Sunak wants to stop benefits after a year

[LeytonCatLady]

Benefits to be axed after a year if jobseekers fail to find work

Unveiling the biggest shake-up of the welfare system for a generation, the Prime Minister said he was determined to prevent people staying on benefits as a 'lifestyle choice'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

What if you genuinely haven't been able to find work in that time? Just say you hate poor people and be done with it, you rat faced cunt.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Don't think he's run this by the slum landlords, because they won't be happy.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

He’s in a position to announce wild policy promises as he’s expecting to be wiped out.

 

[SpookyFrank]

He’s in a position to announce wild policy promises as he’s expecting to be wiped out.

But Labour will follow suit on a lot of them. Reeves in particular is on record talking shit about unemployed workers and benefit claimants in general.

 

[Artaxerxes]

Don't think he's run this by the slum landlords, because they won't be happy.

There’s always another victim for the slum lords to grab

 

[LeytonCatLady]

From the article:

"He said the Tory manifesto would pledge legislation that will mean people will have 'their claim closed and their benefits removed entirely' after 12 months on the dole if they are failing to comply with Jobcentre conditions, such as accepting available work."

So I wonder if he means you're cut off after a year regardless, or just if you're deemed to have not complied with your agreement (which is what happens already). Still shitty, and it seems to ignore that employers aren't obliged to give you a job and that it's perfectly possible to still be unemployed for a year even if you apply for everything going. And if it's the former and this Draconian policy doesn't miraculously get you a job, then how long before you can claim again?

 

[two sheds]

even if an employer's offering shitty pay that doesn't cover your rent or bills presumably ...

 

[existentialist]

From the article:

"He said the Tory manifesto would pledge legislation that will mean people will have 'their claim closed and their benefits removed entirely' after 12 months on the dole if they are failing to comply with Jobcentre conditions, such as accepting available work."

So I wonder if he means you're cut off after a year regardless, or just if you're deemed to have not complied with your agreement (which is what happens already). Still shitty, and it seems to ignore that employers aren't obliged to give you a job and that it's perfectly possible to still be unemployed for a year even if you apply for everything going. And if it's the former and this Draconian policy doesn't miraculously get you a job, then how long before you can claim again?

Furthermore, there have been countless examples of people being sent off to do jobs under conditions and at locations where the transport costs, plus other overheads (like childcare), make the claimant even worse off.

We know this is just Sunak flying a kite, but the idea that a government which has so far proven itself to be utterly untrustworthy, around benefits and pretty much everything else, should hand itself draconian powers which it can then choose to interpret as it sees fit is an absolutely appalling one. A cynic might even say that such a strategy, swamping as it does the labour market with increasingly desperate people, might even be designed to drive down wages and working conditions so that those doing the employing could make even bigger profits.

 

[Petcha]

Does anybody actually care about any Tory policy announcements anymore? The political PR agency I used to work for stopped getting requests for meetings with senior Tory ministers from big business leaders well over a year ago. They're finished.

 

[pinkmonkey]

I think so, at this point it’s Tory bingo.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think so, at this point it’s Tory bingo.

Well, one problem is that, as has been said, Labour are playing along. They’ll want the winning bingo card. Their strategy is for their card to be “the same but better”. Which moves the Overton window, as it were.

 

[krtek a houby]

If only Sunak, or any Tory, could be stopped after a year.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Does anybody actually care about any Tory policy announcements anymore? The political PR agency I used to work for stopped getting requests for meetings with senior Tory ministers from big business leaders well over a year ago. They're finished.

There's still time for them to ruin a lot of lives. They'll be rushing through a lot of this kind of shit out of sheer spite.

 

[moochedit]

Well, one problem is that, as has been said, Labour are playing along. They’ll want the winning bingo card. Their strategy is for their card to be “the same but better”. Which moves the Overton window, as it were.

Yeah starmer's manifesto is basically "i agree with sunak".

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Well, one problem is that, as has been said, Labour are playing along. They’ll want the winning bingo card. Their strategy is for their card to be “the same but better”. Which moves the Overton window, as it were.

More the case from an electoral threat.

 

[Cloo]

I just fucking wish other parties had the guts to counter the Tory narrative - to just come out and say what a huge lie it is that we can't afford benefits and to point out how much more it costs us to allow rich people to cheat on tax. But unfortunately the rich people who cheat on tax own the media and would immediately frame this as 'Labour wants to give YOUR money to 3 million people who want to sit at home all day in their pyjamas'

'Toughness' on benefits is not only cruel, it's a waste of money on unnecessary 'fraud prevention' and punitive measures. We need fairness, not 'toughness'

Also if I was PM for a day I would rename benefits 'Basic living support' for posterity so that when people say 'We want to reduce basic living support' it would sound as cunty as it is.

 

[PTK]

I just fucking wish other parties had the guts to counter the Tory narrative - to just come out and say what a huge lie it is that we can't afford benefits and to point out how much more it costs us to allow rich people to cheat on tax. But unfortunately the rich people who cheat on tax own the media and would immediately frame this as 'Labour wants to give YOUR money to 3 million people who want to sit at home all day in their pyjamas'

'Toughness' on benefits is not only cruel, it's a waste of money on unnecessary 'fraud prevention' and punitive measures. We need fairness, not 'toughness'

Also if I was PM for a day I would rename benefits 'Basic living support' for posterity so that when people say 'We want to reduce basic living support' it would sound as cunty as it is.

