Our Welfare State. Is it broken?

winterwhite

The notion that the state cannot help people through life's 'ups and downs' may sound very fine, but not from the lips of politicians whose party has been responsible for so much of the 'downs', and the depths of them, for thousands of people.

George Osborne and austerity, together with Brexit lie behind so many of the redundancies that lie behind so much of the poverty.

Lack of investment in education lies behind our low-skilled workforce, and lack of investment in preventive health lies behind so much rumbling low grade ill health.

Truly this government has a nerve.

Personal responsibility, you know parents encouraging their children to go to school, not to encourage them to sit at home doing nothing.
Most of my friends Grandchildren, and mine, were sent to school, no excuses for days off unless ill. Now one taking A levels, one apprentice ship completed, yes under a Tory Gov, doing extremely well , one teacher training, one at Grammar school. Encouragement from parents costs nothing,wanting the best for your child costs nothing. Education is free, many waste their chance, wonder why they become unemployable.

Germanshepherdsmum

I had no break from work due to illness and always came clean about my health issues when changing law firms.

Someone who has been out of work ‘for decades’ is I think unlikely to find work much above minimum wage level except in exceptional circumstances. But if you suffer from mental health issues any work is better than just sitting at home living on benefits. Work gets people out of the home, enables them to mix with others and gives self esteem.

I def agree with this.
If it’s at all possible then it’s best for the person and the best for the economy.
Since the pandemic, those saying they are depressed and have MH issues has doubled and they’re no longer part of the workforce.

*ALANaV Why should any of the candidates for LOCAL elections answer questions about the subjects you raise. None of them are within the remit of local councillors, They are all national issues decided by parliament and MPs.

What I would expect them to answer questions about in my constituency is the state of the roads, flooding, waste collection and education at a local level.

Yes, yes and yes again!!

Grannytomany

Germanshepherdsmum

My own experience is that someone with depression - even severe depression - is much better off working than sitting at home. It should not be a condition which triggers an entitlement to benefits.

It is not a condition which is itself triggers entitlement to benefit.

Someone with depression who is already employed might well find that continuing to make the effort to go to work is helpful but much depends on the degree of the depression and whether there are any associated mental health issues.

Clinical depression (not a severe fed up ness) inevitably affects how someone performs their job. Jobs are so varied in nature I feel that it isn’t reasonable to apply a ‘one solution’ or ‘what worked for me’ to everyone because personal circumstances vary so much.

For anyone without a job, I’ve tended to find that employers aren’t that keen to take on a new employee with a history of clinical depression and/or anxiety.

I think your first sentence sums up the misconception that Sunak seemed to be perpetuating in his statement on benefit reform a couple of weeks ago. He was either ill informed or he was intentionally blurring the lines between sickness and disability benefits. He kept referring to PIP in the same breath as unemployed sick/disabled people and didn’t seem to appreciate that ESA and the ESA element of UC are the out of work sickness benefits and PIP is a universal disability benefit designed to contribute towards the extra cost of disability. As far as I’m concerned, the jury’s out as to whether this was intentional or not.

The Tories are bent on ‘reforming’ PIP. They’ve never liked disability benefits and one of the first things the coalition government did was to abolish DLA and replace it with PIP for working people - for the first time distinguishing working age from the rest of the disabled population. PIP was never meant to support the disabled - it was a cost cutting exercise deliberately designed to narrow the eligibility conditions so that even severely disabled people had trouble qualifying.

PIP was an unmitigated disaster in terms of saving money, and has been ever since. Because the assessment system is so unfair (don’t get me started !!) many disabled people have had to go to expensive tribunal to get the award they deserve, but instead of admitting this, the government have blamed the rise in claims for mental health conditions. Sunak kept referring to anxiety and depression and medicalising everyday problems, and failed to make clear that you can’t claim PIP for anxiety and depression unless it’s severe enough to require second line consultant led treatment. Even then, as with most mental health conditions, it’s very difficult to make a successful claim.

And added to this, it was actually the Coalition government who opened up disability benefits to those with mental health conditions, so the Tories have no one to blame but themselves for not anticipating the rise as a result. The figures the Tories have given are questionable too. Sunak mentioned 3.3m claims, but Mel Stride a few days later quoted 2.6m. I think the 3.3m figure included the numbers still claiming DLA as a legacy benefit because they were subject to the cut off point for migration.

Oreo

Germanshepherdsmum

I had no break from work due to illness and always came clean about my health issues when changing law firms.

Someone who has been out of work ‘for decades’ is I think unlikely to find work much above minimum wage level except in exceptional circumstances. But if you suffer from mental health issues any work is better than just sitting at home living on benefits. Work gets people out of the home, enables them to mix with others and gives self esteem.

I def agree with this.
If it’s at all possible then it’s best for the person and the best for the economy.
Since the pandemic, those saying they are depressed and have MH issues has doubled and they’re no longer part of the workforce.

