To think benefits need to be cut to fund increased spending on defence

[Viviennemary]

This is absolutely necessary. Keir Starmer shouldnt have backed down the last time. But now with the current situation with Russia drastic steps need to be taken. We simply can't afford to sustain the current benefits bill with the armed forces so depleted. The money is needed to increase defence.

"Narrative" for a benefit that relies heavily on subjective assessments and that has functional limitations...

All public spending should be subject to rigorous testing and oversight. No system is foolproof, and regular scrutiny is essential to ensure public money is being spent as intended.

No you can't but tightening the evidence would help to remove claims of fraud.

I do not and have not posted or think that all claiments are fraudulent, nor have i said that all family friends etc are liars that is a lie or more politely misrepresentation.

Just because you have explained why doesnt mean i should agree with it. Given the bad feeling and narritive about benefits it's especially important to ensure that there isnt room for disability claims to be seen as anything but genuine. It would make it miles harder to remove.

I have to be fair and say that it’s been my experience that those claiming for autism without evidence of formal diagnosis do tend to have a harder time securing the right level of award. Formal diagnosis of any condition isn’t a pre requisite for PIP, because as you say, the condition isn’t directly assessed, only its’ impact on the claimant. In practice, I’ve found that assessors and decision makers will look harder at whatever other supporting evidence is submitted to try to deny claims as not meeting the thresholds.

There is no way to know the exact figure. Not even the NAO, which has raised concerns about fraud and error, can identify the precise level. The figures are estimates, not facts. The system of checks and balances simply isn't robust enough to provide certainty that all fraud is being identified and measured accurately.

People who claim benefit are not a separate species. I'd expect honesty and dishonesty to follow a similar bell-curve distribution to that seen in the wider population.

A more thorough assessment than earning under £204 after deductions and the cared for person having a qualified benefit. Those do not guarentee that the person claiming ca does the required amount of caring. Social workers can provide carers assessments, these would be an easy pre requ.

I do know people who have used sleep diaries. I'm going to add two screenshots in regards to sleep diaries, hopefully they'll be ok'd soon. Many charities advise sleep diaries to prove night time needs.

👏👏👏👏

Defence spending definitely needs to go up, but I don’t think it’s benefit cuts that should fund it. I don’t think there are any left to make!

Getting big companies and the better off to pay their taxes would be a start.

Deliberate fraud makes up less than 1% of PIP overpayments. Tightening up checks and balances costs money, so it has to be worth it. No system is immune to fraud and there has to be a balance between what is reasonable
and what is likely to hurt genuine claimants. Restricting the presentation of valuable evidence on the premise that some people may lie, doesn’t justify the harm that would be caused to genuine claimants as a result.

Why does it definitely need to go up? Russia can't beat Ukraine despite trying for four years. They aren't the kind of threat that we need to spend billions on tanks and soldiers and ships to beat.
What we actually need to do is spend that money on drones, civil defence and cyber security.

Maybe your not fully understanding wgat i'm posting between you making assumptions about me ofcourse.

No, ive been consistent if anything it's you thats changed your standing, i mean c'mon im either an autism basher which you thought when you hadnt properly read my post or im too soft and want changes that arent needed for people with autism.

Yes i have known people claim with a sleep diary and no medical evidence of nightime waking. Charities advise, see my earlier screenshots if they get approved.

Having public faith in claims and reducing the calls of people taking the mikey is worth it in my opinion. Hopefully it'll mean that those who genuinely need support will keep it.

Carers assessments are for the support of carers so they don’t burn out. They are not intended to assess how many hours of care are provided and then report back to the DWP. And you want to impose keeping sleep diaries on carers who are already at their wits end trying to hold down jobs and care duties ?

Sleep diaries are used for assessing child DLA claims, so why would you need to repeat that for carers allowance when the evidence is already on the DLA claim ?

I actually thought the 4 point rule they wanted to bring in for PIP was a good idea , most if not all the points under 4 are for prompting… no one needs extra money to be prompted to do something..

Not if you have anything to do with it they won’t. I’ve taken issue with a lot of your posts, but by far the worst is advocating for checks on the amount of caring CA recipients do. It’s mealy mouthed and mean, and demonstrates that you know nothing of what caring for a disabled person entails.

Oh and by the way, upthread you told another poster that you had now accepted what l said about standard PIP being a safety net. I must have missed the apology.

No i dont want to impose sleep diaries, they arent mandetory for carers assessments.

Carers assessments could serve a duel purpose. Surely ensuring carers dont burn out and assessing that they perform a desent amount of care to qualify for CA has some overlap?

A formal carers assessment would put off a fair few chancers and for those who need one but dont pusue it may mean they get some help.

There is no overlap at all. You’re proposing to divert carers assessments for purposes for which they were never intended and introducing unnecessary conditionality for people whose lives are already very difficult, as some kind of gotcha moment. It’s drivel. That’s it. I’m out.

It isn't just a qualified benefit though, is it? carers element is eligible only through the higher rates which is already harder to be eligible for and already requires forms and vast medical evidence including night time care needs.

Social workers are overworked enough as it is, not to mention how long claims can take to go through as it is. More money is no good if it leaves carers with no money for long periods because of all of the assessments.

It just doesn't sound very practical or that it would work well.

Why on Earth would i apologise to you when you have continually mis represented/ lied about what ive posted with no apology or even acknowledgement when ive called you out for it. At least im able to admit when im wrong!

You missed the bit where i said Carers allowance should be massively increased to reflect the carimg done- because i do think carers deserve it and yes it should be thoroughly assessed especially if significantly increased.

Its progress and change. Things cannot and should not stay as they are, its rediculous.

You argued with me when l said standard PIP is meant as a safety net as well as a stand alone entitlement. You said l was incorrect. I was not. You were. The least you could do is own it.

Goodnight.

How on Earth is it a gotcha moment. Carers assessment assess carers needs and how to help them continue caring, you really don't think decent financial payment is part of that? Carers need money too and those who cant work because of caring get a pitance, they even have part of their UC removed as CA is classed as income. Ofcourse they should be adequately financially supported for what they do and ofcourse that should be confirmed on more than just say so.

Surprised the Tories didn’t think of it to be honest. Sunak must’ve been kicking himself when it was proposed.

I asked Chat GPT what the "official pip fraud" figure could fund...

Even if PIP fraud is only around £100 million, that's still enough money to fund around 2,500 – 3,000 nurses, around 2,000 teachers, around 1,500 police officers, hundreds of new social homes, or a new secondary school. Small percentages can still equate to very large sums of taxpayer money.

Sure, as a line item in the Government's accounts, it may not be considered "material". But in real world terms? £100 million is a substantial sum of money that would have a meaningful impact on the lives of both the vulnerable and ordinary tax payers.

Co-pilot was the same.

I did own it at the time. You havent owned any of the lies youve wrote about me or even acknowledged that i may have a point even if you dont agree. Eg i dont believe the send reforms are a good thing, you even seemed to conflate carers assessment and carers allowance earlier today, you even dismissed my concerns about people being hospitalised for community care costs as saying its only for upto five years usually! Five years being held without even havimg commited a crime.

As a carer of a disabled child, it wouldn't feel like progress to me at all. Yet another hoop to jump through as well as the invasion of privacy when my life is already difficult enough. If I wanted a social care assessment, I'd request it.

I'm also not sure how a social worker assessment would be able to prove night care needs any more so than the endless forms and medical evidence I have already provided?