Tories' plans to take half a million people off incapacity benefits

[policywonk]

There's not much detail available (that I've been able to find) but the story in a nutshell is here

IIRC, you have to fill in a vast form and be signed off by a GP to receive incapacity benefit. What 'medical assessment' are the Tories going to devise that's going to be more accurate than that? Or are they just looking for a way to take vulnerable people off higher rates of benefits?

Or am I missing something?

Anything that targets help at those really in need as opposed to playing the system is good,imo.

Smee - sadly I do believe that a significant number of school leavers have no work ethic, few social skills and no idea of basic writing/arithmetic. DP runs a business that employs low-skilled machine operatives. His work force is almost entirely made up of middle-aged women because all of the school leavers he has employed (and especially the boys) have had timekeeping and attendance problems, motivational problems and difficulties understanding basic instructions. Now we live in a nice little town in a very nice area and these school leavers are coming from the local 'very good' school. I also know a lecturer who says the same and a couple of other business owners in the area who agree. I think it is very sad how badly schools are failing our children.

Apols for the tangent.

Callisto - the manifestos are being written at the moment, I think. The Tories haven't given any indication that their policy on inheritance tax will change. They've also been indicating recently that they might reverse the 50 per cent top rate change.

I disagree that the notional builder would rather remain on benefits than get a desk job, or would need some incentive to get him to consider desk work. Most people, in my experience, would rather work than draw benefits, because living on benefits alone is really hard. And anyway, as Warto said below, surely any decent benefits service would be proactive in pointing out where someone could undertake retraining. (I don't know how far this happens at the moment.)

WannaBe, re. your points about people being reviewed: for people signed off due to mental illnesses, being reviewed can be immensely stressful. I know someone who qualifies for a long-term sickness payment from his private employer, but every year he is reviewed by the employer's insurance company. Every year, without fail, when he gets the letter telling him that his review is due, his mental health takes a big hit. I'm not saying that nobody should be reviewed - but again, surely it's not beyond the wit of civil servants to think up a polioy that can distinguish between those whose conditions really are lifelong problems, and those who could legitimately be reviewed on a one-year, five-year or ten-year basis? One thing I really dislike about the way politicans (of both parties, as LM says) address this debate is that all incapacity claimants are treated as borderline workshy frauds, with no attempt to distinguish between them.

As to people who don't want to start work because they might lose their benefits - this is a big problem, and one that nobody seems willing to address. I know someone who's on long-term incapacity benefit: there are so many things he can't do, work he can't undertake, courses he can't sign up to because he would lose his IB. Yet he is truly incapable of holding down a job for any length of time. Why must benefits rules be structured so as to deny claimants any chance to become involved in day-to-day working/studying/travelling activities? Again, presumably because we must treat everyone as a potential fraud, and hang the dreadful social and self-esteem consequences for everyone else.

(Nice to see you back BTW Peachy, was wondering what you thought about all this.)

Yes, sorry I didn't mean to imply that the builder is work-shy, just it probably wouldn't occur to him that he could be a candidate for a desk job. I'm not sure how good job centres are are getting people to widen their horizons either - not very I suspect.

I'd agree we need to review who gets this support - only give to those that genuinely cannot get a job. Those with this benefit should have reviews and agree what sort of work they are capable of - if they refuse jobs they are capable of doing then remove the benefit. Far too much waste of resources and not enough going to those that genuinely need it.

Callisto - agree with what you say as my DW works in a special school. All leavers should have a basic set of skills and not allowed to leave school / education (unless they have a job to go to) without getting a leavers certificate. We are still failing our children and the next generation.

I think it is ridiculous that getting on a training scheme would adversely affect one's benefits. Surely bettering oneself while on benefits should be part and parcel of the process of getting another job.

PW

Dh's health used to go through the floor every time work sent him a meeting letter; even if he was managing to tick along with no time off, a review would come through and the stress would have him off in days. Predictable as anything.

'Why must benefits rules be structured so as to deny claimants any chance to become involved in day-to-day working/studying/travelling activities? Again, presumably because we must treat everyone as a potential fraud, and hang the dreadful social and self-esteem consequences for everyone else' I so agree; i;'ve coped OK ver allt eh years with DH, the boys etc but after DH lost his work (at Uni now and working) my self esteem has taken a massive hit. I really hate claiming. I am doing an MA now as well, but as well as the sheer shame of claiming there's so much about work that feeds yu emotinally and spiritually whcih you can't get elsewhere (except coluntary work which is what I did last year but with DH out of the house now in daytime (did work nights) and no respite that's looking unlikely)

The forms for these things are no picnic. 'Making it harder' won't stop the thieving gits who milk the system, but it may well mean that 'deserving' don't manage to jump through the metaphorical hoops.

I'm rather fed up of this sort of nonsense. We have a benefits system and some people get caught in a benefits trap. You don't solve that by throwing people off benefits and into destitution, you solve that by making it worthwhile to be in work.

Good grief, I sound like a lefty, what have I been drinking?

I grew up in West Yorshire and when the mines closed an enormous amount of previously fit and healthy men suddenly became incapable of work. This was because there were simply no other jobs to be had.Proud, strong, working class men being forced to pretend to be sick - a disgrace.
Now the next generation are in the same situation. The doctors are utterly complicit - because what's the alternative?

If you are incapable of work then of course you should be looked after by the state.
However, we must target the areas of high unemployment and generate them so that people don't just feel that ICB is a viable option, but frankly the only option.

Yes, we must get people off ICB but other things must be on offer in their place. Proper training, jobs etc.