The numbers of those saying they are depressed/anxious may have doubled, but it doesn’t actually mean they’re no longer part of the workforce. The numbers quoted in Sunaks’ speech referred to the numbers claiming PIP for the condition. PIP is not an out of work benefit.

Granmarderby10

Every time I read comments about claiming welfare benefits because of illness, particularly anxiety and depression I come across the same phrases……Something along the lines of “ you’ll feel better if you return to work” / “you’ll be better off if you go back to work” as though there is an actual job there waiting for you.
Am I alone in thinking that in the competitive job market with young, healthy, biddable applicants in steady supply, that someone who has not been to work for decades perhaps, will not manage to get to interview stage let alone be offered a job (necessarily with training) and without actual proper help as apposed to the plastic attempts that countless governments have spent fortunes on.

As Sunak was making his speech on disability and sickness benefit reform the government were quietly cutting the help available to disabled and long term unemployed to get back to work. Remember Remploy and the SRJ workshops ? Closed completely by the Tories a few years ago, and the then minister for the disabled made an announcement that specialist help would be available to find work for those (severely disabled) people who had lost their jobs. I was a benefit adviser at the time and as far as I know not one single ex employee received any extra help and the majority are still unemployed. That’s how much the government actually cares about getting sick and disabled back to work. Anyone who thinks that the looming cuts are about anything but money is deluded.

JenniferEccles

Real depression must be absolutely dreadful and clearly there are some people who are in no fit state to work, but how can it possibly be that the numbers claiming benefits for stress and depression have more than doubled over just three years?

The welfare State is a temporary lifeline for those who are struggling, but it has now ballooned into a huge, unaffordable monster.

Something has to change or those in genuine need will lose out.

The welfare state is meant to be more than a temporary lifeline to anyone permanently too sick or disabled to work. These are the ones in genuine need, but make no mistake, they are also the ones who cost the most to support and they are the ones firmly in the governments’ sights.

Another reason to be wary of making "the right to die" official.

What depressed person, for whom every single day is difficult, needs the added burden of knowing the eyes of society are on them, judging whether they should be at work or are "allowed" not to be?

Some people who claim to suffer from depression have no idea what it really is. And some are obviously unwilling to suffer any degree of stress without shouting about their mental health and claiming to be unable to work. I have no time for snowflakes.

This is another problem which can be traced back to the then government being too lenient. Unmarried mothers were encouraged to keep their babies and given a house and benefits. As a result, many young women deliberately got themselves pregnant. This is the sort of mentality we are dealing with. 'Why should I work when the government will pay me to stay at home?'
Bring back the workhouses. At least the truly destitute will have a roof over their heads and perhaps those who are able to work will do so.

Pammie1

Granmarderby10

Every time I read comments about claiming welfare benefits because of illness, particularly anxiety and depression I come across the same phrases……Something along the lines of “ you’ll feel better if you return to work” / “you’ll be better off if you go back to work” as though there is an actual job there waiting for you.
Am I alone in thinking that in the competitive job market with young, healthy, biddable applicants in steady supply, that someone who has not been to work for decades perhaps, will not manage to get to interview stage let alone be offered a job (necessarily with training) and without actual proper help as apposed to the plastic attempts that countless governments have spent fortunes on.

As Sunak was making his speech on disability and sickness benefit reform the government were quietly cutting the help available to disabled and long term unemployed to get back to work. Remember Remploy and the SRJ workshops ? Closed completely by the Tories a few years ago, and the then minister for the disabled made an announcement that specialist help would be available to find work for those (severely disabled) people who had lost their jobs. I was a benefit adviser at the time and as far as I know not one single ex employee received any extra help and the majority are still unemployed. That’s how much the government actually cares about getting sick and disabled back to work. Anyone who thinks that the looming cuts are about anything but money is deluded.

Well, it’ll be Starmer’s problem to solve in a few short months.

Curtaintwitcher

This is another problem which can be traced back to the then government being too lenient. Unmarried mothers were encouraged to keep their babies and given a house and benefits. As a result, many young women deliberately got themselves pregnant. This is the sort of mentality we are dealing with. 'Why should I work when the government will pay me to stay at home?'
Bring back the workhouses. At least the truly destitute will have a roof over their heads and perhaps those who are able to work will do so.

Blimey.
Those girls all needed a male to "get themselves pregnant".

What should become of them as they merrily dance away to father some more children with different girls?

The population is so large now and older people are living a lot longer, all of which puts stress on benefits.A shrinking workforce won’t be able to cope in the future.

Although I want Labour to win the GE the problem will be there to be solved and is a tricky one.

I live on a council estate in a part of the city that was always considered somewhat disadvantaged. Not the worst, but not the best either.

I know only two people who "live on benefits" and I know a wide range of people here of all ages, it is a very social and friendly area.

The first person in question cares for his mentally and physically disabled daughter. She is 30 but has the mental age of a 2 year old. He pushes her religiously in her wheelchair wherever he goes. He has cared for her single handedly since his wife died of cancer 5 years ago. He is in his late fifties but he looks about 70.

