How do you score on this? I'm definitely not fit for anything.
It's all pseudo quantitive mocked up garbage. You can't score people on these different things and then add the apples to the oranges. Which one is where you say you sleep sixteen hours a day and hear voices. I couldn't score my son on any of these. He could do them all in amoment of lucidity but he wouldn't. And he certainly won't if they upset him. Where does that come in.
If you score 15 in any one activity, you automatically pass the test. If your score is less than 15, it can be added to the scores you pick up from any of the other types of activity (in both the physical and the mental parts of the test). If your total score reaches 15, you pass the test.
Though the list of types of physical activity for this new test is not dissimilar to the list in the current incapacity benefit PCA, there are a number of significant differences. The new test is, generally speaking, much tighter.
All the lower score descriptors within each activity listed have been removed in the new test. These would normally score you 3 points each. They would allow someone with a range of relatively minor disabilities (the cumulative effect of which may be substantial) to get to required 15 points to pass the WCA. We believe that the removal of the lower score descriptors from the WCA will lead to a substantial increase in the number of claimants with physical disabilities who fail it.
The mental descriptors
The mental descriptors in the limited capability for work test are grouped into sets of activities under the following 10 headings:
• Learning or comprehension in the completion of tasks.
Parkinsons Disease Society are already working with us. Rosemary is trying to establish what MS, Downs and National Autistic Society are thinking. There must be plenty of other specific disability societies whose members will be subject to this. Any suggestions and anyone want to contact them?
Does the National Autistic Society ever say anything about anything vaguely political, ever?
Parkinsons Disease Society are already working with us. Rosemary is trying to establish what MS, Downs and National Autistic Society are thinking. There must be plenty of other specific disability societies whose members will be subject to this. Any suggestions and anyone want to contact them?
Does the National Autistic Society ever say anything about anything vaguely political, ever?
I am in process of contacting them again and been looking on their website.As yet I cant find any mention of ESA and its conditions.Their response to green paper is there but we knew that as after it they posted CW petition on their main website.
I spoke to the chief research officer of Mind yesterday and they are thinking and campaigning very much along the same lines as us.
They have had many meetings with the government and say the government is 100% determined to bring in this new system where your medical diagnosis isn't considered key and what you can do is the main thing.
I told her what we want Mind to campaign for and put it in writing in the e-mail below. They sounded a bit daunted by Purnell to me so let's encourage them. All the disability groups are working together on this through Disability Consortium so the more individual charities we can get our message to the better.
Hi XXXX
Lovely to talk to you. You are doing a great job and we all rely on Mind to speak up.
We will be quite happy if you can get two main points in to your campaign aims.
As I said we have no problem with all the help in the world being given in a positive way to get people some work.
Our concerns just come down to the threat in 'conditionality' being so unsafe and counter productive with severe mental illness which means reassurance of definite allocation to the 'support group'.
And lots of help and support like 'permitted work' in the support group for all the enduringly ill people who find six to eight hours activity a week about right, therapeutic and helpful.
Look forward to seeing the campaign aims you come up with it.
This is from the Compass site - Joy Johnson thread.
You couldn't make it up.
Here is a bit of news for you all , in your discussions and arguments, David Freud the maker of the Labours Welfare Reforms has defected to the Tory Party, in the main he says Labour is not doing enough to get people back to work, mind you this from a piss poor banker. The mind boggles if his mate Purnell will follow him I hope so, mind you I expect the Freud will be in charge of the Tories Welfare reforms.
how ironic david freud comments on the affect of mental illness on bankers, freud says, bankers are "facing waves of hatred", and job losses which is leading to a "loss of status" which is leading to mental illness.
how does he think those with mental illness feel being labelled as benefit scrounger, by those of his ilke.
as always those with money are to be sympothised with, those who have to reley on benefits are to be condemmed.
Purnell's welfare reform adviser defects to the Conservatives
Patrick Wintour, political editor The Guardian, Monday 16 February 2009
David Freud has defected to the Tories after helping create the government's controversial welfare reforms.
The key adviser on welfare reform to both the Blair and Brown governments is to join the Conservative frontbench in the Lords, in an apparent demonstration of his belief that the Tories are more likely to implement his radical reforms.
David Freud, an investment banker, had been advising the work and pensions secretary, James Purnell, on how to involve the private sector and voluntary groups in helping the jobless find work.
He was discussing how Purnell's department could finance the upfront costs of intensive work placement schemes from the subsequent savings to the welfare bill. His plans were almost fully adopted in a green paper in December, depriving the Tories of their harder-edged welfare policies.
Freud did not quit over any specific policy dispute with Purnell but appears to have been attracted to the possible opportunity to implement his reforms as a minister if the Tories are elected to government.
