I want to know what David Cameron and the Conservatives will do for the disabled whom are on welfare benefits?
Specifically, what will happen to the welfare benefits for disabled people?
I have never voted Conservative, but I am considering it for the next election, however I think I may vote for Labour due to the fact that already David Cameron is talking about cutting welfare benefits to make tax cuts.
What are David Cameron's and the Conservatives plans for welfare benefits generally and those for the disabled specifically?
Also, what are the details of your plans to privatise and hand over the welfare system to charities?
I really hope David Cameron answers your question. I know DC will make sure the modern Conservative Party look after those people in our society who need help and assistance. I have no doubt about it.
Fingers crossed - hope DC answers this question for you!
We will know the answers when we get the Conservative manifesto, but I hope he'll answer this question too. Disability is an issue that affects him personally, of course, in the case of his son Ivan.
I'm not sure at all that the conservatives and DC will provide adequately for those disabled that are not able to work. Only this week David Cameron has said that people on incapacity benefit will lose their benefit if they don't take a "reasonable job". That is extremely vague.
I have been severely disabled since childhood and I know how the disabled get treated and mistreated by the benefit agency. More and more tax cuts will mean that money will be taken from other areas and the welfare system is an easy target.
David Cameron also said he wants a "major welfare reform", which means he wants to save as much money as possible from the welfare system, it certainly won't mean making sure people are properly provided for regardless of cost.
Until DC clarifies exactly what the conservatives have planned for the welfare system, and specifically for the provision of benefits for the disabled, I would not vote for the co0nservatives. I think DC is trying not to reveal his true intentions on welfare reform and the disabled due to the fact that he does not want to alienate disabled voters. Otherwise why not come out with facts and not vague suggestions? DC has had to mention welfare reform because it is one of the obvious 'popular' ways to assure middle England of tax cut funding.
No offense votedave but David's son is not likely to be in a position where he will ever need to rely on disability benefits. I am sure that David will take very good care of his son as a good father in his financial position would do.
Andie, I've heard DC speak several times about the need to open more special needs schools in the UK. I believe Cameron is genuine and that this is a subject very close to his heart.
Welfare reform is needed (thanks to Gordon Brown and Labour). It might *sound* harsh - but reform/change isn't always a bad thing. Just look at what Bill Clinton acheived with his welfare reform in the USA.
It's my understanding that what David Cameron said in his speech was that if you CAN work, you are ABLE to work, and you are offered a job that is fair and reasonable - yet you decline the offer - then you would lose benefits etc.
Of course, I would like to know how this will be decided - which is why I hope DC answers your questions. How does DC define 'fair' and 'reasonable'?
But I do believe David Cameron WILL support those people in our society who need help and assistance...
Hi Andie, I tend to agree with canvas and I also hope David answers your posting. I am also immobile and rely on others. I believe and hope, David is aiming at the people who are really unemployed, and not incapacitated.
There are many, many cheats using the benifits system as a way of not working. Many people are on incapacity benefit instead of unemployment benefit to make Gordon Browns unemployment figs look better, and believe that is who David is aiming at.
How he intends sorting out the genuine claiments from the not so, or cheats is not clear.
I think there needs to be a distinction made between care and services for the disabled, including education and health provision, and the issue of welfare benefit provision. Primarily I am asking David Cameron what are his plans for welfare reform, specifically for the disabled.
As you haven't said what your background is I cannot comment on your knowledge or experience of the welfare benefit system and treatment of the disabled. However, I can tell you that in practice all welfare decisions assessed on ability and what is reasonable is actually heavily controlled by budget concerns. If you have any doubt about this I suggest you research the relevant Government documentation on the subject and the work of many welfare advice groups.
The welfare system is far from 'fair' or 'reasonable' to the disabled. It is the benefit agency's job to meet their targets and budgets, they will do anything to meet those regardless of the consequences.
Also, there are medical items that used to be available on prescription which no longer are. Having to choose between essential food or essential medical items is commonplace. This obviously relates to allocation of welfare provision.
I believe and hope, David is aiming at the people who are really unemployed, and not incapacitated.
David did refer to incapacity benefit not unemployment benefit.
Quote:
How he intends sorting out the genuine claimants from the not so, or cheats is not clear.
And that is exactly the point! David is not making it at all clear, and that looks suspicious. As David Cameron has announced he wants major welfare reform he must have formulated those plans to a significant stage. After all, the Conservative may be weeks away from Government, you don't leave major policy planning until the last minute!
