Government spends £37m fighting benefit cut appeals.

#3
Not really it doesnt mention how many its lost.
For example my mum life limiting disease completely genuine full medical history denied benefits for 4 months messed around gets to appeal chief doctor at her appeal witters on about her diabetes which is only a minor part of whats wrong with her.
Rapidly realizes he's talking shit whole thing is over in less than an hour.
Fair amount spent on case work a pointless medical assesment atos laughing all the way to the bank.
Yes there maybe people swinging the lead but it maybe at case of smoke and mirrors
 
#4
One piece of data that's very notable by its absence is the amount saved by benefit cuts...
 
#6
Something just over a third of appeals are successful.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#7
One piece of data that's very notable by its absence is the amount saved by benefit cuts...
Or indeed why our supposedly 'generous' benefits tend towards the lower end of the scale in Europe.

I'm yet to be convinced that paying people something like fifty odd quid a week brought down Lehman Bros, RBS, Lloyds, Northern Rock et al.

This demonisation* of the poor is as transparent as it is loathsome.

*as evidenced in the first link, not your post Matt.
 
#9
Or indeed why our supposedly 'generous' benefits tend towards the lower end of the scale in Europe.

I'm yet to be convinced that paying people something like fifty odd quid a week brought down Lehman Bros, RBS, Lloyds, Northern Rock et al.

This demonisation* of the poor is as transparent as it is loathsome.

*as evidenced in the first link, not your post Matt.
Wrong place to ask. :)
 
#11
Or indeed why our supposedly 'generous' benefits tend towards the lower end of the scale in Europe.

I'm yet to be convinced that paying people something like fifty odd quid a week brought down Lehman Bros, RBS, Lloyds, Northern Rock et al.

This demonisation* of the poor is as transparent as it is loathsome.

*as evidenced in the first link, not your post Matt.
I'd actually tend to agree that the jobseekers allowance is too low... the problem we have is that there are far too many benefits. Those who need them tend to be hard done by, whilst the 'career scroungers' who know the system inside out can claim far more.

The benefit cap is a good start, but what we really need is a massively simplified system.
 
#13
Pretty much. Benefit payments didn't bring the financial world crashing down, despite what the Conservative party and those who fawn upon them would have you believe.
True - but they're hardly helping the recovery.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#14
Pretty much. Benefit payments didn't bring the financial world crashing down, despite what the Conservative party and those who fawn upon them would have you believe.
No, but then the financial world did rather well for the rest of the country until it crashed. It will do so again now that it's largely recovered.

If people chose to be less reliant on banks (you are perfectly welcome to keep your money in a safe under the bed) then the crash wouldn't have been a problem for the average person. You sound like the sort who moans about the banks lending badly, then moans about them not lending enough to small (read: incredibly risky) businesses.

Besides which, we were running a deficit even before the crash. Given that welfare was the section of the budget with by far the greatest annual increases since 1997 (excepting the NHS, but that's welfare of sorts) it seems the obvious area to trim to cut the deficit.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
#15
#16
Pretty much. Benefit payments didn't bring the financial world crashing down, despite what the Conservative party and those who fawn upon them would have you believe.
So we should just continue funding the lifestyles of the feckless?
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#18
No, but then the financial world did rather well for the rest of the country until it crashed. It will do so again now that it's largely recovered.
I know. It's was my area of work pre studenthood.

You sound like the sort who moans about the banks lending badly, then moans about them not lending enough to small (read: incredibly risky) businesses.
Not really. That has absolutely nothing to do with benefit cuts (except in your head).

Besides which, we were running a deficit even before the crash. Given that welfare was the section of the budget with by far the greatest annual increases since 1997 (excepting the NHS, but that's welfare of sorts) it seems the obvious area to trim to cut the deficit.
Straw Man: The deficit was large previously so we should now trim areas that bring minimal savings (biggest 'benefit' payments being pensions)?
 
#20
What a smashing chap he is I'm going to post him another bottle of single malt.
So, on the grounds that reforming the Welfare is so f**king difficult to reform that Bliar bottled it 15 years ago when there was plenty of spare cash to soften the blow and plenty of popular support, this Government, that has pretty much no choice but to try and do something before the current system gets out of control and a further Government just completely ends welfare support, should not bother ? Just to remain vaguely popular with a bunch of inbred window licking whining bellends ?
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top