Freud was first commissioned before the 2005 general election by the then work and welfare secretary, John Hutton, to come up with radical proposals to encourage the 2.7 million people on incapacity benefit to find work.
But he struggled to gain Treasury support for his plans, and soon after the election he was advising the shadow work secretary, Chris Grayling, and attending the launch of his proposals for a form of "workfare" for the long-term unemployed.
But when Purnell was appointed work and pensions secretary last year, the political tug of war over Freud continued and he was hastily drawn back into the government circle as an adviser.
His plans were almost fully adopted in a green paper in December, stealing a march on the Tories' distinctive, harder-edged welfare policies.
On some aspects of sanctioning unemployed single parents with very young children to prepare themselves for work, Purnell appeared to go further than the Tories.
On publication of Purnell's welfare green paper in December, Freud praised the government's policy as representing "a significant change in the approach to the welfare state, aimed at calling a halt to the build-up of a dependency culture and in tackling our pockets of obstinate poverty".
Since then, as the recession has mounted, attention has focused on the scale of the problems facing jobcentres and whether the original costings of the private sector contracts need revision, given that it is going to take longer for unemployed people to find work.
Welcoming Freud's defection yesterday, Cameron said: "One of the biggest challenges facing the next government will be that of mass unemployment and how we can get Britain back to work.
"David Freud is a hugely impressive figure who has done more than anyone else to highlight how we can do just that and I am delighted that he has agreed to join my frontbench team."
Freud said yesterday: "By the end of this recession there are likely to be more people on welfare than ever before.
"In particular, we run the risk that another generation of long-term unemployed become condemned to languish outside the labour market for the rest of their lives. I see this as one of the most important challenges of the next few years. I am therefore delighted to accept David Cameron's invitation to join the Conservative team to work further on the solutions that will be needed."
A spokesman for Purnell said the departure would not deflect the government from implementing the reform plans Freud helped to shape.
Great news. We have a lovely reply from Lynne Jones the Labour MP who spoke up for people with mental illness in the Welfare Reform debate.
I think she will help us.
Frances
My father had schizophrenia and rarely worked. I do agree with all the points you make about this condition (as well as bipolar). I do not believe that anyone with a mental health problem should be threatened with sanctions, which is why I argue for an entirely voluntary approach.
It was in that context that I expressed my opinion. There is evidence that GPs tend to write people off and underestimate an individual's potential capabilities. Even so, I would be appalled if anyone in the DWP medical services, let alone an administrator should disagree with a diagnosis from a medical professional. Do you have any examples of this?
> Regards
>
>
> LYNNE JONES MP
>
> House of Commons
> London
> SW1A 0AA
>
> www.lynnejones.org.uk
If Lynne agrees to put a question to Purnell for us how should we phrase it?
Hi Lynne
Thanks so much for this. I guessed you knew about mental illness when you spoke in the house. I really don't think most people understand if they
haven't any experience.
We are so concerned about the way the new ESA will work out for people
with schizophrenia. It is such early days that most sick people don't even
know that they are getting moved over to the new benefit. It's only being
brought in at the moment for new claimants and existing claimants are
being left alone for the next year or so so they mostly don't know it is
happening.
Rethink have worked hard with the government in private trying to make the point that people with diagnoses of schizophrenia and bi-polar should be exempt from the 'conditionality' but they say that the Minister is so
hooked on the idea of running one simple system for all that he won't make any exceptions by diagnosis.
There is a problem in that the government is giving out billions to
agencies to administer this new system and charities like Mind and Rethink
may be conflicted and won't speak out too strongly because they want to
apply for the money.
The government do have a vague notion of 'mental health' as one of grounds for going in the 'support group' which is the only place where you are safe from 'conditionality'. But there are no rules about how you get in
it. So no one with schizophrenia can be sure they will get in the support
group and be protected. This uncertainty is causing enormous anxiety to
frail people who already have great fear of bureaucracy and the DWP.
If you read this thread on a mental health forum you can see how scared
they are and how unable they feel to fight and make a case.
If you challenge Purnell on this he will say 'Don't worry. When they go to
the DWP medical it will all be alright on the day'. Purnell knows nothing
about mental illness and he probably thinks that his doctors will always
get it right. But it leaves the people with schizophrenia as they say on
this thread tempted to go and play the 'sick card' for fear of sanctions
when what they really want to do is enthusiastically embrace the back to
work initiatives with enthusiasm. Their worst fear is that they will
volunteer for some therapeutic work of around six or eight hours and the
next thing that will happen is that this will be seen as an abilty to put
up the hours and get off benefit and then they will become unstable.
This is a double bind that must apply to all sick people. This new system
relies on some threat and pressure. It's a balancing act of pressure with
security. But for people with severe mental illness they aren't robust to
pressure and it can destabilise them with such disastrous consequences.
Mental illness really is a special case when it comes to threats.
