It is a terrible place for disabled people to be in, they once they are adult, or unable to fulfil any ability to work, the do 'have to' claim, how would they live? By redefining ability work with no link or realistic commitment to actual work availability they have by semantics created a justification for their inhumane policies. Backed up of course by dubious studies and experts. All of which has been lapped up by the rest of the anglophone political technocrat world, who love this stuff, and buraeucrats everywhere else. From outside of a disability context this might make sense to the naive or the blinkered, from the inside it is terrifying.ephemerid wrote:You're right - the DWP has no "duty of care" and the ministers are not accountable in law for the deaths (untoward, or suicides).seeingclearly wrote:
The human rights case would seem better, there was no due diligence, no impact assessments and anything that might have mitigated the policies in term of changing the detail has been vigourously denied to the point of taking it to the highet courts in the land, using the law to protect political decisions instead of people. As to culpability though, I am sure that IDS will haave covered his back well. Someone else will be expected to fall on their sword if it ever gets to that point. Diplomacy being what it is, I doubt it will. Which is why he laughs, he is untouchable and knows it.
But - it is the duty of government to ensure that policies are fit for purpose. Of course, that depends on what the purpose is.....
In the case of social security, historically at least, new benefits have been brought in gradually with mitigation over time as/when problems arise; and impact assessments have been good practice for many years when changes of the magnitude of the WRA and the H&SC Act are debated in both Houses and discussed at committee stage.
But Grayling pushed the WRA through by invoking Commons Financial Privilege - and as a total impact assessment was judged "too difficult" (even though the CAB and others did their own) t was never going to happen.
As I said earlier - nobody "has" to claim benefits. Those who do must comply with the conditions. The WRA has ensured that those conditions can be altered as and when ministers see fit.
There are no official targets. There are "projections" and "expectations", and any evidence that DWP staff are imposing targets is explained away by "over-zealous" local management.
IDS is untouchable - and he insists that he is "helping" people, he insists that he wants to tackle what he calls the root causes of poverty, and he will continue to get away with this until he is either unseated or we get a new government - or the cases currently being examined by UN Special Rapporteurs result in a human rights case brought against DWP.
More and more I feel that while continuing to campaign is vital and may bring tiny mitigations, under the politics we are lumbered with no real change is likely to emerge. I dream of something different, mainly for others, because it won't happen in time for me. When people attack Labour, and now attack Corbyn, they attack the hopes of many. They know that and do so anyway.