The question is why is DC being so vague about the subject of welfare reform and the disabled when he obviously has more definite plans?
I understand what you are saying about defining those who are 'genuine' and those who are not. However, many of the 'genuine' disabled claimants have been badly affected from the fallout of previous welfare reforms which we were told was supposedly only to affect those who were not 'genuine'. The reality of the truth is that any Government decisions on welfare reform are driven by cutting funding and lowering budgets. Therefore, it is important to clarify exactly what they plan to do and not just the vague rhetoric of their supposed intentions. The actual plans matter, their intentions do not.
The question is why is DC being so vague about the subject of welfare reform and the disabled when he obviously has more definite plans?
The reason could be that a general election is looming. DC might not want to give away too much information about the 'proposals' - Labour would nick the ideas...
I would suggest that the current problems in the system lie with Gordon Brown and Labour - all the more reason to get rid of Brown!
Actually, many would argue that the current welfare problems started from the major Social Fund reforms which were formulated by John Major in the mid 1980s. Those Social Fund reforms fundamentally changed the way the disabled were provided for within the benefit system regarding essential equipment and items. It was John Major who first formulated the plans to make the disabled borrow money as loans from the welfare system for equipment which previously had been provided for by grants. The Conservatives then added Social Fund Community Care grants which, to the casual observer seems to provide for the more urgently needed items. However, in practice, the budgets conditions are so restrictive that most grants are refused.
It is not right that the disabled have to pay back over 10% of their benefits to pay back loans to the welfare agency. What is DC going to do about that?
The reason could be that a general election is looming. DC might not want to give away too much information about the 'proposals' - Labour would nick the ideas...
I doubt it.
Quote:
Let's hope DC replies to your thread...
Yes, there does need to be clarification on these issues from David Cameron.
And for parents with disabled children, it means not having to fight for a special school and save your special schools it means special schools are there if you want to choose them for your children.
Quote:
And that's why the second thing that we believe in so strongly - stronger families and a more responsible society - is so vital for the future of our country. And again, the picture isn't good, the old politics has been failing. Labour's great passion was tackling poverty but in many ways its been one of their greatest areas of failure.
There are five million people in our country of working age who aren't working. There are a million young people, more than a million who are neither in employment, nor in education, nor in training. And the number is actually higher than 10 years ago.
You remember 10 years ago being told how many young people were on the scrap heap, well that scrap heap has actually got higher, and that is a scandal in our country.
There are 600,000 people, 600,000 more people, in deep poverty than ten years ago. Again, why have Labour failed and gone on failing, if we don't understand why, we won't get it right.
They've put the money in. We've had New Deals and Fair Deals and hand ups and thinking the unthinkable and then going away and thinking again but it hasn't worked. Why?
I believe it's because they relied too much on the state organisations that can treat people like statistics rather than like human beings. And ministers are so keen to shout success that they count success as just six weeks in a job. So we get this revolving door of people living a life on benefits and then just a few weeks in work and then back on benefits again.
Change, modern Conservative change, is required so what are we going to do? We should look at the models that have worked elsewhere in the world. In Australia where they have got private limited companies to run benefits and they have cut unemployment by 50%.
In states like Wisconsin in America where they've cut benefit roles by 80%, and the changes we will make are these: we will say to people that if you are offered a job and it's a fair job and one that you can do and you refuse it you shouldn't get any welfare.
And we will ask the charities, the voluntary bodies, the private companies who have such expertise in this area to run these benefit systems for us, why do I think they are better? I think they show a greater understanding of the personal and emotional needs of people who have been stuck out of work for so long.
It has worked in other parts of the world, it can work here, it's a tough choice, it's a difficult thing to put through, but we have got to do it.
Ten years ago, former US president Bill Clinton signed welfare reform into law. As he points out this week in The New York Times, “it has proved a great success”. Since 1996, welfare rolls have plummeted from 12.2 million to 4.5 million; 60% of the mothers who left welfare found work and the poverty rate among single mothers has fallen from 50% in 1995 to 42% today.
“Tough love works,” says The Economist. The reform put a five-year lifetime limit on welfare, prompting people to find a job; this was balanced by incentives, such as more generous financial support for low-income earners through the Earned Income Tax Credit. A strong economy has helped, but the key reason for sliding welfare rolls is the “welfare to work” programme.
