He was told by a newspaper who were fed a line by a government minister, so it must be true.

Yet they won 13 seats in 2009.
They have since taken a huge slice of the right-wing Tory vote.
So with that being said if they get anywhere near the Tories in 2014 watch out for the fallout over it.

If you think think the reason it is being reformed is due to abuse you are being very naive. It is purely and simply a money saving exercise justified by so-called abuse that doesn't seem to be panning out in practice given the cases of some people who have been found fit for work. The appeals process is also very busy and that shows its a farce.

It's not as if it is going to save that much in the long run with private companies charging the govt a fortune to test people's fitness for work. One of the things that goes under PIP is the DLA lifetime award meaning you used to be able to be assessed as being entitled to DLA for life. This means regular re-testing of people with conditions like Autism that will never improve. A total waste of tax payers money.

[url=http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/03/02/ukip-steals-the-xenophobe-breaking-down-the-eastleigh-result/Here's a well thought-through and presented analysis of Eastleigh[/url

Especially so as it appears to rubbish Lord Ashcroft's doom-mongering poll and analysis

Quite interesting and I like the line 'Lib Dems empty the bins'.
My point still stands that if UKIP win more seats and get near the Tories (Let us not forget that we are talking about MEP's not a general so the protest vote is still a high posibility) then all the nice figures in the world may not stop the Tories coming to a couple of difficult decisions (The TORY Lord Ashcroft has made that look rather clear).

May I take this opportunity to state that I am neither a xenophobe or a UKIP voter.


Basically UKIP win enough MEP votes=Cameron out and a possible referendum in an not needed decision to head UKIP off.

There was a study last year. Detailed assessments were carried out of disability claimants in a number of areas. I seem to recall Bolton being one of them.

The results generated significant coverage and debate in the national press. Amongst other things, it was reported that 70% of disability benefit claimants are assessed once and 'signed off' for life. It does seem bizarre that, based on a sole assessment, you are eligible to claim disability benefits for life.

If I recall correctly, the bottom line was that 1/3 of those assessed in the total study did not meet the criteria to claim the benefit they were receiving. Or, to put it less politely, they were malingering.

Disability benefits, as with any benefits, should be there as a safety net to help the genuinely needy. They should not be a lifestyle choice.

So, pensions too, then?

Although I find it fascinating that you claim that disability is a "lifestyle choice". And your post, with its vague references to something that you cannot even provide a link for, does not remotely illustrate "widespread abuse".

I don't see your point. The theory behind pensions is that you pay in for the duration of your working life. The state, or your pension provider, then pays out for the duration of your retirement.



Please do me the courtesy of reading what I post, and not trying to manipulate it or selectively quote me to suit your own ends.

I never said disability was a lifestyle choice. I said disability benefits should be there as a safety net to help the genuinely needy. As should be the case with all benefits.

Or, to put it another way, I don't have a problem with people claiming disability benefits. I do however have a problem with people kicking the out of the system because they have some mild form of ilness that they want to make the most out of.

Eastleigh was a meaningless by election though, simply because Labour were never a factor. That changes the entire dynamic. The general election will still come down to Labour v Tory with both parties chasing the centre vote.

The 'theory' is that people pay for many benefits via NI/tax – not just pensions.



Then please do us the courtesy of writing what you mean. Clearly.



'They' refers to your subject. The subject in this is "disability benefits". Thus when you say "they" should not be a lifestyle choice, that is what you are referring to. And if disability benefits are a "lifestyle choice", then it is logical to conclude that disability itself is a "lifestyle choice".



So where is your evidence then, for this mass pee-taking?

Quote So where is your evidence then, for this mass pee-taking?'" Unfortunately The Times is now on subscription. Otherwise you would have had a link to that. Nevertheless, I give you: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... drive.html There, you have what the 'Sin Bin Intellectual Elite' froth at the mouth (and quite possibly somewhere else) for in any good Sin Bin dust up: A link to a right-leaning newspaper. That you will now try and discredit on the basis that it came from a right-leaning newspaper. I standby for the inevitable abuse that will follow. Because that really is the level some people argue at on here, particularly if they have had a couple of glasses of shandy. (Anyway, I guess that secretly you were hoping I would use the Daily Mail.)

