Forum > Welfare Rights

Advice required please PIP question

<< < (2/2)

Sunny Clouds:
With that sort of thing, I tend to make certain default assumptions.

My general view for starters, then my deductions, and application to this.

When people at the top want to make or save money, it filters down the system, but by the time it gets to the bottom it's distorted.  This has happened throughout history. 

So in relation to benefits, here's how I see it.  I'm talking about recent Tory and Coalition governments of the UK, but I don't see New Labour as awfully different on it.

Politicians want to save money.  Politicians in the same party and the same government may have different motivations and understandings, but agreements on how to go about things.

So some politicians believe the rubbish that means there couldn't possibly be so many disabled people and aren't interested in  having it explained to them about things like advances in modern medicine over recent generations meaning higher survival rates with disability, whether that's at birth or later in life.

Others know there are lots of disabled people but just like to pretend otherwise in furtherance of their small state beliefs or, as I see it, 'gimme the money, let them starve and blame them' beliefs.  (Yes, I'm a leftie.)

Meanwhile they also believe in contracting out.  Some believe it's more efficient, some believe it's cheaper, some want to give profit to their mates, some believe it's part of the general fight against all-controlling extreme leftism.

Ok, so some companies bid for contracts.  In doing so, they say they'll save money.

So at every level, people wanting to get promotion or even just keep their jobs aim to achieve that.  But people at various levels realise there are problems, not least that there are more disabled people than they were told.  Also, those cheating the system are the savvy ones and least likely to be caught or easily got rid of, so if you want to reduce numbers, you target the vulnerable ones.

The same happens with unemployment benefits and a range of benefits to reduce poverty for a range of reasons.

In any big organisation it can happen.   It's strengthened by certain established memes in parts of the media.  I'll use an analogy from unemployment benefits such as JSA, UC etc.

Young person has been out of work for ages.  He says he doesn't want a job.  What?  Disgusting!   You know there are lots of people like him because not only do you encounter them, perhaps in the supermarket, at the bus stop, online etc. but you read ab out people like that every day.

Actually, that young person does want a job, he just finds it less shaming to say he doesn't want a job than to say no one wants to employ him.  That's in the context of a society where a politician, senior journalist, 'personality' or whatever would say the same thing.  They didn't actually want to be minister for whatever because they have family commitments or have a passion for such-and-such a subject that's not a ministerial role.  Ditto starring in that film or running that company or whatever.

So the sense that there are lots of cheats leads to ridiculous targets being set, but if you want promotion, are you sure you'll try to meet your targets by getting rid of the cheats not the vulnerable genuine claimants? And what if you can't find any real cheats?  When I was a youngster we used to say the UBO (= jobcentre) is the only workplace where if you lose your job you still have to go into clock on the next day.

Sunny Clouds:
Thus the difficulty with trying to change what's going on is that you have to press different buttons with different people.

I still maintain, for instance, that when IDS created UC he genuinely believed it would be win-win.  Reduced welfare budget and better incomes for people who'd vote for his party, because lots more would get into work etc.

So in my opinion, where it went wrong wasn't the initial concept, it was his laziness in failing to commission and then properly study research into what potential problems there were and how to design it to address them, and his shameful failure to say he'd got it wrong and re-think it.  But that's a high proportion of politicians for you.

I give this example because I think he's the sort of person who can't expact to be seen to backtrack, he has to be persuaded of a way to 'improve' on his wonderful idea, hence why he feels safe to speak out against the removal of the £20 uplift.

But with, as I've said, different people in power having different motivations, it can take skill to address the right 'incentive' at the right parts of the system to achieve what you want.

I know the principle but don't have the skill to do it, which is why I'm not a politician.

On the edge:

--- Quote from: Sunny Clouds on 20 Sep 2021 04:04PM ---Thus the difficulty with trying to change what's going on is that you have to press different buttons with different people.

I still maintain, for instance, that when IDS created UC he genuinely believed it would be win-win.  Reduced welfare budget and better incomes for people who'd vote for his party, because lots more would get into work etc.

So in my opinion, where it went wrong wasn't the initial concept, it was his laziness in failing to commission and then properly study research into what potential problems there were and how to design it to address them, and his shameful failure to say he'd got it wrong and re-think it.  But that's a high proportion of politicians for you.

I give this example because I think he's the sort of person who can't expact to be seen to backtrack, he has to be persuaded of a way to 'improve' on his wonderful idea, hence why he feels safe to speak out against the removal of the £20 uplift.

But with, as I've said, different people in power having different motivations, it can take skill to address the right 'incentive' at the right parts of the system to achieve what you want.

I know the principle but don't have the skill to do it, which is why I'm not a politician.

--- End quote ---


Funny you should mention press #button then that button to make calls.  I am reminded when Typetalk first came out, I took it up straight away and having to make a call to a utility company regarding a bill error, the relay operator had huge issues getting to the dept in question, in all it took 6 abortive calls over 9 HOURS to get through, then, we were put on queuing system.


And the poor operator was subject to hours of Bloody Vivaldi and his four seasons in between. It was eventually sorted, then I got a phone bill demanding £30 to cover it.  I complained to the company and oftel and they had to pay for the calls themselves.  I decided to give relay calls a second go and contacted the DWP over a claim, another 4hr (And 2 day), delay to respond but the DWP hung up on me and the operator thought it was a scam of some kind and threatened to contact the police if I tried calling again...


I decided then deaf relay wasn't for me!  The problem was the RNID created the relay system but hadn't first told systems about it or how it worked, so hardly anyone on the other end would respond to it, I had the same issues when texts were more common again threatened with police action if I used text again. 


Even the text official system BY the police we couldn't use unless we registered first with them.  Attempts by me to widen the issue of text and relay contact access to the police saw them blocking me from publicizing the number for over a year.  It wasn't until after I found nobody had told the deaf either.... and SS had ridiculed the idea as a non-starter 'because deaf can't use phones'.


I don't use relay systems to this day for the same reason.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version