[Politics] Sunak's benefits shake up

beorhthelm · Apr 19, 2024

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
My initial feeling is that yes, of course it would be lovely to be able to obtain the 'dignity and pride' of work. And of course, if people can work then they should.

But mental health provision, and by that I mean getting a diagnosis and some sort of treatment plan, is pitiful and always has been.

Is Sunak saying that a doctor will grade someone's level of mental health illness, in such a way this will map the the number of hours a week they should be working before they are eligible for benefit? He seems to want to introduce a process whereby people are signed off with a 'fit for work' note.....

....the more he answers questions the more it sounds like a load of old bollocks. He has no idea how this is going to work. He wants 'other professionals' not GPs to decide about a patient's mental health, and has just stated that the GP is biased and not objective when reporting on a patient's mental health, because of the doctor-patient relationship....wow!

Yes, he wants an as yet unnamed group to decide on fitness to work, not GPs. That's the plan.

Maybe he is going to put the 'fit note' granting in the hands of all those people who used to work for the post office and decided that thousands of postmasters were defrauding the post office. I'm sure many of them will soon be looking for new employment....

Brace yourself then, folks, for a 'fit for work directorate' to end the 'mental health culture'.

After all, yes, sinister. Of course it is. What a guy

that doesnt sound sensible for government to create. though it sounds like "occupational health" or "capability" most larger organisations will have, someone who judges if someone is properly recovered from some illness, what they can do, planned return to work etc. it's not GP's job to do that, so see the point there, having to see a "sick inspector" at the local benefits office isnt going to be accepted.

GJN1 · Apr 19, 2024

A1X said:
This is the thing where they're taking the decision on people's wellbeing out of the hands of medical professionals and putting it into the hands of some Government contractor to make the decision, isn't it? Or is that a different story kicking around today?

And the government contractor will doubtless be a party donor too.

KZNSeagull · Apr 19, 2024

If these assessors are the same lot that do the PIP assessments then this will die on it's arse very quickly. It is a standing joke that PIP applications are usually declined by the assessors and then overturned on appeal.
Now if he were using this as an exercise to find out why so many people have mental health issues preventing them from working and then doing something positive about it then this may be a good initiative. But he isn't and it isn't.

A1X · Apr 19, 2024

Weststander said:
Will it have time to be operational by the GE?

Well they don't seem to be able to get anything at all done at the moment so I would guess not

A1X · Apr 19, 2024

dwayne said:
It does feel like this country and especially the youth (yes I know they have it hard) are pretty work shy these days. Hard to recruit in retail for instance since Brexit.

Nothing like a bit of ageist discrimination for a Friday morning, is there?

Weststander · Apr 19, 2024

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
Indeed. He's shoring up the blue rinse vote by promising to clamp down on scroungers. To to so he's going to create a new body that will decide whether someone can be signed off from work due to illness.

Let's get this clear. The GP will need to do the diagnosis. However, the decision about whether the patient can be signed off from work sick, particularly when the health issue is a mental health issue, will be decided by a new organization, as yet uncreated.

Wow. Just wow. This isn't simply imposing limits on benefits. It is taking healthcare decisions out of the hands of GPs and indeed hospital consultants. Wow.

Looking at polling, that shoring up yields 19%

. Under FPTP what do you reckon, 125 seats? Might be worse as another 15% support Reform, so splitting the vote.

MJsGhost · Apr 19, 2024

HeaviestTed said:
I wonder if any of his friends at multi national companies that provide a workforce at a cost will tender for the contract?

Fujitsu probably need to keep their heads down for a bit, so maybe Rishi can line up a good deal with someone like Infosys?

The AI-powered fit-note chatbot will be up and running in weeks. No need for pesky GPs getting their medical opinions in the way...

dwayne · Apr 19, 2024

A1X said:
Nothing like a bit of ageist discrimination for a Friday morning, is there?

When I were a lad everyone I knew had part time jobs , restaurants , shops , paper rounds whatever. The majority of 16-23 year olds I know now don't seem to. Again maybe I'm completely wrong , would need to see the stats.

Weststander · Apr 19, 2024

A1X said:
Nothing like a bit of ageist discrimination for a Friday morning, is there?

There has been a structural change post pandemic. 100,000’s of the 16 to 30 cohort don’t want to be slaves to the 35 to 40 hour week that we signed up to. I know some of them. Not laziness, instead self awareness of mental health. The same in other countries eg France.

Harry Wilson's tackle · Apr 19, 2024

I sit on a university panel that decides whether students can be given extensions for coursework, or defer an exam, due to mitigating circumstances. The request should be specified (i.e., 'can I have an extra week'). Often the student leaves this part blank and lets the committee decide.

If the request is based on a medical issue (less than half are), the committee needs to see a medical certificate. When we see it we have to decided whether it covers the relevant period. For example we may have a student asking for a 2 week extension because they had documented gastroenteritis during the last three days of a 2 month period during which they were supposed to be working on a dissertation. We then have to exercise our judgement. Not about the medical condition but about the response to it, the 'benefit' if you like. In the present example we could say 'the student should of got the work done earlier rather than finish it off on the last 3 days'. What we would actually do would be to give them an extra week, because they were sick when they were expected t be working. Facts about health win here, not moral judgements about the student's lifestyle or work-planning strategem.

An extra week. Not a lifetime's reward of free money.

And we are not judging the impact of the health condition on the student's ability to work. Why? Because we are not the student's GP. Who are we to over-rule the clinical decision of a clinician? Remember the student came to us with a sick note for the relevant period. The clinician has made their decision based on clinical judgement. Hence the sick note.

What Sunk is doing here is saying that the GP is wrong and some other body needs to make the clinical decision about someone's fitness to work.

