If David Cameron backs his trustafarian compadre* George Osborne against Iain Duncan Smith, he can kiss the Coalition and, probably, his hopes for re-election good-bye. For all the blather about the Big Society, the future of compassionate Conservatism is fully invested in the figure of IDS and his plans to give hope to those marginalised and kept down by the Welfare State.
IDS is seventeen years older than Osborne, and has the distinction of having been the only Tory leader ever elected by the party instead of the MPs. He has taken command of the massive Ministry of Work and Pensions because he possesses deep expertise derived from years of consultation with past and present W&P officials. The lack of damaging leaks suggests he has done so in a collegiate manner. Fiercely defending his staff from patronising Treasury pukes won't have done him any harm, either.
Osborne has neither the life experience nor the understanding of economics to be other than a puppet of the Treasury pukes. They are bean-counters, and it is not their job to tell ministers how they must distribute revenues. When they have been permitted to do so in the past, it has unfailingly been a political disaster.
The Cameron-Osborne duo owe their eminence to the machinations of Michael Howard, IDS's successor as party leader despite having been the most hated minister in the hapless John Major's administration. They command the calculating head of the Conservative party - its heart belongs with IDS and David Davies
Should Cameron-Osborne insist on cutting the welfare budget during a recession, they will be simultaneously giving renewed credibility to the tired "cuts versus investment" mantra of the currently discredited Labour party, may well precipitate a split within their LiDem coalition allies and, if IDS resigns, complete the alienation of a fairly substantial number of their own party members.
Beyond that, by any measure of political decency and common humanity, the weak should be sheltered as far as possible from the consequences of the profligacy and irresponsibility of the strong. The ultra-privileged duo occupying Numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street must make it abundantly clear that they will do so.
* compadre = co-godfather (It. & Sp.); from which also = bosom friend. Both true in this case.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
It's not all about money. The design of ESA that replaces IB is flawed. Because of the sanctionsand coercion in the work related activity group there is no safe place to put a long term disabled person where they can safely 'have a go' without fear of being pushed in to more hours than they can safely manage and then on to unprotected JSA.
ReplyDeleteThat's why the new 'test' can never work - it is being asked to make an inappropriate allocation.
The new system is causing untold misery and stress. They could take the cruelty out of the new system at no cost to any one. But no oneis interested in actual good government - just posturing over cuts.
Look at the Carrwatch evidence to the Harrignton Scrutiny Commission. Come and help us get this put right.
Sorry, here's the link to the CarerWatch evidence.
ReplyDeletehttp://carerwatch.wordpress.com/esa/cw-evidence-to-harrington/
Many thanks. "They could take the cruelty out of the new system at no cost to anyone". From the CarerWatch Harrington evidence you cite, that would appear to be over-optimistic. Do you think it possible to shake out the people who are gaming the system without stressing the genuine claimants? I don't see how. The whole problem has come about because successive governments found it politically convenient to blur the line between unemployed and disability benefit. However painful, it seems to me that line needs to be redrawn for the eventual greater good of the genuinely disabled and those who look after them, unpaid and unappreciated. Been there, done that, and looked in vain for support. I think it was the pretense of caring by the local authorities that most infuriated me.
ReplyDeleteThis is a completely artificial problem. People with serious and enduring medical conditions are diagnosed by the NHS - diagnosis and level of illness. This costs a fortune and is all on record. they never give out a serious diagnosis without a lot of care. We pay for the NHS. Are we really saying they are giving all that expensive medecine and treatment to fit people they have misdiagnosed.
ReplyDeleteWhy does any one need to double check this? Once you have been told that you have a serious condition for life you have to battle the condition itself and battle the employment market. Why on earth do you need the extra stress of battling the DWP.
CarerWatch can't get involved with minor transient illness. If they want to persecute people with bad backs in their search for cheats then we can't stop them. But nobody manages to get diagnosed with a serious illness by the NHS for purposes of cheating. It isn't possible.
And the stress being inflicted on our members who have very serious conditions is absurd. Why would you put everyone with schizophrenia in the same group as a sprained ankle. It makes no sense at all.
A conclusion cannot be ‘demonstrated’ by reference to premises that presuppose it. If the NHS were as infallible as you suppose, then further checks by the DWP would indeed be superfluous. Unfortunately the NHS is not infallible, GPs are not always as scrupulous as they should be, and the percentage of people on disability benefit in Britain is considerably higher than in comparable societies. You have a good case - don't spoil it with cheap shots like "persecute people with bad backs".
ReplyDeleteAs you pointed out - it is not going to be easy to separate cheats from genuine cases and so it will involve pain to the genuinely sick to identify the frauds. Chasing cheats will necesarily harrass genuine claimants. So keep this harassment to the less sick.
ReplyDeleteIt is also true that the NHS is not infallible although compared with DWP staff on medical matters they must be ahead of the game. Are you really saying that a quick review by DWP or ATOS staff is comparable with years of NHS consultations and tests.
BUT - there is no need to inflict this pain or this second guessing on people diagnised with serious illness. Mistakes or cheating are not likely at this level of illness. If this is what you want to do - for pity's sake confine it to people suffering less severe illness.
It won't achieve anything with the seriously ill and will just cause scandal and discredit the whole program. Common sense would tell you to accept diagnosis and not pressurise people with serious illness. Why did the people who designed ESA insist on extending the pressure to the seriously ill.
People with serious illness have very difficult decisions to make about how they manage their lives and pressure, threats and sanctions are totally counter productive and cruel.
Yup - that's the essence of your argument and I agree with it. The quick review is designed to detect fraud, which is concentrated in the area of hard-to-verify temporary physical and psychological conditions. It is pointless as well as cruel to apply it to people with serious and permanent disabilities.
ReplyDeleteMost effective might be to encourage a system of "denucia" in the UK - regarding fraudulent disability claims, where acquaintances can be encouraged to divulge evidence that the disability doesn't really exist.
ReplyDeleteHow many stories have we all heard about people calling in sick and then posting their photos of last weeks festival on Facebook? Fraudsters aren't clever, just lazy and opportunistic; give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves.
It's great to extend back to work help to everyone mo matter how seriously ill. Stephen Hawkins has proved that serious disability can be overcome for some people. But another person with the same condition as Stephen Hawkins might be overwhelmed by the challenge.
ReplyDeleteBut this policy has meant that every one ends up in the back to work group subject to sanctions and conditionality. Called in for regular pep talks and guidance and sanctioned for not completing their designated activity. It really isn't appropriate to treat the very sick like this and undermines the credibility of the whole scheme. Is there no one in charge of this with some common sense.