In Britain, US-style radical thinking on welfare is not on offer from any of the political parties, says The Business. The Government has never pursued comprehensive reform; its piecemeal efforts, such as reducing the appeal of disability benefit, triggered rebellions and discouraged further efforts.
There isn't anything in your quote from David that specifically deals with the disabled in relation to disability benefits and the benefit system.
Quote:
"In states like Wisconsin in America where they've cut benefit roles by 80%, and the changes we will make are these: we will say to people that if you are offered a job and it's a fair job and one that you can do and you refuse it you shouldn't get any welfare."
In the Wisconsin example David leaves out the fact that many of those who were unemployed and did not get suitable jobs moved to a different state and that is why the unemployment figures dropped for that state. At the same time other nearby states showed an increase in unemployment.
As 21parque correctly suggested, politicians are very good at manipulating statistics to their own advantage.
In the Wisconsin case the unemployment figures dropped by far more than the jobs taken. This obviously shows that actual unemployment did not decrease but that those who were receiving unemployment assistance decreased, which are two different things. Many of the public do not understand the difference and that is why politicians rely on generalisations.
There have been many papers written on the Wisconsin case and there have even been documentaries made about it.
A suggested start for further information on the subject .
http://epic.cuir.uwm.edu/cuirbib/poverty/51.html
2001, Geddes, Lori A. & White, Sammis B.
Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, Inc., Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Report, 14(9)
Why is that? Chances are David Cameron will never read the comments left on this thread after his initial response (if he does respond at all). Wouldn't it be better to express your views now - in the hope that he hears your point of view?
One thing is for sure, a David Cameron government won't be using the disabled to score political points like the Labour party do. I once had an opportunity to do some voluntary work with people who suffered from severe mental disability and I was shocked by the way government bureaucracy was making life more difficult for everyone involved.
For example if a person had to be moved out of their wheelchair a hoist had to be put under them first often causing great discomfort when it would have been much faster and less stressful for the person to have been lifted manually. I hope the future Conservative government will look at little regulations like this and give care staff more of a free hand to deal with situations like lifting.
TonyM: What did you mean by the following comment that you posted on ConservativeHome (yucky website that it is).
Quote:
I have to queston the Labour governments bizarre straegy of trying to funnel the old and the disabled into work. Especially at a time when youth unemployment has risen by 20%. All resources and energy should be focused on helping the young to find work. Trying to find work for the over 45s and the disabled is folly. (sic)
canvas wrote: Why is that? Chances are David Cameron will never read the comments left on this thread after his initial response (if he does respond at all). Wouldn't it be better to express your views now - in the hope that he hears your point of view?
If David Cameron has so little regard for potential voters that he can't be bothered to read my response if he replies then I would definitely not vote conservative. I have found that both Labour and Lib Dem MPs have been more than happy to reply to my letters and then to my responses. If David Cameron sets up a forum he should read it. This particular forum is not that busy and has few posts. David Cameron is a publicly paid employee and therefore should do his job in replying to the citizens of this country.
One of the major problems of the Conservatives is that they don't listen to anyone outside their middle England tax cut hungry middle ground voters. The Conservatives pretend to be interested in what everyone else thinks when in fact they are not. Labour may make mistakes but at least their MPs have time to listen and discuss concerns with voters.
I notice that you, canvas, have not responded to the facts I have pointed out concerning how John Major and the Conservatives are the ones who are the cause of the current problems with the welfare system and that the Wisconsin example you gave, which you and David Cameron are so keen on, is totally flawed.
I posted the questions to David Cameron in my original post in this thread as I was considering voting Conservative in the next election but from what has developed from this thread I think it is best to vote Labour and leave the Conservatives to their sycophantic appeasing of middle England and their deaf ears to the rest of the country.
No wonder the Conservatives have been out of Government so long.
I think it can be fairly said, Andie, that DC is only interested in questions that fit his agenda, and he will seek those out and use them for his PR and image-making ends. Yours evidently doesn't fit, so what does that tell you?
Well, Andie, you would be mistaken to think that I am a fan of John Major - or that I am a Conservative. Quite simply, you would be wrong to think that. But Labour (the party of the people) have had ten years to sort out these issues and they haven't.
I will not vote for Gordon Brown and Labour because they have lied to the public for a decade - and they have let down all the people they promised to help. The Labour government is a complete failure in every sense of the word.
