WASPI protesters: it seems the government isn’t even bothering to engage with these ladies.
It must have been bad enough when the UK wasn’t in a Tory-created financial crisis, but now the strain on women who were born in the 1950s must be phenomenal.
These are women who weren’t properly informed that instead of retiring at the age of 60, as they expected, the government was raising the age at which they would receive a state pension to 66.
More than 200,000 women have died without receiving satisfaction from the government.
80 per cent of those affected have suffered financial hardship and 30 per cent are in debt. This could have been avoided if they had been properly informed of what was happening and its implications, according to campaigners.
One shocking aspect of this report is that the government hasn’t bothered to engage with campaigners since 2016.
Since then, the effects of Brexit, Covid-19 and the current inflation crisis have harmed millions of people across the UK – including these already-disadvantaged ladies.
But the Tory response is: can’t be bothered.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Too much Coffey: the Work and Pensions Secretary (right) seems to have commissioned a survey of benefit claimants in order to say their failure to budget properly has put them into hardship – not her insistence on providing starvation-level payments and using the slightest excuse to cut them off. Meanwhile, she parties.
The Department for Work and Pensions has launched a secret survey – sent only to specially cherry-picked claimants.
The reason seems to be to blame benefit recipients for any hardship they suffer, claiming that poor budgeting skills are the root of the problem rather than the political decision to fix payments at starvation levels – and then to use the flimsiest excuses to stop them.
The survey asks about debts claimants may have, what effect the debts have had on them and what support they need. It is the last question that has raised concerns, as Benefits and Work, which hoisted the red flag on this apparent scam, pointed out:
The full question and list of options is as follows:
What types of help or support, if any, would be most useful in helping you manage your finances?
Help with working out what money I have left to spend each/day/week/month.
Advice on how to spread my spending so I don’t run out of money
Advice on how to reduce my spending
Advice on how to reduce my debt
Advice on how to increase my income
Help with setting up a direct debit/standing order
Help with opening a bank account
Other (specify)
In this context, advice to increase my income is most likely to relate to those in employment. In general claimants cannot increase their income unless there is a benefit they could be claiming that they are not aware of.
What is entirely missing from these options are the ones that would actually make a difference to claimants, such as:
Pay benefits at a rate that is enough to live on
Remove the 5 week waiting time for UC
End the long delays for PIP assessments and WCAs
Because there are no such options, this survey will produce results that say that, of claimants who are in debt:
X% say they need advice on working out what money they have left to spend
X% say they need advice on how to reduce their spending
X% say they need advice on how to reduce their debt
Whilst some people may indeed say in the ‘Other’ box that the help they need is a higher rate of benefits, this will not be listed as a percentage in outcomes as everyone’s answers will be worded differently.
In other words, all the support needs will be around claimants not understanding how to manage their money, rather than it being impossible to manage on the money they receive.
See how it works?
Benefits and Work has made Freedom of Information requests to ask how the claimants taking part in this survey are selected, how many are taking part and whether the results of the report are going to be published.
The logical conclusion to be drawn is that the DWP has been stung by having to reveal the findings of its secret report on how people on sickness and disability benefits are struggling with unmet needs.
Work and Pensions Secretary Therese Coffey had repeatedly refused to publish the DWP-commissioned report on disabled people’s experiences of the benefit system – so the Commons Work and Pensions Committee ordered its authors to provide a copy to Parliament. It has now been published.
The report, received by the government in September 2020, stated that many people are using disability benefits such as PIP, which is intended to meet the additional costs of disability, for very basic needs such as food, rent and paying debts:
“The participant had kidney failure, arthritis in his back, legs and arms, depression and bulimia which caused chronic stomach pains. He lived alone in a flat rented from a Housing Association, using Housing Benefit. He was in the ESA Support Group and received PIP. He made monthly repayments for utility bill arrears and had a £5,000 bank loan which he could not afford to repay. His debt repayments meant he could not afford essential day-to-day living needs and used a foodbank. He found it difficult to wash independently due to his arthritis and needed a walk-in shower but could not afford one and seemed unaware that he may be eligible for support through the local authority. He also needed support with cooking and cleaning and received help from a cousin. His cousin would like to claim Carer’s Allowance but neither of them knew how to make an application. He had no other support networks close by.”
