For years the Conservatives have been telling hte government that a huge proportion of the 2.6 million on incapacity benefit shouldn't be and that they are capable of work. The government has mouthed platitudes about it but done sweet F.A. The reason? It suits them for people to be dependent on the State so at an election they can be scared witless by being told by Labour candidates about the cuts which will be made to their benefits. But now it's not just the Conservatives who are telling them about the massive number of claimants who can work, it's their own adviser!Alice Thomson writes in this morning's Telegraph...
David Freud, an investment banker hired by James Purnell, the new Work and
Pensions Secretary, said the disability tests used to award state aid were
"ludicrous" and could be costing billions of pounds...Mr Freud suggested that
less than a third may be credible recipients while several hundred thousand work
illegally on the black market... "When the whole rot started in the 1980s we had
700,000 [claimants]," he said. "I suspect that's much closer to the real figure
than the one we've got now...Mr Freud - who has also influenced Tory welfare
reform policies - launched a damning attack on the system that allows people to
claim benefit, worth up to £81.35 a week. "If you want a recipe for getting
people on to IB we've got it," he said. "You get more money [than unemployment
benefit] and you don't get hassled, you can sit there for the rest of your life.
It's ludicrous that the disability tests are done by people's own GPs - they've
got a classic conflict of interest and they're frightened of legal action. The
system sends 2.64 million people into a form of economic house arrest and
encourages them to stay at home and watch daytime TV. We're doing nothing for
these people... You don't need to make a huge fuss about categorising people. If
you're disabled, work is good for you and not working is bad for you. The people
who are really disabled are often the ones who are really desperate to work, but
there are then a whole load of people who say they don't want to be made to work
regardless."
Let's be clear. The current system encourages people not to work. There's a lot of tough talk by Gordon Brown about welfare reform, but it never happens. All you get is relaunch after relaunch. There is only one Labour politician who was ever serious about welfare reform, Frank Field. And look what happened to him.
The Conservatives have published their own detailed welfare refomr package, which seeks to put an end to the Incapacity Benefit scandal. If they are successful, several billion pounds of taxpayers' money will be saved. And about time too. Read the whole Telegraph article HERE.
17 comments:
It's the same old Labour spin. They have released this report (note: an advisory report, not any sort of a policy promise) so the ever faithful media can conjure up the right "tough" headlines again. But , they will not act on it in any way. Labour need parasites, and state dependents for voting base, not to mention, I don't see them suddenly putting 2million more onto the unemployment figures!
But it is the weekend, so time for even more Labour spin and headline nonsense, for the gullible prols to digest.
"The rot started in the 80's" Tories must shoulder some of the responsibility; when the number of unemployed was a big political issue it was just too easy to hide the real figure by putting the unemployed on training schemes and incapacity benefit. It suited some employers to “medically retire” workers in their 50’s so they could claim IB until their pension kicked in.
Things are not what they appear to be? Visit www.stopunum.com
Anonymous at 2:55, you beat me to it! And I was just enjoying the thought of how I'd word my statement, as well. The phrase "let's all speculate on how that came about" would have been part of it.
For years the so-called conservatives have been agreeing with the govt. that unemployment is low.
Labour have been in office for 10 years so can we stop the - remember the last Conservative government nonsense ?
The most damning comments about Labour and Gordon Brown were made by Charles Clarke who said last week -"Labour has wasted much of the first half of this parliament. With some exceptions, our action to make the necessary changes has been insufficient. And now it seems to me that Labour still remains very unclear about our approach, both in this parliament and the next."
The only people who benefit from a Labour government are Labour politicians - many of whom have vastly overachieved by getting themselves made MPs or Prime Minister.
Talentless - clueless and shameless the lot of them.
With reference to Asquith and anonymous 2:55. How about not speculating how we got there and speculating what to do about it?
Honestly it's like kids fighting and when an adult comes around the excuse "well he started it!" always comes to the fore.
We have a problem, it's costing taxpayers billions, now what do we do about it?
The Nonny @ 3:07. provides a link to a more truthful insight into welfare reform.
More may be found on my blog via the blue link.
UNUM, a highly controversial American Medical Insurance company, who have been fined many millions of dollars in the USA for unlawful denial of legitimate claims, were described in Oct. 2005by John Garamendi, the then Insurance Commissioner for California and now elected as Lieutenant Governor as:
"An outlaw company who have operated in an illegal fashion for years" and have been accused of operating "claims denial factories".
UNUM are currently at the heart of DWP welfare reform with full Government compliance.
They are seeking to increase their sales of medical and disability insurance in the UK and eventually to undermine the Welfare State as we know it.
Their plainly questionable methods have been inculcated into the DWP by their local agent and employee Prof. Mansel Aylward who was, until a couple of years ago, the Chief Medical Adviser at the DWP.
Many questions are currently being asked about this rather cosy arrangement.
Here's a good one:
"Please provide your observations on UK Governmental association with a company which has been described as an "outlaw" company."
This question has been asked of many Secretaries of State and Ministers at the DWP and, so far, their responses have varied from:
"We have no associations with.....",
"We have no commercial associations with.....", to...
"We have made no commercial payments to ....".
Yet there are obvious connections, as UNUM's Customer Care Director, Dr. Peter Dewis, seen on the BBC report via the link, provides a review service for questionable medical reports made by the DWP.
Apparently Dr, Dewis, an ex DWP employee, provides this service free of charge. I just wonder why.
Just check the consultative bodies involved in Welfare Reform, you'll find that UNUM pops up time and again.
Please check the links as there is a sub-agenda currently active that seeks to undermine the DWP and eventually the NHS.
UNUM will be at the heart of it.
