Sue Marsh writes about the DWP's refusal to send anyone on the radio to debate her on the ESA cuts.
I’ve just heard the Department for Work and Pensions has refused to send anyone to Radio 4’s You and Yours show on BBC Radio 4 tomorrow (12 noon) to defend and debate with me the changes we exposed in #esaSOS.
Despite leading barristers saying they are illegal and professors of medicine saying they are immoral and unworkable, the DWP haven’t answered a single point we raised. Again.
It’s remarkable. People are suffering – 140,000 people have been proven to have been unfairly stripped of their livelihood. We challenge them, they don’t even deny we’re right, but they sit there in their ivory towers and say, “so sue us”.
Well, DWP, we will and if you think I’ll stop at defeating you on ESA you’re wrong. I’ll make sure every last one of you is held personally accountable for the horrific assault you’re inflicting on vulnerable people in the UK who need you most.
In the next few weeks, I will release stories proving you are liars and cheats. I promise, you will not be able to hide from these. You will have no defence, no one to blame but yourselves. And yes, I’ll do it from my hospital bed, and yes, I’ll do it fed into my central line, and yes, I will win.
And think on this DWP – you’ve left me the whole show to say what I like unopposed.
This article was originally published on Sue’s blog, “Diary of a Benefit Scrounger”; follow Sue on Twitter: @suey2y.
See also:
• ESA SOS: Another day, another attack on disabled people – January 17th, 2013
64 Responses to “Comment: IDS and the DWP can run, but they can’t hide”
LB
There we go.
First, there are no papers on the increase.
Then when they are provided, you don’t like the answer so you deny it.
As for my grasp of statistics, I’d bet that I’ve a better grasp than you. You might have a better grasp. Do you have a post graduate qualification in stats?
What do you mean non-existent net cost rise? Pure jargon.
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/britain/welfarestate/incapbenefit.html
So why won’t you talk about the cost of your policies?
NI is for bereavement benefit, maternity benefit – small payouts. JSA – small pay outs for just 6 months. Disability – the big payout. The state pension.
If a 26K a year worker had put their NI into the FTSE, that would have yielded them a fund of 560,000 pounds. The state pension costs less that 130K.
So they’ve lost out on 430,000 pounds. Are you prepared to tell them face to face that you think denying them that money is a good thing and they should be thankful to you for the 20p in the pound your giving them?
Mason Dixon, Autistic
No papers on the increase? No, I said there was no evidence to support the assertion that IB has been used to manipulate unemployment figures. I know this because Steve Fothergill doesn’t have any and he’s the go-to guy for tabloid rent-a-quotes about this.
What are ‘my policies’ by the way? You haven’t really listened to me so I don’t think you’d know what they were if I were in a position to have them.
Mason Dixon, Autistic
“As for my grasp of statistics, I’d bet that I’ve a better grasp than
you. You might have a better grasp. Do you have a post graduate
qualification in stats?”
Well would such a qualification cause me to spout a pearl of wisdom like this?
“Now I know what the reply is here. 40% succeed on appeal, so that must
mean 40% should be getting the benefit. Hmmm, logic failure.”
..which would be yours and not those you are inventing opinions for. A 40% success rate isn’t anything special- it’s close to what the previous system had. No the special thing about the figure for success in ESA tribunals is how drastically the chances of appeals succeeding are when the claimant does some pretty insignificant things. Using the Citizens Advice Bureau or a representative will increase the chance of success to 90-100%. Appearing at the tribunal in person will make it at least 75%. The tribunals do not determine whether someone is fit for work or not; the presiding judge is not a doctor, but is merely advised by one when it is necessary. The judge decides whether the law has been followed. As the previous and current governments made it so the goalposts for ESA eligibility were moved far from the ones for IB eligibility, of course people who could reasonably claim IB are not eligible for ESA.
But if this were simply a matter of law- the appearance at the tribunal wouldn’t make any difference and use of an advocate would not drastically change the outcome either. What’s revealed by the figures is that it is a Mickey Mouse system, used with the purpose of simply denying as many claims as possible.
Popstar2012
The most cost effective approach would be everybody making contributions when in work and claiming support when in trouble as set up Beveridge. All this guff about individual balances between this group and that group is just right wing garbage to set the poor against each other while the rich get richer.
All of the thousands of people who worked for Remploy can now no longer support themselves, or pay National Insurance contributions, because the Nazis Lord Fraud and Ian Duncan-Skidmark closed them down…..
LB
Beveridge was all about a fund for pensions. That’s been subverted in a Ponzi fraud.
Why for example would the state omit out of its account what it owes people for its pensions? This breaks all the accounting standards that it says it should adhere to.
Now that debt has reached 5,300 bn, because its been spent on other things like manipulating the unemployment figure.
So there is no money left. Hence they are going to screw everyone.
[PS Beveridge – in favour of Eugenics, so no doubt he would be in favour of the liverpool care pathway for the disabled]