Do you want to discuss boring politics? (10 Viewers)

[CCFCSteve]

My opinion on it is that it is just too large, there will be so many points at which spend can happen that it becomes a huge industry to try and control it. I mean they can obviously do a far better job than they do currently but it's probably been so dysfunctional for so long the cultural change needed is huge.

The problem is Birmingham is strong Labour so we’re stuck with the shit wherever they do.

Just googled

Labour has held power since winning in 2012, with consecutive victories in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, and 2022

I’ve mentioned before as well that the police commissioner (labour) was re-elected after overseeing Birmingham becoming the stab capital of the country. No chance if police commissioners weren’t politically affiliated.

Sums up some voters I guess (edit - just to clarify after BSBs poo emoji - I’m talking about voters voting for a particular party/person however consistently shit they are just cos they’re ‘your’ party)

 

---

[chiefdave]

It would be telling if people suddenly wanted a diagnosis so they could get benefits... Would think they would have got a diagnosis for treatment?

Telling in what way? PIP is not diagnosis based, its based on need and meeting the criteria.

You or I could call the doctor today, have a 5 minute appointment and walk out with medication for stress, anxiety or depression without a formal diagnosis or ongoing treatment plan. The bar for that is way lower than it is for PIP.

The system at present is that if you don't supply sufficient acceptable supporting evidence with your application you have an hour long assessment. Under the present system around half of applications are refused.

The surge in the number of people claiming PIP for mental health conditions is not out of line with other mental health statistics. There seems to be a lot of people scratching their heads and questioning why this has shot up when we've had a couple of decades of huge cuts to mental health services and a generation reaching working age that lived through a pandemic & lockdowns.

We've been here before. Reeves attempted a similar move and there was uproar as well as questions around the potential for multiple legal challenges before the inevitable u-turn. Even the right wing CSJ when proposing changes conceded that if you were removing PIP payments for mental health conditions you needed huge increases in capacity for mental health services.

I just don't think its workable. Nothing more than a soundbite to try and convince people there's huge numbers of people sat at home, perfectly healthy, living a life of luxury at the taxpayers expense.

 

[SBAndy]

Telling in what way? PIP is not diagnosis based, its based on need and meeting the criteria.

You or I could call the doctor today, have a 5 minute appointment and walk out with medication for stress, anxiety or depression without a formal diagnosis or ongoing treatment plan. The bar for that is way lower than it is for PIP.

The system at present is that if you don't supply sufficient acceptable supporting evidence with your application you have an hour long assessment. Under the present system around half of applications are refused.

The surge in the number of people claiming PIP for mental health conditions is not out of line with other mental health statistics. There seems to be a lot of people scratching their heads and questioning why this has shot up when we've had a couple of decades of huge cuts to mental health services and a generation reaching working age that lived through a pandemic & lockdowns.

We've been here before. Reeves attempted a similar move and there was uproar as well as questions around the potential for multiple legal challenges before the inevitable u-turn. Even the right wing CSJ when proposing changes conceded that if you were removing PIP payments for mental health conditions you needed huge increases in capacity for mental health services.

I just don't think it’s workable. Nothing more than a soundbite to try and convince people there's huge numbers of people sat at home, perfectly healthy, living a life of luxury at the taxpayers expense.

Story of most things (and most political stances) to be honest. You’ve got half of the people pointing at the purported fraud and making the case that we stop paying, meaning people who need it miss out. Meanwhile, the other half of people are pointing at the same purported fraud and making the case that we improve the general ‘infrastructure’ which comes at additional cost to the country.

 

[Grendel]

Story of most things (and most political stances) to be honest. You’ve got half of the people pointing at the purported fraud and making the case that we stop paying, meaning people who need it miss out. Meanwhile, the other half of people are pointing at the same purported fraud and making the case that we improve the general ‘infrastructure’ which comes at additional cost to the country.

I know a fair few who get PIP - it’s should be means tested and get far greater scrutiny than it does

 

[chiefdave]

Story of most things (and most political stances) to be honest. You’ve got half of the people pointing at the purported fraud and making the case that we stop paying, meaning people who need it miss out. Meanwhile, the other half of people are pointing at the same purported fraud and making the case that we improve the general ‘infrastructure’ which comes at additional cost to the country.

The figures for PIP fraud are quoted as being so low it is classed at zero.

Dig a bit deeper and you find a figure of 0.4% for overpayments. 0.1% of that is DWP errors the vast majority of the rest is down to claimants not reporting a change in circumstances before their review date.

Fraud, overpayment and administration errors total a cost of £90m. How much are we proposing to spend to change the system to lower that figure?

By comparison state pension overpayment is £170m, pension credit £520m, housing benefit £980m and universal credit £6,460m.

Not sure PIP is where we need to be concentrating efforts.

 

[SBAndy]

I know a fair few who get PIP - it’s should be means tested and get far greater scrutiny than it does

And I know no one who gets PIP so I can’t really have a reasoned opinion on it.

 

[Grendel]

And I know no one who gets PIP so I can’t really have a reasoned opinion on it.

The number of claimants has risen from 900,000 to 3.4 million in 5 years

Having a benefit of this nature with no actual means test on earnings is nonsensical

One of my daughters could claim it but we just don't feel its morally correct to attain state benefits in our financial circumstance

 

[CCFCSteve]

The figures for PIP fraud are quoted as being so low it is classed at zero.

Dig a bit deeper and you find a figure of 0.4% for overpayments. 0.1% of that is DWP errors the vast majority of the rest is down to claimants not reporting a change in circumstances before their review date.

Fraud, overpayment and administration errors total a cost of £90m. How much are we proposing to spend to change the system to lower that figure?

