Yesterday the ‘Usual Channels’, that’s the chief party whips meeting in private, failed to agree that the Welfare Reform Bill should be debated in its committee stages ‘in Grand Committee’, that is outside the main chamber. Grand Committee is usually held in the Moses Room but for Bills likely to generate more interest there is the option of using a larger room on the upstairs committee corridor.
I would prefer that every bill were considered in Grand Committee. It avoids votes at an early stage of examining the bill, the atmosphere is more intimate and business-like and we can spend more time on the detail. It feels to me like a more normal less stilted way of discussing an issue. The Education Bill was on its 10th day in committee yesterday for example whereas in the Chamber it would be rushed through more quickly. There is room to spread out one’s papers on a table in front of the speaker, the Minister has his support team of bill experts immediately behind him to consult and because it is not televised there is usually precious little grand-standing and posturing. It is easier to interrupt to question without it seeming rude. A technical bill like the Welfare Reform Bill in particular is best examined outside the Chamber. Then it returns to the Chamber for the important Report Stage when the important votes are taken.
The exchange was ill tempered, the Usual Channels were airing their dispute in public; we were obliged to vote. The Government won but we are in danger of losing the smooth negotiating which the Usual Channels is supposed to achieve.
I have answered your question at least three times now Lord Blagger so would refer you to my last blog timed at 2.09 on 30th Sept above.
CONSULTANT MEDICAL OPINION is considered to be EXPERT testimony in every court in the land and the only people who won’t accept it is gvt. With respect, you are the one claiming there isn’t enough cash but people in receipt of long term disability benefits paid for that security, in good faith, when well enough to work – or that was the story told to us by successive gvts. We didn’t cause this financial crisis but do seem to be the focus of a lot of blame… If there really is such a lack of cash then I suggest you tell the bankers, who created the crisis, to refund their bonuses….
GPs are now required to run their practises as a business as a gvt requirement. They don’t like it but do it. Therefore, it could also be a gvt requirement to incentivise every Consultant to pass a MEDICALLY QUALIFIED EXPERT OPINION as to if their patients were fit enough to consider some form of employment. That way we could remove the £100 million per anum costs of the highly discredited Atos assessments, and save on the £50 million per anum and rising costs of the appeal tribunals, so that’s an immiediate saving of £150 million per anum.
As for your previous blogs, your comments about voluntary work were both predictable and lamentable and that is why the chronically sick and disabled population are living in fear. A group of able bodied and medically unqualified politicans sitting in judgement and demonstrating, virtually every time they speak, that they already have a bias set in stone. Are you going to tell Baroness Jane Campbell to get a job too I wonder? Before you reply, may I refer you to Jane’s comments during the debate in the noble House, that can be found at:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?gid=2011-09-13a.658.0
The chronically sick and disabled people of the UK didn’t demand anything more before gvt decided to introduce tyranny and fear into welfare.
It was a previous gvt who now freely admit that SOME people previously on unemployment benefit were moved to ICB in the distant past to manipulate the unemployment figues! What an admission of GUILT. Shame on gvt for doing that, and shame on whomsoever accepted that offer but, if destined to sudden onset poverty with the loss of a job and no hope of finding another full time job soon, I guess I could understand the temptation. BUT, the blame lies at the door of gvt for introducing that unacceptable scheme and for applying it.
NOW we are to believe that such a bogus system was introduced but NO-ONE thought to keep any list as to who was removed from the unemployment register and placed onto ICB,as bogus claimants, so now everyone on ICB is suspect… Yet another example of a catastrophic administration INCOMPETENCE by the DWP… and then you acuse me of being bogus because I have dedicated any good days to actively persuing a quality of life by using my skills to help charities. Would you prefer me to watch daytime TV perhaps as, clearly, you seem to have a lot of presumptions about ‘the disabled’ and, if we put in enormous effort and determination to pretend we have some sort of quality of life, along comes an able bodied Lord to tell us to get a job. I suggest you try my life for a week your Lordship. Some days I can’t actually breath, other days I can’t physically walk and I use Morphine as limited pain relief.
