1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

I, Daniel Blake

Discussion in 'off topic' started by Gerard124, Oct 29, 2016.

  1. clivem2

    clivem2 pfm Member

    The idea of paying all benefits in a single payment. This helps give a fuller picture of the situation rather that several "drips". I don't go with UC being a vehicle to save money unless it results more effective use of resources and very importantly a better understanding of needs turns into better outcomes. I doubt though this is at the heart of the intent.

    A single integated system makes more sense rather than the disparate ones. The MDTs can the truly work together.

    It's important to seperate the political aspect of UC from the techical aspect. One is crap, the other is an improvement as is the process change it should deliver via the MDTs.
  2. Mike Hughes

    Mike Hughes pfm Member

    But UC doesn’t pay all benefits in a single payment. Six of many more are disappearing. That’s it. The rest, such as disability benefits, CTR, industrial injuries etc. are paid separately on their normal schedule.

    Additional to that is the rather weird idea of a “fuller picture”. Research has consistently shown that people on the lowest incomes have far more awareness of income/expenditure than higher up the scale. Poverty tends to give you a very real picture. How much fuller do you want it?

    The idea that somehow several drips of income is an issue is equally misguided. People need cash flow and again multiple research shows that even those who are paid monthly via a salary actually budget week to week.

    Finally, the idea of a “better understanding of needs” and “better outcomes” are grossly offensive. The poverty line was abolished when too many people fell below it. In work poverty is now greater than out of work poverty. How much more understanding of freezing or cutting benefits might be needed. Aside from avoiding the current suicide rate of claimants what possible non-patronising/social engineering guff outcome ought one to have in mind? Better for whom exactly?

    UC is not about saving money. It’s about making welfare wholly based on conditionality regardless of circumstances and driving people off benefits regardless of what then happens to them.
    Ragaman likes this.
  3. clivem2

    clivem2 pfm Member

    Well..... better outcomes might be offensive to you but if you could get yourself into a situation where you can better support yourself then what's not to like? Note that I'm certainly not saying that benefits should be cut to achieve this. At a time a huge process change the funding of benefits should rise to ensure no one is worse off.

    We shouldn't simply pay people in need, we should do this yes...but also help them to be in a better situation.
  4. Eyebroughty

    Eyebroughty JohnC


    Watched it last night, confirmed my observations and experience though, friends, clients and myself.

    The chance of getting a smooth passage through the benefits system are very small.

    Unfortunately the attitude of the benefit staff is not unlike some in the banking world and other areas of society.

    When you put rules for the public to be adhered to then the outcome is what this film shows, it is not just the benefit system that is unique to this.


    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
    Sloop John B likes this.
  5. Ragaman

    Ragaman pfm Member

    Benefits have not risen for over 10 years so someone currently receiving ESA will on average be receiving 40 pounds less per week now than in 2008, when inflation is taken into account, on top of this, the "work pays" policy is fine in principal but in practice is unachievable, mainly down to the fact this government have created a punishment system for those in need, this film is witness to this, as far as I can see UC will only further reduce the individual support needed to get this system back on track. This is part of the issue where the rise in poverty is concerned, it will continue to rise under this system, I see no end to it or homelessness while this government continue to reduce the help year on year, if this continues, someone in 5 years time will be on the equivalent of 25 pounds per week compared to 2008, how can this possibly help anyone in such a situation. Forcing the sick off benefits in the guise of helping them back into work is a failed system, this government should have learned from when Cameron introduced this punishing system back in 2010 under his flag of propaganda, but no, after 6 years of Cameron's policies hitting home & a further 2 years under May, they continue down this route without a word of distain from the public or media alike, that is until they too need support, then it's a different story.
    Arkless Electronics and Snufkin like this.
  6. clivem2

    clivem2 pfm Member

    I should clarify where I'm coming from with my comments that in effect say that UC isn't all bad. I'm drawing a huge distinction between the political aspect of UC and the systems aspect of it. Many countries in Europe and indeed across the world are developing ideas around integrated healthcare and social programmes. The idea being a more effective use of resources combined with better outcomes for individuals. BTW words such as "outcomes" are used across the industry whether it be healthcare or social, this is not a term that's derogatory. Unless there are integrated systems that do some of what UC does then it's not possible to put integrated healthcare and social programmes in place. The civil servants designing the systems have this in mind as well as concepts as "no wrong door", ie wherever a people in need present themselves they should be properly catered for - there being no wrong place to enter the system.