By comparison state pension overpayment is £170m, pension credit £520m, housing benefit £980m and universal credit £6,460m.

Not sure PIP is where we need to be concentrating efforts.

It’s not fraud or overpayment if the system allows the individual to claim it (and they haven’t lied)

The increase in claimants suggests something isn’t quite right. The goverment wanted to try to address this but the PLP blocked them

 

[Nick]

Telling in what way? PIP is not diagnosis based, its based on need and meeting the criteria.

You or I could call the doctor today, have a 5 minute appointment and walk out with medication for stress, anxiety or depression without a formal diagnosis or ongoing treatment plan. The bar for that is way lower than it is for PIP.

The system at present is that if you don't supply sufficient acceptable supporting evidence with your application you have an hour long assessment. Under the present system around half of applications are refused.

The surge in the number of people claiming PIP for mental health conditions is not out of line with other mental health statistics. There seems to be a lot of people scratching their heads and questioning why this has shot up when we've had a couple of decades of huge cuts to mental health services and a generation reaching working age that lived through a pandemic & lockdowns.

We've been here before. Reeves attempted a similar move and there was uproar as well as questions around the potential for multiple legal challenges before the inevitable u-turn. Even the right wing CSJ when proposing changes conceded that if you were removing PIP payments for mental health conditions you needed huge increases in capacity for mental health services.

I just don't think its workable. Nothing more than a soundbite to try and convince people there's huge numbers of people sat at home, perfectly healthy, living a life of luxury at the taxpayers expense.

It's telling because if somebody needs PIP for a mental health issue they are saying it is impacting their life. If it is impacting their life, why haven't they tried to get a diagnosis / proper treatment for it? (or at least on the waiting list).

If there aren't many on PIP without diagnosis like you suggest then there won't be a surge if the rules were to change.

Every time it's mentioned you seem to think it isn't being abused. I could probably claim over £100 a week if I laid it on thick, I work full time and don't think I need it so haven't tried. That is with a diagnosis.

 

[Grendel]

It's telling because if somebody needs PIP for a mental health issue they are saying it is impacting their life. If it is impacting their life, why haven't they tried to get a diagnosis / proper treatment for it? (or at least on the waiting list).

If there aren't many on PIP without diagnosis like you suggest then there won't be a surge if the rules were to change.

Every time it's mentioned you seem to think it isn't being abused. I could probably claim over £100 a week if I laid it on thick, I work full time and don't think I need it so haven't tried. That is with a diagnosis.

One in 6 with acne claims get it approved.

Alcohol addiction claims are over 50%

the whole thing should be scrapped

Success rates for PIP claims by condition

Get the benefits you're entitled to: help with personal independence payment (PIP), universal credit (UC), employment and support allowance (ESA),disability living allowance (DLA). Claims, assessments, reviews, appeals.

www.benefitsandwork.co.uk

 

[Nick]

the whole thing should be scrapped

I mean if people do actually have issues then I have no issue with it, it's just the self diagnosis thing. If somebody has no legs, they have mobility issues!

Tennis Elbow is a good one.

 

[Nick]

 

[chiefdave]

Unless I've missed a change in the law to say child rape is not a criminal offence I'm not really seeing how CAWNs are being issued to rapists. If they are its a complete misuse and not in line with procedure so you'd expect whoever authorised it to be suspended and investigated ASAP.

• A CAWN may be issued:
  • If a child is under the age of 16 years (under 18 years if in local authority care under a section 31 Care Order);
  • Where no criminal offences are committed;
  • Where the person is associating with children for whom they have no parental responsibility;
  • Where it is a necessary and proportionate response to safeguard children or a child;
  • To any person who is over the age of criminal responsibility.

 

[chiefdave]

Looked into this a bit more. CAWNs were introduced by the Conservatives in the Child Abduction Act 1984, then called harbourers warnings.

An attempt to make breaking a CAWN an arrestable offence was rejected in 2015 as Conservative MPs voted against it.

 

[rob9872]

Looked into this a bit more. CAWNs were introduced by the Conservatives in the Child Abduction Act 1984, then called harbourers warnings.

An attempt to make breaking a CAWN an arrestable offence was rejected in 2015 as Conservative MPs voted against it.

any angle of any conversation 'it woz the orrible Tories wot dun it!'

 

[chiefdave]

any angle of any conversation 'it woz the orrible Tories wot dun it!'

I'm no fan of Starmer and quite happy to blame him for his fucks ups but its just factually incorrect to say he is the person behind the introduction of CAWNs or that they are for rapists.

 

[PVA]

"Labour is the party of paedophiles, and every single current Labour voter should be ashamed in their open support of child rape."


Seems a legit and perfectly balanced account.

Plenty of racist shite on there as well.

 

[Grendel]

"Labour is the party of paedophiles, and every single current Labour voter should be ashamed in their open support of child rape."


Seems a legit and perfectly balanced account.

Plenty of racist shite on there as well.

Well both extremes play the game and I know one poster on here who tried to claim Tory politicians are more likely to be child abusers. I’ll see if I can find if

meanwhile as I say

Conviction rates suggest far-right activists are more likely to be paedophiles, historian tells Morning Star conference

FAR-RIGHT activists are more likely to be paedophiles, convictions rates suggest, historian and broadcaster Louise Raw has said.Addressing the Morning Star’s annual conference on Saturday, she warned of a growing acceptance of far-right claims to be protectors of women and children against...

morningstaronline.co.uk

 

[Grendel]

I suspect it’s going to be an insufferable week ahead as I think Labour will probably win the by election on Thursday