W*nga?

Among many problems with UC, there is one fundamental problem that its “ethos” is based on, and thats the idea that “monthly” payments will help people have a budgeting system on a par as if they were working…. OK sounds fair enough.

BUT!

Most people who are on min-wage are likely to be paid weekly, so the current 2 weekly benefit system takes that into account. When someone is out of work their payments come within a reasonable time of unemployment starting (when its all working hunkydory) and budgeting is a simple “divide by 2” (I do this by only taking out a weekly amount, paying bills, food etc., it does mean the second week can be a bugger if some bill is unexpected or higher, in the first or second week, than budgeted but its manageable)

As this most likely (min wage) group is also the most likely to become unemployed or at least in and out of short term or insecure jobs; it means the whole ethos of monthly payments (as the higher ranks get paid) is out of wack with the reality… it also means that said group has to wait longer for the first payment depending on where in the processing period they become unemployed having to potentially stretch the last weeks payment from employment upto 5-8 weeks (delays, payment period, waiting time prior to claim, etc.) and then further complicates matters by being calender months, where as most bills are on a weekly basis when employed in low paid jobs and/or are done via (pre)payment cards such as gas, water, etc. Even rent is usualy done on a weekly basis, especially RSP/council and “single room” PRS occupancy. All of which goes towards the increase in rent arrears, dodgy loans, etc. being seen on the pilot/pathfinder schemes.

I think your interview was slightly misleading when you mentioned “kids” etc. as although these will be affected when it (hahaha) does couples with dependents the only group currently with statistics is “singles, no dependents, nothing, nada.” and if this easyest to manage and process group is shown to be failed, if it ever gets rolled out to other groups it will be even more of a disaster; especially as IDS will ignore any evidence, say its working, will be on time and on budget (any anyone who disagrees is using out of date statistics, due to the fact IDS has refused to publish them, will be his excuse) and will look to the sky and say “all hail hydra.”

I could go on about the many and multitude of wrong assumptions and potential pitfalls with UC, but I think my comment is long enough.