Government considering charging for appeals

[jennym01uk]

(I remember writing a post the other day on one of the threads, and considered writing that the government could be even more obstructive and start charging for appeals - then I decided no, they wouldn't be stupid enough to even consider it, and I was wrong…..)

 

 

 

I informed our Con MP & member of the Government that the last political personage that I could recall who fell back on identifying so many scapegoats to justify political actions and cover up political mistakes was Herr. A. Hitler. I did not get a reply.

 

Now, with this proposal to charge for appeals, I start to think of benefit concentration camps (so much cheaper than housing benefits or B&B costs) but, surely, they wouldn't be stupid enough to even consider it...

 

I seem to think this idea used to be known as "The Workhouse" in Dickensian times.!

[jennym01uk]

I seem to think this idea used to be known as "The Workhouse" in Dickensian times!

[kimnpat]

No, no, you need a name that is upbeat, positive, spinnable - regardless of the true purpose.

I agree. However, you also need something that you can claim is there to help them, whilst being "fair" to everybody else. How about;

 

THE WORK PROGRAMME?

[estellyn]

I agree. However, you also need something that you can claim is there to help them, whilst being "fair" to everybody else. How about;

 

THE WORK PROGRAMME?

 

Yes. that's what I meant as 'spinnable' - to be able to be 'spun' as a 'good' thing.

 

 

The work programme is slightly different. The idea behind it is laudable - Have a programme where you can help unemployed people to access the training and help they NEED in order to find employment. However by outsourcing this scheme to private companies on an commission basis, and twinned with a harsh sanction regime, it was changed into something else entirely - a scheme run for the dual purpose of profit and sanction without actually helping the 'need' client base.

[kimnpat]

The work programme is slightly different. The idea behind it is laudable - Have a programme where you can help unemployed people to access the training and help they NEED in order to find employment. However by outsourcing this scheme to private companies on an commission basis, and twinned with a harsh sanction regime, it was changed into something else entirely - a scheme run for the dual purpose of profit and sanction without actually helping the 'need' client base.

 

I do not think that it was EVER really intended to help people. It was a good excuse for sacking Jobcentre Plus staff and taking/reducing disabled people's benefits whilst blaming somebody else.

 

Their "Pièce de résistance" is still to come, when next month EVERYBODY that has been subjected to this draconian course will be forced to work for their benefits. As if that was not demoralising enough, they will still be subject to sanctions, including the Benefit Cap and Bedroom Tax.

 

They claim that working households are not affected by either of these policies, but are going to force J.S.A. claimants to work for reduced benefits? How can that be right?

[worried33]

indeed I think its become clear lately that the DWP polcies which seem to have honourable reasons, have been intentionally deceitful but these so called honourable reasons are just a front to fool people in the early stages.

 

Notable is the late changes to ESA and PIP before launch to fool people who were consulting on it.

[antone]

They claim that working households are not affected by either of these policies, but are going to force J.S.A. claimants to work for reduced benefits? How can that be right?

 

How can it be right? It isn't right, not morally or even logically. The policies being implemented aren't really designed to get people into work - after all, if that were the intention then we might see some policies that actually stimulate demand and as such create jobs. No, the only intent is to get people off benefits by any means necessary, under the flimsy pretext that there's a deficit (oh noes!!! not a deficit!!! the sky is falling!!!!) and so the welfare budget needs to be cut.

 

It's bullcrap, of course - you could abolish JSA and ESA tomorrow and you still wouldn't make any significant dent in the deficit. But in any case, the time to pay down the deficit is when the country is prosperous, which it manifestly is not. This has been the slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression. Of course, we could reduce the deficit by having more people in work and paying tax, but that's too complicated to achieve and would require a long-term approach. Far easier just to shaft the poor.

[estellyn]

How can it be right? It isn't right, not morally or even logically. The policies being implemented aren't really designed to get people into work - after all, if that were the intention then we might see some policies that actually stimulate demand and as such create jobs. No, the only intent is to get people off benefits by any means necessary, under the flimsy pretext that there's a deficit (oh noes!!! not a deficit!!! the sky is falling!!!!) and so the welfare budget needs to be cut.

 

It's bullcrap, of course - you could abolish JSA and ESA tomorrow and you still wouldn't make any significant dent in the deficit. But in any case, the time to pay down the deficit is when the country is prosperous, which it manifestly is not. This has been the slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression. Of course, we could reduce the deficit by having more people in work and paying tax, but that's too complicated to achieve and would require a long-term approach. Far easier just to shaft the poor.

 

 

Really well said!

[Conniff]

Yes I agree, nice post. As for the deficit reduction, it took a hundred years to reach the level that benefits are at now so it will probably take another hundred years picking at bits and pieces to get it back down to where it was originally intended to be.

[worried33]

also I found a page ran by a EX atos doctor, and I remember saying on this site before that people attending a face to face by default will be found fit for work unless something unexpected happens at the assessment.

 

I found this.

 

http://worktestwhistleblower.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-work-test-mobility-and-continence.html

 

and on the same site he wrote how many assessors assume all significantly ill people are dealt with at scrutiny so as such an assumption is made at the start of face to face assessments they are rubber stamping fit for work decisions. Sadly I cannot find the page now but it is on that site somewhere.