Benefits v Defence Lord Robertson

[Wednesdayschild87]

Lord Robertson’s Speech… seriously does anyone care?? He’s laid out the fact that as a nation we can’t carry on like this… he said we can’t afford to keep throwing money at benefits whilst leaving our country defences I’m actually shocked no one has come out and spoken on this matter before. I’m incredulous.

Why do you suggest working age benefits only?

Genuine question. If, as you state, you do know that PIP is not means-tested, why do you keep complaining about the 'feckless layabouts' being unwilling to work because they would rather receive PIP? This very much suggest that you consider being in receipt of PIP and being in employment to be mutually exclusive.
I think my individual circumstances are relevant to this discussion since you and other posters seem to not understand the extra costs that disabled people can face and for whom PIP is a lifeline. I am merely trying to challenge the opinion, frequently expressed by ignorant posters on here, that everyone in receit of PIP is spending the money on designer handbags and getting their nails done.
Since you are so keen to see the system over-hauled what would you like to see happen to support for disabled children and adults? Do the needs of those people come into your plans at all or is it all about money? Do you actually have anything to propose or is it simply a matter of getting PIP scrapped with no thought to what might replace it, if anything?

The statistics show 75% of PIP claimants aren't in paid work. Out of the 25% in paid work, only half work full time. So basically on 12.5% of PIP claimants are in full time work. So it's reasonable to comment along the lines that the majority of PIP claimants aren't in work. Yes, it can be an "in work" benefit in theory, but the majority aren't in work.

I never singled out PIP, it's you who keeps on coming back to it.
My problem with PIP is that it's a gateway to no work requirements for UC and combined with UC if gives sufficient incentive to many people to fake/exaggerate disabilities to opt out of work.

So my proposals are:

• make UC contribution based and time limited; once exceeded, you have to take any job, street cleaning or fruit picking.
• make sure that PIP is awarded based on objective diagnosis. Modern medicine is advanced enough to understand severity of impact on ones life;
• make sure that apart from learning disabilities, which are normally diagnosed in childhood, MH is given time limited financial support and money are thrown instead into provision of treatment. Person most certainly needs time to recover, it can take some number of months, but nobody should be able to stay on depression and anxiety handouts forever.

I don't know why anyone is surprised that not many pip claimants aren't in work. After all you do need to be pretty disabled to meet the criteria

We aren’t surprised.

What about those who are on UC and don't have work requirements because they care for their disabled child?

And for those of us who can't a proper diagnosis? I'm on what seems like a never ending waiting list

My needs won't change if I'm ever diagnosed. (I've been told there's a chance I may never get an answer) My needs are still just as valid as those who are diagnosed

My problem with PIP is that it's a gateway to no work requirements for UC

Not for disabled claimants, it isn’t. PIP and the LCWRA element of UC are different things. A disabled claimant can be eligible for one and not the other.

Some carers of people receiving PIP are eligible for the carer element of UC and have no work requirements, but that isn’t the disabled person themselves and it depends on the PIP award because not all carers of people receiving PIP are eligible.

make sure that PIP is awarded based on objective diagnosis.

For some, diagnosis can take years. For others, it never comes. Hence terms like SWAN. It is why some are/were part of studies such as the 100,000 genome project.

1 in 17 people will be diagnosed with a rare disease in their lifetime. Yet in the UK 1 in 4 wait at least 3 years for diagnosis.

That is before you consider the long waiting lists in some specialities/hospitals.

make sure that apart from learning disabilities, which are normally diagnosed in childhood, MH is given time limited financial support and money are thrown instead into provision of treatment.

A learning disability isn’t a mental health condition. MH conditions aren’t limited to anxiety and depression. Some will never be controlled to the point the person can work safely (their and others’ safety) despite treatment.

Exactly. I have a family member who has suffered from schizophrenia since young adulthood. While it is controlled through medication to a degree, though with considerable involvement from the community mental health team as this relative frequently attempts to refuse the drugs, they still have semi-regular periods of psychosis during which they have frequently been sectioned as they can pose a danger to themself and others. Schizophrenia is one of multiple mental health conditions that don't magically clear up with a course of CBT. Concerningly, there seem to be plenty of posters on this thread who do not seem to be aware that there are any other mental health issues outside of depression and anxiety. It would be extremely difficult for my relative to remain in employment given the severity and unpredictability of their condition.

When do you suggest that people who are already employed go street sweeping or fruit picking? Who will look after their children while they are there? How will any health issues be managed? There is usually a reason why people can't just increase their hours.

Are you aware @nearlylovemyusername that not all mental health conditions are anxiety and depression? And not all are recoverable from. Sure, lots can be managed with medication. But to suggest we could put a time limit on all of them is insanity.

look at Valdo Calocane. I wouldn’t have wanted him in my workplace just becuase his allotted time being mentally ill had expired.

how do you want people who are severely disabled from birth, to access UC? With no opportunity to contribute?

and offering PIP based on diagnosis not effect, would likely increase the take up. People who have named conditions but live without needing assistance, could claim.

not sure the new policy is quite up to scratch yet

When do you suggest that people who are already employed go street sweeping or fruit picking? Who will look after their children while they are there?

These are 99% migrants.

and offering PIP based on diagnosis not effect, would likely increase the take up.

Depends on eligibility criteria.

how do you want people who are severely disabled from birth, to access UC?

