New Tory Leader

[dylanisabaddog 4,965]

12 hours ago, Herman said:

Sunak's new "sick note" policy.

Announce daft new policy adding another pointless layer of bureaucracy.

Give a fat government contract to his mate to sort it.

His mate makes a mess of it through incompetence, corruption and/or an unwillingness to admit it was a stupid idea in the first place.

His mate walks away with a lot of cash while the taxpayer pays to sort it out.

An inquiry is set up to find out what went wrong.

I listened to this in amazement yesterday. The simple question is why not put the money it would cost into the current system?

The one thing that everybody who discussed it yesterday failed to mention was the role of the employer. They're in business to make money, not to act as social workers. They want staff who want to work. I'm sure there are people out there who are taking advantage of the rest of us but if I was running a business I really wouldn't want the hassle of trying to make them work. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,965]

Tory leadership latest

 

 

[Herman 9,817]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I listened to this in amazement yesterday. The simple question is why not put the money it would cost into the current system?

The one thing that everybody who discussed it yesterday failed to mention was the role of the employer. They're in business to make money, not to act as social workers. They want staff who want to work. I'm sure there are people out there who are taking advantage of the rest of us but if I was running a business I really wouldn't want the hassle of trying to make them work. 

This is another problem the government could fix easier by putting the money into better health care, mental health, social care etc but would rather make cheap headlines and push the blame on the sick. Yes, there is always the odd one swinging the lead, but the vast majority need help rather than blame and stigmatisation.

[dylanisabaddog 4,965]

[A Load of Squit 5,201]

They really have given up and are just writing any old b0ll0cks.

 

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

At the very least this legislation, if carried through, will take some pressure from off our overwhelmed GP's.

Assessment and form filling such as are currently involved in the existing process costs both time and money, along with other such form filling requirements like the BR 1 for attendance allowance.

They have too much on their plate as it is, as 'the GP or GP partners are contracted to the NHS to provide primary care services. The GP partners are responsible for employing other staff to provide services, such as salaried GP's, locums, nurses, healthcare associated staff, a practice manager and administration staff.'

[littleyellowbirdie 2,571]

52 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

They really have given up and are just writing any old b0ll0cks.

 

What were the the arguments in the article behind the headline?

[A Load of Squit 5,201]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What were the the arguments in the article behind the headline?

It said you are stupid.

Edited April 20 by A Load of Squit

[Herman 9,817]

2 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

At the very least this legislation, if carried through, will take some pressure from off our overwhelmed GP's.

Assessment and form filling such as are currently involved in the existing process costs both time and money, along with other such form filling requirements like the BR 1 for attendance allowance.

They have too much on their plate as it is, as 'the GP or GP partners are contracted to the NHS to provide primary care services. The GP partners are responsible for employing other staff to provide services, such as salaried GP's, locums, nurses, healthcare associated staff, a practice manager and administration staff.'

The problem is that they will take it off GPs, who as you say are under a lot of pressure, but hand decision making over to people who are being paid to save money. This could go badly wrong and save a minimal amount.

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

18 minutes ago, Herman said:

The problem is that they will take it off GPs, who as you say are under a lot of pressure, but hand decision making over to people who are being paid to save money. This could go badly wrong and save a minimal amount.

From what I have read, the decision-making in regard to individual claims will be handed to specialists in their particular field.

Correct me if I am wrong, but how can legislators possibly be handed such decisions with or without full medical reports in order just to save money?

GP's are just that, general practitioners. They are not specialists in either back problems, mental problems or whatever other conditions constitute long-term disability.

My own doctor welcomes the shift.

 

 

Edited April 20 by BroadstairsR

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

The best reference I could find:

https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/workload/government-planning-to-remove-fit-note-responsibility-from-gps/

The devil may be in the detail.

[A Load of Squit 5,201]

7 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

From what I have read, the decision-making in regard to individual claims will be handed to specialists in their particular field.

Correct me if I am wrong, but how can clerics possibly be handed such decisions with or without full medical reports in order just to save money?

GP's are just that, general practitioners. They are not specialists in either back problems, mental problems or whatever other conditions constitute long-term disability.

My own doctor welcomes the shift.

 

 

Not if it's like the PIP assessors, they're not specialists in any particular field.

[Herman 9,817]

3 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Not if it's like the PIP assessors, they're not specialists in any particular field.

That is the fear of this policy. It will be put into the hands of "specialists" directly employed by the DWP, whose main mission is to save money.

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

8 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Not if it's like the PIP assessors, they're not specialists in any particular field.

"PIP has nothing at all to do with being unable to work which is why fit notes are not needed. If your partner hasn't yet had a work capability assessment for ESA then fit notes will need to continue to be sent until a decision's been made."

(Referenced for ease.)

Different thing altogether. DWP make PIP assessments based upon medical records. The same with Attendance Allowance.

Edited April 20 by BroadstairsR

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

6 minutes ago, Herman said:

That is the fear of this policy. It will be put into the hands of "specialists" directly employed by the DWP, whose main mission is to save money.