As things stand, I will support David Cameron because I believe he offers us a better future - and real change.
I don't actually care who you want to vote for - that's your business. But I do find your thread and comments slightly disingenuous. Why is that you won't express your views and opinions - when asked if you have any suggestions, solutions or advice for DC you draw a blank? Weird.
Hi Andie and welcome.
I too am registered disabled. It sounds as though my difficulties may be different to yours,we are all unique in our own experiences, but the Benefit system, nonetheless, is close to my heart. My husband is also registered disabled, and his situation was the most appalling case of benefit system abuse by the authorities against a disabled person that I have witnessed... and I worked in social care for many many years! It all began in 1994 under the Tories and continued well into the time of the Labour government. After much gnashing of teeth and anger and formal complaints and tribunals, I finally got it sorted for him, but he STILL doesn't get what he rightly deserves and is too afraid to set the ball rolling again by reapplying! For several years now we have heard how Labour want to get unemployment down by pressurising the disabled to go to work. This is all fine and large if the individuals are ABLE to do so, but to go through the harrowing and degrading process of proving this, which might well include attempting to work, albeit very briefly, and the effects on health and existing benefits by doing so, is a situation I am too frightened to contemplate! So, yes, yes! What DOES DC think of all this? Has he the empathy and compassion to imagine how his son might cope if he did not have a father to support him? Is he business-like enough to sort out the systems and structures that are so drastically inappropriate BEFORE trying to weed out the genuine claimants from the work-shy? I am watching this space with avid enthusiasm. Thank you Andie for raising it.
Canvas, I stick by what I wrote. To my mind employment strategy should be focused on getting the young, that is the next generation, into work. The way the economy is currently structured there can never be enough jobs, only usually just over half a million jobs available at any one time. Now there are 5.4 million jobless if we count those on disability. So I think it is common sense to focus on the 1.6 on JSA, rather than trying to shoe-horn every disabled person into every vacancy based on some egalitarian dogma. If a disabled person feels they can work then they should be given help, but I really think the focus should be set on getting youth and those with young families into work.
David Cameron is a publicly paid employee and therefore should do his job in replying to the citizens of this country.
I think you'll find the only obligation he is under is to represent his constituents without prejudice to their own political views. At least that's what his obligations under the representation of the people acts are. Anything else you get is a bonus.
Johnn Hari: Beware the Tories' Wisconsin welfare plan To leave people in a workless rut isn't compassion. It's apathy. Work provides life with a sense of purpose
Published: 12 November 2007
In September, David Cameron stood before the Tory Party conference, took out a lighter, and tried to set fire to the safety net that protects the British poor from splattering into extreme poverty.
Nobody noticed at the time: he mentioned in a few throwaway lines that he wants to look westward and copy the Wisconisn model of welfare reform. These distant-sounding proposals might sound attractive at first, because they have latched on to a real problem. There are great swathes of British cities where everyone is jobless, often for life.
Todays announcements by the Labour government do nothing except add worry to genuinely disabled people who have enough stress to live with as it is. The very fact that Labour have announced these proposals is tantamount to saying that the disabled are freeloaders. Nasty animal farm Labour. Remember Mr Kinnock who, when the tories won the election said "I ask you not to be sick, I ask you not to be poor". What hypocrisy! Anyhow I'd like to see where these so-called 'Jobs' for the disabled are going to come from? Labour can't even find work for the able-bodied unemployed. Gordon Brown makes claim to be a christian, yet I'm sure it says in the bible somewhere that people are judged on their attitude to the sick. So watch out Labour!
At the MOD one civillian worker was in a wheelchair.
At a hospital one worker that worked in Human Resources was blind.
I think the drive is to try and get the disabled into public sector jobs where they can pay them peanuts knowing they can't leave. The publc sector does not have to make a profit so can afford to be less productive in some areas especially as the government pays a lot to people in the form of benefits with nothing in return.
The civil service has an equal opportunities scheme where disabled people are given preferential treatment, i.e. they are GUARANTEED an interview if they meet the minimum criteria for the job.
I think that is the aim.
Afterall, if someone i knew at work could wheelchair himself into a car by himself and get in and out of work, then why can many other wheelchair users not manage this?
If they were a symapthetic employer (which the civil service is) then they could call via mobile that they were in their car and could be helped.
