New Social Security benefit cap to hurt hundreds of thousands, including disabled people.

[equationgirl]

There is also a huge cut for single people living outside the Greater London Borough, from £350 per week to £257.69 per week, a cut of up to £92.31 per week.

-----------------------------
The current cap is:

• £500 per week (£26,000 per year) if you’re in a couple, whether your children live with you or not
• £500 per week (£26,000 per year) if you’re single and your children live with you
• £350 per week (£18,200 per year) if you’re single and you don’t have children, or your children don’t live with you

-----------------------------

Caps from autumn 2016
From autumn 2016 the cap will depend on where you live in the UK.

Outside Greater London
If you live outside a Greater London borough, the cap will be:

• £384.62 per week (£20,000 a year) if you’re in a couple, whether your children live with you or not
• £384.62 per week (£20,000 a year) if you’re single and your children live with you
• £257.69 per week (£13,400 a year) if you’re single and you don’t have children, or your children don’t live with you

Inside Greater London
If you live in a Greater London borough, the cap will be:

• £442.31 per week (£23,000 a year) if you’re in a couple, whether your children live with you or not
• £442.31 per week (£23,000 a year) if you’re single and your children live with you
• £296.35 per week (£15,410 a year) if you’re single and you don’t have children, or your children don’t live with you

-----------------------------

Benefit cap - GOV.UK

I don't know how people are going to survive on that, I really don't.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't know how people are going to survive on that, I really don't.

We're on a downward spiral and there's no way out says the law and order government tout

 

[crossthebreeze]

How will these caps impact on sick and disabled people, i think ESA support level and DLA is not included, but some SADP have to pay very large rents, HB is included.

According to Entitledto, if you receive any of the following disability benefits you (not just that benefit) will be exempt from the cap:

• Disability Living Allowance
• Personal Independence Payment
• Constant Attendance Allowance
• Attendance Allowance
• Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
• Employment and Support Allowance with a support component
• Armed Forces Independence Payment
• Limited Capability for Work Related Activity element of Universal Credit

Pensioners and war widows/widowers are also exempt. People who get Carer's Allowance and Guardian's Allowance will also be exempt from the benefit cap from November. People who are in work enough hours to meet working tax credits boundaries (even if they aren't getting working tax credit) are also exempt, and people who have worked those hours for at least a continuous 12 months are exempt for 39 weeks if they stop work.

According to Shelter and National Housing Federation Housing Benefit for supported and sheltered housing, hostels, domestic violence refuges doesn't count towards the benefit cap. According to Shelter, Statuatory Sick Pay and some other benefits and payments don't count towards the cap.

It will still leave some sick and disabled people in difficulties though - people who get ESA with work-related activity component, and don't get PIP/DLA are still affected. Lots of sick and disabled people who used to get DLA aren't getting PIP because of the changed criteria, and they may be affected unless they are in the support group of ESA or working enough hours or have worked enough hours for 12 months - even if they are paying higher than average rents for adapted housing or housing that meets certain disability-related needs that isn't supported or sheltered.

 

[KittyJ]

This is called speculation, you should make clear when you are speculating. If you have any evidence this involves the Behavioural Inisghts Team/Nudge Unit, that it is a part of a wider body of psychological research, or that it is anything other than what it says it is which is testing usability of new digital interfaces then you should show it. If you believe such evidence exists then find it, and then write your story.



The thurst of the whole piece, which implies that this is some kind of mandatory psychologcial testing is untrue, in my opinion, and not supported by any evidence beyond your assumptions. You cherry picked information, such as implying this is coercive when actually they are recruiting paid volunteers, and suggesting that eye movement scanning is some kind of psychological woo rather than the normal way that website usability is tested. You've completely bent it out of shape to fit a narrative you decided on and ignored any evidence that didn't support and as such have misled your readers completely. As such you should publish a retraction, but you won't, that speaks to your integrity.

And it was Labour who introduced sanctions for disabled people and lone parents.

Firstly, labour did not introduce those sanctions: we have always had them since the inception of the welfare state. It was the tories that extended their use and included previously protected social groups such as disabled people and lone parents, and that was incorporated in the welfare reforms act 2012. Go google it on the government site. I've researched nudge extensively in separate articles on my site. The nudge unit is comprised of economic behaviourists NOT psychologists, and nudge IS woo, based on the notion of "cognitive biases." You can visit their site and look - I'd recommend reading the MINDSACE document for a starting point. It's full of inane managementspeak and acronyms, the type usually reserved for the dodgy end of the advertising industry and techniques of persuasion. I have, on the whole, evidenced my articles very well. There's a whole context to this research that needs to be taken into account, too. Th government have not got good form when it comes to the wellbeing of disabled people and carers - go do a little research instead of trying to stick your head somewhere dark.

The government's policy context on research has been mandatory participation of welfare claimants. I am not misleading readers and posted the link to evidence regarding that point in the form of a leaked government document. I don't cherry pick information, I research. There's a difference. Eye movement studies ARE unreliable, because it's true that academics and specialists in the field cannot link them with cognitive content. You do like oversimplistic straw man debating. As for any retraction - kiss my ass. Just because you don't like what I've said, and you haven't provided any evidence of issues regarding reasons for your disagreement - it doesn't make it "misleading". You can't censor articles you don't like, tough mate.