We really don't know how to protect and reassure people with schizophrenia and bi-polar within this system. We fear it will all get settled in the end through tragedy and subsequent scandal.
What amazes me is that the Minister who is responsible for the income of
all sick people could bring in this legislation without ever saying things
like - of course we need to protect the really sick and they needn't
worry. But he never says this.
As it's such early days we don't have cases. We have anecdotal evidence
from CPNs who have accompanied people to the DWP assesment and say that the official doing the interviewing didn't understand mental illness and
it was incredibly difficult to explain to them how someone who appeared
quite well at the interview could at times relapse and be unable to function. Their advice is don't go to the interview alone because they
think many people with mental illness couldn't explain it properly.
Perhaps you could put a question to Purnell for us about how people with
severe mental illness are to be protected in the new system. Would you
like us to phrase a question? Do you think this would be the best way to
go forward.
Once again it is so great to find someone who understands the hidden world of mental illness.
Realistically if we run our planned campaign to get this bill altered to protect people with schizophrenia and bi polar then aswell as Purnell and Steve Webb of the LibDems we should also approach Teresa May.
Let's get a very short clear campaign message worked out
This is a clear indication, if we didn't know it already, that the Tories will be even worse than New Labour. No acknowledgement at all of the part they played in the development of casino capitalism, from the Thatcher Big Bang City of London deregulation, to monetarism in general. The primary fault of New Labour, apart from its expensive and immoral military adventurism, has been to emulate Tory economic policy, instead of reversing it.
Now we are in a deep and complex recession, probably degenerating into a depression, and the poor and vulnerable will have to pay for it. We need to oppose this.
On mental health we can either say we don't agree to any 'conditionality' for benefits for any one ever. Or we can accept we have lost that, that the mood of the public has been whipped up in to anti scrounger vendetta and we have to work with the new bill.
I don't like to say one illness is worse than another but they currently have a benefits hierarchy and schizophrenia and bi polar are classed as 'severe' mental illness and once you get that diagnosis it is usually for life.
A lot of people are walking round with a mild version of both illnesses who haven't crossed the line and other people suffer from terrible anxiety and depession and personality disorders and all sorts of other things.
Our alternative strategy is to accept this will be the law and start nibbling away getting people exempted from 'conditionality'. The government don't want to do this because they see it as the thin edge of the wedge which is why they have exempted almost no one.
This leaves us with a compelling case to get the severe mental illnesses exempted. And I personally see that as the best way forward. But I am obviously biased by my own son's case.
I would like to go for recurrent depression as well. Sometimes recurrent depression is an early from of bi polar. But when it isn't it is still a very debilitating illness. But strategically I don't think it is a good one to fight with because they very definitely have mild depression in their sights as a malingerers disease and it will make it much less likely to get through as a beach head.
Like Frances, I have this in my own family. I would probably be much more involved with it if I wasn't already a 24/7 carer for my partner.
There are people who are much more qualified to understand how to deal with this situation, at a practical level, than I am. Politically, I don't think that there is any serious scope in trying to negotiate with right-wing politicians, New Labour or Tory. Asking someone like Lynne Jones to help is an entirely different matter. For me, it is essentially a matter of making the case against this iniquitous policy.
There are people who are much more qualified to understand how to deal with this situation, at a practical level, than I am..
Who? Why don't they come and help us?
Dugsie wrote:
Politically, I don't think that there is any serious scope in trying to negotiate with right-wing politicians, New Labour or Tory. Asking someone like Lynne Jones to help is an entirely different matter. For me, it is essentially a matter of making the case against this iniquitous policy.
But if we continue to rail against the whole policy of 'conditionality' they will talk about malingerers and driving scroungers off benefits. We don't have to agree with 'conditionality' but I don't think we can get it scrapped altogether.
This is the problem we face. We can argue to scrap the whole policy or point at particular groups who it is ludicrous to include and try and start the fightback with them.
I think that because the Tories are in the mould of Victorian ladies with soup they will actually be more sympathetic to really hard cases and the rest can go whistle.
Socialism treats everyone as equals so surely there too more concern should be directed at the more severely sick. Unfotunately when it comes to health it is a very unequal situation. Wouldn't socialism try and compensate?
I know you have said many times Frances how most people with a severe mental illness are not able to fight this themselves but what is the feeling on the other boards.What are the people it affects actually saying? Do they understand what is going to be in place? I know I dont.
I think Theresa May needs contacting not just about this but welfare reform itself.Personally speaking, I think will be far worse under a Tory govt to achieve any leeway.
There are people who are much more qualified to understand how to deal with this situation, at a practical level, than I am..
Who? Why don't they come and help us?
You and your contacts in the charities which I am not involved with.