Given the contents of the damning evidence within the research report: Welfare Reform – Redress for the Disabled, as distributed to 360 members of the House of Lords in advance of the welfare reform debate, identifying Unum Privident Insurance as the 2nd worst insurance company in the US, confirmed by the American Ass for Justice, it is amazing that you presume to advise me to:
Forget the US giant. It was introduced by the UK government. It is UK policy.
That’s just NOT good enough Lord Blagger and now I’ve finally had it confirmed that all this distress was planned long ago, and we are on the road to US style health funding using insurance, I’ll be sure to pass on that information. I suggest you take a look at the following website:
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2011/09/15/unums-game-plan/
With reference to your blog on 26th Sept, claiming there is no evidence against Atos, I refer you to a selection of detailed reports by frontline charities and to the very detailed research report: Atos Healthcare or Disability Denial Factories and that can be found at:
http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatosveterans.html
It is part of a much larger website, by a man known as Mike Bach, and his disturbing evidence can be found at:
http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html.
Mike had a brain tumour covering 75% of his brain and you think it’s reasonable to force him to have constant assessments to PROVE he isn’t fit enough for work? When dealing with the sudden onset of 3 x Grand Mal epileptic fits per day he retained some quality of life, and the all important independance, by creating his website. Are you going to tell him to get a job too?
You see the problem here? I can also refer you to 10 consecutive annual reports by His Honour Judge Robert Martin, as President of the Appeal Tribunals, who condems Atos medicals each and every year – and he’s already got a job, or don’t you believe him either?
This one size fits all mentality is dangerous and the additional stress endured by people already so vulnerable is a national disgrace.
Your claims that I should be in paid employment because I refused to end my quality of life when profound illness ended my medical career is typical of the problems found when able bodied and medically unqualified people presume to judge people with chronic illness and disablities. FORGET the Atos manual Lord Blagger and start reading the very detailed reports by frontline charities such as MacMillan, Citizens Advice and the Disability Alliance because they all read my reports and they all agree that the WCA, as conducted by Atos, is totally and emphatically unfit for purpose. They are in the front line of this gvt imposed medical tyranny, meeting desperately ill and profoundly disabled people every day, so I urge you to believe them if not me.
You don’t give me anything Lord Blagger and, as for my War Pension that includes an UNEMPLOYABILITY SUPPLEMENT because I am too ill to enjoy paid employment I believe, as do millions of others, that I funded my pension – that IS NOT A BENEFIT – in advance due to contributions made during many years of paid professional employment. Is that not what national insurance was meant to be for?
Mo Stewart
http://www.physiciansnews.com/discussion/morris.html
Lord Blagger and Baroness Murphy may I suggest you access the attached website and it will give you first hand detailed info from the US about the bogus Unum Insurance policies, and, don’t forget, using Unum is ‘gvt policy’ according to Lord Blagger.
http://unuminsurance.blogspot.com
“Regulatory authorities and courts have now established that Unum Provident Corporation, the nation’s largest disability insurance carrier, was engaged in a programme of deliberate bad faith denial of meritorious claims in both ERISA and nonERISA markets.” – and this is the US insurance corporate giant imposed onto the British people by gvt since 1994, as so called ‘advisers’ on welfare. The highly discredited Atos bogus assessment system is Unum’s system and they continue to fund Prof Aylward at the UNUM Centre in Cardiff. The gvt will continue to hang on every word published by Aylward/Unum
Please see report published at:
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/WELFARE-REFORM-Exec-Summary-Revised-final.pdf
This is what was quoted during welfare reform debate in the Lords – and it’s as bad as it gets.
PS: Lord Blagger you can’t now attept to dismiss gvt responsibility as it was gvt under Thatcher who planned to move some of the jobless to IB payments to manipulate the unemployment figures. So, less of the fact that GPs were required to sign the sick notes as the GP’s weren’t given any choice.