Nestor?

[A Load of Squit 5,201]

16 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

"PIP has nothing at all to do with being unable to work which is why fit notes are not needed. If your partner hasn't yet had a work capability assessment for ESA then fit notes will need to continue to be sent until a decision's been made."

(Referenced for ease.)

Different thing altogether. DWP make PIP assessments based upon medical records. The same with Attendance Allowance.

No it's not a different thing, when you go for a PIP assessment they keep telling you the assessors are specialists, when it's obvious they're just people who have been put through a training course by the DWP. 

My wife's assessment said she liked walking her dog, the only problem was that we didn't have a dog and she definitely didn't recall a dog being mentioned during the assessment. When she was turned down we asked our local MP (Conservative) if we could appeal and they said "Yes, most people do and they win their appeal", she was correct because that was what happened. 

 

Edited April 20 by A Load of Squit

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

34 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

No it's not a different thing, when you go for a PIP assessment they keep telling you the assessors are specialists, when it's obvious they're just people who have been put through a training course by the DWP. 

My wife's assessment said she liked walking her dog, the only problem was that we didn't have a dog and she definitely didn't recall a dog being mentioned during the assessment. When she was turned down we asked our local MP (Conservative) if we could appeal and they said "Yes, most people do and they win their appeal", she was correct because that was what happened. 

 

I have never had need to have knowledge of this aspect of the medical profession and certainly cannot comment upon individual cases except to add that no doctor (whether a Nestor doctor employed to assist with decision-making by the DWP or any other) should make decisions about a patient's medical (and associated financial in these cases) needs based upon money-saving.

 

How the DWP operates when dealing with such claims may or may not be initially unresponsive or even confused especially as some claims do not present the full picture, but the appeal system exists and, to my knowledge, this requires medical records from doctors, the extent of these being determined by each individual case.

I will add:

 

 

"The PIP assessment looks at your ability to carry out activities related to daily living and mobility, whereas the Work Capability Assessment assessed whether or not you were fit for work."

 

(Referenced for convenience.)

Edited April 20 by BroadstairsR

[A Load of Squit 5,201]

12 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

I have never had need to have knowledge of this aspect of the medical profession and certainly cannot comment upon individual cases except to add that no doctor (whether a Nestor doctor employed to assist with decision-making by the DWP or any other) should make decisions about a patient's medical (and associated financial in these cases) needs based upon money-saving.

 

How the DWP operates when dealing with such claims may or may not be initially unresponsive or even confused especially as some claims do not present the full picture, but the appeal system exists and, to my knowledge, this requires medical records from doctors, the extent of these being determined by each individual case.

I will add:

 

 

"The PIP assessment looks at your ability to carry out activities related to daily living and mobility, whereas the Work Capability Assessment assessed whether or not you were fit for work."

 

(Referenced for convenience.)

It's still an assessment by people who claim to be specialists which what you originally put your faith in. The government has a track record of setting up cr@p systems, if they implement this it will be just as bad.

It'll probably outsourced to one of their mates to make a loads of money paid for by tax payers.

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

12 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

It's still an assessment by people who claim to be specialists which what you originally put your faith in. The government has a track record of setting up cr@p systems, if they implement this it will be just as bad.

It'll probably outsourced to one of their mates to make a loads of money paid for by tax payers.

That's an assumption.

This is a complicated issue enough without making it a political matter.

It seems that there has been progression towards these latest measures (whatever exactly they are) for some time.

Perhaps you should study this in depth or perhaps not, I didn't:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/work-capability-assessment-activities-and-descriptors/work-capability-assessment-activities-and-descriptors

[A Load of Squit 5,201]

8 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

That's an assumption.

This is a complicated issue enough without making it a political matter.

It seems that there has been progression towards these latest measures (whatever exactly they are) for some time.

Perhaps you should study this in depth or perhaps not, I didn't:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/work-capability-assessment-activities-and-descriptors/work-capability-assessment-activities-and-descriptors

PPE, Test and Trace, UC rollout, none of these are an assumption, they happened and they were cr@p. And there are more examples.

What is it about the current government gives you confidence that they'll get this right?

It'll be a waste of our money.

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

Who said that "I have confidence in the current government that they'll get it right?"

We don't know enough about the new measures to make any assumptions.

If you wish to constantly make a reform of the current sick note system, which is proving to be inadequate and a strain upon resources and general practitioners, a political matter, then it's up to you.

I don't.  

[A Load of Squit 5,201]

34 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Who said that "I have confidence in the current government that they'll get it right?"

We don't know enough about the new measures to make any assumptions.

If you wish to constantly make a reform of the current sick note system, which is proving to be inadequate and a strain upon resources and general practitioners, a political matter, then it's up to you.

I don't.  

🤣🤣🤣

Comedy Gold.

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

9 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

🤣🤣🤣

Comedy Gold.

Is that all you have left?

