Exit Poll WOW!!

[Corky34]

Titles changed as often as I changed my socks, depending on who wanted what angle examined. I'm sure you'll find something under some generic title like [insert benefit name] Quarterly Summary Q[1-4] [year], or any one of several breakdown briefings with similar titles under [benefit name] EMP audit London North West [date]. Probably find the word Minister or Parliament in them.

Indeed they do but you've cast the net so wide that like i said you've made it all but impossible to verify your claim, is it unemployment, income support, tax credits, housing, sickness benefit, fraud, or the financial costs involved?

Call it, then. Makes no difference to me.

Well unless you can provide some evidence other than because i worked there and i said so then it is a false claim as all the evidence I've looked at say's you're not only wrong on the costs of sickness benefits but also the percentage of outright fraudulent, or 'heavily over-embellished' claims.

I mean the total social security expenditure for 2014/15 was £258 billion and you're claiming that £215 billion of that is made up of people claiming sickness benefits, call me skeptical but i highly doubt all other social security expenditure only amounts to £43 billion, pensions alone make up £108 billion.

Total expenditure. That total is a LOT of money... but not really representative of number of claims vs number of fraudulent claims.
Also, is that before or after fraudulent payments are recovered? Did they balance the books first, to make the 'overpayments' appear lower?

No it's not, estimated fraud accounted for approximately £1.2 billion and while that may sound like a big number it's not as *over payments during the same period were almost double that figure.

And no that figures does not include fraudulent payments recovered, balancing the books, or anything else, it's an estimate and without you providing any information to backup your claims that's all we have to go on.

Like i said before the amount of "fraud" in the social security system is estimated to be very small, no system is perfect, however when you compare it to the TAX system the numbers pale in comparison, HMRC estimated the tax shortfall to be £36bn in 2014/15 and most people say they've massively underestimated that figure as we have the lowest percentage of tax shortfall in the entire world, less conservative estimates put the UK's tax shortfall somewhere between £65 billion to £160 billion.

*0.9 per cent in claimant error and 0.4 per cent in official error

[Top_gun]

Ttaskmaster's figures is way out.

Moving on topic, it was a pleasure seeing London voting out five Tory MPs with many others on slim majorities. I'm definitely looking forward to general election part II for some more Tory meltdown in London.

[scaryjim]

Given Ttaskmaster's 12 person team were all apparently reviewing a case every minute I can completely understand why they'd make so many mistakes. I'd've been complaining about the unrealistic workload expectations if it'd been me...

A hung parliament is only really any good if there's enough shortfall of seats to make a party work for their right to govern. With Sinn Fein not taking their seats and the Unionists always likely to vote with the Conservatives, it's all been a bit too easy for them - they don't really need to do that much negotiating. A sensible Conservative leader at this point would've been talking behind the scenes with the Lib Dems too - they hold enough seats to provide the supply for any Conservative policy that's too liberal to get past the DUP, after all...

[Top_gun]

A sensible Conservative leader at this point would've been talking behind the scenes with the Lib Dems too - they hold enough seats to provide the supply for any Conservative policy that's too liberal to get past the DUP, after all...

And a more sensible Lib Dem leader will say no way to a coalition with them.

One would think the Lib Dems have learnt their lesson from the last coalition government. Otherwise they are risking total wipeout if a Tory-Lib Dem government goes wrong again.

It seems the DUPs are a bunch of dingbats - a perfect match for the Tories.

[scaryjim]

And a more sensible Lib Dem leader will say no way to a coalition with them. ...

The tories aren't seeking a coalition anyway, and I didn't say coalition

Actually that seems to the be the big thing people are struggling to get at the minute - the difference between a formal coalition, and a confidence and supply arrangement. They're not really that similar...

[DanceswithUnix]

Moving on topic, it was a pleasure seeing London voting out five Tory MPs with many others on slim majorities. I'm definitely looking forward to general election part II for some more Tory meltdown in London.

I find that kind of language sadly typical and rather worrying. It would be nice to hear talk of what wonderful things we could be moving towards from Labour supporters, rather than some football hooligan style "yeah we punched them good innit".

But really, May shot herself in the foot repeatedly and the Conservatives did a dreadful campaign. If Corbyn couldn't win against that pitiful showing, he really is un-electable.

[Smudger]

I may have missed it, but there doesn't seem to be any fuss about wasting £143 million on an unnecessary election, on a vanity project just so May can say 'I told you they wanted me!'. Also that May has said they will 'help out' MPs who have lost their jobs, some of them are in financial difficulty. I can see them really struggling on their huge pensions. What, like the actual poor?

[scaryjim]

... May shot herself in the foot repeatedly and the Conservatives did a dreadful campaign. If Corbyn couldn't win against that pitiful showing, he really is un-electable. ...

I think that says more about the country than Corbyn or the Labour party. The fact that Britain won't currently elect a party that is essentially mainstream Social Democrat* isn't that party's fault. The UK has always been economically right-leaning, and it seems it might even be shifting further that way.

