[Politics] Sunak's benefits shake up

[Cornwallboy]

When I’m addressing you I’m talking about your behaviour on the board. No one else’s.

Indeed you are.

 

[stewart12]

So those of you who are opposed to the Conservative's crackdown on benefit claimants: are you saying every person claiming some sort of benefit is a legitimate claimant?

depends how you define "legitimate"

every applicant for PIP goes through a length application process. Their application needs to be supported by medical evidence from a health professional (consultant, GP, support worker etc). They then are heavily scrutinised in an independent assessment from someone who is, apparently, medically trained. Loads are turned down at this point with the option of appeal and later and independent tribunal- which finds in favour of the applicant in most cases.

For what was ESA, which has now been (mostly) incorporated into Universal Credit, applicants are again required to submit medical evidence, in this case a signed note from their GP. They are also separately required to attend an assessment with a DWP appointed "health professional" who assesses their claim and their ability to work.

In both cases their claim is ultimately scrutinised by several qualified health professionals. How legitimate does a claim need to be exactly?

 

[A1X]

One other point which is overlooked when 'crack-downs' on welfare are regularly announced, and give Daily Mail readers multiple-orgasms, is that cutting payments to claimants obviously means they have to reduce their weekly spending - which then means that local shops and other retailers will sell less, see their profits fall, and eventually close-down. This will then result in even more people claiming Benefits in the medium-term.

There really is a woeful lack of critical thinking in this country, and an inability (or unwillingness) to see the bigger picture or look beyond the latest headline.

Quite correct, and you can say the same about public sector wages. In many ways, the best way for a Government to get itself out of economic hard times is to give the people they employ more money to go and spend in the wider economy (their money is as good in a shop as anyone in the private sector) as a means of getting things moving. Few Governments, especially those on the right, seem to realise this however.

 

[The Clamp]

depends how you define "legitimate"

every applicant for PIP goes through a length application process. Their application needs to be supported by medical evidence from a health professional (consultant, GP, support worker etc). They then are heavily scrutinised in an independent assessment from someone who is, apparently, medically trained. Loads are turned down at this point with the option of appeal and later and independent tribunal- which finds in favour of the applicant in most cases.

For what was ESA, which has now been (mostly) incorporated into Universal Credit, applicants are again required to submit medical evidence, in this case a signed note from their GP. They are also separately required to attend an assessment with a DWP appointed "health professional" who assesses their claim and their ability to work.

In both cases their claim is ultimately scrutinised by several qualified health professionals. How legitimate does a claim need to be exactly?

I’ve seen PIP payments of up to 10k given to active heroin addicts.

Insane.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Indeed you are.

If I discuss NSC posts with any other user at all I’m also only discussing their usage.

You seem obsessed with whataboutery and perceived hypocrisy, rather than controlling your own trolling.

Next time you will be gone for good. Other stuff may also happen to other people.

In general this thread is riddled with poor behaviour.

 

[Cornwallboy]

depends how you define "legitimate"

every applicant for PIP goes through a length application process. Their application needs to be supported by medical evidence from a health professional (consultant, GP, support worker etc). They then are heavily scrutinised in an independent assessment from someone who is, apparently, medically trained. Loads are turned down at this point with the option of appeal and later and independent tribunal- which finds in favour of the applicant in most cases.

For what was ESA, which has now been (mostly) incorporated into Universal Credit, applicants are again required to submit medical evidence, in this case a signed note from their GP. They are also separately required to attend an assessment with a DWP appointed "health professional" who assesses their claim and their ability to work.

In both cases their claim is ultimately scrutinised by several qualified health professionals. How legitimate does a claim need to be exactly?