The reality is that creating this new system will be insanely expensive and would pay for itself only if most of the GP's decisions were over-ruled.

So it is a laughable bit of vote-bait for the hard of thinking, who imagine their taxes will be reduced by taking money away from scroungers. This one is even more preposterous and unworkable than the Rwanda wheeze. It will simply cost money and cause distress. What a guy.

dwayne · Apr 19, 2024

Weststander said:
There has been a structural change post pandemic. 100,000’s of the 16 to 30 cohort don’t want to be slaves to the 35 to 40 hour week that we signed up to. I know some of them. Not laziness, instead self awareness of mental health. The same in other countries eg France.

Yer but they can't expect the tax payers to prop them up ! Fair enough if they don't want to work but they can't expect to have the insta flash lifestyle if they don't work. But I do feel sorry for the youth , back in the day if you rolled up your sleeves you could work your way up and make pretty good money, that's not really the case anymore. the average pay is terrible in the UK as well, we are well behind the US.

Harry Wilson's tackle · Apr 19, 2024

dwayne said:
When I were a lad everyone I knew had part time jobs , restaurants , shops , paper rounds whatever. The majority of 16-23 year olds I know now don't seem to. Again maybe I'm completely wrong , would need to see the stats.

Why don't you stop hanging around with 16-23 year olds, then?

I know you like a wind up, Dwayne, but on this occasions, why don't you just f*** the f*** off, eh?

:thumbsup:

dwayne · Apr 19, 2024

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
Why don't you stop hanging around with 16-23 year olds, then?

I know you like a wind up, Dwayne, but on this occasions, why don't you just f*** the f*** off, eh?

How about, prove me wrong if you disagree with me, rather than needless abuse.

GJN1 · Apr 19, 2024

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
Indeed. He's shoring up the blue rinse vote by promising to clamp down on scroungers. To to so he's going to create a new body that will decide whether someone can be signed off from work due to illness.

Let's get this clear. The GP will need to do the diagnosis. However, the decision about whether the patient can be signed off from work sick, particularly when the health issue is a mental health issue, will be decided by a new organization, as yet uncreated.

Wow. Just wow. This isn't simply imposing limits on benefits. It is taking healthcare decisions out of the hands of GPs and indeed hospital consultants. Wow.

I think they should just let Mel Stride make each and every decision. Useless sack of tripe.

WATFORD zero · Apr 19, 2024

dwayne said:
When I were a lad everyone I knew had part time jobs , restaurants , shops , paper rounds whatever. The majority of 16-23 year olds I know now don't seem to. Again maybe I'm completely wrong , would need to see the stats.

Well it was you that quoted some statistics here

dwayne said:
This message board is so left wing !

I'm not a Tory boy , I would probably vote labour at the next GE.

But I saw a stat the other day that showed a record 54.2% of people (36 million) now live in households which received more in benefits than they contributed in taxes, which is a little disturbing. Would be good to see the stats without pensioners.

It does feel like this country and especially the youth (yes I know they have it hard) are pretty work shy these days. Hard to recruit in retail for instance since Brexit.

The source for this statistic ? (Which even you must understand would look VERY different without pensioners :facepalm:

)

https://www.civitas.org.uk/publications/an-analysis-of-the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income/#:~:text=This analysis of Office for,than they paid in taxes.

Civitas, a right wing think tank based at 55 Tufton Street . If you use these organisations as the basis for your information, then it really shouldn't be a surprise that you would find this message board very left wing. Ever been had ? :laugh:

stewart12 · Apr 19, 2024

dwayne said:
When I were a lad everyone I knew had part time jobs , restaurants , shops , paper rounds whatever. The majority of 16-23 year olds I know now don't seem to. Again maybe I'm completely wrong , would need to see the stats.

I have a large extended family and all the teenagers in it work, as do their mates. They couldn't wait to start earning

The Clamp · Apr 19, 2024

I think some sort of Hunger Games arrangement would be best.

dwayne · Apr 19, 2024

WATFORD zero said:
Well you quoted some statistics here

The source for this statistic ? (And it would look VERY different without pensioners )

https://www.civitas.org.uk/publications/an-analysis-of-the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income/#:~:text=This analysis of Office for,than they paid in taxes.

Civitas, a right wing think tank based at 55 Tufton Street. If you use these organisations for informing you, then it really shouldn't be a surprise that you would find this message board very left wing. Ever been had ?

Yer fair enough , although this was reported in all media outlets

This is a bit more nuanced. Still doesn't paint a great picture.

Are half of British households a burden on the state? - Full Fact

"Half of Britain is a burden on the state," the Sunday Times reported over the weekend. A number of newspapers also reported the news that the majority …

fullfact.org

Using ONS data, we broke down the numbers into retired and non-retired households. The chart below illustrates how much each household gains from state benefits or contributes to the national income.

This shows a slightly different picture, as working-age households in the middle-earning quintile contribute more to the state then they receive. Across all income brackets, if you take out pensioners, the percentage of net recipients is 39.6% - not 53.4%. One could therefore argue that a big driver for the increase in the number of net recipients is the rise in the number of retired households.

Bloody pensioners.

WATFORD zero · Apr 19, 2024

dwayne said:
Yer fair enough , although this was reported in all media outlets

Well that is a major part of the various shady organisations that reside in Tufton Street :shrug:

dwayne said:
One could therefore argue that a big driver for the increase in the number of net recipients is the rise in the number of retired households.

I would sit down dwayne because I have some shocking news to break to you about the religion of the pope, where bears defecate and Dolly Parton's sleeping position :wink:

nicko31 · Apr 19, 2024

Attack the poor, not wealth

Rinse and repeat

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Sunak's benefits shake up

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Oooh Matron, I'm an

Well-known member

Well-known member

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Well-known member

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page