    The idea of integrated systems is to help with root causes, ie someone needs housing benefit - why? They don't have a job - why? It could be they don't have certain skills or don't know how to present their experience. Helping them with the missing skills to get a job over time will hopefully remove their need for housing benefits. All this flows into mental health too, hence the healthcare integration. It also links to care for the disabled and elderly - if a family can look after the day to day needs of a loved one there's less need for social services to visit. The concept of Personal Budgets then comes into play, the like of Harrow council fund many activities including ballet dancing and fishing (eg to help with more complex depression cases) in place of sending care workers or nurses to look after someone who's family do this.

    These ideas are being implemented in a number of places, including Manchester. Much of Europe is working on this too. The political aspects of UC give some of these initiatives a bad name. Of course when funding is cut then people are screwed and when having a job that doesn't pay enough to live people are screwed again. There's a real danger that the political aspects of UC and the cuts to funding will wreck what is a better way to go about healthcare and social programmes....and yes we need to also sort out how fat cats can make so many millions per year but their employees cannot pay the rent for a roof over their heads.
  7. Ragaman

    Ragaman pfm Member

    I will keep this short & sweet, no matter what system is put in place, no matter how much well intent there is put forward in writing to explain how UC will enhance people's lives, unless this government begin to treat the sick as individual human beings, with individual needs, you may as well piss all this up the wall.

    Placing an individual with Parkinson's disease in the same category, as far as weekly payment goes, with a fit & healthy 20 year old ready to work, is not my idea of a fair system. The former will have far more daily needs to be met, they will need far more financial help to even begin to have a resemblance of a quality of life yet they are expected to live on the same amount, an amount which is aimed to force the individual into work, which is fine if your a fit, healthy person, not if you struggle with ill health on a daily basis. UC will not address these problems, it will enhance them, this government need a shake back into reality.
    Mullardman and Eyebroughty like this.
  8. clivem2

    clivem2 pfm Member

    Short & sweet from me too. I'm not defending or support the mess of the the UC roll out and chronic underfunding. Any good original intent is/was not from the politicians.
  9. Ragaman

    Ragaman pfm Member

    The fact it has been restrained while 10,000 unfortunates are experimented on tells it's own story, I am not having a go at you BTW, i'm explaining the reality of where we are, this system will only further degrade people's quality of life yet is set to become to go to benefit for the sick & needy, it's quite a scary thought considering what I have witnessed over the last few years. This film portrays the feeling within the system, forget the inner details, forget the lengthy explanations to justify the system, it shows the human side of life in the UK, when in desperate need of help.
    The system has failed those in need, this new system will continue the trend as the government have not changed their stance where the sick are concerned, until this happens, more of the sick will die, more of the sick will become homeless, more of the sick will dive into poverty. The mindset needs to change first.
    ff1d1l likes this.
  10. Mike Hughes

    Mike Hughes pfm Member

    Oh where to start.

    UC has literally nothing to do with integrated health and social care nor “better” outcomes and UC in Manchester is certainly not part of any of that. The concept of “no wrong door” was in vogue for a year or two but its moment has long since past and again it has nothing to do with UC. It has also been substantially discredited along with such other inanities as “making every contact count”. They all roughly translate as “stripping out expertise and sign-posting as a cheap option”.

    Your comments re: the: “root causes” are banal. Most poverty in the UK is now in work poverty. Suppression of income; rising costs of living. No “integratiion” or benefit solves that. Your comment that it’s politics and funding cuts that will wreck UC suggests you’re not currently in the UK and haven’t been for about a decade. UC is a duff idea that was easily critiqued before it had even launched. Every single prediction about what it would do has been overwhelmingly proven. We’re on major delay 23 now.
    Mullardman likes this.
  11. Mullardman

    Mullardman Moderately extreme...

