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
So do you want some more links to show that the unemployed have been hidden amongst the disabled?
Or are you sticking the ‘livelyhood’ argument.
All that’s happened is that they have been shifted from disability, onto the list of people who have to look for work. They still get their ‘livelyhood’, courtesy of spending other people’s pension money.
For some reason you don’t want to discuss the negatives of having these people taking other people’s money when they aren’t disabled, for 25 years.
Why’s that? Can’t you face up to taking 430,000 pounds from a 26K a year worker, pushing them into poverty.
So back to your claims that there is no research
http://www.radstats.org.uk/no079/webster.htm
Aggregate comparisons over time show a large increase in sickness in Britain which it is generally agreed cannot be explained by real change in health (NAO 1989; Gregg 1994; MacKay 1999; Fothergill 2001; HM Treasury 2001; Nickell & Quintini 2001). Figure 2 shows the huge increase of 1.6m since the later 1970s in the number of people claiming long term sickness benefits. Since 1996, the number of men claiming has begun to fall again, but the number of women is still rising and overall by February 2001 there had been a fall of only 53,000 from the peak. HM Treasury (2001) exaggerates the fall by pointing to Incapacity Benefit (IB) claims, when the real growth appears to be in the Disability Premium to Income Support.
Out of date, but valid
The UK has the highest rate of working age sickness of all 15 European Union (EU) countries. The UK rate of 7.0% compares with only 2.1% in Germany and 0.3% in France. FIGURE 3 shows that, as commentators frequently point out, Britain compares favourably with the rest of the EU in terms of ILO unemployment, with 8 countries having a higher rate. But if the working age sick were to be added to the unemployed, Britain would become the third worst, after Finland and Spain.
Why should it be so high in the UK? Hmmm, hidding unemployment
The levels of sickness of the inactive sick are often similar to those of many people who are classed as employed or unemployed. In the 1991 Census, there were 1.286m people who had a self-reported limiting long term illness (LLTI) and were inactive due to permanent sickness. But there were also 0.701m employed people, 0.185m unemployed, 0.027m government trainees and 0.403m other inactive who had a LLTI. Surveys of male IB claimants (Beatty & Fothergill 1999) indicate that only one quarter (25%) say they cannot do any work, while two thirds (69%) say there are some types of work they cannot do. Among Job Seeker’s Allowance (JSA) claimants, the corresponding figures are 2% and 20%. Of course it is well established that prolonged unemployment does itself worsen people’s health (Bartley 1994, Shaw et al. 1999), and this must to some extent reduce the capacity of the long-term workless to return to work. This is particularly the case where, as in Britain, benefit levels are low (Sinfield 2001, Strandh 2001). But the evidence suggests that most sick workless people remain capable of taking jobs should they become available
Note that even amongst the claimants, lots fare saying they can do some work.
…
So we have large numbers taking money from those that need it more. And we have people’s pensions being looted because the NI is spent.
End result, a loss of 430,000 pounds for a 26K a year worker.
Nothing like making poor people poor is there? As I’ve said, stand up and tell us that you think causing a loss of 430K for a 26K a year worker is a good thing.
Mason Dixon, Autistic
More? You haven’t posted any such links, so how can you post ‘more’? Links to people also asserting the claim(without evidence) does not equate to evidence- it’s just a happy circle of delusion, or an echo chamber. For most of its existence Incapacity Benefit eligibility was determined by the Personal Capability Assessment; the toughest test of its kind in the whole of the OECD group. Your ‘sources’ cherry-pick the evidence that suits them and leave out what doesn’t, making them worthless.
What ‘livelyhood’ argument is this that I am supposed to have made? I really get the feeling you are hallucinating an entire debate with some other person you have mistaken for me.
LB
It’s in the original article. Why shouldn’t that be up for comment?
Now, back to my point, because you won’t address it.
If a 26K a year worker had invested their NI, they would have a fund of 560,000 pounds. Instead they get a state pension costing 130K. That’s a loss of 430,000 pounds. GIven the 130K only gives a pension of 5K a year its well below the poverty line. The 560K would give a pension on better terms of 19K a year, above poverty.
The reason they only get the small amount, is that money has been diverted to things other than pensions. Looking at the list that NI payments entitle you to, the big spend is disability.
Now, you’ve failed to explain, with evidence [why is it you won’t provide evidence but demand it off others. And when links and references are provided, you deny], why the numbers claiming disability has rocketed.
1. Better medicine – less disabled.
2. Less industry – less disabled.
3. Safer cars – less disabled.
….
Come on, explain a 250% rise in disability. The effect is that people have lost vast amounts on their pensions.
ie. The policy you’re in favour of has serious repercussions for others. Why not be open about the effects? Honesty.
Mason Dixon, Autistic
“It’s in the original article. Why shouldn’t that be up for comment?”
Because you’re pretending as if I said it. You keep making up opinions for others, it seems to be easier for you than actually listening to them.
I have addressed your point: it is off-topic and incoherent. You’ve heard my explanation for the rise but denied I have actually made it and are now demanding the citations for something you keep pretending I haven’t explained. I’ve got absolutely no reason to believe you are legit, that you are the slightest bit interested in discussing the actual topic on a level playing field. Whilst I’ve explained why your citations are worthless; you’ve denied outright that I’ve even provided an explanation for the rise at all when it’s right here in this thread. The fact that you’re not actually asking for specifics betrays that this is merely a rhetorical point from you, so let’s put it to the test.
The first Harrington report has a graph showing claim numbers on IVB, IB and ESA from 1979 to 2010: the swell coincides with the Care in the Community roll-out. You of course already have this bookmarked, as you are supposedly not a welfare dilettante with a pet obsession with your own delusion about pension funding and are in fact interested in all the details of welfare, so will have followed the Harrington review closely.
The Benefit Expenditure Tables show the history going back to 1948 for some benefits and to 1979 when Invalidity Benefit was introduced, they confirm that the expenditure on it swells when the claimant count on it swells in 1988-1995.
If you knew anything about the figures you’re pretending to be an expert on you wouldn’t spout such tabloid rubbish like ‘better medicine, less industry, safer cars = less disabled’. Those who do know and understand the subject are aware that the demographics of claimants has changed over time; where they used to be mainly physical impairments, they are now mostly mental and cognitive. The single largest category groups for claimants are Psychosis, psychiatric disorders and learning difficulties. None of these are greatly affected by medicine, industry and cars.
Newsbot9
LMAO. No, really not. The sums are simply not that large, especially since wealth has increasingly shifted into capital!