This I think is the aim, to get as many disabled unemployed into the public sector for minimum wage (as they cant leave) this then lowers the public sector salary bill.
Then the able bodied can compete in the nasty private sector which only cares about making money.
There could also be an encouragement of flexible working from home schemes.
This would mean, for example, that people could work when they wanted to from home and do so many hours a week.
For example they coudld run a company's ebay from home and then send orders in via email.
Dont say it cant be done. I DO IT. And I am visually impaired slighly.
So the aim could be to encourage companies to take on disabled people working part time from home.
I'm bound to get slated on here but as a visually impaired person which will never be able to drive (realistically) that EARNS £3k/yr (the same as i would get on the dole) I think I am one of the few that can comment.
EMPLOYERS ARE THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH UNEMPLOYEMENT.
What this means is that there is not a concept of wrongful dismissal (unless it can be proven to be on sex or race grounds etc. Warnings of performance etc are not needed)
The company or the worker can terminate the contract at any time for NO REASON WHATSOEVER.
Neither has to pay the other any compensation for terminating the contract.
No notice is required, or if there is it is only a day.
One person has written an online essay on this quoting references
Andie raises benefits for disabled people in particular, and then welfare reform more generally.
First, most importantly of all, let me correct Andie’s misapprehension that we have an agenda to introduce a sort of cut-price welfare so we can reduce taxes. We haven’t. With a Conservative government, spending on public services will rise. We intend to share the proceeds of growth between lower taxes and more public spending.
My primary motivation for wanting to reform the benefits system is to help those currently on it. The current structure of welfare is letting too many people down – including many disabled people. The system is far too complicated, making it hard for people to claim the money they need and to which they are entitled.
Looking at welfare as whole, at present there are nearly five million people on out-of-work benefits in Britain – including Incapacity Benefit, but other benefits too. Of course many of them are not able to work and it is important that they get the proper help and support that they need. But crucially, there are also four million people without jobs who want to work. We need to support more of these people as they look to fulfil their own ambitions.
Instead of the revolving door of people flitting in and out of benefits and work, I have said we will draw on successful examples of welfare reform from all over the world to overhaul our welfare system.
These systems tend to have two things in common. They are tailored to the individual. And they harness the private and voluntary sectors, rather than just government bureaucracies, to help people get back into work.
We will be looking further at how we can adapt these lessons to the British experience. In that detailed work we are going to be helped once again by Iain Duncan Smith and his team at the Centre for Social Justice.
So the aim of our welfare reform is to help lift more people out of long-term poverty and into long-term employment. And helping more people into work will also reduce costs, enabling us to increase the Working Tax Credit that couples receive. This change will bring tax credits fully into line with the rest of the benefits system, end Gordon Brown’s ‘couple penalty’ which penalises those who stay together, and lift 300,000 children in two parent families out of poverty.
This change will bring tax credits fully into line with the rest of the benefits system, end Gordon Brown’s ‘couple penalty’ which penalises those who stay together, and lift 300,000 children in two parent families out of poverty.
What about the children who aren't fornuate enough to have two parents? Don't you want to help ALL the children in the UK?
the current problem is the benefits system can actually encourage couples to split.
For example, take a young couple. It is even easier if they are not married.
Man&Woman live under the same roof. As a "couple" they will get an allowance.
If they split & one goes and lives with their parents then they may both be jointly better off financially as seperately they will receive more in benefits from living seperately from each other than together.
This is something I think David Cameron wants to end, so there is not a financial incentive for couples to split when either is on benefit.
chulcoop - I don't have the inner strength to go through this argument again... DC needs to redress the balance with a neutral policy - not by favouring 'married couples' - but by treating everyone as equals.
Canvas, what is anyone's definition of family? It's very much an open-to-discussion subject which I have been involved with researching as far back as 1998! I have said this elsewhere in this site so I will be brief this time [I hope]. Amongst others, children in the research were asked what they thought 'family' meant. This was done through drawing as well as discussion due to the age groups of participants. The majority of those children showed family as the building in which they lived... usually a square box containing themselves and the family pet! The parent and sibling groups were frequently too transient to identify as part of the child's [permanent] family!
I was chuffed to see that David has read and responded to this topic on the disabled. I would, however, like him to say more about his understanding of "family" and departmental systems' expertise in working with the needs of the disabled? Come back David please!