    I'm entirely with you in sentiment. But, if you seriously think this Govt can be 'shaken back into reality', I'm afraid you are deluded.

    They know exactly what they are doing. They are determined to cut the cost of benefits and they really don't give a **** who suffers or dies in the process. This is what Tories think and what Tories do.

    Do not expect compassion, logic or reason from these bastards. All are outside their intellectual scope and their personal interest.
  12. cooky1257

    cooky1257 pfm Member

    In my own experience of family members making claims, pre UC the claim for Housing benefit was always the one to go tits up and have serious delays, UC has made the situation even worse-one relative repeated the process 7 times, each time taking (the same) documentation to the council offices and each time after waiting a week or so getting the same request-they are incompetent and/or over worked. Add that heady combination into an 'integrated' system like UC and you can see how delays are inevitable and 'on time' are flukes. The (in work)relative in question got into serious financial trouble as a result and six months later having to repeat the process when her circumstances changed nearly put her in hospital. It was designed to be cruel from the off, just think on the 5 weeks rule.
    ff1d1l and droodzilla like this.
  13. clivem2

    clivem2 pfm Member

    What I was saying is that a fuller picture of peoples' needs is a good thing. Integrated assessment of needs helps on the journey to integrated healthcare & social. I did not say that UC is the equivalent of the Manchester development of Harrow CCG either. These were purely examples of attempts at integration.

    You may not like the ideas of "no wrong door" or "making every contact count" but they are good concepts. It is that examples you've seen of implementations of the ideas have been badly executed, thought through and not properly funded? That doesn't make the concept bad, just the execution.

    You seem to feel my my saying that people not earning enough to afford high priced housing is banal; I think it's a majorly important factor. I'm coming at this from a big picture perspective rather than point-by-point minutiae.

    I believe:
    - people need to be treated with respect and as human beings, each of whom who matter.
    - in the short term we need to assist people with payments such that can live a life out of poverty, mid to longer term we need to fix the causes
    - the way society is currently divided has us on a path to eventual anarchy; it's totally unsustainable and indecent
    - people in work should not require benefits - by this I don't need cutting benefits
    - jobs should pay enough in the first place and housing costs need to be affordable
    - it should be possible for a single person / single parent to afford housing, it should not be necessary for dual incomes to be required
    - getting the working poor to not be poor through combination of increased income and decreased costs would result in benefits system being able to focus on people with more complex needs
    - by funding people to pay extortionate rents perpetuates the housing costs problem, as do parents helping their children to buy houses; low interest rates and a lack of housing have ramped up prices far too much but that's a bigger topic...

    That's plenty for now.
  14. Mullardman

    Mullardman Moderately extreme...

    much of what you are saying mirrors my own experiences in Careers Guidance and in a lot of work with very vulnerable people. As an example, the Connexions' service as a proposed concept. ( Effectively unifying Youth Support under one umbrella organisation covering employment, education, offending, sexual health etc, etc.) may have sounded quite appealing to many. Those at the coal face knew differently. As a replacement for the 100 year plus idevelopment of the World acknowledged Careers Service, it was a hugely expensive and ultimately failed experiment.

    The bottom line was that Careers Guidance specialists saw the flaws at the outset, whilst very few other 'specialists' were actually brought into the system and continued operating in their own sweet way. There were constant and quite epic levels of confusion concerning processes, responsibilities etc. From my perspective, the delivery of quality and effective Career Guidance was all but destroyed, as we were all forced to pursue the mantra of 'NEET' reduction. (Which is a conceptual analogue of benefit reduction) Many unsuitable, unqualified and even barely literate people, especially from the Youth Service, found themselves in management and supervisory positions for which they were entirely unsuitable and as referenced above 'stripping out expertise and sign posting as a cheap option', became commonplace.

    In the end the whole process became little more than a bureaucratic exercise in which any effective work with young people was largely done 'despite', rather than 'because of' the system.