Last night's BBC 10 o-clock news showed a report by Justin Webb from Chicago, highlighting the fact that 1 in 6 of the USA population have no medical insurance and that some are driven to underhanded methods just in order to survive.
Private Medical Insurance is on its way whether you like it or not.
You have been warned.
Your pal.
johnny.
Whats the betting we get a fudge,a halfway house between the dole and IB where people don't show up on either register and 2million people disappear from the figures?
As a GP in the front line and have first hand knowledge of the enormity of IB/fake unemployed/skiver problem
( as opposed to the genuine claimants )
Why now though? Something smells here . Why are the usually Labour-compliant journalist class highlighting this report?
Assuming the government is lying and scheming as per usual , they must be up to something .
quiet_man, I'm making these references to point out that the Tory party haven't got the answers.
I have several proposals.
a. Putting the unemployed into voluntary work, thus (i) helping the voluntary sector (ii) raising their aspirations and self-esteem (many people actually expect nothing from life and will flounder on benefits, and my belief is that they should be helped rather than abused), (iii) making them more employable.
b. Restricting immigration. Yes, we all know Poles are more employable than the British underclass. But the underclass are our responsibity, Poles are not, and we should be getting people to work because it's just wrong in all ways for them to be on benefits.
c. A better system of education and training so that vacancies don't have to be filled by foreigners. This would, imho, entail ending the culture in which academic education is seen as "superior" to vocational education. In fact, the two are not necessarily opposites, as a graduate in an academic subject can easily learn a trade. This is what should be encouraged.
I think people should work instead of being on benefits. Who could disagree with such an idea? But I don't think hammering people will achieve it.
Also, more could be done to mix up housing stock so the poor are not gathered together on council estates where they reinforce each other in being cut off from society and recieve inferior education and job prospects.
Mu humble opinion is that the LibDems will do more than anyone else to bring this about. But I think that in some way, whatever way, more jobs need to be created because there are not enough vacancies.
To summarise, changing the benefits system isn't anything like enough unless attitudes, education, work can be changed. Better public transport and other ways of getting people who can't drive to distant workplaces would also help.
I reckon most people on IB would prefer to work. £81.35 is hardly much to live on. The thing that annoys me about this is an investment banker coming along and saying these people could all be working. He has no evidence for that, and is just plucking figures from the air.
The numbers claiming IB are at their lowest level since 2007. The right approach is to combine carrot and stick. Offer people help, training, mentoring, while making clear there are certain minimums that people must do to keep benefits.
The government's approach while not perfect is moving in the right direction. This is a tough, long-term problem that can't be solved overnight. I think its right to look at more local and voluntary sector solutions because different people in different areas have different issues that need addressing.
However the workfare Tory policy is appauling. It makes people do jobs which many would find demeaning for low wages and depresses wage levels for the unskilled. It also prevent people from developing the skills and confidence to get off benefits in the long term.
Plus there are about 2.7m on IB, 800k on JSA and only 600k vacancies in the economy. Even when we have record levels of employment there still isn't enough jobs for everyone.
In short this is a complex solution. The Tory response is still too much based on the attitude 'These are just a bunch of scroungers, we need to cut their benefits if they don't get a job'.
For your info... when my GP signed my MED4 Form (look it up) I had to go to a DWP doctor for a full strip medical. Then my company's insurance co. sent me to their consultant for another (just as rigorous)exam. Don't make me laugh about it being a rubber stamp. Three years later I am still in receipt of Incap.
Freud seems to know little about Incapacity Benefit.
Firstly Incapacity for work is decided by DWP appointed doctors.
Secondly the IB roles has increased over the last quarter century for a number of simple reasons:
The number of people paying the necessary NI contributions rose by 220% (DWP figures) between 1979 and today due to increasing numbers of women workers and the tories reducing the real NI threshold over the years as an alternative to increasing income tax. In 1979 most sick or disabled people either got no benefit or ended up on Supplementary Benefit the predecessor to Income Support.
Today there are 1.8 million people who claim IB of which about 1.3 million actually receive any.
Most of the remainder were created as a result of the introduction of JSA in 1996. Those who were on Income Support and not able to work were left there creating a new benefit called "Income Support by Reason of Incapacity". As a result of this a further cohort of sick and disabled people became visible to the welfare system.
The rise in the number of benefit claimants is largely a rise in the visibility of sick and disabled claimants within the welfare system NOT a sign of increasing numbers desperate to get out of work and live dull miserable lives in poverty. And the poverty has been getting worse with real payments to this much abused group declining by 20-30% since New Labour got into power.
And has New Labour been reducing the NI contribution in line with this reduction in the benefits its supposed to pay for?
asquith said...
"I think people should work instead of being on benefits. Who could disagree with such an idea?"
UK employers could.
As with Blair/Brown so with Thatcher. Then and now the government of the day wants/wanted the truth hidden. The Civil Service does as it's told and hides people on IB.
It may have been hidden but we now have vast unemployment despite the lies of nulab; lies that the tories have been happy to go along with.
Iain Dale said...
"There is only one Labour politician who was ever serious about welfare reform, Frank Field. And look what happened to him."
Field's a bit of a flake. One minute he's blaming immigration for talking jobs away from Brits, the next he's blaming the victims of unemployemt.
If Right-wing employers didn't find it so profitable to hire foreign cheap labour there would be a whole lot less unemployment, hidden or not. And if the lib/lab/cons were not so keen on 'donations' from rich foreigners they would look after the British.
'Let me be clear'
Yee-uch, do try and staw away, Iain, from politicospeak like starting every sentence with 'Let me be (quite) clear'. No-one's stopping you from being clear, you can be clear without asking our permision.
Post a Comment