Priti Patel!!

bear66 said:
Why should the most vulnerable have to wait 14 weeks on average for a decision? This government has broken the system by not supporting it (or the private assessors are making easy money out of doing it badly - £255 a year) or those working the system are incompetent and/or heartless 'tic boxers'.



"The Scottish parliament passed an amendment earlier last year which changes the definition of terminal illness to one based on clinical judgement, therefore removing the six-month restriction, and the UK government is being urged to do the same."

Good on the Scottish Parliament.
Click to expand...

1st point the most vulnerable in society are the people who are paid ESA which there is no waiting period for as this is a benefit that is for people unfit for work. PIP is a benefit which recognises that a person needs some form of assistance with certain tasks for a health conditions. Many PIP claimants work. Most receive another form of benefit such as ESA. Therefore the most vulnerable should have a live claim to ESA already and be receipt of money. Others will be working and therefore be financially supported. There should not be many people solely relying on PIP for benefit as that is not what it is for. It is to assist not be your sole income.

The Scottish parliament can pass what it likes. Anyone defined to be expected to pass away within 6 months still has be a clinical decision as it comes via a DS1500 form. If you are not expected to pass away within that time and no time period is stated then not sure how you can argue you deserve to paid and assessed faster than someone else with a health condition. Everyone is going to die so what is the point where you decide who gets priority?
 
"Once we have this group of people working and contributing to society then we can assessthe real skills shortage and adapt accordingly. "
But they are already contributing to society and had been before they claimed benefits. Why do you think they pay taxes? There seems to be an assertion that if someone becomes unemployed the taxes they paid become null and void and do not count as contributing.
And if a person thinks that UC is a lifestyle choice then there must be something mentally wrong with them as far as I am concerned. So they probably need the help.
 
Cooper6711 said:
1st point the most vulnerable in society are the people who are paid ESA which there is no waiting period for as this is a benefit that is for people unfit for work. PIP is a benefit which recognises that a person needs some form of assistance with certain tasks for a health conditions. Many PIP claimants work. Most receive another form of benefit such as ESA. Therefore the most vulnerable should have a live claim to ESA already and be receipt of money. Others will be working and therefore be financially supported. There should not be many people solely relying on PIP for benefit as that is not what it is for. It is to assist not be your sole income.

The Scottish parliament can pass what it likes. Anyone defined to be expected to pass away within 6 months still has be a clinical decision as it comes via a DS1500 form. If you are not expected to pass away within that time and no time period is stated then not sure how you can argue you deserve to paid and assessed faster than someone else with a health condition. Everyone is going to die so what is the point where you decide who gets priority?
Click to expand...
You speak with some knowledge. Everyone deserves to be assessed and paid faster. 8 weeks for someone to be "reassessed" as blind, deaf and with epilepsy is a disgrace that only a 'tic-boxer' would defend.
 
I am like a broken record about rebalancing the UK economy and nothing significant seems to happen. The vast majority of private and public investment goes into geographically areas that already doing well. For example Crossrail, HS2 first stage. When Greybull was operating large rental and management fees were going into its Mayfair offices from places like Teesside and Scunthorpe. House prices are 5 times as high in London as Teesside. I am not saying the economically depressed areas should get all the investment, but the current balance is wrong, so you end up with too much demand for labour in some areas and too little in others. To some extent immigration helped cure the problem as new comers would move to London area and live in one room as I did in the 1980s, but it could be argued this just prolonged the problem.

I hear all the time HS2 will take jobs out of London and move them to Manchester and Leeds (by 2040). I don't believe it myself I think HS2 will make in easier to commute and work in London and in the main the jobs will not move. I also don't see how HS2 will help the North East, where the biggest imbalance of jobs is. in England. What's its planned date to reach Middlesbrough?

Ref Nursing and Care - we have known for 30 years about the demographic timebomb - a lot of old people and fewer young people. The Government has made nursing a more expensive profession to enter with student loans and fees etc - not really a sensible strategy was it? A number of care jobs I looked at in a job agency window were provide you own car and smart phone. There was a mileage allowance for fuel, but it rarely covers the full cost of using your own car and pay was £8.21/hour for casual work. (that may not include driving time). Generally its still very low paid work. The army of middle aged women who did this care work in the past for low pay is shrinking as there are better opportunities.

Ref disability - I know the modern workplace is actually a more difficult workplace for many people with a disability as employers demand more flexibility from staff and more intensity but give less flexibility back. So rates of unemployment and underemployment are increasing amongst people with a disability, despite them dropping for other groups of workers.

Ref : older workers - many are looking after gran children as parents work full time. Some are not 100% healthy say ones in their 60s that in the past would have being on pensions (average male death rate in Stockton is 62 and falling), some need help with new technology, but the nature of the jobs market for older workers tends to be casual with little or no training. A lot of adult education has been cutback that helped in the past. Other older workers do unpaid voluntary work, some weeks I do 10 hours plus. I noticed last week Citizens Advice on Teesside needed a lot of workers, all the roles were voluntary.