Good idea. Or basic living. Or life support, perhaps.

 

[ouirdeaux]

there have been countless examples of people being sent off to do jobs under conditions and at locations where the transport costs, plus other overheads (like childcare), make the claimant even worse off.

I have never understood how anyone can be forced to take a job they don't want. Surely it's easy enough to fail an interview?

Obviously turning up steaming drunk and swearing could be seen as intentional. But if you simply look vacant, ask stupid questions, fail to understand the answers, ask them again, etc. etc. and generally look like an employer's worst nightmare, what could they report back to the DWP apart from that you were unsuitable? They don't know what you're like normally, and the DWP isn't going to get a video of the interview.

 

[Karl Masks]

Aside from being a copy of the same rhetoric they've periodically wheeled out over the last 15 years, how is this to work?

Your GP writes a 'fit' note. You then have an assessment. The note is largely irrelevant and has no bearing on the decision.

So now you will have to see an assessor in order to get a fit note, before haveing the actual assessment? Who is going to staff this? Apparently it will take place in jobcentres; how? Are people going to be expected to have potentially very intimate medical discussions with people that can't legally be called doctors? In open plan Jobcentre offices? This is insane.

The wait times for these appointments and assessments will be enormous, making the wait before claiming and receiving anything even longer. I don't know how it works under UC, but it was the case that you'd make your claim and receive some money prior to the WCA. I suppose that's long since gone.

Are these assessors going to be medically liable? Can they properly diagnose? I assume not since this is supposed to be about what you 'can' do. So in essence you will have two work capability assessments, effectively doubleing the DWP workload.

As for stopping people's benefits after a year. They've been floating this idea around for years. I'm sure it's pretty much the defacto arrangement now. That is, after a year they will just say you aren't making enough effort - or the conditionality will have become so onerous - you lose your claim regardless of what you do.

 

[Karl Masks]

I have never understood how anyone can be forced to take a job they don't want. Surely it's easy enough to fail an interview?

Obviously turning up steaming drunk and swearing could be seen as intentional. But if you simply look vacant, ask stupid questions, fail to understand the answers, ask them again, etc. etc. and generally look like an employer's worst nightmare, what could they report back to the DWP apart from that you were unsuitable? They don't know what you're like normally, and the DWP isn't going to get a video of the interview.

The DWP will just acccuse you of not making an effort and the burden of proof will be yours. Such is the balance of power between you and them

 

[ouirdeaux]

People get turned down for jobs all the time. So I don't believe that. If they can do that, why don't they just claim that everyone genuinely applying and getting rejected is deliberately sabotaging themselves, & save all that money?

 

[Artaxerxes]

People get turned down for jobs all the time. So I don't believe that. If they can do that, why don't they just claim that everyone genuinely applying and getting rejected is deliberately sabotaging themselves, & save all that money?

They aren’t interested in saving money

 

[ouirdeaux]

So they're not forcing people to take crap jobs to get them off the books, but just for shits and giggles?

 

[Karl Masks]

According to the Guardian they are scrapping the Work and Health Programme as well.

Complete mess

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

Closure of Work and Health Programme comes hard on heels of Rishi Sunak’s bid to end the UK’s supposed ‘sicknote’ culture

www.theguardian.com

 

[Karl Masks]

People get turned down for jobs all the time. So I don't believe that. If they can do that, why don't they just claim that everyone genuinely applying and getting rejected is deliberately sabotaging themselves, & save all that money?

I think it comes down to how many times you are getting genuinely rejected and perhaps assuming that you are not honestly seeking work.

I don't know. It entirely depends on the attitude of the advisors and the culture at the JC you visit I suppose. Clearly it wouldn' tbe fair to penalise people, but if you are still unemployed after a year I can well believe they would question your honesty. That just seems to be the culture. Clearly informed by attitudes such as those displayed by the awful Mel Stride and his completely out of touch arrogant master

 

[Artaxerxes]

So they're not forcing people to take crap jobs to get them off the books, but just for shits and giggles?

The misery is the point, and a thriving enforcement industry so the right people get jobs.

 

[SpookyFrank]

They aren’t interested in saving money

No of course not, this would cost vastly more than it saved. It'd be a catastrophe that the NHS, local authorities, schools and social services would have to try and deal with because unlike the DWP they're neither able nor inclined to just throw people to the wolves like that.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

So they're not forcing people to take crap jobs to get them off the books, but just for shits and giggles?

They’re trying to find a way to fund tax cuts and obviously the economic inactive are a natural Tory target.

 

[ouirdeaux]

The misery is the point, and a thriving enforcement industry so the right people get jobs.

That makes no sense whatsoever. They're bastards, but they're being bastards to avoid paying out money, not because they enjoy making people suffer. Of course, any given employee might enjoy this, but that's just a perk of the job.

 

[ouirdeaux]

They’re trying to find a way to fund tax cuts and obviously the economic inactive are a natural Tory target.

Sure. But nobody's answered my question about how they can prove you intentionally flubbed an interview, except Karl Masks, who said they can do what they like. So I asked why they don't do that all the time whenever someone reports they were interviewed and rejected. No answers as of yet.

Edit: missed KM's answer.