So…..of the 1m or so people tested so far, 32% fail initially of which approx 40% succesfully appeal.

So approximately 200,000 people who were recieving sickness benefits when they shouldn’t have been are no longer doing so. Why is that a bad thing?

So approximately 200,000 people who were recieving sickness benefits when they shouldn’t have been are no longer doing so. Why is that a bad thing?

It’s not. Assuming that the process is fair of course.

What’s a problem is the headlines arguing that “Nearly 70% of people on sickness benefits fit for work!”

The effects of such headlines is to demonise everyone who receives such benefits thereby making it politically easy to cut such benefits.

AFZ

It’s good to see discussion of how benefit changes will impact the most vulnerable in society making it back onto LC. More of this please. Remember every statistic is an individual. Perhaps now we can widen the debate as to why they are so marginalised…

@1 Tyler

So approximately 200,000 people who were recieving sickness benefits when they shouldn’t have been are no longer doing so. Why is that a bad thing?

Grrrrrrrrrrr [red mist descends]. Well it’s wonderful. Unless you think it is ok for people with severe ME, terminal cancer and severe mental health amongs others problems to be found “fit for work”.

The new test for eligibillity for the new ESA benefit has been widely condemned by disabillity charities, the Citizens Advice Bureau, and MPs amongst others as being absurdly narrow and drachonian in it’s view of what constitutes disabillity, and people with pretty serious conditions are being wrongly found “fit for work”.

Before you come on here making such ignorant utterances, perhaps you should try informing yourself of the facts rather than believing the tripe you read in so called “newspapers”. the below links should be of help:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/oct/28/work-capability-assessment-incapacity-benefits

Or if you want further damning evidence then try downloading this report from the Citizens Advice Bureau:

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/not_working

@2

What’s a problem is the headlines arguing that “Nearly 70% of people on sickness benefits fit for work!”

The effects of such headlines is to demonise everyone who receives such benefits thereby making it politically easy to cut such benefits.

And the government is quite happy to play along with this. Nothing more vividly demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the current political class that they’re quite happy to demonise the most vunerable people in society for the sake of “political convenience” to save a bit of money.

The treatment of the disabled by this (and the last) government is nothing short of a national disgrace. And should be a source of deep national shame.

1. There is no doctor’s sicknote involved, that system was ended by New Labour in favour of incapacity tests run be private corporations and decided by non medically trained welfare office workers.

2. The test has already been found to be not fit for the purpose, this should be stated first and all else is in the shadow of this basic finding, we are discussing figures created by a flawed and fraudulent process in the first place. Which is like arguing how many tons of WMD will be found in Iraq, the basis of the discussion itself is a falsehood.

The bit that is hard for outsiders to understand is that the test does not actually assess any real capacity for work. It simply tests the claimant against a list of very basic functional descriptors, which are mostly unrelated to a work environment. If they can do them, they are legally deemed ‘fit for’ work’ whatever their actual ability to function in a workplace.

The bar to pass the test has been getting ever higher since 2007, so it not surprising at all that more people are now failing. In fact it’s a mathematical certainty, and totally unconnected to the rate of claimant fraud.

Also, by including people who withdraw from ESA before the assessment in the third month, they simply define anyone with an illness lasting less than three months as a faker: surely these people should be congratulated on getting better.

Ultimately, only the market can decide if someone is fit for work or not: just because someone can ‘push a button’ (or whatever fatuous claim) does not mean there is a job available doing that. I wonder if anyone who asserts that these statistics are anything other than a total fraud, such as the Daily Express, would be willing to employ someone solely on the basis of the DWP’s ‘fit for work’ assessment?

Kay Gee @ 3

Perhaps now we can widen the debate as to why they are so marginalised…

Although we have had quite a few discussions here regarding this and associated subjects, I get the distinct feeling that what we now describe as ‘The Left’ are less willing to stand up for the plight of the disabled and the infirm anymore. Certainly it is difficult to imagine that anyone from Labour (with a few honourable exceptions) will take the up the cudgels on this issue. Perhaps for some among Labour, it is a case of guilty consciences, but from little I can gather it appears that looking into the rights of the vulnerable is not sexy enough.

To campaign for students, for examples or ‘interns’ is fine. Everyone likes to be linked with fresh faced youth and perhaps even the next generation of thrusting executives, but lets face it, the mentally ill or the disabled are no-ones idea of success, are they? We seen last week that 600 people have been signed of as morbidly obese. Your average New Labour candidate is hardly likely to be seen standing up for them are they? No one is going to ask the difficult questions regarding what type of psychological that renders people in the state that they cannot control there eating. Why bother attempting to understand the psychological trauma that someone has to go through, when the far easier thing to do is join in with the halfwits who snigger and snipe? Who would want to stand up for people with deep flaws when the jeering scumbags start mouthing off?

Everyone here probably knows of a horror story regarding people with long term illnesses and not a realistic hope in hell of ever working again, but that cannot stop the Tory vermin from driving people into poverty

Tyler,

“So approximately 200,000 people who were recieving sickness benefits when they shouldn’t have been are no longer doing so. Why is that a bad thing?”

This statement is inaccurate. The figures are for new claimants who were in the assessment phase, during which they receive no more than they would for Jobseekers Allowance, the benefit they are moved onto if their ESA claim is rejected. No net gain is made from this unless the claimant finds a job.

