New Benefits Proposal

I don't quite get how the incapacity benefit is changing, apart from it's name, because even at the moment to claim incapacity benefit you have to have an assesment with the Occupational Health from the DWP.

From what I've read (which isn't a lot so far) it seems like there will be more pressure to get people off it than there is currently for those not considered 'the most disabled' members of society.

I think it's good as long as they truly help people, and listen to what peoples consultants, key-workers etc say.

For example, I have two friends on IB at the moment, both due to mental health reasons. One has now fallen pregnant, and won't be able to work for the next year and a bit (is 6 months pregnant now), but after that she wants to get into childmining, so I am hoping the DWP may help in paying for some courses to register as a CM.

The other wanted to return to work at the begining of this year, but her key-worker has advised she is likely to suffer a re-lapse if she does, and to wait until the end of the year. Again, I really hope the DWP help her find a suitable job when she is ready to return to work.

Although abuse of the system does happen, I sometimes don't believe it is as much as the media makes out. I know that I was seriously considering giving up work for a time to try and sort out my balance disorder, but even with the income protection policies I have, and any benefits I'd be due, it wouldn't cover the costs of my mortgage& bills.

Just watching some more on it now on C4 news, but they are concentrating more on the Jobseekers allowance side. If it improves the catch 22 situation where it's not worth people working, it can only be a good thing.

I do have concerns though about IB due to the stigmas already involved, this could just exacerbate it and, as you highlight, push people back into work before they're ready / capable.

That article has left me fuming.

As someone who struggles with mental health, I know several people who aren't ready to go to work at the moment, and I bet they'll be the ones targeted to go.

The whole concept of "work around the community" seems like the government are treating people on benefits like criminals, by making them do community service. Fuck that!

For me, going back to work was by far the hardest thing I've ever had to do, and I've really REALLY struggled to get a full-time permanent job. However, I've managed it all without mentioning my mental illness. I bet that no employer really wants to hear from their candidates "oh yeah I'm looking for work because the government won't give me my benefits anymore. Oh, and I keep going in and out of hospital because of suicide attempts and self-harm". Don't get me wrong, I'm not mocking people that suffer, because I've been there myself.

When an employer looks at two candidates who are pretty much on par with each other through experience, abilities and skills, who would they choose? The mentally sound, or someone who's got a history of depression, and who would REALLY just need to get some better mental health support without having to go to work? Come on.

What this country needs is, I agree, to help people get back to work. But they're going about it all wrong! People with mental illnesses (who, I'm sure, will NOT be considered as the severely disabled) should be supported to go back to work, and be given more support!

A few years ago, I was part of a Therapeutic Community. We were really under funded, and there were some that had no money whatsoever because their benefits didn't come through. Jacqui Smith decided that people with mental illnesses "should feel the squeeze" and no matter how much we campaigned and the fact that we got some MPs to support us, the PCT still closed us down. It had been the support system for about 10 of us, but then again, we were just a statistic. Now, 3 out of the 10 have committed suicide, and the rest are part of "Complex Cases" counselling at the local hospital. The last thing I heard from one of the girls I used to go with, she was being so self-destructive she's been sectioned in a hospital until further notice.

I just wish that the government would voice the opinion of the people who "feel the squeeze" before deciding that they should get no support, and get forced back to work.

Rant over

I agree with what you have said Mrs Smith. My first friend I mentioned was also part of a TC. Luckily for her, she finished her time there, before it was closed, but many didn't get that oppurtunity.

I'm glad she had the time to finish, sweetersong. But even so, I can imagine they still struggle?

The whole concept of the TC was that after you finished, you would still see one of the counsellors once a week/month, forgotten what it was, for about 6 months, just to make sure you wouldn't relapse.

Problem was, after that 6 months, you would be expected to cope by yourself for the rest of your life, as, according to the NHS, you'd already had more than enough support!

Gah. Just doesn't make sense in my head..

It annoys me that I dont work for mental health reasons and I can't even claim IB as I dont have 2 years solid NI contributions, I only get DLA and thats only 140 odd a month. I'd like to know how people are really supposed to live on the amounts that they claim you need to live. I just don't see how these people that do play the system manage to get enough. When H was made redundant the JSA and housing benefit we got wasnt anywhere near enough to pay the rent and bills, let alone feed us, we had to borrow from his parents.

? I really do feel for you. When I was at TC I knew I couldn't get IB because I hadn't worked enough. But luckily for me, I still lived with my parents, so they helped out with money..

Thank you. It really makes me mad that they are always going on about people abusing the system, yet people that really do need the help and to be on the benefits can't get them

This is really what worries me about these proposals, the Government spiel will be to make it a fairer system (no doubt) but more likely it will just be plain harder to get anything, for those that really need it.

? Zoe ☹️

My MIL has been arguing to get DLA for her bad hips; she's a carer and was given her 3 months notice a few months ago. She's been told she has to leave the house she's in, and she couldn't, up til last month, get any DLA at all because the 2nd opinion doctor disagreed re: her needs.