 

[Jackobi]

Two-way mirrors, hidden observers: welcome to the Department for Work and Pensions laboratory

Disturbing.

I found this job ad quite sinister too:

"The role of Work Programme Support Officer will look to re-engage with customers mandated on the work programme. This will involve face-to-face, telephone and home visits to provide Information, Advice and Guidance to the customers with the aim of assisting them back into the workplace, further careers guidance or education. The role will also require using social media as a means to liaise and learn of the location of disengaged customers."

"If you are interested in the Candidate Tracking Operative role please submit your CV for consideration at the first opportunity."

Work Programme Support Officer Job in Manchester Jobsite

Beware the Work Programme Candidate Tracking Operative stalking you on Facebook.

 

[treelover]

They own you, 21st century version of the Panopticon.

 

[smokedout]

Firstly, labour did not introduce those sanctions: we have always had them since the inception of the welfare state. It was the tories that extended their use and included previously protected social groups such as disabled people and lone parents, and that was incorporated in the welfare reforms act 2012. Go google it on the government site. I've researched nudge extensively in separate articles on my site. The nudge unit is comprised of economic behaviourists NOT psychologists, and nudge IS woo, based on the notion of "cognitive biases." You can visit their site and look - I'd recommend reading the MINDSACE document for a starting point. It's full of inane managementspeak and acronyms, the type usually reserved for the dodgy end of the advertising industry and techniques of persuasion. I have, on the whole, evidenced my articles very well. There's a whole context to this research that needs to be taken into account, too. Th government have not got good form when it comes to the wellbeing of disabled people and carers - go do a little research instead of trying to stick your head somewhere dark.

The government's policy context on research has been mandatory participation of welfare claimants. I am not misleading readers and posted the link to evidence regarding that point in the form of a leaked government document. I don't cherry pick information, I research. There's a difference. Eye movement studies ARE unreliable, because it's true that academics and specialists in the field cannot link them with cognitive content. You do like oversimplistic straw man debating. As for any retraction - kiss my ass. Just because you don't like what I've said, and you haven't provided any evidence of issues regarding reasons for your disagreement - it doesn't make it "misleading". You can't censor articles you don't like, tough mate.

The DWP carries out constant research, most of it nothing to do with the Behavioural Insight Team. BIT did contribute towards the development of the Claimant Contract, but it's important to note that this was about policy delivery not design. And they only contributed in a relatively small way with a study in Essex which led to some modifications to the JSA claims process nationally. They were also involved in the mandatory psychometric tests which happened in a handful of jobcentres. I'm familiar with the Mindspace report and the CESI report you posted earlier, neither of these documents were authored by the nudge unit. The above, as far as I'm aware has been pretty much the only work BIT have done with the DWP, at least thats what they say. If you have evidence that goes beyond this, or that they were involved in the recent digital trials then publish it, if not you are speculating. I'm not aware of any evidence that says eye-tracking is unreliable when it comes to learning where people look on a screen and it is normal practice in website development. Thats what these trials were about.

There is no evidence that BIT have had any influence at all over policy design. Labour introduced sanctions for Disabled People and lone parent in the Welfare Reform and pensions Act in 1999. Sanctions and conditionality were strengthened for these groups in 2007 with the introduction of mandatory work related activity for those in the WRAG group. In 2008 Labour produced a Green Paper, with a forward written by Gordon Brown proposing a new Welfare Reform Act. This would further strengthen sanctions, that is to make them longer, fully introduce the Work Capability Assessment to all claimants, introduce a Fit for work service for people taking time off work, the possibility of permanent workfare for the long term unemployed and mandatory drugs testing for claimants. Luckily they were voted out before they had a chance to enact much of this, but IDS decided to strengthen sanctions anyway, launch the Fit For Work service and extend the WCA to existing claimants. This is the history of benefit sanctions policy. Another key factor in Iain Duncan Smith's welfare reforms was the work done by the Centre for Social Justice, in particular the report commissioned by IDS in 2008: Breakthrough Britain - ending the costs of social breakdown. I've done my research ta, thats why I know you're talking shit and that you would rather come up with a conspiracy theory about the corporate cranks at BIT than admit to your own party's vile role in developing current social security policy.

 

[equationgirl]

I found this job ad quite sinister too:

"The role of Work Programme Support Officer will look to re-engage with customers mandated on the work programme. This will involve face-to-face, telephone and home visits to provide Information, Advice and Guidance to the customers with the aim of assisting them back into the workplace, further careers guidance or education. The role will also require using social media as a means to liaise and learn of the location of disengaged customers."

"If you are interested in the Candidate Tracking Operative role please submit your CV for consideration at the first opportunity."

Work Programme Support Officer Job in Manchester Jobsite

Beware the Work Programme Candidate Tracking Operative stalking you on Facebook.

I thought it more than a little odd that they want someone with sales or business development experience for the role.

The tracking operative bit sounded left over from another job advert as it's only mentioned right at the end of the ad.