Today sees a biased and thoroughly irresponsible article from Chris Goulden the Deputy Director Policy and Research at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) called Yes, you’re (still) better off working than on benefits.
This claim above is total bullshit as I detail below!
Irresponsible? You can imagine Tory politicians citing this as proof that UC pays more and you are better off in work given the reputation of JRF and the fact that Chris Goulden is also a member of the Social Security Advisory Committee or SSAC.i
Bias? His figures are carefully chosen and a chronic misrepresentation containing deliberate errors of commission and errors of omission. It is overt bias and overtly political.
His conclusion from an example of a couple with two children he calls the Clarks is that this family would be £67 per week better off if one of them works 37.5 hours at the minimum…
View original post 924 more words
Today was extremely busy, mainly because we now have a new influx of people needing help that had previously been signing on at Stalybridge Jobcentre which has recently been shut down. The impact of a Jobcentre shutting down is massive and it can’t be underestimated, especially in rural areas. How on earth can they expect claimants to walk miles to their nearest Jobcentre is beyond me. But i do know that this is a calculated and cruel move by the government to make it extremely hard for a claimant to fulfil their Jobseekers Agreement, therefore resulting on more sanctions etc.
Here is an awful case that shows that combined with bad advice, a lack of compassion and Universal Credit can and does ruin a persons life.
Please note that this is a true, honest account, and nor am I passing on any personal details as requested.
As soon as I…
View original post 1,265 more words
“Despite calls from over 150 MP’s and threats of legal action, the Department for Exiting The European Union are still refusing to publish Brexit impact assessments.” David Lammy.
Whitehall’s internal risk assessments of the impact of leaving the EU on various sectors of the UK economy have remained the private property of the government. The government’s reluctance to publish them has been one of the most controversial, and widely discussed, features of its approach to Brexit. Ministers say that publication would undermine their hand in the Brexit talks and could influence thedebate on Brexit if they were revealed. Circulation of the assessment is said to be highly restricted inside government because of its political sensitivity.
However the government’s authoritarian refusal to publish these documents is undemocratic, and it means the public remains in the dark about Whitehall’s internal analysis over the economic impact of Brexit. Not a government that’s fond of public scrutiny, transparency and accountability, then.
View original post 3,008 more words
Father Dougal McGuire: Universal Credit – What the f*ck’s that all about Ted?
Father Ted Crilly: Cui Bono Dougal
Father Dougal: What was that Ted?
Father Ted: It’s Latin Dougal. It means who benefits or what’s in it for me
Father Dougal: Latin? Oh like that in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti bollocks then …
That is the real purpose of Universal Credit – the cui bono and what is in it for me as the only beneficiary is the low paying UK employer. The government pays out much more in Universal Credit than under the existing system and the claimant is often no better off and many hundreds of thousands can be worse off under Universal Credit even before travel to and other work costs are factored in.
The purpose of Universal Credit is to dampen wage demands and make workers rights weaker and job…
View original post 74 more words
The Commons Select Committee on Work and Pensions would like to hear from you if you have had an assessment, or are waiting for an assessment, for PIP or ESA.
So far over 500 people have posted their comments on the parliament website about their experience of PIP and ESA assessments.
We’re sure that there are many more claimants who could help Frank Field and his committee understand just how bad the system is.
The committee wants to know:
- Did you feel that the right decision on your entitlement to ESA/PIP was reached as a result of your initial assessment?
- If not—what do you feel were the reasons for this?
- If you have experience of Mandatory Reconsideration, did you find this stage effective and useful? How might it be improved?
- Overall, how “claimant-friendly” did you find the assessment process?
- What steps would you…
View original post 16 more words