FlyTheNest

Less than a nano second of reflection would reveal the fundamentally flawed basis of UC and what it is supposed to address.Unfortunately,so ingrained were and are the myths,nigh impossible to counter.

HindleA wrote:Labour should commit to increasing benefits/allowances to either in one off or inbuilt compensatory (to make up for exponential loss)fashion to those not expected to work,else forever "behind".

Child benefit has now been frozen for nearly 8 years. That's quite a cut in support for families, yet it's barely ever mentioned. Instead we have reports on our rising child poverty rates that act as if it's some sort of mystery or riddle instead of a completely open and blatant reversal of the efforts of the last Labour government to eradicate child poverty. The immediate scrapping of child poverty targets by the incoming Coalition government was a bit of a clue as to the direction of travel but hey, let's all scratch our heads and say "how did this happen" because accepting a government elected by over 10m people has impoverished children callously and deliberately is too much like admitting complicity in this most vicious assault on the living standards of so many of those least able to defend themselves and their interests.

HindleA wrote:Less than a nano second of reflection would reveal the fundamentally flawed basis of UC and what it is supposed to address.Unfortunately,so ingrained where and are the myths,nigh impossible to counter.

I've been rather frustrated by the fact that Labour actually looked at combining benefits in this way when in government but concluded it couldn't be done, presumably for the very reasons it's been a disaster and yet have persisted in supporting it in theory. Why would you support something you yourself didn't do for fear it would be a damaging failure? I'm speaking beyond political capital reasons here, just in terms of knowing full well the technology wasn't there, that it couldn't be achieved in any form that would save money or improve lives, why would you support something you had good reason to believe would let down people when they need help the most? Because the IT was never there to support this, even if the idea of combining benefits was a good one, which it isn't, and Labour knew it.

UC and other reforms have and will create and exacerbate what they supposedly address.

Consensus (which not unusually I do not hold and never have)was that simplification in some sort of combination/process of application etc was "good" I like keeping things separate(even if having to repeat)particularly given fundamental differences in eligibility/purposes.Bespoke extra costs tend to disappear,as happened.

HindleA wrote:UC and other reforms have and will create and exacerbate what they supposedly address.

UC changes the benefit system to such a large degree that it makes it much harder to see how much help various people are now getting or not compared to before. The refusal to do cumulative impact assessments is particularly worrying because it shows a complete disregard for whether individuals and up getting the support they need or not once it's all in place.

Although I have absolute faith that Labour has the will to fix all of this I'm less confident they have the wherewithal to get to grips with it as urgently as will be needed. Something this flawed needs more than money, it needs a lot of experience and knowledge to properly address and I fear an incoming Labour government is going to get so much advice and suggestions they won't know who to listen to. It would, of course, he a better problem to have than the lack of will we have now, but it's still a concern based on the very slim amount coming out of Labour in the topic at the moment. I'm not even sure who the shadow DWP is at the moment.

As to the cliff edge,they've just shifted it about and non inclusions have differing consequences,so it's bollox they've removed the disincentive to work/work more hours.In our case,removed the ability firstly(if loan accepted)or cut income regardless given I couldn't have worked the necessary extra hours to make up the shortfall(not expected to work) ie misrepresentation of situation and reverse consequence of enaction.

Greenwood.

As the S of S sees fit without recourse to Parliament,a lot gets hidden even if looking.

Ah yes, thank you. She hasn't made much impact, has she? Though she hasn't been in the role long. If we don't get a snap election over the whole Brexit hoo ha, I think they need to get someone with a lot more presence in the role. Rudd is going to be a much tougher adversary than the likes of Gauke and Green.

The washing machine must be full/on a diet,the same number socks out as in.

"Friday night is wash night"

I don't know,I often ponder over the known/effective and relationship .

HindleA wrote:"Friday night is wash night"

[youtube]qyjUToEuMhQ[/youtube]

Friday is the new Monday.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"compassionate",meaningless twaddle of self and attempted persuasion of others deception.

Willow904 wrote:Ah yes, thank you. She hasn't made much impact, has she? Though she hasn't been in the role long. If we don't get a snap election over the whole Brexit hoo ha, I think they need to get someone with a lot more presence in the role. Rudd is going to be a much tougher adversary than the likes of Gauke and Green.

Could Debbie Abrahams make a return?

Her departure always seemed a little odd. She's still very good on this stuff.

Having defined compassion accordingly,I suggest Rudd is full of it.

https://debbieabrahams.com/pages/about" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/li ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'get her f******* dog off bus'
Megan Taylor was told her dog couldn't be a guide dog 'because it was black not yellow'


Congratulations you have been successful in your application for assessment officer.

Hang on a minute I put more than socks in...

And I am sure I just heard it burb.

Willow904 wrote: I've been rather frustrated by the fact that Labour actually looked at combining benefits in this way when in government but concluded it couldn't be done, presumably for the very reasons it's been a disaster and yet have persisted in supporting it in theory.

IIRC it was Alastair Darling who listened to the civil servants and concluded it couldn't be done, so the obvious answer is that the Labour people who support it 'in theory' aren't as bright as Darling. Also, it sounds good to the average poorly informed voter, rather like the household theory of economics which most of them also support.

Willow904 wrote:
Although I have absolute faith that Labour has the will to fix all of this I'm less confident they have the wherewithal to get to grips with it as urgently as will be needed.

I think it depends how long we have to wait for a GE that Labour win, if it's soonish then it shouldn't be a huge problem as the legacy system will still be handling the majority of people, beyond 2022 I think it will be problematic, as you say.

better off in work/a more simple system,to be strictly fair was agreed in principle,however the fundamentally flaw was seeming to accept too easily the criticism of the old/present system and couldn't be suitably adjusted in any case and to my mind "more simple/easier to understand "isn't necessarilly better.

I think the functions of income eligibility and employment support should be separated else,the latter becomes the means to reduce the former,inevitably.

For HindleA

PorFavor wrote:

HindleA wrote:"Friday night is wash night"

[youtube]qyjUToEuMhQ[/youtube]

One of those songs you hear as a kid growing up and never forget...

All's fair in love,war,cryptic crosswords and football

"Oor Wullie looking for his bucket,rumours it has been painted blue"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.habinteg.org.uk/ehrc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://inews.co.uk/news/real-life/work ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;