Finally - benefits sense!

[Marmora Man]

I was commenting on a Labour Government policy and recommending the thinking of a previous Labour Government minister.

Why or how did this somehow become a debate about Conservatives and / or privatisation?

[Asset]

oh, you know.. just the natural progression of a conversation. Surely commenting on Labour policies will lead to discussion of other political parties' policies.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

If sick/depressed/incapacitated people were allowed to keep their benefits and work part-time or even full-time if they could manage it, don't you think that would be the way forward instead of scaring the crap out of already vulnerable people.

If you are sick/depressed/incapacitated you often have good days and bad days, the current system of all or nothing benefts is a dicsincentive to anyone in that position to even attempt to start working.

The way the system is set up is what causes the dependancy culture, not the people who have become dependant on it.

[Brendan]

Although there are plenty of sick and depressed people who work to support themselves and their families and just battle on through.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Very healthy that is Brendan, I'd recommend everyone do that!

So because we are expected to sell our soul to 'The Man' and anything that results in lower productivity, like breeding, getting sick, suffering from depressed, or being born disabled should be discouraged and we should all push our health and sanity to the limits to make our bosses rich, unless we are the bosses, then we get others to pay this health tax on our behalf instead.

[SeanMacGabhann]

First thing to say that if the problem of helping ill people back to work was such a problem, measures could easily be taken as part of normal govt. business. The reason this is such a hooplah is to appear tough and macho - and innocent people will suffer because of it. But middle-Britain will feel that "something is being done" - such is mean-spiritedness

Incetivising people - well as motorists know all too well, if you incentivise people they will exceed guidelines in a bid to chase targets/ money. Bad enough when it's a (non) parking offence but when you are playing with people's lives it's a different matter

"I believe the government proposals are flawed and won?t achieve all their objectives but the basic premise that society (not just government) should help those in real need and weed out those who seek to exploit the system, seems a worthwhile task to me. "

I basically agree with this statement - I just don't believe that weeding out those who seek to exploy the system is either the ultimate goal nor happy consequence. You and I won't benefit, scociety won't benefit, a minority of scroungers may be caught but at the expense of others. As has been discussed before, scroungers exist - always have and will. But they are a minority - nor are they living the life of Reilly. And they cost relatively puny amounts.

The assumption that all 2.5 million people on IB can or should be encouraged back into employment is also slightly iffy. It means finding 2.5 million jobs for starters. And what quality or suitability of jobs will they be?

Your maths also seem to jump to a very neat "scaled-up" sum. Where is the cost of implementing and maintaining this scheme?

[KalamityKel]

Where exactly are all these "jobs" going to come from?

[Marmora Man]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

First thing to say that if the problem of helping ill people back to work was such a problem, measures could easily be taken as part of normal govt. business.

I don't think so - this problem has plagued all governments since the 50's, more seriously since the 80's. One of Frank Field's points is that by creating a two tier benefit arrangement where those that are "incapicitated" receive more than those "out of work" the system automatically incentivises people to try and graduate to the higher benefit

The reason this is such a hooplah is to appear tough and macho - and innocent people will suffer because of it. But middle-Britain will feel that "something is being done" - such is mean-spiritedness.

I'd agree the current Labour Gov't is keen to outflank the Conservative policies - but my argument here isn't about politics, it's about sensible management of a multi billion pound budget. What is so unreasonable about reducing the cost of fraud? There are plenty of non innocent people taking the benefit and p*** at present.

Incetivising people - well as motorists know all too well, if you incentivise people they will exceed guidelines in a bid to chase targets/ money. Bad enough when it's a (non) parking offence but when you are playing with people's lives it's a different matter

I doubt the current system, where no one is incentivised to get it right is anywhere near perfect. It is perfectly possible to devise an incentive scheme that makes the error rate (reducing false positives / negatives - really disabled / ill people being denied benefit and healthy people obtaining it) as part of the KPIs. I pay staff in my company a bonus for getting it right - not for cutting corners, why would / should the DWP be any different?

"I believe the government proposals are flawed and won?t achieve all their objectives but the basic premise that society (not just government) should help those in real need and weed out those who seek to exploit the system, seems a worthwhile

task to me. " I basically agree with this statement - I just don't believe that weeding out those who seek to exploy the system is either the ultimate goal nor happy consequence. You and I won't benefit, scociety won't benefit, a minority of scroungers may be caught but at the expense of others. As has been discussed before, scroungers exist - always have and will. But they are a minority - nor are they living the life of Reilly. And they cost relatively puny amounts.

While agreeing with my statement - you then go on to make some contradictory points. In my view weeding out those exploiting the system allows those in genuine need to receive better attention from the system. Society benefits because we are spending the taxpayers money on worthwhile matters not on wastrels. Potentially we all benefit from reduced tax take, or the truly incapacitated benefit from higher benefits. The puny amounts - if the total IB cost is, as has been estimated, approximately ?20 Billion then even a 10% savings is worth having?

The assumption that all 2.5 million people on IB can or should be encouraged back into employment is also slightly iffy. It means finding 2.5 million jobs for starters. And what quality or suitability of jobs will they be?