Ref : Drug abuse : it is increasing, but living in a economically depressed area can't help in my opinion.

Overall there are more economically active people than ever in the UK, a major problem in this country is the lack of reasonably rewarded middle income jobs in areas of the UK away from the major cities.
 
Last edited:
bear66 said:
You speak with some knowledge. Everyone deserves to be assessed and paid faster. 8 weeks for someone to be "reassessed" as blind, deaf and with epilepsy is a disgrace that only a 'tic-boxer' would defend.
Click to expand...

Reassessed would suggest they are already on the benefit so are already in receipt and therefore it should not be urgent. A lot of people don't want to be reassessed either or wish to put of the assessment as long as possible in case it goes against them. So advocating everyone should be assessed asap I agree with. Whether the customer would agree with you I am not so sure
 
In my experience many people left the North East and quite a number have left behind parents who are now elderly.
It is certainly not uncommon and its probably increasing. Those leaving may not be low paid, but neither are they wealthy. It creates a lot of anxiety all round and will put extra pressures on social services who have to use resources to support the very elderly relative left behind, who would be supported by their family if they lived close by.

Having a better balanced UK economy would reduce these problems.
 
Last edited:
SmallTown said:
Ah so it looks like my prediction that we would be poorer under brexit WILL come to pass.
Click to expand...

You would be, the lowest paid doing these jobs wouldn't. I thought you would support increasing support for the poorest in society by contributing a little extra?
 
Cooper6711 said:
You would be, the lowest paid doing these jobs wouldn't. I thought you would support increasing support for the poorest in society by contributing a little extra?
Click to expand...
Does taking away benefits increase their support? I'm pretty sure the poorest in society also have to pay for the increased prices in good and services too? Or should they not eat fruit?
 
Having a more limited labour supply may help certain groups of workers such as the disabled. Currently some employers just tap into the twentysomething market from Bulgaria and Romania rather that give someone in the UK with a disability a chance. I have known a person with a disability have over 80 interviews and no job offer. It can be soul destroying.

I get the impression from some posters that they think the 1.29m unemployed are mainly work shy. Some may well be but I will be surprised if its the majority. Some may lack confidence, some lack meaningful skills, some are ill, some are just in the wrong part of the country. I was told in my Economics lessons that there was natural rate of unemployment of around 2.5% which we are getting close to that - hence full employment for the UK, although not in every region.

I am starting to believe low pay and underemployment are now bigger issues than unemployment. Evidence most people on UC do work but their incomes are very small.

Ref Food - its cheaper than ever in the UK (as % of income) and 20% of it is thrown away after being bought - For someone on average income paying a bit more for their food would not change their lifestyle. The biggest change is the cost of accommodation which has increased faster than inflation and incomes for most people.
 
Last edited:
SmallTown said:
Does taking away benefits increase their support? I'm pretty sure the poorest in society also have to pay for the increased prices in good and services too? Or should they not eat fruit?
Click to expand...

yes as the improved pay would hopefully be enough to lift them out of benefits completely. In doing so they would be receiving higher amount than when they were claiming. Yes they would also pay more for these goods but they would still be in a better position than claiming benefits.
 
'so business leaders are stating that families will have to move to seek work or lose their benefits?'

Absolutely not, that's the job of those working in the public sector, like yourself perhaps?

The government will make the decisions based on political lobbying, the more government have the ear of the business sector the more say they that sector will have, it's up to the government to make the decision, and the public sector to carry the work out for them.
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
'so business leaders are stating that families will have to move to seek work or lose their benefits?'

Absolutely not, that's the job of those working in the public sector, like yourself perhaps?

Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
Absolutely not, that's the job of those working in the public sector, like yourself perhaps?
Click to expand...

I have already posted the policy under UC which Adi_Dem didn't post in full. There is no policy to do such a thing so no its not my job. Can you tell me where there is such a policy suggesting that families will have to move?
Click to expand...
 
I asked for a link because I can’t find it.

It’s interesting that one day we have record employment with only 1.5 million unemployed and then, when it suits this sinister agenda, there are 8 million people available to send all over the country doing unskilled work.

The definition of unskilled is interesting too. Earn less than £25k and you probably won’t make the cut. That’s NHS workers, teachers, carers all getting sent away.

Brilliant policy.
 
Adi_Dem said:
I asked for a link because I can’t find it.
Click to expand...

Unless you have access to government systems which actually quotes official policy not what people post on google you wouldn't be able to find it
 
Adi_Dem said:
So it isn’t published and visible policy in relation to the Claimant Commitment?
Click to expand...

Not sure. If you wanted sight of it I am sure your work coach would provide you with it. It is their guidance in relation to claimant commitment
 
Nobel Prize winning economist says the effect of low skilled migration on low skilled wages is zero. Not just small, but zero. So sending them back/not letting them in is not going to make a difference apparently. It could lead to more mechanisation, but can fruit picking, caring for the elderly and household plumbing be mechanised?

What will be the outcome if not?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1229423937932726275
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top