This was a gvt initiative and now gvt are blaming the people who accepted it. ALSO, that’s past history and hasn’t been happening for years BUT if you don’t bother to do the research you’ll continue to make comments that are out of date. Read the annual reports by the President of the Appeal Tribunals, the W&P Committees, MacMillan, Citizens Advice and the Disability Alliance and then you may have a clue instead of using limited skills as a troll to compromise disabled people.
Lord Blagger you can’t now attept to dismiss gvt responsibility as it was gvt under Thatcher who planned to move some of the jobless to IB payments to manipulate the unemployment figures
=
Finally someone does admit that I’ve been right. Namely that huge swathes of ICB are down to hiding the unemployment figures. Congratulations too in reading my posts on the fact that it started under Thatcher.
This was a gvt initiative and now gvt are blaming the people who accepted it.
I’m not. I’ve repeatedly said it was a rational decision by the Frank Galagers of this world.
ALSO, that’s past history and hasn’t been happening for years
Yep, it’s money that has gone. About 400 bn worth paid to people who shouldn’t have had it. Add on interest on top, since most of that is borrowed cash, and you have a major cause of the current mess.
So what’s going to happen about the Frank Galagars on ICB? Lots of people here support him and think its unfair that he should be tested to see if he is capable of some sort of work?
Acceptable to test him, or should he be left alone and continue to receive benefits?
Lord Blagger – Evidence overwhelmingly shows that this is no longer the case. Those left on IB by Maggie are dead or retired. Now, reason for rise is more women in job market and better medical treatments.
Whole premise for reform based on mis-information and poor evidence.
Hold on.
More women. I didn’t know the sex ratio at birth had changed. Population has increased, but not tripled. Was there discrimination in the past? ie. Women weren’t allowed to be disabled?
Better medical treatments. At what? Making people disabled? I wouldn’t be surprised here when the NHS itself says 20-80,000 a year killed where the NHS contributes.
Keep the reasons coming.
Why should we carry on paying for the Frank Galagars in the UK?
Still doesn’t deal with the fundamental problem you face. There is no money. It has been spent.
At the same time, you are relying on me and others like me. You perhaps consider whose money you are relying on when you attack people.
So if those left on IB by both Thatcher and Labour have died off, then the numbers would have risen and then fallen.
They have just risen.
So what’s you’re evidence again that we don’t have huge numbers of hidden unemployed on IB.
I hope you can see that I only comment here when you are factually
wrong. Trying to simply dismiss me with swagger won’t help!
Women didn’t work nearly as much back in the 80s you are so fond of.
Now that they make up a higher proportion of the workforce, they build
up contributions that entitle them to ESA – before they simply didn’t
qualify.
As the numbers of older men from industrial industries being “parked”
on IB by Thatcher declined, so this new female workforce took their
place. Also, flow rates – the increase in those surviving with more
severe disability – ensured that as these numbers dropped off, new,
genuinely unwell or disabled people took their place.
I have attacked no-one, simply trying to share EVIDENCE with you to
challenge your misguided, out of date, stereotypes. You can of course
choose to ignore evidence, but it doesn’t change the facts.
Oh, and the numbers haven’t risen, they stayed static for the entire period Labour were in power. In fact they started dropping towards the end as ESA came into effect.
OK, interesting argument. So can you complete the evidence for your assertion.
What percentage of claimants were women in the 1980s, and what percentage are claimants now.
Since the numbers on ICB have gone up 300%, and the number of men have dropped (parked men as you put it), the ratio should be pretty high.
So the ratio of women to men on ICB should be more than 3 to 1.
Do you have the breakdown by sex of claimants?
Lord Blagger – Here is a link to the evidence, there will be a fuller version in the Soundings Journal November Issue
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/07/the-three-things-cameron-should-know-about-sickness-and-disability-benefits/
And left foot forward is unbiased?
http://www.shu.ac.uk/_assets/pdf/cresr-woib-report-2010.pdf
[Academic paper, so less likely to be biased]
Hidden unemployment. These are the women who could be expected to have been in
employment in a genuinely fully employed economy – an estimated 430,000 in all.
