tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27874443.post4407145504201586109..comments2024-01-27T18:00:54.268+00:00Comments on This Is My Blog: Welfare ReformMaryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11639094548415759560noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27874443.post-25221108068770325292008-12-08T23:02:00.000+00:002008-12-08T23:02:00.000+00:00http://chargingahead.blogspot.com/My post is proba...http://chargingahead.blogspot.com/<BR/>My post is probably fairly incohearrant but all I'd like to do is show what happens to people like us who simply strive to charge ahead and avoid having the "third wheels" complications of paid "lackeys" managing lives to their own apparent monetary advantage.<BR/><BR/> More and more I am convinced that we sell our freedoms for entitlements and the less we claim the more freedom we should have, however that it seems causes managers to become vindictive toward us in ways we never conceive as humanly possible zealous paternalism is a nasty thing to endure in my view!Gone Fishinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03601595396241016724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27874443.post-24299019359839519802008-12-08T21:40:00.000+00:002008-12-08T21:40:00.000+00:00Everyone seems to be missing the point of these we...Everyone seems to be missing the point of these welfare reforms. They have nothing to do with getting people back into work, or cutting benefit budgets, or anything like that. The government knows full well that these idiotic schemes do not work. Their only purpose is to syphon off billions of pounds of tax payers money into the pockets of private companies (ie government cronies) who will be running them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27874443.post-86060881145994194862008-12-08T15:13:00.000+00:002008-12-08T15:13:00.000+00:00Hi, Mary,A well-written post. I wrote last Tuesday...Hi, Mary,<BR/><BR/>A well-written post. I wrote last Tuesday on my blog similarly.<BR/><BR/>I agree with what The Goldfish says that I think this is rhetoric nonsense by "our" government. (The government sprouting nonsense, not you!) This is, I suspect, aimed at deflecting attention from their inability to help people in genuine need. But there is an undercurrent of prejudice against those on benefits. That is something I'm more worried about. The government bodged the 2005 reforms of the DWP and put bad legislation through despite warnings from Community Legal Services and Child Poverty Action Group that the reforms would cause hardships. I myself lost £1,000 when I first claimed because of a massive legal black hole. And would have lost a further £250 because of a minor mix up, on their part of dates, had my MP not again intervened.<BR/><BR/>I'm not in such a good position myself. I have frequent and severe migraine caused by irreparable damage to my neck. My specialist says he has now done all he can (though he hasn't, in my view, tried to tackle the malaise that I get with or without actual pain). Despite this, my migraine rate is as high now as when I first signed onto Incapacity Benefit.<BR/><BR/>I'm not classified as disabled. But I have to wonder whether, in my case for example, it is reasonable to expect an employer to take on someone who would be at best unproductive typically half to one day twice a week - at random intervals? Is it reasonable to expect colleagues to, as they would see it, carry someone who is frequently ill? I would think not. I don't want or choose to be on benefits, and I certainly don't want or choose to be in pain or confused or "narcotic" during attacks. But I don't have a choice.<BR/><BR/>The "logical" assumption behind the legislation proposed, as I read it, is that either most claimants are criminal fraudsters and that this will catch them out, or that those with genuine claims will somehow get better just because of frequent monitoring and harsh words. To the first I can't say, but although I suspect some people I know of of being as much I doubt the majority are. I'm certainly not. As to the latter, that doesn't make any logical sense.<BR/><BR/>With the "recession/credit crunch/downturn/failure *in* the system" (for which read failure *of * the system which last time - 1930s - resulted in a depression) predicting between 3 and 3.5 million unemployed by this time next year, I don't see this plan as in any way workable.<BR/><BR/>Outraged? I suspect the British public will be. And how many of *us* have votes? (Noting that both Labour and Conservatives want to penalise or "incentivise" claimants.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27874443.post-29893215114128492092008-12-08T13:58:00.000+00:002008-12-08T13:58:00.000+00:00I hope you didn't think I meant you were being rhe...I hope you didn't think I meant you were being rhetorical - I mean all the stuff said in the media, by politicians and the like (few of whom seem to understand how current benefits work, let alone how things are going to work out).<BR/><BR/>And remember, the DWP's examples are about how much money people will receive as opposed to qualifying criteria, which isn't explained. I think the arthritis example is extreme, but it is conceivable that someone with a severe physical impairment can nevertheless work(with plenty of help).<BR/><BR/>However, you could have someone who has no physical impairment, gets no DLA but sleeps 18 hours of the day. They couldn't be expected to work full time because they're not awake long enough.<BR/><BR/>I would imagine that you would qualify for the Support category simply because doing more than you are doing would be dangerous to your health. Hopefully, you can build yourself up in time and be able to cope with more and more, But anyone who has observed the patterns of your health will recognise that you walk a very fine line. If you were obliged to work full time, then you would very quickly be in a position where you couldn't work at all...The Goldfishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213378454070776331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27874443.post-19709678107346930512008-12-08T10:06:00.000+00:002008-12-08T10:06:00.000+00:00I realise on re-reading that this post probably ha...I realise on re-reading that this post probably has its fair share of rhetoric-spoutage, so first things first, an apology to anyone I've panicked.<BR/><BR/>I agree that the Great British Public would hate seeing sick and vulnerable people being bullied even more than they hate scroungers. It would be a scandal. To me, it already is a scandal - you don't want to know how many times I had to re-read the DWP example situations for who falls into the "work" or "support" categories, because I was sure I was getting it wrong.<BR/><BR/>Trouble is I have no faith in the government's ability to <I>avoid</I> shooting themselves in both feet.Maryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11639094548415759560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27874443.post-91352685212270295412008-12-08T09:13:00.000+00:002008-12-08T09:13:00.000+00:00The reason I'm mostly not worried about this is th...The reason I'm mostly not worried about this is that I'm sure most of what we've heard is rhetoric nonsense (in fact I would use a stronger word than nonsense). There have been so many threats made which, if they actually went ahead with it, the government would be shooting themselves in both feet and then refusing their own DLA application - both economically in terms of the administration and everything you describe (it is going to be far cheaper to let most of us alone), but also politically.<BR/><BR/>If most people on incapacity benefit now are placed in the "Employment" category of ESA, then you're going to get a whole load of bad statistics; people who they cannot find employment for, however much training or whatever else they can do. People who will be getting extra-help and failing to get into work, whilst even non-disabled people (who get no such help) will be struggling to get jobs. The last administration is often accused of moving people onto incpacity to deal with the bad employment stats. This lot aren't renowned for their resistance to spin.<BR/><BR/>If they were to actually penalise people financially for the effects of their ill health (missed interviews etc), then there would be an enormous scandal. People hate scroungers, but I'd say they hate to see sick and vulnerable people being bullied even more.<BR/><BR/>So personally, I'm not scared. But I also know that I'm in a pretty safe position. However, the rhetoric spouted about this by politicians and others is really harmful. There will be a lot of people, especially people with mental ill health (who have been held up as the ones who aren't seriously incapacitated <I>need</I> work as some sort of cure) who will be very worried about this. And that's not right or fair.The Goldfishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213378454070776331noreply@blogger.com