're going completely OTT without any knowledge of how this is going to be run, how many it will affect nor how those affected feel about it.

In your parlance it's all a bit Daily Mail.

I know how Capita & ATOS operate. I know know how their decisions are felt and what they do to people. #gotaalovethetories.

 

[Buzzer]

I know how Capita & ATOS operate. I know know how their decisions are felt and what they do to people. #gotaalovethetories.

Right. So despite me pointing out that the clause was brought in specifically as extra help in extreme cases, you've decided, without any knowledge at all of it, that the 3rd party contractor who may or may not be the ones responsible for running it will be right *******s and the very existence of this measure is proof that the Tories are being nasty.

Maybe focus less on the hashtags and more on the substance in future.

 

[Jim D]

Strong and Stable

OK, 'A strong and stable Brexit means a strong and stable Brexit'