My illustration proposed that 20% of those on benefit returned to work - that's 500,000, not 2.5 million. I agree that the beginning of a recession is not the best time to start to reform the benefits arrangements - but it's not a reason to delay either. I noted this point in my original post.

Your maths also seem to jump to a very neat "scaled-up" sum. Where is the cost of implementing and maintaining this scheme?

Agreed. I wasn't building a Business Case - merely using large numbers to illustrate the proposition. However, the sort of savings that can potentially be made would cover the cost of implementing the changes. Ongoing would be an annual cost reduction to the benefit of all.

However, having defended my defence of Frank Field I still think that:

a. If the James Purnell Green Paper makes it thru' Parliament

and

b. It is implemented as described

(both unlikely propositions) then the actual, on the ground - in the Social Security office impact will be limited because of the inherent inefficiency of government and the lack of real incentives (not just cash incentives) to make change happen.

[Rico]

Truth is we may see zero change in total savings/expenditure. But you miss the point. It's not about being seen as macho as it is about being seen as fair. It's quite valid for the 'british public' to demand fairness, which means helping those who need it, being tough on those who are having a laugh...charts, graphs and intellectual snobbery disguised as championing the truly needy (hyperbole case studies of people who will not suffer under the plan) will not help your argument.

I also think it's about a mindset: work is good and we should all contribute. I especially think the idea that those who can't find work and are able should spend some time doing community work. Hardly 'shaming' - it's respectable work that needs doing.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I think "being occupied" is good. That's not the same as work. I just asked the woman who stocks the vending machines with her chronic back if work is "good" - she gave me a mouthful. I asked here why she didn't just take Incapacity Benefit and she said she qualifies but it is nowhere near enough...

Work for work sake is just dull, life sapping and nothing to aspire to

[Rico]

The new system will be ace for her. It will find her work that allows her to not use her bad back, stay occupied and have more money to enjoy life. She should be happy too.

[SeanMacGabhann]

where has all ths faith in the Government come from all of a sudden? (from people who usually decry it as inept)

At root, the proposals sound like they will help her. But this isn't some Ayn Rand fantasy world

[Marmora Man]

Sean,

Not me - I maintain my libertarian stance - government is inherently inefficient and too much of it is bad for us.

MM

xxxx

[Marmora Man]

Would also add that I support Rico's points - working to solve your own issues without government interference is a lynchpin of libertarianism, while the early Fabians would similarly acknowledge the dignity of work and abhor the more modern socialist concept of benefits for all.

[SeanMacGabhann]

well, the early Fabians never did a 12 hour shift in a call centre outside Leeds ;-)

Haven't seen many corporations agree with that statement too quickly of late. Governments are everyone's best friend when the fit hits the shan it would seem

[Marmora Man]

Haven't seen many corporations agree with that statement too quickly of late. Governments are everyone's best friend when the fit hits the shan it would seem

True but corporates are mini governments anyway and not strong holds of libertarianism

[Huguenot]

Never thought I'd say it, but I'm with MM on this.

SMG your arguments are shocking - wheeling out hard luck stories as an excuse for rational debate? Poor show.

The point is that none of these people are 'entitled' to anything. Feeling sh1t and having a bad back does not get you cash. Your daughter attempting to top herself is not an overdraft. Finding work soul-sapping and tedious is not a reason to pull fivers off trees.

These fivers are mine and yours, not an anonymous government.

We should make a considered effort to accept that government is neither anonymous nor independent. I insist that DWP make unreasonable endeavours to make sure that they're not giving our money to people who don't deserve it. If whinging Brenda can fill a coke machine to make some cash then she bloody well should.

If you feel strongly about her then you should slip her a twenty every week, but trust me, she won't like you for it, she'll hate you and ask for more. That's the paradox with benefits.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I had to re-read your post a few times to see if you weren't deliberately mis-representing me there Huguenot

My point about "whinging Brenda" is not that she should be allowed to put here feet up at our expense - it was to illustrate that, rather than a system which is being mercilessly milked, we actually have a system which isn't too wrong. Whinging Brenda is at work. As are most of the people like her. Whereas I would hazard that most of the people on IB are there for a reason - not because they are scrounging

[Brendan]

No need to have a go. I don?t whinge that much.

[SteveT]

Sean MG wrote: the early Fabians never did a 12 hour shift in a call centre outside Leeds

Our grandparents would have been pleased to get such a soft job, compared with the kind of brutal work they had to do to survive.

[Brendan]

I don?t know, having been born a few centuries after the time of indentured labour, my Grandmother worked half days in the post office and my Grandfather sold cars.

[Keef]

My grand parents ran pubs, and they brewery even funded a posh boarding school for them to send the kids away to, so they were laughing!

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

I would like to point out that since enclosures all us peasants have been turfed off our land and been made into the 'working class'. If we think the work you want us to do to survive is shit, give us back our land and we won't need your bloody benefits.

[Rico]

Oh I reckon we'd give the land back and before long you'd want the benefits back plus some.

[Marmora Man]

Never thought I'd say it, but I'm with MM on this.

Great news! Is this a permanent Damascene conversion or just temporary? I'll take all converts to common sense and libertarianism I can.