Anyway, I digress. My point was, that now, she's got Income Support, and that's £2.50 a week! How the fuckety-buggery do people honestly think she's going to be able to survive on that????

She was signed off to her psyciatrist who then signed her off from them claiming she didn't need help any more, and this was when she was at her worst (had started experimenting with drugs etc). From a religious POV I can only call it divine intervention (others may call it luck, or fate) that she got out of that by herself, a month before she fell pregnant. That step, combined with the fact she now has a new life inside her has changed her so much, it is amazing.

There is so little help out there for those with mental illness. ?

Once again I am amazed by the audacity of a Labour (yes, yes, I know haha) governmnt going after the most vulnerable members of society in this way in order to pursue some ludicrous idea of cutting down on fraud or getting rid of spongers.

I'd be much happier if the Revenue & DWP spent even half as much effort tracing those guilty of tax evasion or making sure the billions of pounds of unclaimed benefits went to their rightful claimants (often pensioners btw).

This article in last years Grauniad is fascinating in terms of of figures - £900million in fraudulent benefits versus £97-£150 billion in tax evasion? I know which one I'd be chasing.

Except we don't want to go round making veiled threats at nice middle class people who might not be declaring all the dividends from their shares or those cutting the labels off the clothes they buy at a discount in the US so they don't have to pay Excise Duty, for example.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jan/10/comment.society

Oh my god, I can't believe it!!

I remember when I went to see a psychiatrist for the first time - he diagnosed me with "mild depression and anxiety" and then sent me on my merry way. He asked me to call up to make an appt 6 months later. I did, and guess what? He'd moved. Noone was assigned my case. So I decided I didn't need help anymore!

A year or so down the line, and I had gone to my GP numerous times asking for anti-ds, sleeping tablets, anti-anxieties etc etc and then eventually we got onto the subject of seeing a psychiatrist. The GP told me that, since I had recurring depression, no psychiatrist on the NHS, as far as he was concerned, would take on my case! Luckily for me, mum was with me, and she asked him to refer me privately, with mum and dad's health insurance covering it. I'm really lucky that I've got that!

I have to see a specific type of psychotherapist in order to try and work on getting well. The one I'm at is about £400 a month - who the fuck, as a young person just starting out and wanting to have a family one day, like me and H, would be able to afford that ourselves??

Thats just stupid! It makes me sooo mad!

I just wish that the government would sometimes ask some people it would affect before starting to come up with these ridiculous new schemes..

Actually, that reminds me: When the TC I was in was trying to gain support from MPs and local news etc, it was pretty interesting..

The local newspaper came round for an afternoon, interviewing us all, and we ended up getting about 2 sentences worth in the paper. Nice.
The local TV station was meant to come round on two occasions, but both times they cancelled last minute. I can't remember what the first excuse was, but the second time, a mate and I decided we'd talk to the news. We stayed for 2 hours after TC had finished for the day, waiting and waiting.. About 5 mins before the TV people were due, one of the admin girls for the unit came round and told us the TV people had cancelled- they'd found out about a car accident in another part of the county that they thought they should show, instead...

We got a local MP to come round - his first question was "how many of you regularly steal, and how many of you are on class A drugs?" ?

I actually like the idea that the emphasis for those currently on incapacity benefit is what they can do, not what they can't. I don't think there's any suggestion that people who are unable to work owing to depression, say, will be forced to pick up banana peels in the park, rather that they'll be encouraged to work part-time in ways that ease them back into employment.

I see where you're coming from, but I doubt this'll be the case..

And also, it'll be really tough for them to get work. In the agency I work, there have been a few candidates who've come in, referred on by the job centre. They normally ask for part-time work, of up to 16 hours a week so it doesn't affect the benefits they receive, but to be honest, I've not come across a single job in my experience that would require that little work force..

Also, when I was a temp and had a breakdown, I had to move on to a different agency, because they were no longer willing to represent me for different jobs, because I was labelled a "liablility".

There have been other jobs I've had, whereby I've done part time or full-time work, and I haven't told them about my medical history, who've let me go without any notice (while temping) because I wasn't performing as well as I should.

As I said, I can see where you're coming from, but I doubt employers will be like that. There are still clients we come across that say "no women between 18-40" because they don't want to run the risk of the woman getting pregnant and having to go on maternity leave..

I agree.

There is clear evidence that people who are away from work for long periods find it much more difficult to get back into work in the future. Therefore a scheme that supports them properly, by facilitating their return to the work environment, must only be a good thing?

I'd like to think that it could work.. However, again, I'm not sure if employers would be willing to facilitate.. Besides, there are still a lot of narrow-minded employees out there, and it would be hard to prevent discrimination in the workplace..

For example, if my employers knew about my condition, I doubt I'd be able to be in a bad mood because of anything, except for "oh it must be her depression kicking in" etc.

I can't imagine that a lot of people going back to work would want to be ***-footed around, either.