It said claimants with invisible disabilities such as mental health conditions often struggle even more than those with physical conditions to meet their basic needs:
“Participants with mental health conditions tended to report a wide variety of basic needs, health and care needs and social needs that were unmet. In comparison, those with profound learning disabilities and severe physical disabilities were typically in the group that identified having fewer unmet needs. While the latter group experienced a high level of need across a range of areas, these were usually being met through a combination of local authority support and informal support networks, usually parents who provided a high level of care.”
And the wellbeing of disabled claimants often depends primarily on being in a household in which another member has a well-paid job:
“The participant has recently moved in with her mother and sister, she had previously lived alone in a council-rented flat but had begun to feel isolated and found paying the rent and bills difficult so decided to move in with her mother. She has a range of health conditions and disabilities including Asperger syndrome, anxiety, ADHD, joint stiffness and IBS. She works 28 hours a week and receives PIP. Before moving to live with her mother she was concerned about how her income would cover essential day-to-day living costs. She also struggled with maintaining her personal hygiene and found it difficult to leave the house as she did not like going out alone. Moving in with her mother has helped her to meet all of her health-related needs.”
The reason Coffey and the DWP kept the report secret seems clear when one notes that last October – more than a year after receiving it – the Work and Pensions Secretary was lying to the public about the system it damns.
As Benefits and Work (again) details:
Coffey was telling the Conservative party conference that:
“PIP has certainly grown in a way that was not anticipated when it was introduced.
“To give you an example, three out of four young people who claim PIP have their primary reason being mental ill health.
“That in itself is 189,000 young people who currently receive benefit focused on that. There may be other benefits they receive as well.
“. . . people can think the benefit system is fair.
“And I think by being able to target that even more so to people who really need that support, may improve that prospect of public perception.”
Having been forced to release a report that shows – even in its watered-down form – that the benefit system is forcing hardship and related physical and psychological torture on claimants, including those who already have significant mental health problems (leading to a threat to life itself?), it seems Coffey has commissioned this new survey in order to manufacture a false justification for herself.
I think I’ll write her a letter. Let’s see how she justifies this web of deceit.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Benefit claimants facing poverty because the DWP is threatening to claw back hardship payments they claimed – after being sanctioned – have a ray of hope after a recent court case.
The Department for Work and Pensions has now admitted that any action to take back these payments is discretional and it may waive its right to do so.
The DWP has written an open letter to explaining how Universal Credit (UC) claimants can apply for recoverable hardship payments after a sanction, and the process by which claimants can request that hardship payments are waived.
The change follows a successful judicial review by a client of the Public Law Project (PLP).
The organisation explains the main points of the new process, with important points from DWP’s letter in bold, and PLP’s additions in italics:
When a sanction is imposed the DWP should inform the individual of the details of the sanction(s) in a letter uploaded to the UC journal, along with the option to claim hardship payments. If the individual thinks the sanction is wrong, they can request a mandatory reconsideration from the DWP. If that is unsuccessful, the claimant can appeal the DWP’s sanction decision to the tribunal. There is guidance on challenging a sanction from Citizens Advice and Mental Health & Money Advice.
A claimant that receives a sanction can apply for hardship payments by calling the UC helpline.On the call, the DWP official will ask about the individuals’ living costs, so the individual should make a note of these in advance. The individual will need to explain why the sanction has made it hard for them to meet their basic needs (such as food or utilities costs) and what they have done to find other sources of financial support. Citizens Advice have published useful guidance on getting a hardship payment.
Hardship payments are recoverable (meaning the DWP can ask for them to be repaid), and when a claimant applies for a hardship payment the DWP official will ask them to agree a ‘declaration’ that they will repay it once their sanctions are lifted. If a claimant’s application for hardship payments is refused, this decision can be challenged by making a mandatory reconsideration request to the DWP.
Once the claimant’s sanction has ended the DWP will take steps to recover the hardship payment by making deductions from the individual’s UC. However, importantly, DWP does have a choice not to recover hardship payments. This choice applies in all cases, including where the individual’s sanction has been subsequently overturned, for example following mandatory reconsideration or a tribunal appeal.