Wow so if that's the case every claimant is legitimate and nobody ever cheats the system and clearly the 850k extra claimants since Covid have every right to claim benefits. Maybe the one benefit claimant I know who is late 40's and has never held down a FT job as he 'doesn't want one' has not been cheating the system for 30 odd years but has every right to live in the council house provided to him and spend the money the Govn give him for doing f all. Do you know what he says? When these 'crackdowns' are launched he makes a token effort to look for work, if you do that they soon leave you alone and you continue as you are. He is a living and breathing example of what is wrong with the benefit system and if he finally loses all of his benefits it will serve him right. I do find it hard to believe he isn't the only one milking the system but again I reiterate there are plenty of genuine claimants who deserve full support be in financial or mental health support.

 

[stewart12]

I’ve seen PIP payments of up to 10k given to active heroin addicts.

Insane.

yep! this was a perennial issue for me. The claimant would be turned down and turned down to the point of tribunal, get awarded it at tribunal with a lovely big f*** off back payment which would immediately get blown down "wine me up"

 

[A1X]

So those of you who are opposed to the Conservative's crackdown on benefit claimants: are you saying every person claiming some sort of benefit is a legitimate claimant?

I'd rather we had a situation where everyone who needed support got it and risked a few who aren't entitled got something than a situation where genuine claimants miss out personally. I'm not naive enough to claim everyone getting it is legitimate, but I want to make sure everyone who needs help gets it.

 

[MJsGhost]

in a previous role as a support worker I have guided countless people through the benefits system

the level of scrutiny that they are placed under for PIP and (what was) ESA claims is pretty intense and I've seen people who are very obviously disabled get declined for both

it is very hard to "cheat the system"

My mother in law is a wheelchair user who, despite having knowledge from decades of navigating the system, still struggles to successfully claim for everything she is due. She becomes terrified whenever changes to policy, process and assessment is announced as it's such a stressful thing.
Often lost amongst all the rhetoric is the sense of embarrassment and shame that (perfectly entitled) people feel when BeNeFiT FrAuDSTeRs becomes the topic de jour.

 

[Beanstalk]

Listening to him now on radio 5. As always he sounds reasonable and his proposals sound superficially appropriate.

I assume I am missing something. What do people who understand the benefit system think?

I was alerted to the presentation by a prior bit of chat on Nicky Campbell's programme when someone used the odious term 'mental health culture', you know, how people with mental health conditions are part of a movement that is abusing the welfare system.....

I presume that any plans to limit or remove state benefits by the Tories will include state pensions? Or are the valuable Tory voters of 65+ not included when he talks about benefits?

 

[stewart12]

Wow so if that's the case every claimant is legitimate and nobody ever cheats the system and clearly the 850k extra claimants since Covid have every right to claim benefits. Maybe the one benefit claimant I know who is late 40's and has never held down a FT job as he 'doesn't want one' has not been cheating the system for 30 odd years but has every right to live in the council house provided to him and spend the money the Govn give him for doing f all. Do you know what he says? When these 'crackdowns' are launched he makes a token effort to look for work, if you do that they soon leave you alone and you continue as you are. He is a living and breathing example of what is wrong with the benefit system and if he finally loses all of his benefits it will serve him right. I do find it hard to believe he isn't the only one milking the system but again I reiterate there are plenty of genuine claimants who deserve full support be in financial or mental health support.

As I said, if he's on what was ESA then he's been assessed by several trained health professionals and also this is reviewed on a regular basis.

although if he's required to look for work then sounds like he's on what was JSA.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

So those of you who are opposed to the Conservative's crackdown on benefit claimants: are you saying every person claiming some sort of benefit is a legitimate claimant?

Why does that have to be the bar.?

For every £1 fraudulently claimed , there is £2.38 unclaimed by people eligible for benefits.

Any attempt to "crackdown" on fraud will add further complexity into the system, which will also increase the number of eligible claimants that will not claim.

 

[Cornwallboy]

If I discuss NSC posts with any other user at all I’m also only discussing their usage.

You seem obsessed with whataboutery and perceived hypocrisy, rather than controlling your own trolling.