It's a really hard situation, and, to be honest, I really don't know what the answer would be.. Maybe, if there was such a thing, put together a group of companies that would offer work to the people going back to work, while making sure that there was an Occupational Health division at hand all the time.. And make sure that the employees had all come from the same background, or at least UNDERSTOOD the concept of mental health (definitely wouldn't work in my office!) so that there wouldn't be a bad feeling between the employees..

And I can see where you're coming from ? Government initiatives have made it much easier for businesses to offer maternity leave, for instance - I'm hoping that positive support will encourage employers to offer part-time work to those who've been off sick and want to re-enter the workforce too.

Also, let's face it, the mentally ill are only a fraction of people off long-term sick. Things like back problems account for a lot too - there is certainly work those people can do.

I agree with what Sophie and Roobard said. I work with people on Incap Benefit in Glasgow and most need some level of support to get back to work. For some who want to work but have been away from the workplace for a long time, there is a huge psychological barrier - they're overwhelmed by things we take for granted (eg budgeting for a monthly wage) and as long as the support is provided they can manage to cope. Others come from households with two generations of unemployment and need to almost relearn skills like turning up to work on time, being respectful of others etc. There are also people with varying levels of disability who want to prove that they can work and will see some form of support or community work as opening doors for them.

That's the optimistic side of me. The pessimist says that the government will pick on the easier targets, will put people on endless cycles of training and will help to reinforce the usual stereotypes. It would be nice to see them target tax avoidance for a change...

Exactly!. I got the letter back about my JS claim last week to say I had been refused. Up to now I have worked all my working life, never claimed benefits, but they are telling me I have not paid enought tax in the last two years (WAS working more than forty hours - a long story) so am not eligible. We cannot get housing or council tax help because of H's job, and yet there are people in this country who seem to do quite well out living off benefits, some who have never worked and probably have no intention of doing so. Luckily H's wage doe's cover rent etc and we are now on a very tight food budget with the little left over. I have ten quid in my bank account and that's it. It seems to me that if you work, pay taxes etc then YOU are the ones that are discriminated against when it come's to benefits.

I rather think that that's exactly what the implication is though.

It's all a load of...waffle, smoke, mirrors and figures sleight of hand. The actualk difference it'll make to the numbers in reciept of benefits is negligible and the benefits bill will remain pretty much the same if not actually increase, someone really should have cottoned on the the fact that 'work for benefits' doesn't work by now, but it amuses readers of the Daily Mail and even some normal people to think it does.

I think the major problem is long term claimants who know the system and have intention of working will always get around initiatives, no matter what they are. We can't claim anything either due to lack of NI contributions- but how can MrHs cousin, who went on the dole from 18 and is stil on it at 27 with no intention of getting off?

I agree with Sophie that we should be concentrating on what people can do rather than can't (I am always agreeing with Sophie lately!)

i also think that if people are on long term sick, thats acceptable, providing they are activley taking steps to overcome their illness. MrHs aunt (getting a good picture of his family now?) has been claiming for agrophobia for 16 years, and as far as I am aware no one has ever insisted she get psychiatric help for it.

Well, quite. I also like the idea that claimants will be reevaluated by a doctor other than their own GP, which would help to identify whether for instance they could be receiving more appropriate treatment.

Hyacinth - I can totally understand what you mean by MrH's cousin - people like that should be topped up with courses like IT courses and be given work experience in different work environments.

The one sector that worries me is the people with mental health issues, who can't even bear to go outside the door in the day, let alone go into the benefits office and be grilled for hours on end again (I assume this is done at first when people apply for benefits in the first place?) to then be told that, actually, the benefits officer doesn't reckon they're "severe" enough to be entitled to the benefits, and might as well just head straight back to work.

Gah!

But surely someone who's so ill they can't bear to leave their home out to be receiving more treatment? Perhaps be insitutionalised? This isn't a cop-out; providing more intervention in people's problems is far more expensive in the short term than just continuing to lob benefit cheques at them.

The really annoying thing on that front is that those in that position who try working and find themselves unable to cope are immeasurably worse off than those who don't bother their arses.

The untimate hurdle of course is that there are, including IB etc. claimants circa. 3M people who are realistically capable of holding down a job... And about 60k vacancies UK wide. It doesn't take a maths genius.....

I see what you mean, don't get me wrong. Only trouble is: say the social worker decides the person needs mroe support, where are they all going to go? Here in the Cambs PCT, they've got rid of 5 out of 8 psychiatric ward beds in the last few years, to cut costs.. So, fine, they can be institutionalised (don't get me wrong, I TOTALLY agree that some people should be looked after full-time in certain circumstances) but where are they going to go?

And if it then gets decided they should get psychiatric help, they'll get to see a psychiatrist who gives them a diagnosis of "mild depression and anxiety" and refer the person for 6 counselling sessions on the NHS, doing CBT, and then get expected to get back to work!

I definitely see your point, but a LOT more workforce needs to be pumped in for the new incentive to work.

So what would you like to see the govt do?