If the claimant cannot afford to repay the hardship payment they can ask DWP for the deductions to be reduced and / or request that the hardship payment be waived in full. This is not affected by the fact that the claimant has agreed a declaration that they will repay the hardship payment.
Getting hardship payment debt waived
PLP has produced a note on how to request a waiver of hardship payment debt and what to do if the DWP refuses.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
If the cap fits: Christopher Clarkson breaks off whizzing through a speech vilifying Labour to wonder why Labour MPs are vilifying him.
What a lot of fuss over such a little word!
Admittedly, I wouldn’t like it if someone called me “scum” while I was making a speech.
But let’s consider the context.
The Labour Party was using its Opposition Day to discuss the criteria under which the government provides funding to jobs and businesses facing its new restrictions, and to demand that the Tories honour their claim that they will ensure workers receive at least 80 per cent of their previous incomes while on the Job Support Scheme extension and facing hardship.
Here’s what prize Tory Christopher Clarkson had to say about it:
You can see why Angela Rayner said what she did, I’m sure!
Clarkson’s complaint cut no ice with members of the public, for whom Rayner’s contribution to the debate had made up for six months of near-silence as Keir Starmer’s sidekick. Here’s part of her speech:
I hesitantly admit to not being a massive fan of Angela Rayner in the past, but then I’m a terrible judge of character.
I’m not, however, hesitant in saying that I am deeply impressed by her now. Her speech here is excellent.
And they were quick to call out Clarkson’s complaint as a tactic, intended to distract from the thrust of the debate:
Says everything about Politics and the media today…they are more concerned about whether Angela Rayner used the word ‘scum’ to a Tory MP which of course would be totally understandable , than the content of the debate.
If you're more upset about Angela Rayner calling a Tory MP "scum" than you are about Tory MPs refusing to help feed hungry children while dolling out billions of pounds of taxpayers' money to their rich pals, you are everything wrong with this country.
You're no f*cking patriot.
— Frank Owen's Legendary Paintbrush (@WarmongerHodges) October 21, 2020
Last word goes to this commenter, who raises the issue of class:
Working class people are kept away from politics by tone policing. If Angela Rayner had made her honest, accurate and relatively mild comment in Latin she'd have got a column in the Telegraph.
“Spumae”, by the way, is the Latin for scum. Expect to hear it in the Commons – a lot – over the next few years.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
KPMG: this corporation, part of the Atos group that has done so much harm to sick and disabled people, sponsors the Patchwork Foundation’s MP of the Year awards, Should it?
It seems the only element likely to stop Jeremy Corbyn from winning the Patchwork Foundation’s MP of the Year award is the fact that it is sponsored by corporations that have contributed to the oppression of the poor and vulnerable.
Mr Corbyn is on the shortlist of MPs for whom the public is asked to vote.
But some supporters of the former Labour leader – including his own former Shadow Chancellor – are having nothing to do with it because it is sponsored by firms including KPMG.
The controversy sprang up on This Writer’s Twitter feed overnight, springing from discussion over whether certain vested interests would allow Mr Corbyn to win, after their success in ousting last year’s popular left-wing candidate, Chris Williamson.
Paula Peters, a popular campaigner for people with disabilities and friend of This Site, raised the alarm:
Atos is the company that – now under an alias – carries out assessments of benefit claimants’ ability to work, when they claim sickness and/or disability benefits. It took over KPMG in 2002, and it seems some have little to say in its favour.
The firm’s record for refusing benefits to people who genuinely deserve them – who have then gone on to suffer extreme hardship and, in many cases, death – is well-documented on This Site and elsewhere.
It reflects extremely poorly on the Patchwork Foundation that it would seek – or allow – sponsorship of any of its work by a firm of such character.
KPMG’s sponsorship of the award is not well-signposted; it appears as one of many on a tickertape at the bottom of the awards’ web page.
Paula’s tweet sparked strong responses:
Course it is when you have sponsors who are conglomerate capitalists
No it isn’t the point. You want to support it go ahead. I won’t. Not when the sponsor is ripping our services to bits. Ask @RMTunion how they feel about @KPMG right now when many jobs and services are at threat at @TfL
What pisses them off is exposing the sponsor for who they are. If you get the sponsor removed from an event like that it pisses them off. It’s up to you what you do.