The benefits of ESA over IB remain something of a mystery too. I’m not sure yet if ESA actually rejects claims as much as IB did, factoring in that genuine claimants are being put through the ordeal of rejection and the appeals process, with many apparently being sent back to the assessment phase if they win at tribunal. Rinse and repeat and of course if they drop their claim in despair they will be erroneously described as having ‘dropped their claim before being assessed’ even if they have been assessed at least once and maybe more. Given that it has been two and a half years since the introduction of ESA and the majority of claimants are still in the assessment phase, this is incredible.

@8

I get the distinct feeling that what we now describe as ‘The Left’ are less willing to stand up for the plight of the disabled and the infirm anymore. Certainly it is difficult to imagine that anyone from Labour (with a few honourable exceptions) will take the up the cudgels on this issue. Perhaps for some among Labour, it is a case of guilty consciences, but from little I can gather it appears that looking into the rights of the vulnerable is not sexy enough

-

when the far easier thing to do is join in with the halfwits who snigger and snipe? Who would want to stand up for people with deep flaws when the jeering scumbags start mouthing off?

If the left is not there to defend the most vunerable in society then what the hell is it for? Your above paragraphs perfectly encapsulate the shallowness, narcissism and lack of moral fibre of what today masquerades as “the left”.

Lest not forget that it was New Labour under John Hutton who introduced the new ESA system. The Tories have merely expanded it. The left it seems have decided to side with the bullies…Pathetic!!!

I think it was Mahatma Ghandi who said, “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”

On that basis I think this country is becoming decidedly un-great.

Well of course Labour won’t raise too much of a stink about this, they promised to do the same thing:

“More people with disabilities and health conditions will be helped to move into work from Incapacity Benefit and Employment Support Allowance, as we extend the use of our tough-but-fair work capability test. This will help to reduce the benefit bill by £1.5 billion over the next four years. We will reassess the Incapacity Benefit claims of 1.5 million people by 2014, as we move those able to work back into jobs.” (Labour manifesto 2:3)

That would be hypocritical and we know they would never campaign against something they promi…oh, hang on…

@11 And of course both parties’ statements are lies because they do not move anyone ‘into work’; they just remove their income.

I just wanted to clarify how insane the system is:
I would classify as being not fit for work, and it would take some even more extreme bar-raising even to get me in to the Work Related Activity Group. … Yet I work full time, in a well paying job to the point that we’re not even eligible for any tax credits or child benefit.

I can work because I am lucky enough to have a senior position & very flexible working environment. My employer incurs no additional cost in employing me, but by having a genuine respect for what I CAN do, they are happy to allow me to manage my own workload to fit around my impairments. If I can’t make a meeting because the travel would use up all my energy, we have video conferences, and so on.

The level to which people with a variety of impairments are genuinely ‘fit for work’ depends entirely on employers. Almost anyone can work, given the right job, support, training to enhance their abilities & flexible approach by employers & colleagues.

All these headlines & this demonisation of disabled people does is make it HARDER for disabled people to work, by reinforcing the negative stereotypes of disability.

Has anyone seen the new WCA descriptors that where brought in on the 31st March this year, if you haven’t they are here …

http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/core.nsf/a/wr_esadescriptorslcwphysicalnew

once you have read them imagine you are disabled, say you have only one arm and use a walking stick to get around, now see if you would get the required 15 points you need to get to receive ESA, if you don’t get the 15 points you’ll be classed as fully fit for work.

[1] Complete and utter tripe. The level of disability (or, if you prefer, illness) needed to qualify for benefit is a political choice. Always was, always will be.

If you doubt this, ask yourself: is the pension age a scientific fact, or a decision of politicians?

I am one of those recently deemed ‘fit for work’ by the ESA medical assessment. I have developed a rare illness for which there is no cure and my best hope is life long medication (however long I live for!). I am fatigued, weak, unable to stand for longer than about 5 minutes, receiving chemotherapy every 2 weeks, having regular hospital and GP visits with various organ failure (eyes and kidneys), but I’m told I’m capable of working. My ‘test’ consisted of questions like “Do you use Facebook?”, and “If I place a small empty cardboard box in your hands could you hold it?”. Which in my opinion doesn’t reflect the severity of my illness at all. Of course, I didn’t even know I’d failed the assessment until my payment was just cut off, no correspondence at all so I had a wonderful day ‘on hold’ trying to actually speak to someone at my Benefit Delivery Centre. I would truly love to know what employer would hire me, in my state, knowing full well I’d need plenty of time off for treatments, and recovery time from the chemo!

Looking at the link Nige posted and the descriptors for both physical and mental capability, I myself would easily score in excess of 15 because of the effect my routine has on my functioning, the frequent occasions on which I unintentionally endanger myself and so on.

But I can see as I read through them that there are people quite considerably more impaired than I am who wouldn’t score a single point. It’s really odd.

There is another set of numbers to consider

People on IB have been getting called in for assessments for a while. They get bounced so they apply for ESA

They then get refused ESA.

Meanwhile they have appealed the IB decision

Now they appeal the ESA decision

They win the IB decision (40% or 70% if represented)

So the ESA appeal falls away

Question to ask yourself, how do the DWP report those events? I bet as failed and withdrawn, instead of as they were

@Mason Dixon

Your calculation is based on an assumption that the Atos assessment is fairly conducted.

It is not. Google Atos and invisible wheelchair to see what mindset you are up against

@18 Great question