Iain Duncan Smith resigns from Cabinet

[ECCOnoob]

So, if his condition has deteriorated, (and my commiserations about that,) his money has deteriorated too? That doesn't seem fair to me. He may only work 2 days a week, but he must have needs on the other 5 days, possibly more so since his condition has worsened.

 

This is the issue. This is what lots of people don't understand.

 

He now only works 2 out of the 5 days. He does not use the taxi account as much. He no longer requires the support worker for 3 out of those five days.

 

Reduced support worker costs. Reduced taxi costs.

 

The monies originally provided were based upon the full time support and full time travel costs. Those costs have now been reduced.

 

Now do you think its fair that the budget payments have been reduced accordingly?

 

After all, why should my relative get more money than he needs.

[Jonny5]

This is the issue. This is what lots of people don't understand.

 

He now only works 2 out of the 5 days. He does not use the taxi account as much. He no longer requires the support worker for 3 out of those five days.

 

Reduced support worker costs. Reduced taxi costs.

 

The monies originally provided were based upon the full time support and full time travel costs. Those costs have now been reduced.

 

Now do you think its fair that the budget payments have been reduced accordingly?

 

After all, why should my relative get more money than he needs.

Because the Tories are all nasty Bullingdon club scumbags thieving from the poor and Corbyn is going to save us all?

 

Am I on the right track?

[ECCOnoob]

Could not be further from it.

 

I agree with the tory (now cancelled) policy. I always have done.

 

I am trying to show a real life working example of why SOME people should have their monies reviewed and if necessary cut.

[sgtkate]

Could not be further from it.

 

I agree with the tory (now cancelled) policy. I always have done.

 

I am trying to show a real life working example of why SOME people should have their monies reviewed and if necessary cut.

 

Sadly, like so many government policies, you can agree with the idea but totally disagree with the implementation. This is how I feel.

 

If the assessments were fair and based on realistic extra costs to that persons life then I'd probably be fully in support, but that wasn't the reality. The reality was that people who relied upon things such a dressing aids to allow them to live independently would have had this extra support removed, forcing them into relying on someone else to help them. Remove the dressing aid and you actually increase that persons costs. So then in theory they can go back for a PIP assessment and get it increased to cover a care worker for an hour an day which they don't actually need if they were just left with things how they were.

 

Both sides can give arguments where it isn't working at present, and I do think the system is ripe for review, but I cannot support the Tory proposals as they have been shown by a significant number of experts to be removing critical support for those who do need it.

 

In the case of your relative, if his costs/needs decreased then of course he should have his financial support solely for the extra care reduced and as far as I understand it, that happens now anyway.

[ricgem2002]

Could not be further from it.

 

I agree with the tory (now cancelled) policy. I always have done.

 

I am trying to show a real life working example of why SOME people should have their monies reviewed and if necessary cut.

pity you cant say the same about the tax dodgers:roll:

[Mister M]

Sadly, like so many government policies, you can agree with the idea but totally disagree with the implementation. This is how I feel.

 

If the assessments were fair and based on realistic extra costs to that persons life then I'd probably be fully in support, but that wasn't the reality. The reality was that people who relied upon things such a dressing aids to allow them to live independently would have had this extra support removed, forcing them into relying on someone else to help them. Remove the dressing aid and you actually increase that persons costs. So then in theory they can go back for a PIP assessment and get it increased to cover a care worker for an hour an day which they don't actually need if they were just left with things how they were.

 

Both sides can give arguments where it isn't working at present, and I do think the system is ripe for review, but I cannot support the Tory proposals as they have been shown by a significant number of experts to be removing critical support for those who do need it.

 

In the case of your relative, if his costs/needs decreased then of course he should have his financial support solely for the extra care reduced and as far as I understand it, that happens now anyway.

 

I agree with this.

 

There have been too many examples (such as Work Capability Assessments) where the intention was to review people's cases - yet what happened was that a lot people with severe medical conditions on the cliff edge, were pushed over that cliff edge (many died as a consequence). Yet those who disabilities are relatively minor have kept their benefits.

 

I just don't know what the answer is to this problem. Perhaps a more humane application of the rules would've been helpful.

In theory the Universal Credit is a good idea, however it is a policy that was/is beset by a whole host of problems. Maybe the emails that he fought so hard to keep out of the public will shed more light onto this, now that the courts have made their ruling.

 

On the subject of Iain Duncan Smith, I'll take what he says are his reasons from resigning from the cabinet. I profoundly disagree with some of his policies, and many have caused great hardship. But I do take his point that he (and clients of the DWP) were the human shield for the treasury. All the anger was directed towards him, rather than George Osborne.

[sgtkate]

On the subject of Iain Duncan Smith, I'll take what he says are his reasons from resigning from the cabinet. I profoundly disagree with some of his policies, and many have caused great hardship. But I do take his point that he (and clients of the DWP) were the human shield for the treasury. All the anger was directed towards him, rather than George Osborne.

 

A man who used the quotes on the gates of Auschwitz to support cuts to benefits isn't someone who is ever going to get my sympathy or benefit of the doubt.

[Mister M]

A man who used the quotes on the gates of Auschwitz to support cuts to benefits isn't someone who is ever going to get my sympathy or benefit of the doubt.

 

I didn't know that....

[sutty27]

A man who used the quotes on the gates of Auschwitz to support cuts to benefits isn't someone who is ever going to get my sympathy or benefit of the doubt.

 

Saying "work sets you free" isn't the end of the world and probably as some truth to it.

 

And he actually said.

 

Work actually helps free people.

Edited March 22, 2016 by sutty27

[sgtkate]

Saying "work sets you free" isn't the end of the world and probably as some truth to it.

 

And he actually said.

 

Work actually helps free people.

 

Ok, I'll keep going then. A man who claims £39 of tax payers money for breakfast then says that someone should be fine living off £53 a week of the same tax payers money...who has his credit card suspended due to dubious transactions and who put in an expenses claim for new underpants isn't going to get my sympathy.

 

I can keep this up for some time. IDS gave a lot of ammo.