Comedy Gold.

You said it.

[Creative Midfielder 2,000]

10 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

We don't know enough about the new measures to make any assumptions.

You think?

I'd suggest for most of us, not just on here, but within the country generally the consistently appalling track record of this government is sufficient information to make some very reasonable assumptions about how well this is going to work out.

[BroadstairsR 2,195]

1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

You think?

I'd suggest for most of us, not just on here, but within the country generally the consistently appalling track record of this government is sufficient information to make some very reasonable assumptions about how well this is going to work out.

I have no reason to defend the existing govt. and although I, like many professional friends I know, am currently and unfortunately politically agnostic, I would suggest that in this particular question it would be wise to not hold pre-conceived views based upon past experiences, valid or not, for the reason that the existing system is proving to be untenable.

Overall, is anybody suggesting that the DWP should not have a duty to be stringent with public money when assessing the avalanche of claims for benefit assistance that they are now faced with and that it should be a fee-for all when it comes to handing out taxpayer's money? I would hope not. There will always be individual cases to cite and these may pile up overtime, but the DWP is the largest government department (bigger than education) and encompasses a multitude of matters from benefits, to pensions and onto attendance allowance and more. Its budget is enormous, its workforce varies.

Is anybody suggesting that even this current dysfunctional govt, has completely abandoned all principles when it comes to looking after the genuine needy. I would hope not? There remain considerable safety nets to protect these people, pension credit for one, cold weather payments and many others, after all.

The balancing act that the incoming Labour Government will have to perform must also include stringent use of public money, whilst addressing lack of growth, fourteen years of Tory neglect of infrastructure, the NHS, immigration, climate control and attention to the growing national debt all whilst attending to extra defence needs in these dangerous times. The list seems endless.

Whilst the current economic malaise can quite considerably be attributed to Covid and the Ukraine War and energy crisis, these particular pressures upon the public purse have also made an enormous impact to the extent that they hastened the direction in which this country has been travelling for some time. It is no consolation to view that a lot of Europe face similar problems, with the German economy seemingly in permanent decline, the French national debt greater than our own and that of Italy and others out of control. Meanwhile, the Asian Tiger roars.

It will be interesting to see what the Starmer Government's manifesto will be and if it is able to perform this balancing act without even further resort to the IMF (or magic money tree as it might be called,) and this would be made easier by controlling his own looney left. A Labour avalanche could well make this job impossible, and the hard-working taxpayer can only be expected to carry more burden than he/she already does.

Edited April 21 by BroadstairsR

[littleyellowbirdie 2,571]

19 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

It said you are stupid.

So you didn't read it then. I can't say that surprises me.

 

Edited April 21 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,817]

Help for disabled people in England and Wales to get jobs is axed amid benefits crackdown.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/21/help-disabled-people-england-wales-jobs-axed-benefits-crackdown

"The blow to disabled people comes after the prime minister unveiled a plan to hand power to officials with no medical training to decide whether an employee is sick, raising the possibility that decisions about workers’ health will be taken to hit targets rather than on clinical need."

 

[dylanisabaddog 4,965]

[littleyellowbirdie 2,571]

48 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Robert Peston is doing a three-part series on the Rest is Money about this. He makes the case that the Bank of England was partly responsible for the crisis in failing to identify risks that it was their duty to make sure she and the Chancellor were aware of.

In fact, it does raise the question whether the Bank of England conspired to destroy her by not doing so at the expense of the economy.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/liz-truss-admits-1-thing-102557689.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKRpkr_D0puYO_6mWg_0echky0zEI7UjNGtNpTjETQbOMyygBMdukAdtXxNhMf1mg1i83ef1fVV7RD0tNrcBHocT9jO75RBbbBzAsGy7akT9nmyWMoOXSWwZJBppmKWhv1Nv3C2UWleWAueBBc_stU6CN647sBpWNmyxHFwSyass

Edited April 21 by littleyellowbirdie

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,189]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Robert Peston is doing a three-part series on the Rest is Money about this. He makes the case that the Bank of England was partly responsible for the crisis in failing to identify risks that it was their duty to make sure she and the Chancellor were aware of.

In fact, it does raise the question whether the Bank of England conspired to destroy her by not doing so at the expense of the economy.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/liz-truss-admits-1-thing-102557689.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKRpkr_D0puYO_6mWg_0echky0zEI7UjNGtNpTjETQbOMyygBMdukAdtXxNhMf1mg1i83ef1fVV7RD0tNrcBHocT9jO75RBbbBzAsGy7akT9nmyWMoOXSWwZJBppmKWhv1Nv3C2UWleWAueBBc_stU6CN647sBpWNmyxHFwSyass

By her own admission, she didn't meet the governor of the BoE when she was PM . A meeting had been set up, but she was advised against it.

It's a very difficult task for the BoE to carry out its duty to make the PM and Chancellor aware of the risks, when they didn't seem to be listening 

Edited April 21 by How I Wrote Elastic Man