    I also recall many hours (and God knows how much money) wasted in training for, discussion of, and 'piloting' of at least two attempts at creating a 'universal' IT system to record client data/interactions etc., with multiple supposed levels of access according to the status/rank/specialism of the user. All failed AFAIK.

    The Tory attitude to this sort of thing, which also spells out their totally simplistic view of dealing with 'problems' is typified by Mick P's constant repetition of the wrong assumption that 'Careers Guidance is useless if it doesn't result in the client getting a job'. The point here being that getting into a successful working life is of course the goal, but is mostly not the short term goal. The short term goal is to make the correct, realistic and logical decision concerning the next step.. whether this be choosng GCSE options, finding a post 16 course, deciding on a career ambition, a route through from 16+ to graduation, or whatever. Dealing with the unemployed is an important part of this, but not the sole objective.

    I've written this not so much to plead the case for Career Guidance (Though God knows it's moribund at present) but to highlight how badly things go wrong, when a some minister has a 'bright idea' usually based on ideology rather than logic, and seeks to force the reshaping of the World to make it work, rather than nderstanding the very real issues 'on the ground'.

    So, how do ministers set about driving change?

    Certainly in my experience, the usual method of gaining some sort of validity for a proposed change was to set up a 'Commission' to look into the issue, and then to implement the bits the minister likes, or which don't cost too much.

    Of course, if you set your committee up correctly you can get the result you desire.

    I recall almost endless 'reports', issued by some commission or other..

    So, if looking at say 'Youth Unemployment'... said committee would be comprised of a couple of ageing industry know alls, a couple of retired bishops, a few 'youth workers' and a load of Job Centre managers. Rarely anyone from the organisation which actually worked with unemployed youth day in day out. i.e the Careers Service.

    So a couple of ageing industrialists would argue that there were plenty of jobs if only the education system prepared young people better, and if the Careers Service would 'Steer' people their way and the Govt pay for training. The Bishops most likely contributed nothing of substance and neither did the JC managers because the JC didn't deal with under 18s and had no expertise in Guidance, FE, Training etc.

    A few months later.. repeat with a slightly different mix of irrelevant people.. rinse and repeat.

    I'm not sure the present lot even bother with this charade..
  15. Arkless Electronics

    Arkless Electronics Trade: Amp design and repairs.

    The very lack of interest in this thread says it all really.... and it's not much better BTL in The Guardian site.

    Comparatively small numbers of educated people with friends in the right places have "a bad outcome" due to identity politics issues and there's hell on... letters to MP's, demonstrations, facebook campaigns etc etc.
    100's of 1000's or maybe a million live a daily hell of "a bad outcome" of food banks, looming or actual homelessness and having to choose between eating and heating and the prosecco socialists go a bit quiet.... Is someone like Danial Blake automatically seen as "undeserving poor" simply because he's white, British, straight and middle aged and yet still finds himself in such a predicament????
    The film shows how easily it can happen to anyone in Tory Britain:mad:
  16. Steve Taylor

    Steve Taylor pfm Member

    True Jez but it's partly down to even the tories on here not being brazen enough to directly support their own party's policy. It's a disgusting embarrassment to the whole nation but many voters are happy to remain blinkered to it.
  17. Ragaman

    Ragaman pfm Member

    I should have said parliament as I fully understand this government is a dead duck & understand precisely what they are trying to achieve with UC.
    Mullardman likes this.
  18. Ragaman

    Ragaman pfm Member

    I'm actually surprised it reached page 2, I was going to start a thread on this film a while back but after reading many a political & Brexit thread here, thought better of it as I felt it a complete waste of time.
  19. Ragaman

    Ragaman pfm Member

    For now, explain how UC achieves this goal.
  20. Ragaman

    Ragaman pfm Member

    The benefits system matters to most when it affects them personally, apart from this there is very little interest, then Brexit happens and people wonder why some voted the way they did, some even have the cheek to make out i'm on a lone crusade for the poor, there is no crusade, just facts that very few want to acknowledge.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice