Member Since: 27th Jul 2009
23rd Sep 2015
The "Nudge" unit
This is a link to the nudge unit website ; all looks lovely and pink and fluffy doesn't it?
However, there is a darker side ... Be afraid ...
Behaviour change has been around for many years. I think we are just getting to read and hear about it since many more people have access to the Internet. And, of course, the Conservative acceleration of behaviour change policies
....This agenda arguably signifies a general groundswell of political thinking which has been present within the Government since at least 2004. For instance, the Cabinet Office discussion paper, Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour: the state of knowledge and its implications for public policy (Halpern et al., 2004) aimed to consider how psychological and economic theories could be used to improve the efficiency of public policy and change the relationship between state and citizen to one of „personalisation‟ and „coproduction‟
....Whilst it had been posited as future grounds for a prospective Conservative Government in the UK, changing behaviour became an explicit and influential means
of governing under New Labour.
"The New Maternal State: the Gendered Politics of Governing through Behaviour Change"
2009 - Jobless to be offered talking therapies.
10 ways to protect yourself from NLP
12th Nov 2014
Was there ever a consultation document on this?
It's too dumbed down and as many people on here have commented, Joe Public could find themselves in hot water if they just use this.
My thoughts on this are that HMRC is (behind the scenes) being prepared for privatisation; parts of it have already (Transactis for tax credits, Swifts bailiffs for DMB) and that simplifying things in this way makes it more attractive for a private company to take on.
12th Sep 2014
So let me see ... close all the enquiry centres; get rid of staff (especially the experienced ones) make sure the bulk of the training given to HMRC staff is computer based and then wonder why callers are waiting so long on the 'phone or have to ring back several times to try and get the right answer!
22nd Aug 2014
Oh dear... will Osborne and his ilk be caught out by this new legislation I wonder?
9th Jun 2014
Process now - check later....
And this is why the process now, check later procedure that HMRC currently use doesn't work. In the good old days, the Inland Revenue as it then was, would check the returns as they were being processed so errors would usually be identified and put right in a timely fashion. I used to deal with one old gent who always entered the capital figure instead of the interest on his investment income; I used to ring him up and ask him to let me have the interest figure.. I used to tell him we're only interested in the interest... oh how we would laugh!
The process now/check later system is used because the staffing levels at HMRC have been decimated and the government keep saying "do more with less" that works up to a point but HMRC have now reached critical mass and there really are not enough people to do the job as well as the IT and training which quite frankly are not fit for purpose; add to this the fact that lots of experienced staff have taken early retirement or voluntary redundancy due to office closures and you've got a recipie for disaster.
29th Jul 2013
No mention of the penalty regime for RTI; namely penalties for non submission and non payment(as a result of system errors) which will run concurrently.
My advice (and I can't stress this enough) would be to take screen shots of everything you do on screen. A bit time consuming I know, but worth it if you end up at a tribunal appealing against penalties.
8th Jul 2013
I agree... to a point
But if cancer sufferers are inconvenienced to weed out hundreds of thousands of fraudulent claimants, then my apologies, but although unfortunate, it is a fact of life and also a condition of receiving welfare since Beveridge.
I accept that there are those who make fraudulent claims but I still think this government is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
8th Jul 2013
read it and weep...
8th Jul 2013
Devil in the details...
frustratedwithhmrc wrote:glynisbm wrote:I agree there are some fraudsters out there but according to PAC and NAO benefit fraud makes up less than 1% of the total benefits bill.
It is already acknowledged that a vast number of DLA claimants withdraw their claims before ATOS assessment and equally of those who appeal 60% might very well be allowed, but a further 40% of appeals are rejected.
I accept that genuinely disabled claimants are being put under the spotlight, but this is only to weed out the fraudulent who are undermining the whole basis of the welfare system.
Regardless of the fact that fraud may or may not make up 1% of the whole welfare bill, it is still fraud and such fraud (going undetected) is cumulative, year-after-year for as long as the fraud exists...
1% of the welfare budget is still billions of pounds every year!
There are many reasons why people withdraw their claims prior to assessment;
they die (cancer sufferers and those afflicted with motor neurone disease (specifically bulbar paralysis) for example)their health improves (e.g people with Orthopeadic conditions - hip/knee replacements) they are migrated from IB (incapacity benefit) onto ESA (Employment Support allowance) into the WRAG (work related activity group) - usually those who need extra help to get back into work such as those suffering with certain mental health issues.
As with most things the devils in the details!
I stand by my previous statement in which I said fraud accounts for LESS THAN 1% and if the DWP are so convinced that benefits are being fraudulently claimed why aren't they prosecuting? Go on the whatdotheyknow website enter prosecution of fraud and see the DWP response for yourself.
CAB recently stated that the reason some appeals are failing are because the claimant is representing themselves...if the individual is represented the success rate at tribunal is much higher.
8th Jul 2013
I was born in 1960...is that yesterday?
frustratedwithhmrc wrote:glynisbm wrote:The ATOS/DWP contract is fatally flawed in that the service level agreement makes little or no provision for ATOS to pay penalties as pointed out by the Public Accounts Committee....you really could not make it up!
ATOS are merely following the process laid down by the DWP.
That the DWP is trying to get millions of claimants off the Disability Living Allowance et al and onto Jobseekers Allowance where they will have to explain their efforts to find a job on a weekly basis (formerly fortnightly).
I have some sympathy for the genuinely disabled, but there are far too many slackers who are able to fake/deceive medical professionals with unverifiable or self-inflicted medical complaints.
Why should I get up at 6AM, 5-days-a-week and give up nearly 50% of my hard-earned money so that some poorly educated slacker can get up at lunchtime, watch Sky TV, then bugger[***] off down the pub.
Their sole skill being the ability to wheeze upon demand and accurately describe the medical condition that they are faking to a nurse or GP?
Do me a favour, I wasn't born yesterday, even if you were...
Tut tut tut someone got out the wrong side of the bed! This heat doesn't agree with everyone I suppose.
Now if as you say, the claimant was deceiving the GP/NHS specialist in some way, then why don't DWP/ATOS prosecute the claimant for fraud (see my FoI request under prosecution of fraud and the DWP interesting response :-))
I agree there are some fraudsters out there but according to PAC and NAO benefit fraud makes up less than 1% of the total benefits bill.
Please feel free to browse the following websites - Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), Black Triangle Campaign and False Economy to name but a few or google Micheal Meacher MP regarding the speech made in parliament about ATOS/DWP.