Dugsie wrote:
Politically, I don't think that there is any serious scope in trying to negotiate with right-wing politicians, New Labour or Tory. Asking someone like Lynne Jones to help is an entirely different matter. For me, it is essentially a matter of making the case against this iniquitous policy.
But if we continue to rail against the whole policy of 'conditionality' they will talk about malingerers and driving scroungers off benefits. We don't have to agree with 'conditionality' but I don't think we can get it scrapped altogether.
This is the problem we face. We can argue to scrap the whole policy or point at particular groups who it is ludicrous to include and try and start the fightback with them.
Have the toff tendency taken back the Tory Party from the grocer tendency ? In terms of economic policy, I doubt it. But do have a chat with them. Do it in the name of CW or whatever seems most appropriate.
I think that because the Tories are in the mould of Victorian ladies with soup they will actually be more sympathetic to really hard cases and the rest can go whistle.
Socialism treats everyone as equals so surely there too more concern should be directed at the more severely sick. Unfortunately when it comes to health it is a very unequal situation. Wouldn't socialism try and compensate?
Socialism, or even social democracy, is not available in the near future. NL and the Tories are trying to maintain the pretence of the 'free market' against all the evidence of its collapse. Their policies may count for nought against the harsh reality of depression. I think that another war beckons.
The Social War continues unabated .... thanks to the temporary collapse of the free markets , more citizens are now being directly affected .... the masses are discontent , the seeds now need to be sown for a Brave New World rather than a Sad New World.
The Social War continues unabated .... thanks to the temporary collapse of the free markets , more citizens are now being directly affected .... the masses are discontent , the seeds now need to be sown for a Brave New World rather than a Sad New World.
There is no social war. It's a figment of your febrile imagination A lot of people are discontented, but they are much too apathetic to get involved in any social war.
I know you have said many times Frances how most people with a severe mental illness are not able to fight this themselves but what is the feeling on the other boards. What are the people it affects actually saying? Do they understand what is going to be in place? I know I dont.
The LibDem Baroness Thomas of Winchester made an excellent intervention yesterday in The Grand Committtee representing a lot of the concerns raised on this site and by Compass elsewhere. It's all in Hansard in the last hour or so of the Committee.
(all player links and Hansard links to the Committees on the CarerWatch site in Campaigns)
3w and dot on the front publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90630-gc0001.htm#09063068000172
Following discussions we have had here on this site there were some interesting comments. I have said constantly that the Welfare Reform Bill is not about fraud. I think the Minister proved my case once and for all yesterday.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Currently, benefit fraud remains at the lowest level ever recorded, our latest estimates showing that by September 2008 we had reduced fraud across all benefits to 0.6 per cent of benefit spend—half a penny of every £1 of benefit expenditure. That is good news, but we must not be complacent; we recognise that there is still fraud in the system.
**************
The Welfare Reform Bill is really about changing the relationship of claimants with the state. Claimants - even the most sick - will no longer be 'entitled' to benefits but must come as supplicants and receive benefits at the whim of an Indus Delta adviser. It was said in the committee yesterday that this is a ground breaking change in our Welfare State and it certainly is. Why there aren't riots on the streets is a mystery to me. We are signing away the status of a citizen to be entitled to state support.
Baroness Thomas introduced an intervention yesterday asking for a charter of rights to redress this loss of rights for claimants by saying
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: Last weekend the Minister in charge of public service reform, Mr Liam Byrne, said that the Government were to offer better access to public services. He said:
“We need a power shift from Whitehall ministers and civil servants that currently have the power and move it to citizens ... so we have been developing a strategy that takes public services away from a target culture to giving people rights and entitlement to core public services”.
He may not have been talking specifically about the benefits system but my amendment setting out a claimants’ charter is surely in line with the Government’s new thinking. The proposal is all about enshrining a claimant’s rights and responsibilities in a charter that would be given to all benefit claimants at the beginning of their engagement with Jobcentre Plus or an external provider so that everyone knows where they stand. It would set out clearly the rights and obligations of Jobcentre Plus and the private providers and voluntary organisations that work under contract with Jobcentre Plus, and would be enforced by an independent ombudsman. It would set out clearly the claimant’s rights and responsibilities.
My honourable friend in another place, Paul Rowen, moved a much more prescriptive amendment along the same lines in Committee in another place but this amendment is different and is very simple. In view of the groundbreaking nature of this Bill, it is surely a sensible provision and one that I hope the Government will not resist. How could they possibly resist? I beg to move.
***************
Please read the Ministers weasel like answer. Apparently we don't need a charter because he is already introducing a charter but of course as always his charter isn't written down in law - it's on his desk somewhere. He never wants to write any of the safe guards in to law because he says it restricts his freedom of movement. Someone should tell him that that is precisely what the law is meant to do.
All times are GMT + 1 Hour Page Previous1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