I completely understand where you're coming from Paula and I completely agree with you. I haven't voted myself for the same reasons. Thank you for making me aware ✊
People have been brutalised by this company. People have died because of the assessments this company and the Tory bastards in power inflict on people. Feelings will tend to run high.
It would break my heart if he did. Labour MPs should be showing solidarity with the disabled and long term ill. They should be boycotting this sham altogether.
None taken., however, it’s important we continue to pull these conglomerates to bits and expose who they are. KPMG are now overseeing TFL cuts which will have debating consequences for passengers services and jobs. @unitetheunion@RMTunion@TSSAunion@ASLEFunion have my support
Support Jeremy in lots of ways. Support him against the dreadful attacks from the Labour machine, support his campaigns against the attacks on the NHS and local services we need to continue to resist the tories. Support him to continue to do that.
Let’s move forwards. We have enough ahead of us to fight with the conservative government right now. We need to find eats to come together unite and fight them
For This writer, the most telling comment in the discussion is Paula’s below:
What pisses them off is exposing the sponsor for who they are. If you get the sponsor removed from an event like that it pisses them off. It’s up to you what you do.
Obviously I am too busy with annoying distractions like my two court cases to take on another campaign, but would anybody like to launch one calling on the Patchwork Foundation to decline sponsorship from organisations that are known to cause harm to people?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Successive Tory governments since 2010 have heard evidence of the hardship they have forced on people with disabilities – and done nothing but worsen it.
It has been said that one definition of insanity is repeating the same behaviour and expecting different results.
So I have to ask why anybody in Parliament possibly thought any good would come of this?
Other strategies are necessary now – and have been for years.
Let’s talk about them.
Disabled people are being forced to fight for their right to live ordinary lives because of the flawed and under-resourced social care system, MPs have been told by a disabled campaigner.
Anna Severwright told members of the Commons health and social care committee on Tuesday that she and other users of council-funded care and support were unable to live normal lives because of cuts to their support packages.
She said the system was characterised by fear, a lack of trust and unfairness.
She said: “People my age talk about it being a fight, fighting the system, and that constant sort of sense that we are having to fight for our rights and fight to have a life.”
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Puppet-master and marionette? Nigel Farage appears to be pulling Ann Widdecombe’s strings. Perhaps that’s why she’s talking nonsense, comparing Brexit with World War Two.
Former Tory – now Brexit Party candidate – Ann Widdecombe has made a bizarre rant comparing Brexit to World War Two:
Brexit Party candidate Ann Widdecombe suggested that any disruption brought on by a no-deal Brexit is justified as it will not compare with the suffering during the Second World War.
Talking about a no-deal Brexit she said: “It is as nothing compared to the sacrifice that we asked a previous generation to make an order to ensure Britain’s freedom.
“My granny was bombed out in Plymouth just over there. People lost sons and husbands and fathers, and they did this because they wanted freedom.”
Has she lost her mind?
Brexit is nothing like World War Two.
In that conflict, the UK was fighting for its existence against a genuinely evil world military power that wanted to destroy our way of life altogether, along with a large proportion of our population.
Brexit is about decoupling from an alliance with a bloc of European countries with whom a significant proportion of our population no longer feels an affinity. It isn’t a life-or-death situation.
Not only that, but the hardship that Ms Widdecombe predicts for the UK would be voluntary. And there’s no justification for it.
She is trying to invoke some kind of Churchillian spirit – steadfastness in adversity – that simply doesn’t fit the situation.
Brexit will hugely disadvantage a large proportion of the population – specifically, those who are not super-rich – many of whom have been manipulated into supporting it by the super-rich people who control the media.
And by super-rich career politicians like Ms Widdecombe.
The people of the UK need to be aware that any hardship caused by Brexit has nothing to do with the spirit of World War Two.
It has everything to do with the stupidity of people who were told they would be better off – and believed the lie.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Ironic: The admission that Universal Credit is being delayed to alleviate some of the hardship caused by its cuts to claimants’ paymants has come less than two weeks after Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey said claims the Tories had cut benefits were “fake news”.
The Conservative government’s campaign to inflict misery and torment on the poor and vulnerable, known euphemistically as Universal Credit, is in trouble yet again.