The second man is a schizophrenic in his early 60's. He has worked here and there as a car mechanic but, not surprisingly, has never managed to sustain employment and now spends his days wandering the streets. His mother used care for him but she died 3 years ago, probably worried to death about her son.

How many of you actually know anyone who lives on benefits?

MissAdventure

Curtaintwitcher

This is another problem which can be traced back to the then government being too lenient. Unmarried mothers were encouraged to keep their babies and given a house and benefits. As a result, many young women deliberately got themselves pregnant. This is the sort of mentality we are dealing with. 'Why should I work when the government will pay me to stay at home?'
Bring back the workhouses. At least the truly destitute will have a roof over their heads and perhaps those who are able to work will do so.

Blimey.
Those girls all needed a male to "get themselves pregnant".

What should become of them as they merrily dance away to father some more children with different girls?

Quite! It takes two to tango.

I seem to recall that efforts to make the fathers pay to support their random children weren't totally successful.

No, the system was an unsuccessful mess.

Urmstongran

Pammie1

Granmarderby10

Every time I read comments about claiming welfare benefits because of illness, particularly anxiety and depression I come across the same phrases……Something along the lines of “ you’ll feel better if you return to work” / “you’ll be better off if you go back to work” as though there is an actual job there waiting for you.
Am I alone in thinking that in the competitive job market with young, healthy, biddable applicants in steady supply, that someone who has not been to work for decades perhaps, will not manage to get to interview stage let alone be offered a job (necessarily with training) and without actual proper help as apposed to the plastic attempts that countless governments have spent fortunes on.

As Sunak was making his speech on disability and sickness benefit reform the government were quietly cutting the help available to disabled and long term unemployed to get back to work. Remember Remploy and the SRJ workshops ? Closed completely by the Tories a few years ago, and the then minister for the disabled made an announcement that specialist help would be available to find work for those (severely disabled) people who had lost their jobs. I was a benefit adviser at the time and as far as I know not one single ex employee received any extra help and the majority are still unemployed. That’s how much the government actually cares about getting sick and disabled back to work. Anyone who thinks that the looming cuts are about anything but money is deluded.

Well, it’ll be Starmer’s problem to solve in a few short months.

Won't be a problem for Starmer, they believe in state dependency, during Blairs time,spending on Social benefits
rose drastically. PIP is a different matter, even then should it be that no one is reassessed re their disability, or long term illness.

People are reassessed, though.

I don’t think that punishing girls for getting pregnant is right. The thought of those horrible ‘mother and baby homes’ where babies were taken from the arms of their mums to be adopted is just awful, as is blaming them for the immaculate conceptions they must have had to ‘get themselves pregnant🙄.

If after school care were free, however (and available to all) the mothers could work when the child reaches five or so, the same as most parents do. I think parents are expected to seek work when their child is five anyway, and there is a cap on benefits for more than two children. I don’t think parenthood is a licence to print money, although I do feel for single childless people who are low priority for everything from housing to benefits. Nobody wants to see children do without, but I know it can be galling for those who would love a house (and maybe a baby too) to be unable to afford it and see others being supported to do it.

Would a universal income get rid of the unfairness (perceived or real) that causes so much resentment? If the level were high enough it would do away with the need to means test too, so people could avoid the poverty trap that means testing brings with it. I think that might be a better way to make the welfare state work than punishing those at the bottom. My concern, though, is that it might raise prices to the point where the income is swallowed up, and it could put people off saving for the future if taxes rose so much to pay for it that they were better off not bothering. That way, we might have fewer pensioners (as an example demographic) in poverty, but the standard of living of the group as a whole would be dragged down in the way that means testing does, with the poor doing a bit better, the rich doing well as the income would be additional to their wealth, but those in the middle losing their modest savings to tax. I don’t know - I’m just thinking aloud.

Surely those in the middle bracket, if they are judged as lower bracket people are, have only themselves to blame?

Should have tried harder, studied more, and ensured that they could afford the lifestyle that those who are more clever/harder workers have?

Meritocracy, and all that.

Curtaintwitcher

This is another problem which can be traced back to the then government being too lenient. Unmarried mothers were encouraged to keep their babies and given a house and benefits. As a result, many young women deliberately got themselves pregnant. This is the sort of mentality we are dealing with. 'Why should I work when the government will pay me to stay at home?'
Bring back the workhouses. At least the truly destitute will have a roof over their heads and perhaps those who are able to work will do so.

What a thoroughly nasty post.

What about the men?

How about a system that actually goes after them for maintenance? At the moment all they have to do is get their employer to pay them cash under the table and abracadabra no record of employment and no legal requirement to pay maintenance for their child/ren!!

MissAdventure

Surely those in the middle bracket, if they are judged as lower bracket people are, have only themselves to blame?

Should have tried harder, studied more, and ensured that they could afford the lifestyle that those who are more clever/harder workers have?

Meritocracy, and all that.

Judged by whom? I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just not following your argument. I need coffee