Next time you will be gone for good. Other stuff may also happen to other people.

In general this thread is riddled with poor behaviour.

I don't even know what 'trolling' is mate. If it's posting stuff people disagree with then yes I'm a troll. However I don't do it to be a 'troll' as I say what I mean and mean what I say. I know for some reason 'whataboutery' is frowned upon on NSC but sometimes it can add legitimacy to one's argument. As for hypocricy we are all guilty to a greater or lesser extent of hypocritical behaviour at times, myself very much so. I'm not sure about 'poor behaviour' on this thread, to me it seems like a healthy debate.

 

[stewart12]

My mother in law is a wheelchair user who, despite having knowledge from decades of navigating the system, still struggles to successfully claim for everything she is due. She becomes terrified whenever changes to policy, process and assessment is announced as it's such a stressful thing.
Often lost amongst all the rhetoric is the sense of embarrassment and shame that (perfectly entitled) people feel when BeNeFiT FrAuDSTeRs becomes the topic de jour.

absolutely, the whole application process is seemingly designed to discourage people from applying in the first place. It's very dehumanising

 

[Cornwallboy]

As I said, if he's on what was ESA then he's been assessed by several trained health professionals and also this is reviewed on a regular basis.

although if he's required to look for work then sounds like he's on what was JSA.

He knows exactly how to 'play the game' hence why he's got away with it for so long. I can't believe he's not the only one. If this crackdown does flush out a load of people like him and it frees up money for genuine claimants then to me it's a win win.

 

[Cornwallboy]

Why does that have to be the bar.?

For every £1 fraudulently claimed , there is £2.38 unclaimed by people eligible for benefits.

Any attempt to "crackdown" on fraud will add further complexity into the system, which will also increase the number of eligible claimants that will not claim.

The 'bar' needs to be crackdown down on people claiming benefits who shouldn't be.

 

[Peteinblack]

Quite correct, and you can say the same about public sector wages. In many ways, the best way for a Government to get itself out of economic hard times is to give the people they employ more money to go and spend in the wider economy (their money is as good in a shop as anyone in the private sector) as a means of getting things moving. Few Governments, especially those on the right, seem to realise this however.

Back in the 1930s, the economist John Maynard Keynes was arguing that the best way to revive a stagnant economy was to increase government spending through public and private investment in infrastructure (transport, housing, schools, hospitals, etc), which would then create jobs and higher wages (and enhance tax revenues for the Treasury), and boost people's spending power, while alleviating poverty and welfare dependency. The State needed to become more active, not withdraw.

He likened cutting spending, investment and wages in a recession, or a period of austerity, to fighting a fire by dousing the flames in petrol!

Many Tories today would probably denounce this as Communist - yet Keynes was a Liberal.

 

[MJsGhost]

absolutely, the whole application process is seemingly designed to discourage people from applying in the first place. It's very dehumanising

Some would say cruel when you factor in that a significant number of claimants struggle with the confidence and comprehension to navigate through it (and are often too embarrassed to ask for help).

 

[stewart12]

He knows exactly how to 'play the game' hence why he's got away with it for so long. I can't believe he's not the only one. If this crackdown does flush out a load of people like him and it frees up money for genuine claimants then to me it's a win win.

sounds like he won't be effected by this "crackdown" as he is in, even in the eyes of the DWP, fit to work if he's been asked to do so. A slightly separate issue really as this is more about those who are signed off

 

[Peteinblack]

He knows exactly how to 'play the game' hence why he's got away with it for so long. I can't believe he's not the only one. If this crackdown does flush out a load of people like him and it frees up money for genuine claimants then to me it's a win win.

You really think a Tory government would say "Right, we've saved £2 billion in fraudulent welfare claims, we are now going to increase spending on genuine welfare claimants", as opposed to "Right, we've saved £2 billion in fraudulent welfare claims, we are now going to give away another £2 billion in tax cuts to our rich mates and sponsors in the City."?