The scheme, which terminates six ‘legacy’ benefits by combining eligibility for them into a single payment that is worth much less and is delivered five weeks late, was intended to be working across the UK by 2017.
Today’s announcement means the rollout of the new mechanism will not be complete until 2023 – if it lasts that long.
In theory, there is nothing wrong with the idea of streamlining the benefit system by putting people’s entitlement to different state payments into a single pot.
But we should remember that it is being introduced by a Conservative government that hates the very idea of taxpayer-funded social security.
The Tories want to push us into paying through the nose for private insurance against the circumstances that would require us to claim, and have spent more than 20 years in cahoots with a criminal American corporation called Unum, working on ways to achieve that end without raising concerns among the public that this is what they are doing.
So benefits like Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment and Employment and Support Allowance are all paid at lower rates than the schemes they have replaced, in a deliberate plan to force people into debt.
Then, claimants will either find a way back into work (or rather, into better-paid work, as there are plenty of employees on Universal Credit or its legacy benefits), or they will die in a way that allows the Tory government to deny responsibility – even though we all know the score.
The experience of these claimants is intended to persuade people who are currently earning enough – the “just about managing” people who Theresa May used to mention in speeches – to take out private insurance.
But the joke’s on them if they do, because Unum earned its criminal conviction for refusing to pay out on people claiming their policies had matured!
No doubt some of you are reading this and thinking, “Ah, but! The Tories are planning to spend hundreds of millions of pounds to stop claimants suffering the kind of hardship mentioned here! It was in leaked documents.”
That’s true – but you can be sure that they are only doing this because people like This Writer, and other organisations within the social media and the charity sector, have been kicking up a stink about the benefit system since May 2010 when the Tories first slithered back into office.
Remember: It isn’t a fortnight since Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey denounced claims that benefits had been slashed by the Tories as “fake news”. In fact, they are currently inflicting £7 billion of cuts on claimants.
And where do you think the money will go? Direct into the hands of claimants? Unlikely. I think it will be paid to the private companies the Tories hired to carry out the dirty work of assessing benefit claimants’ eligibility – and for ensuring that a high percentage of them were denied any money at all.
According to the BBC, the Tories’ remedial plans are as follows:
Plans have been drawn up to continue paying income support, employment and support allowance, and job seekers allowance for two weeks after a claim for universal credit has been made.
This will indeed smooth over the transition a little, but it still means people will have to survive an extra week on the same amount of cash as they’d normally be paid for two – and it isn’t very long since the Tories slashed £30 from the value of ESA payments, while JSA has been frozen for years.
Next:
Claimants can ask for an advance to help them get by while waiting for their first proper universal credit payment – later the government takes deductions from their regular monthly award to pay that back. Under the revised plans, the maximum amount that can be deducted will be reduced from 40% to 30% of their total award each month.
Think about what this means. Claimants who can’t make ends meet are told to borrow from a below-subsistence-level payment, and are then denied two-fifths of that payment each month until the amount is paid off.
The plan is to deny them three-tenths of that payment instead – so they will still be pushed into debt and despair; the only difference is the amount of the debt.
That is not helping anybody; helping would be ensuring that nobody is pushed into debt at all.
More help is set to be given to the self-employed, after warnings they could be left in serious financial trouble because of incorrect assumptions by the Department for Work and Pensions about their earnings.
But we have no information on the nature of the help to be offered. If it is anything like the other two examples, it will be a pretence of help that does little to improve matters.
One more thing: The government cannot even provide assurances that these changes can be made. An extract from the leaked documents states:
“We can currently offer no assurance that ultimately these proposals will prove to be deliverable, can survive legal challenges where they can be delivered, and do not invite new political criticism by generating new policy issues.”
What may we conclude, then?
The delay in the rollout of Universal Credit is cause to celebrate in itself – particularly for people on Employment and Support Allowance who would have faced yet another substantial cut in their income. These are the people the Tories are trying really hard to kill off.
But the promise of improvement in the system is likely to prove illusory.
Many commentators are waiting for Labour representatives to say they would end Universal Credit as a costly failure in terms of both government resources and human lives. But Labour says it is a good idea in principle and would try to turn it into the safety net that any benefit system should be. We all have reason to be sceptical about this.