Quote So where is your evidence then, for this mass pee-taking?'" Unfortunately The Times is now on subscription. Otherwise you would have had a link to that. Nevertheless, I give you: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... drive.html There, you have what the 'Sin Bin Intellectual Elite' froth at the mouth (and quite possibly somewhere else) for in any good Sin Bin dust up: A link to a right-leaning newspaper. That you will now try and discredit on the basis that it came from a right-leaning newspaper. I standby for the inevitable abuse that will follow. Because that really is the level some people argue at on here, particularly if they have had a couple of glasses of shandy. (Anyway, I guess that secretly you were hoping I would use the Daily Mail.)

Okay.

Now where is your evidence for "widespread abuse"?

You may need to bear in mind what the word 'abuse' actually means in such a context.

Read the article. Particularly the bit which states that 145,000 were found to be fit for work. Of which 39,500 had been on incapacity benefit for more than a decade.



I give the word 'abuse' its literal meaning. As in one that you can find in the dictionary. Google search it if you seek clarification. I am not sure what context you are trying to use the word in.

If splitting hairs over the interpretation of single words is your thing, might I suggest telephoning a barristers' chambers. They will no doubt provide someone who you can have endless hours of fun talking to. For a fee, of course.

Quote ="The Video Ref"Unfortunately The Times is now on subscription. Otherwise you would have had a link to that. Nevertheless, I give you: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... drive.html There, you have what the 'Sin Bin Intellectual Elite' froth at the mouth (and quite possibly somewhere else) for in any good Sin Bin dust up: A link to a right-leaning newspaper. That you will now try and discredit on the basis that it came from a right-leaning newspaper. I standby for the inevitable abuse that will follow. Because that really is the level some people argue at on here, particularly if they have had a couple of glasses of shandy. (Anyway, I guess that secretly you were hoping I would use the Daily Mail.)'" That's a link to an opinion about the new guidelines the government has set Atos to move people off Disability. A process that has so far managed to pass cancer sufferers as fit for work, only to see them die within 3 months of being assessed. A process that has a 40% reversal rate on appeal. A process that is basically flawed and does nothing to prove that there are widespread abuses of disability benefits

Quote ="The Video Ref"Unfortunately The Times is now on subscription. Otherwise you would have had a link to that. Nevertheless, I give you: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... drive.html There, you have what the 'Sin Bin Intellectual Elite' froth at the mouth (and quite possibly somewhere else) for in any good Sin Bin dust up: A link to a right-leaning newspaper. That you will now try and discredit on the basis that it came from a right-leaning newspaper. I standby for the inevitable abuse that will follow. Because that really is the level some people argue at on here, particularly if they have had a couple of glasses of shandy. (Anyway, I guess that secretly you were hoping I would use the Daily Mail.)'" That's a link to an opinion about the new guidelines the government has set Atos to move people off Disability. A process that has so far managed to pass cancer sufferers as fit for work, only to see them die within 3 months of being assessed. A process that has a 40% reversal rate on appeal. A process that is basically flawed and does nothing to prove that there are widespread abuses of disability benefits

I did.

'Abuse' suggests something deliberate – thus 'X number of people set out to abuse such and such'. It is a word that involves intent – and an abus[ier[/i.

Now, for the sake of this, let's set aside Coddy's (legitimate) observation that this is an opinion piece – and could you therefore provide the evidence of "widespread abuse" of disability benefits, bearing in mind the meaning of abuse*.







* Abuse does not include (claimed) situations of testing not being strong enough etc.

Just out of interest, who do you think would be the best qualified person to assess the difference between a disability and a mild form of illness ?

a) A medically qualified person who would know the difference between a disability and a mild form of illness but who has no agenda with regard to who is or isn't entitled to claim for benefits based on their medical opinion.

b) A clerical worker who may or may not have some medical qualifications but who is tasked with achieving a percentage of refusals and a sanction of removing them from the well paid work if they don't achieve those targets ?

