New figures for benefit checks

Figures release by the DWP tell us that the new benefit checks will cost over £100 million a year. That's in addition to the £500 million ATOS have already been paid.

The coalition have gone crazy, it's the only answer. The alternative - to work with the NHS and patients own consultants - is staring them in the face yet they won't take it up.

Perhaps they are scared that these checks would be more accurate and therefore tell the world that benefit claimants aren't scroungers?

Source

Spelling it out.

From Liberal Conspiracy:

The Department of Work and Pensions have just published their impact assessment of the housing benefit cuts. It is an assessment by civil servants of the possible consequences of introducing these policies. Here’s their summary:

“The impact assessment recognises that there are a number or risks as follows:

• increases in the number of households with rent arrears, eviction and households presenting themselves as homeless;
• disruption to children’s education and reduced attainment;
• disruption to support services for people with disabilities and other households with care and support needs;
• an increase in the number of households living in overcrowded conditions; and
• a decrease in the number of and quality of private rented sector properties available to Housing Benefit tenants.”

So, even the DWP realises that the 'reforms' will have a much bigger, and harder, impact than the government keeps trying to tell us.
It's not as if we don't know this already but how can they ignore this report from their own department?

They want a 'Big Society' but will wreck communities.
They want a 'Big Society' but will disrupt children's education.
They want a 'Big Society' but will increase homelessness.
They want a 'Big Society' but will isolate the disabled further and risk their health.


Is this really a society we want? It's getting even more apparent that 'Big Society' should have the addendum 'unless you're poor or sick'.

Housing Benefit - a few facts

Touchstone blog has recently published a few posts in response to the ConDem claims that Housing Benefit allows unemployed families to live in better areas than those in work.

Research conducted by the DWP:

the research concluded that HB arrangements do not unduly favour LHA recipients compared to most low-income working families, with the exception of a small group of households with children aged under 16 who are worse off than other household groups in terms of the property size that they occupy and the rates they would be entitled to if they were eligible for HB. Essentially a small number of large families in expensive rental areas are accommodated in better accommodation when out of work than they could afford in-work on a low income, but this specific issue is not representative of the HB system overall. Unfortunately enormous and badly thought through reform of the HB system is being justified on the premise that it is.

Despite this George Osborne has claimed that

Today there are some families receiving £104,000 a year in housing benefit. The cost of that single award is equivalent to the total income tax and national insurance paid by 16 working people on median incomes. It is clear that the system of housing benefit is in dire need for reform

The Daily Telegraph decided to investigate this and despite being decidedly pro cuts, they came up with this. The number of families claiming this enormous figure is exactly three. Yes, you read it right, three.

As Touchstone points out
£

2 billion a year seems like quite a lot to save by cutting the HB of three households. In fact, even if each of these households had their entire HB benefit entitlement stopped (a move that would be counterproductive, as it would leave them homeless creating many additional funding costs) only 0.015 per cent of the savings the Government is seeking would be achieved.

How could this be? The reality that the Government refuse to acknowledge is that the vast majority of losers from these changes are not large families in central London mansions, but low income households up and down the country.

The facts and figures are there. But somehow I doubt IDS and Osborne will use them. They don't fit in with their ideology. Just more proof that they are determined to abolish the welfare state at all costs.