I explicitly mentioned that severe disability should get all support it needs.

Are you aware that not all mental health conditions are anxiety and depression? And not all are recoverable from. Sure, lots can be managed with medication. But to suggest we could put a time limit on all of them is insanity.

Yes of course I'm aware. But proportion of claims for them is significant. And taxpayers cannot continue bailing everyone out. After people are given support they need to learn to live with this. As posted above, some people claim for GAD and have cleaners and gardeners funded by this. This just cannot continue.

Sorry this is long but I really can't let this kind of poorly-informed and badly thought out post go unchallenged.
Your 'modest proposal' may look reasonable at first glance to someone who had no knowledge on the subject, but even a moment's thought on your ideas reveals some enormous holes which make all of your suggestions utterly unworkable. your entire hypothesis is deeply flawed.
First issue is the worrying fact that you seem to be unaware that any mental health issues, apart from depression and anxiety, exist,
Next problem is that you are glossing over the fact that many people in receipt of UC also work full time and the fact that you don't address how someone who has never been able to work due to disability or caring responsibilities would qualify under your contribution based system,
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that disability benefits are what is preventing people from working, operating on the assumption that if they were withdrawn all the current recipients could easily walk into jobs tomorrow.
I know you have criticised me for discussing my personal circumstances but I feel they are germane to this discussion as I have direct experience of finding and remaining in employment while being severely physically disabled, which I don't believe you have, so I feel more qualified to speak on the subject than you.
I am very fortunate to be employed full stop, let alone in a rewarding career I enjoy, which is my privilege. Due to the nature and severity of my disability my career choices are limited. Nobody is going to employ me as, to use your helpful examples, a street-sweeper or fruit-picker. Tragically, due to my life-long blindness, my dreams of becoming a bus driver, airline pilot or brain surgeon have been cruelly thwarted! In fact, I am pretty much limited to desk-based jobs. Even then, I require a considerable amount of expensive specialist equipment and technology and personal support in the workplace to do my job. I benefitted from graduate schemes which target young adults with disabilities and an employer who operate a proactive approach to employing and subsequently supporting disabled employees. If it weren't for a small number of employers making a concerted effort to accommodate people like me I am sure I would never have got any job. This is because hiring someone like me makes little sense from a purely business perspective. It would be far cheaper for my employer to give the job to someone without my considerable needs, even if they were less qualified than me.
When people like you advocate getting everyone off disability benefits and back into work you seem to do so glibly without considering the logistics of doing so. Where are all these jobs coming from? As I said, I am very fortunate to be employed. Most people with my degree of disability would find it near impossible to find work. I benefitted from an excellent education and opportunities, courtesy of my wonderful and tenacious parents, which helped me access a place on one of very few accessible graduate schemes which linked me up with disabled-friendly employers. The vast majority of people are not so lucky since the vast majority of employers have neither the resources nor the inclination to take on disabled employees, because it is a lot more expensive and complicated than employing someone without severe disabilities.
If you and the other posters on this thread really want to get more disabled people into work it is going to cost money. Either businesses will need to pour money into accessibility, which would be particularly burdensome for small businesses, or the government will have to pay grants to private companies to help them support disabled people. Otherwise there will be no jobs for the disabled people you are planning to force off benefits.
The irony is that the same people whinging about work-shy disabled scroungers are often the same people who are up in arms about 'positive discrimination', like the graduate employment scheme for disabled people from which I benefitted and about 'reasonable adjustments' being made for their disabled colleagues. Disabled people just can't win either way, claim benefits and we are lazy scroungers, work with 'reasonable adjustments' and we are asking for special treatment. It is exhausting and depressing.

I'm glad AI helped you to write your post.

To repeat once again - I'm not talking about PIP specifics. I'm talking about the overall system of all working age benefits, which in its entirety incentivise people, especially at a lower pay scale, to work less than they can or not work at all. I am not arguing for stopping PIP. I am arguing for reviewing criteria and making sure that the system is less open for abuse. I am arguing for making sure that working is always better than not and at the moment it's not the case.

ETA: I also completely understand that no recipient of benefits will ever agree that current system is unsustainable, no matter what. So this discussion is really pointless.

I asked but I don't think I got a response which I appreciate may be because you just had lots of responses and it might've been missed.

I can't work not because I'm disabled but because my child is disabled. I'm curious as to how that would work in your proposals since it wasn't mentioned?

I bet you will get told you can work whilst your kid is at school, or when they are asleep (if they even sleep consistently, or go to school consistently).
Also ignoring the fact that about a 3rd of parents of disabled kids have considered suicide at some point.

When might this thread go back to discussing how much we should spend on defence? I really didn't start posting here to chat on about benefits.

It says benefit in the title

But it does seem to illuminate priorities.

It also mentions defence in the title.

Yep ,and even if that were possible the job would have to have very specific hours and very understandng employers
My son is 16 next months but i need to put him on school tranport every morning at 8.15 and take him off it at 4pm every afternoon
Realistically could probably work from 10-2
But any employer would also need to be flexible enough to allow me to attend various meetings etc
If anyone knows. Of jobs that offer hours of 10-2 [ would be very interested .

If you are reliable, our local Tesco seems to have lots of people on the tills on school hours x2boys.

Are you seeing that as a shopper?

Yes. We're rural and too stupid or too old for self check outs, and there are lots of people who like to talk to the check out operators. We may be a few years behind the game.