Why not try to help the large amount of people who WANT to work back to work as a priority? Why not invest in childcare so more women could actually afford to go to work? This is just headline-grabbing and the Tories will win because too many people headline-vote.

I think the issue with any kind of benefits discussion is that there are always two extremes. Either we are talking about those who are genuinely in need, or those who must be scroungers and defrauding the system. there doesn't appear to be any middle ground in the discussion.

But IMO there is middle ground. Because there are people who perhaps could be out there working but are claiming incapasity, they're not necessarily scroungers or layabouts, they perhaps find it hard to find work or impossible to see how they could make a career change after becoming disabled, or may have had a long term illness hence the incapasity claim and having been out of work for so long they cannot see themselves returning so they don't. And because there is no review, they're not encouraged back to work.

LOL Kay

right though

I havea copy of the dla form that I love to waveat people dubious about its validity; nightmare iot is, and many can't claim becauseit is a hurdle. Genuine claimants, thesort whomihght struggle anyway with forms often.

Indeed our CTB claim from May still hasn't been sorted and they just write to us every now and agin wanting different paperwork. I'm still sending but have given up.

SDD, I think it's fair enough to assess people's fitness for work, in principle. But (to be honest) I just don't trust the Tories (or NuLab if it comes to that) to do it humanely. If you're going to take an army of highly trained people to undertake medical assessment, and then a further army of counsellors and careers advisers to help those who can work back into work that is appropriate for them, that would be great. But let's be honest - that's not going to happen. We're going to end up with an army of low-skilled private welfare operatives with targets to meet. The consequences for the more vulnerable claimants are going to be awful.

Kay, bloody hell, where have you been?

Litchickj I agree

Wannabe I think you have a point but many of those will still have an underlying health issue and right now my guess is their eggs are fried- seriously, when every job vacancy has +++ applicants, who will employ the one with real health issues on the disclosure form?

It's a trapcreated as mcuh by society and - dare I say it- realism as by the benefit system, and one that is amde worse by high unemployment

Wannabe - exactly right - review those who get ICB to find out what they could do and what support they need to get back to work. I also firmly believe that claimants should be no worse off if they take a job than if they were on benefits - another crazy situation that we have let develop.

What will happen will be what happened with respite.

When they needed to not take anyone else on, they just moved the goalposts by redefining disability in a way that excluded almost everyone with ASD. There ae no alternatives, just a no from them as well.

It will be the same with IB: there will be no extra help for anyone to get a (non existent) job, they just won't be able to get IB either.

I also think that there should be a complete review of anyone getting benefit because of depression or stress. While there may be some genuine cases I think many are bogus and im a lot of cases could be improved by working. I know someone who is an expert on the right things to say when seeing the dss doctor for stress/depression.

I agree that there are areas of economic depression (often former manufacturing/industrial areas) where people need intensive help to get back to work. I confidently expect a full day of the Conservative Party conference to be dedicated to this issue

I've been wading through the DLA form myself, PW, 'tis an involved business.

You're right though, this isn't an issue that can be solved with the half-arsed franchised-out method. But no political party seems capable of thinking up any other method.

I guess though, PW, this is a thorn which has to be grasped. If you asked anyone in West Yorshire, or the Valleys if they knew someone swinging the lead, the answer would be yes.
It makes folk mightily pissed off - especially the working poor who are slogging their guts out and see others claiming for not much less.
When my Dad was made redundant he was actually quite ill from working down the pit ( lung disease, white finger) and his doc told him he would sign him off. But my Dad refused, prefering to work as he felt it gave him dignity. And as he said, if you go about pretending you've a bad chest or back, pretty soon you'll start to believe it.
But if he had been a younger man with a family he might have been persuaded to take the safer option no?

WannaBe, I agree that there might well be people in the middle. I guess I disagree with you about how many of them there are, proportionately. As Kay and Peachy have said, claiming IB is extremely hard, and already requires a GP to sign you off. The notion that 500,000 people have ended up on IB by accident... I just don't see any evidence for it.

Plus, Peachy has a very good point: where are the jobs for these 500,000 people, who have long-term health issues and have been out of the labour market for years? They're not, in the main, going to find employment. They're just going to have their benefits cut.

Squaish there arepeople that can do that for any syndrome, they willjust change their fake-dx leaving seriously ill people vulnerable

yuo know, he knows- its always thesame- well I am married to someone for whom working with depression almost cost his life (he did attempt) and even when he was sacked for being ill all he got was 'just take a tablet yo'll feel OK'- nothing, no mh nurse,psych- nothing. One gp told him that hewouldnt recover as long as heworked nights but nobody told him/ about Ib so we never claimed and lost the house (I was 38weeks pg so unable to work, did have a job).

Nobody worries about those out there not getting what they are entitled to- and those that are become fraudsters. As if beating people down a bit further helps people into work.

When jobs are scarce and money tight, there seems to be a need to demonise those qew perceive as getting off lightly- IB claimants are always a target for that

Of course people prefer to get more money than less. Despite the stories straight out of the news of the World, £20 difference is quite a lot when you're trying to exist on benefits.

Litchick, I see your point (I also have family in S Wales - every one of them gainfully employed, I must point out - and the employment opportunities for ex-miners without much in the way of formal education are extremely limited).

I suppose it comes down to a choice: is it better to keep the system as it is, and risk some people claiming fraudulently? Or alter the system as proposed by both parties (it seems), and risk genuine and vulnerable claimants being victimised? (Given that the third option, which we'd all prefer, isn't one that either party is prepared to fund.)