Cornwallboy
Active member
- Oct 13, 2022
- 392
Indeed you are.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Sunak's benefits shake up
- Thread starter Harry Wilson's tackle
- Start date
stewart12
Well-known member
- Jan 16, 2019
- 1,607
depends how you define "legitimate"
every applicant for PIP goes through a length application process. Their application needs to be supported by medical evidence from a health professional (consultant, GP, support worker etc). They then are heavily scrutinised in an independent assessment from someone who is, apparently, medically trained. Loads are turned down at this point with the option of appeal and later and independent tribunal- which finds in favour of the applicant in most cases.
For what was ESA, which has now been (mostly) incorporated into Universal Credit, applicants are again required to submit medical evidence, in this case a signed note from their GP. They are also separately required to attend an assessment with a DWP appointed "health professional" who assesses their claim and their ability to work.
In both cases their claim is ultimately scrutinised by several qualified health professionals. How legitimate does a claim need to be exactly?
Quite correct, and you can say the same about public sector wages. In many ways, the best way for a Government to get itself out of economic hard times is to give the people they employ more money to go and spend in the wider economy (their money is as good in a shop as anyone in the private sector) as a means of getting things moving. Few Governments, especially those on the right, seem to realise this however.
If I discuss NSC posts with any other user at all I’m also only discussing their usage.
You seem obsessed with whataboutery and perceived hypocrisy, rather than controlling your own trolling.
Next time you will be gone for good. Other stuff may also happen to other people.
In general this thread is riddled with poor behaviour.
Cornwallboy
Active member
- Oct 13, 2022
- 392
Wow so if that's the case every claimant is legitimate and nobody ever cheats the system and clearly the 850k extra claimants since Covid have every right to claim benefits. Maybe the one benefit claimant I know who is late 40's and has never held down a FT job as he 'doesn't want one' has not been cheating the system for 30 odd years but has every right to live in the council house provided to him and spend the money the Govn give him for doing f all. Do you know what he says? When these 'crackdowns' are launched he makes a token effort to look for work, if you do that they soon leave you alone and you continue as you are. He is a living and breathing example of what is wrong with the benefit system and if he finally loses all of his benefits it will serve him right. I do find it hard to believe he isn't the only one milking the system but again I reiterate there are plenty of genuine claimants who deserve full support be in financial or mental health support.
stewart12
Well-known member
- Jan 16, 2019
- 1,607
yep! this was a perennial issue for me. The claimant would be turned down and turned down to the point of tribunal, get awarded it at tribunal with a lovely big f*** off back payment which would immediately get blown down "wine me up"
I'd rather we had a situation where everyone who needed support got it and risked a few who aren't entitled got something than a situation where genuine claimants miss out personally. I'm not naive enough to claim everyone getting it is legitimate, but I want to make sure everyone who needs help gets it.
My mother in law is a wheelchair user who, despite having knowledge from decades of navigating the system, still struggles to successfully claim for everything she is due. She becomes terrified whenever changes to policy, process and assessment is announced as it's such a stressful thing.
Often lost amongst all the rhetoric is the sense of embarrassment and shame that (perfectly entitled) people feel when BeNeFiT FrAuDSTeRs becomes the topic de jour.
I presume that any plans to limit or remove state benefits by the Tories will include state pensions? Or are the valuable Tory voters of 65+ not included when he talks about benefits?
stewart12
Well-known member
- Jan 16, 2019
- 1,607
As I said, if he's on what was ESA then he's been assessed by several trained health professionals and also this is reviewed on a regular basis.
although if he's required to look for work then sounds like he's on what was JSA.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 10,711
Why does that have to be the bar.?
For every £1 fraudulently claimed , there is £2.38 unclaimed by people eligible for benefits.
Any attempt to "crackdown" on fraud will add further complexity into the system, which will also increase the number of eligible claimants that will not claim.
Cornwallboy
Active member
- Oct 13, 2022
- 392
I don't even know what 'trolling' is mate. If it's posting stuff people disagree with then yes I'm a troll. However I don't do it to be a 'troll' as I say what I mean and mean what I say. I know for some reason 'whataboutery' is frowned upon on NSC but sometimes it can add legitimacy to one's argument. As for hypocricy we are all guilty to a greater or lesser extent of hypocritical behaviour at times, myself very much so. I'm not sure about 'poor behaviour' on this thread, to me it seems like a healthy debate.
If I discuss NSC posts with any other user at all I’m also only discussing their usage.
You seem obsessed with whataboutery and perceived hypocrisy, rather than controlling your own trolling.
Next time you will be gone for good. Other stuff may also happen to other people.
In general this thread is riddled with poor behaviour.
stewart12
Well-known member
- Jan 16, 2019
- 1,607
absolutely, the whole application process is seemingly designed to discourage people from applying in the first place. It's very dehumanising
Cornwallboy
Active member
- Oct 13, 2022
- 392
He knows exactly how to 'play the game' hence why he's got away with it for so long. I can't believe he's not the only one. If this crackdown does flush out a load of people like him and it frees up money for genuine claimants then to me it's a win win.
Cornwallboy
Active member
- Oct 13, 2022
- 392
The 'bar' needs to be crackdown down on people claiming benefits who shouldn't be.
Back in the 1930s, the economist John Maynard Keynes was arguing that the best way to revive a stagnant economy was to increase government spending through public and private investment in infrastructure (transport, housing, schools, hospitals, etc), which would then create jobs and higher wages (and enhance tax revenues for the Treasury), and boost people's spending power, while alleviating poverty and welfare dependency. The State needed to become more active, not withdraw.
He likened cutting spending, investment and wages in a recession, or a period of austerity, to fighting a fire by dousing the flames in petrol!
Many Tories today would probably denounce this as Communist - yet Keynes was a Liberal.
Last edited:
Some would say cruel when you factor in that a significant number of claimants struggle with the confidence and comprehension to navigate through it (and are often too embarrassed to ask for help).
stewart12
Well-known member
- Jan 16, 2019
- 1,607
sounds like he won't be effected by this "crackdown" as he is in, even in the eyes of the DWP, fit to work if he's been asked to do so. A slightly separate issue really as this is more about those who are signed off
You really think a Tory government would say "Right, we've saved £2 billion in fraudulent welfare claims, we are now going to increase spending on genuine welfare claimants", as opposed to "Right, we've saved £2 billion in fraudulent welfare claims, we are now going to give away another £2 billion in tax cuts to our rich mates and sponsors in the City."?