I believe I read that the fraudulent claim rate for DLA (according to the government itself) is a whopping 0.5%.

Quote ="The Video Ref"Unfortunately The Times is now on subscription. Otherwise you would have had a link to that. Nevertheless, I give you: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... drive.html There, you have what the 'Sin Bin Intellectual Elite' froth at the mouth (and quite possibly somewhere else) for in any good Sin Bin dust up: A link to a right-leaning newspaper. That you will now try and discredit on the basis that it came from a right-leaning newspaper. I standby for the inevitable abuse that will follow. Because that really is the level some people argue at on here, particularly if they have had a couple of glasses of shandy. (Anyway, I guess that secretly you were hoping I would use the Daily Mail.)'" Total benefit fraud is estimated at £1.2bn That's the total mind you, including pensions, short-term sickness, housing benefit etc. While [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/7144127/16bn-worth-of-benefits-unclaimed-every-year.html£16bn benefits go unclaimed[/url

Quote ="The Video Ref"Unfortunately The Times is now on subscription. Otherwise you would have had a link to that. Nevertheless, I give you: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... drive.html There, you have what the 'Sin Bin Intellectual Elite' froth at the mouth (and quite possibly somewhere else) for in any good Sin Bin dust up: A link to a right-leaning newspaper. That you will now try and discredit on the basis that it came from a right-leaning newspaper. I standby for the inevitable abuse that will follow. Because that really is the level some people argue at on here, particularly if they have had a couple of glasses of shandy. (Anyway, I guess that secretly you were hoping I would use the Daily Mail.)'" Total benefit fraud is estimated at £1.2bn That's the total mind you, including pensions, short-term sickness, housing benefit etc. While [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/7144127/16bn-worth-of-benefits-unclaimed-every-year.html£16bn benefits go unclaimed[/url

And its also worth pointing out that a percentage of that "fraud" will actually be clerical error resulting in benefits being paid incorrectly and a claiming back routine being instigated some time later (much later, if ever).

I speak as someone who, four years ago made a claim for two paid-in benefits when both of us were made redundant, both claims were wrongly calculated by the Ministeries concerned and both resulted in them asking for a substantial amount of money back nine months later, both re-claims admitted that it was their error but that they were entitled to repayment.

I have no doubt that in a government log somewhere both of these incidents are described as "fraud" and also as a detected and resolved fraud.

This post does not constitute evidence. You could at least link to your data or the study you're basing your argument on.

The Governments own figures show total benefit fraud to be way below the 1/3rd figure you quote. And I mean [iway[/i below.

Has it occurred to you that large numbers of disability benefit claimants get 'signed off for life' because [itheir condition isn't going to get any better[/i?

I'm just having to turn that awful Saints and Scroungers rubbish off my tv set.It makes me want to vomit!

The editorial of today's Times has summed up much of the problem with the UK's welfare system.

It basically states that the link between contribution and welfare has declined to the point of invisibility. It goes on to say that pretty much anyone can be eligible irrespective of the contribution they have made. It argues this is a breach of the popular idea of fairness.

Or to put it slightly differently, far too many people are getting paid out, without having first paid in. And other people are not happy about it.

So, another opinion piece that we cannot read here – and still no evidence of that "abuse".

I heard this on the Today program this morning. It's utter tripe, as can easily be demonstrated by looking at the case of a school leaver who can't get a job. Do we allow him/her to starve because he/she hasn't 'contributed' yet? Or how about the person who contributes their entire working life without ever needing state help. Do they get a refund on retirement?

There was never a direct link between contribution and entitlement apart from one element of the state pension. And the reason is because it is neither logical nor workable in practice.

The 'opinion piece' you speak of is the editorial of a the UK's main broadsheet. It's not the Sun, the Daily Mail, or any other sensationalist rag.

It can be easily read by nipping to a newsagent or supermarket. You don't even have to buy the paper.