The higher youth turnout gives me some hope though, and I think Labour needs to keep those people engaged - a swing back to centrist new Labour now won't do that. I'd rather have a Labour party that is distinct from the Conservatives then end up with the choice of hard Tory or soft Tory in a red rosette. We need a demographic shift leftwards anyway, and the best way to get that (IMNSHO) will be to keep the younger voters engaged and active.


* no, they're not dangerously extreme left wingers. Plenty of European political commentators have gone on record to say that in their countries Corbyn's policies are mainstream, not left wing.

[Ttaskmaster]

Indeed they do but you've cast the net so wide that like i said you've made it all but impossible to verify your claim, is it unemployment, income support, tax credits, housing, sickness benefit, fraud, or the financial costs involved?

The £215bn is the total cost of sickness benefits, plus associated income, Housing, tax creds and whatever else they were also on or gatewayed to. I already specified £41bn on sickness benefits.
Hence 60% of that £215bn being gross overpayment, before recovery, repayment or whatever other actions were taken against the fraudulent.

Well unless you can provide some evidence other than because i worked there and i said so then it is a false claim as all the evidence I've looked at say's you're not only wrong on the costs of sickness benefits but also the percentage of outright fraudulent, or 'heavily over-embellished' claims.

Fine, it's a false claim. There are no loopholes, there is no fraud, all is well. Go back to bed, forget about benefit caps, forget about people abusing the system, it doesn't happen...

you're claiming that £215 billion of that is made up of people claiming sickness benefits,

Claims which can and are refused, revisited and revoked, but for which we still pay out in the first place

Given Ttaskmaster's 12 person team were all apparently reviewing a case every minute I can completely understand why they'd make so many mistakes.

12 data entry clerks. They log incoming new cases, which are then booked, examined and sent back to the Benefits Agency/DWP.
I shall say this again - The Benefits Agency decide if someone is entitled to benefits. We don't review, we don't decide, we just supply the medical exams. Some other department/company supplies personal QoL details for things like Housing, child support and whatever. Then the BA do a review and make the call, not us.

I'd've been complaining about the unrealistic workload expectations if it'd been me...

There were a few complaints - Too many new files, 300,000 case backlogs, not enough staff, not enough doctors, too many claimants cancelling, etc etc... It got worse when they introduced new benefits or devised different assessments, as people had to re-claim.

A sensible Conservative leader at this point would've been talking behind the scenes with the Lib Dems too - they hold enough seats to provide the supply for any Conservative policy that's too liberal to get past the DUP, after all...

They're more likely to convince the SNP than the LibDems, I'd think. The LD already said they got too badly burned in the last coalition and have no interest in playing with others any more. Who knows, with that kind of give/take partnership, perhaps Sturgeon's Scots will finally be free... ?

[Corky34]

I think that says more about the country than Corbyn or the Labour party. The fact that Britain won't currently elect a party that is essentially mainstream Social Democrat* isn't that party's fault. The UK has always been economically right-leaning, and it seems it might even be shifting further that way.

The higher youth turnout gives me some hope though, and I think Labour needs to keep those people engaged - a swing back to centrist new Labour now won't do that. I'd rather have a Labour party that is distinct from the Conservatives then end up with the choice of hard Tory or soft Tory in a red rosette. We need a demographic shift leftwards anyway, and the best way to get that (IMNSHO) will be to keep the younger voters engaged and active.


* no, they're not dangerously extreme left wingers. Plenty of European political commentators have gone on record to say that in their countries Corbyn's policies are mainstream, not left wing.

I've not looked into it much but I've been reading stuff saying youth turnout wasn't that much higher than previous years, it was higher but not massively so.

The £215bn is the total cost of sickness benefits, plus associated income, Housing, tax creds and whatever else they were also on or gatewayed to. I already specified £41bn on sickness benefits.
Hence 60% of that £215bn being gross overpayment, before recovery, repayment or whatever other actions were taken against the fraudulent.

Sorry but how can the total cost of sickness benefits, plus associated income, Housing, tax creds and whatever else be only £43 billion less than the total welfare budget, pensions alone take up £108 billion, your maths just doesn't add up.

Fine, it's a false claim. There are no loopholes, there is no fraud, all is well. Go back to bed, forget about benefit caps, forget about people abusing the system, it doesn't happen...

Sorry but when did i say there are no loopholes, there is no fraud, and all is well? IIRC i said no system is perfect.

Claims which can and are refused, revisited and revoked, but for which we still pay out in the first place

Sorry but if a claim is refused then nothings paid out, if it's revisited and revoked then one would assume that's because the claimants situation has changed, that doesn't mean they've always been claiming fraudulently it means their situation has changed, AFAIK no money is paid out until a claim is successful and if someones doesn't notify the DWP of a situation change then AFAIK the DWP can and does prosecute if the money isn't returned.

[Biscuit]

I may have missed it, but there doesn't seem to be any fuss about wasting £143 million on an unnecessary election, on a vanity project just so May can say 'I told you they wanted me!'. Also that May has said they will 'help out' MPs who have lost their jobs, some of them are in financial difficulty. I can see them really struggling on their huge pensions. What, like the actual poor?