But a Labour government is the best chance for benefit claimants.
There is nothing in today’s announcement that should encourage the unemployed, low-waged, sick or disabled to vote Conservative – unless they have a death wish.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Long-term disability campaigner Samuel Miller sent me the article quoted below, with the following words:
“The news story that I just brought to your attention is solid evidence that seriously ill and disabled people in the ESA WRAG are suffering immense hardship—and validates my tireless campaigning against these life-threatening cuts.”
“Nor are we dealing here with people with minor illness. Charities report that 45 per cent of people who put in a claim for ESA, and had Parkinson’s, Cystic Fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, or Rheumatoid Arthritis, were placed in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG).
“Around 700,000 apply each year for ESA, of which number around 60 per cent proceed to full assessment (the others generally return to work before the process is complete). Currently around 14 per cent of these go into the WRAG. That’s around 60,000 people affected every year.”
A survey of people claiming ESA shows 60 per cent of 1,755 respondents say the amount they receive is not enough to live on.
When asked about the consequences of this, 62 per cent said they struggled to stay healthy, while 49 per cent said they could no longer pay their bills.
For most people, the news that you have Parkinson’s Disease is earth-shattering enough.
But for sufferer Kevin Stannard, 62, the worst was yet to come.
In 2010, he was made redundant from the blind-fitting firm [where] he had worked for … 40 years due to his worsening symptoms.
He was forced to begin claiming disability benefits or Employment and Support Allowance.
For the next few years, he and his wife, Amanda, struggled financially as part of the ESA Wrag group – which was set up especially for people who may be fit for work in the future.
Unfortunately for Kevin and Amanda, 60, from Colchester, the allowance was not enough to cover the cost of living.
The stress of working while dealing with the “confusing” process of claiming ESA for her husband led to Amanda suffering a minor stroke, which meant she also had to give up her part-time work as a director with a housing association.
The struggle experienced by Kevin and Amanda is not uncommon, according to the latest findings of the Disability Benefits Consortium, a national coalition of more than 80 different charities and organisations.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Debbie Abrahams, Labour’s shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, (pictured speaking at the Labour Party Conference): She provides more sense on Universal Credit in a short news article than the Tories have in the last seven years.
Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Debbie Abrahams has written in The Independent, highlighting the reasons the minority Tory government’s version of Universal Credit is flawed in its conception.
Simply put, Tory Universal Credit is neither universal, nor a credit; it is restricted to a limited number of claimants – and still plunges them into debt.
So Universal Credit harms people while providing the Tories with a pretext to claim they are helping.
And the struggle to change the system is Herculean because, as this audience member on yesterday’s (October 19) BBC Question Time points out, the Tories’ contempt for the poor is disgusting:
Although the vote on whether we should pause [Universal Credit] was won, the battle continues. We know that it is the serious flaws in the design of Universal Credit that are driving the rising debt, arrears and even evictions being faced by those brought under the programme. The high cost of calling was aggravating these deeper issues.
Primarily, the six weeks that the Government were asking people to wait between making a new claim and receiving support was leaving families with nothing to live on.
Foodbank use is rising in areas where Universal Credit has been rolled out. Based on local authority estimates, the Greater Manchester Mayor raised concerns that rough sleeping in the city could double over the winter as a result of the programme.
Surely the social security system is there to prevent people getting into debt and suffering hardship, not exacerbate these problems? The Government could follow Northern Ireland and proposals in Scotland and introduce a two week payment system which would go some way to addressing this problem, at little additional cost.
The programme has also suffered deep cuts by this Government that have moved it further away from its original ambitions.
A reduction to the amount you can earn before support is withdrawn, cuts to disability premiums, and an inflexible approach to the self-employed are all leaving people worse off. Some families are losing £2,600 a year compared with the old system. Child poverty is expected to increase by a million children by 2020.
The cuts to Universal Credit have meant that the key principle that work should always pay has been lost. The cuts together with the delays in receiving the first payment, the costly call charges to the so-called helpline and other design issues have led to the issues so many claimants now face.
It is therefore vital that the Government looks again at the design of the programme before roll out continues. Under the current schedule, a million people will be using Universal Credit within the next few months, up from 600,000. We must get it right before so many are asked to rely on the programme to make ends meet.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