That is 430,000 women (doesn’t include the men), who should not be on incapacity benefit.
How are you going to get rid of these Francis Gallager’s from claiming?
They are there for political reasons, or because they have wangled the system. The reason is irrelevant to me. It’s that they are there, they shouldn’t be there, and they need to be removed from receiving ICB.
Finally Lord of the Blag, I rely on my husband, not you. He works, supports me and our two children and pays tax. If you insist on maintaining a “them and us” stance it makes you sound incredibly selfish.
Unfortunately, if you claim ICB, then you are relying on me and others.
WELL DONE SUE.
You’ll note that Lord Blagger is very selective in his comments and choses to totally ignore detailed info regarding identified Atos tyranny exposed by national front-line charities and the President of the Appeal Tribunals. He should also take a look at some of the W&P Committee Reports too, but he won’t as he doesn’t really want to know. He’s still on the blame game, wanting to blame anyone for the present financial crisis and we make very easy targets.
I think this particular Lord is a troll Sue, and I won’t be wasting any more of my time contributing to this site. Very well done to you and Kaliya by the way for recent efforts – and we’ll leave Lord Blagger trying to work out to what I’m refering. Catch up on email Sue, and keep up the good work.
You still avoiding the question of why incapacity tripled.
It’s tripled because people were moved from unemployment to incapacity because it was politically expedient, not because they were unfit for work.
Now, because a system is in place that roots out these people, and I’ve no doubt others are collateral damage, you’re up in arms.
So you won’t acknowledge either point.
You also can’t say what system you would put in place to root the Frank Gallagers out of the system.
And because you don’t want to argue about the points, you go on a personal attack. Invariably a sign of losing the argument.
Now for Sue, I’ll post later on her argument that the new claimants are women. I’ve a research paper that shows the extent of the fraud that is going on, and the majority of the fraud is the government.
Important information for today’s committee meeting
Another brilliant cartoon from Jon Appleby and details of how to follow the welfare reform committee today, live at 5pm
http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.com/2011/10/plague-on-both-your-houses.html
Mo – Did you think he really was a Lord?? the name Lord Blagger kind of gives it away 😉
No Sue, but asumed he was adopting a stupid name to retain annonymity, it wouldn’t be the first time. Plus, I do think he’s a troll. Mo
It was because the Lords of the Blog wasn’t accepting posts, and the moderators investigated and couldn’t work out why. My posts were being marked as spam.
So a change of name resulted in posts getting through. I though an appropriate name, in line with what the Lords is about, as appropriate.
I certainly hope no one thinks there is a Lord Blagger. The existing one’s blag enough loot to pay a huge number of incapacity claimants.
600 million over five years.
You’re also all finding just how ineffectual they are. It’s money for nothing. Just a retirement home for failed politicians.
So Sue, I think you were after referenced data, and said that it was women who made up the new claimants.
Well there is a large bit of research on it.
http://www.shu.ac.uk/_assets/pdf/cresr-woib-report-2010.pdf
Page 14, shows that your assumptions of women joining the workforce are wrong.
For the actual figures page 5 has the numbers.
It also has the numbers for the number of women who should be removed from ICB.
Perhaps you would care to read it and comment?
Page 29 Sue addresses your direct argument.
However, the statistics do not support the view that rising labour force participation by women can
account for more than a modest proportion of the overall national increase. The proportion of women
of working age who are economically active increased by around a quarter between the early 1970s
and mid 2000s. The size of the working age population increased a little, so the absolute increase in
the numbers of economically active women was nearer 30 per cent. By comparison, the proportional
increase in the number of female incapacity claimants between 1984 and 2007 alone was around 200
per cent. In other words, it seems difficult to account for much more than one-sixth of the national 30
Statistical Overview
increase in female IB claims – that is, around 125,000 additional claims – in terms of the national
increase in female labour force participation.