Send them down the job centre, see how quickly they change their perspective on social benefits. [/sarcasm]

[Ttaskmaster]

Sorry but how can the total cost of sickness benefits, plus associated income, Housing, tax creds and whatever else be only £43 billion less than the total welfare budget, pensions alone take up £108 billion, your maths just doesn't add up.

If I knew that, I'd have been working as an actuary or something, not collecting data on a former-government department whose primary purpose seems to be whining about how privatisation means they no longer get the Queen's Birthday off work...
I just reported the figues from the data on-system. Not my problem what it means or what they do with/about it.

Sorry but when did i say there are no loopholes, there is no fraud, and all is well? IIRC i said no system is perfect.

And that was my point - That the money spent on investigating this, closing the loopholes, assessing suitability for work and encouraging people to stop riding the benefit wave is well spent. It might be slightly better spent on having a government agency take the work back, since private companies don't seem that adept at it...

Sorry but if a claim is refused then nothings paid out

Quite often the claim will be approved even before all the required evidence is provided. Part of that is a failing of the FastTrack system and/or when a BA/DWP assessor reckons they possibly don't need an exam in the first place.

that doesn't mean they've always been claiming fraudulently it means their situation has changed

They are required to advise the BA of any changes, though. If they don't, intentionally or otherwise, that is classified as fraud.

if someones doesn't notify the DWP of a situation change then AFAIK the DWP can and does prosecute if the money isn't returned.

Can and does, but cautions, repayment plans and 'debt recovery solutions' are the order of the day. Softly softly, with prosecution being a last resort.

[DanceswithUnix]

I think that says more about the country than Corbyn or the Labour party. The fact that Britain won't currently elect a party that is essentially mainstream Social Democrat* isn't that party's fault. The UK has always been economically right-leaning, and it seems it might even be shifting further that way.

The country is what it is though, if the country finds Corbyn unpalatable then Labour can't just tell the electorate the equivalent of "You're holding it wrong" and expect things to improve.

[Ttaskmaster]

I find that kind of language sadly typical and rather worrying. It would be nice to hear talk of what wonderful things we could be moving towards from Labour supporters, rather than some football hooligan style "yeah we punched them good innit".

To me, that's all elections are about - Who gets into power. Nothing really to do with manifestos, beyond a guess at what they think the public wants to hear in order to secure votes.

The country is what it is though, if the country finds Corbyn unpalatable then Labour can't just tell the electorate the equivalent of "You're holding it wrong" and expect things to improve.

Labour have held power before, so it's possible... they just didn't win this one.

[Lanky123]

I think there is a lot of respect out there for the integrity of a politician holding their beliefs about the best future for the country and (within reason) sticking to them. I don't believe a Blairite leader or someone who changes their tune at the whim of the tabloids would get anywhere near the same level of support. Corbyn has already displayed some level of pragmatism - for instance accepting Trident as a sensible Labour-wide policy given the compromises necessary in a large political party. If the nationalisation plans were positioned a little less dramatically (for instance by prioritising schools, poorly performing rail lines etc at first, then consider further moves based on success) I could see Labour making further gains in a (hypothetical) near-future election.

Likewise the Tories need some serious tweaks to May's authoritarian surveillance tendencies. Britain may be fiscally conservative (broadly speaking) but I certainly wouldn't say it is socially conservative. Fox hunting, internet surveillance and breaking encryption protocols are not vote winners (or sensible) no matter how many tabloids can be persuaded to back them up.

[scaryjim]

... They are required to advise the BA of any changes, though. If they don't, intentionally or otherwise, that is classified as fraud. ...

For someone who admits they didn't work for the Benefits Agency and wasn't involved in the assessment of claims you like making sweeping statements about benefits assessment, don't you? Well, I have worked in benefits assessment,so how about we have some actual information from that side of thing?

Claimants are required to notify changes of circumstance. If they don't they may be overpaid benefit. That's not fraud. That's a normal overpayment. With most overpayments there's actually two parts, a claimant error and an official error - the claimant error reflects the delay between the circumstance changing and the claimant notifying the relevant authority. The official error reflects the delay between the relevant authority being notified and the benefit actually being stopped.

Neither of those are fraud though. Fraud has a very specific meaning in benefits. If you don't understand how benefits work at an administrative level, I'd suggest you're careful about the language you use. You may think what you're saying is right, and what you actually [i]mean[/.i] to say might be, but the language you are using is very wrong, and that means what you are actually saying is very wrong.

The country is what it is though, if the country finds Corbyn unpalatable then Labour can't just tell the electorate the equivalent of "You're holding it wrong" and expect things to improve.

Only it turns out the country don't find Corbyn unpalatable. Almost as many wanted Corbyn's Labour as wanted May's Conservatives. Under a reasonable PR system the difference between the parties would be around 14 seats, not 56. He won Labour's second highest share of the popular vote since 1970, well ahead of New Labour's second and third election wins. But no, I'm sure Corbyn's toxic brand of revolutionary socialism is the real problem here...