#WCA #ESA Government Duplicity and their real intensions

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2149854/Oh-dear-Dave-Now-GPs-turned-Time-exit-strategy-disabled-perhaps.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

The way the Government has implemented and managed the ESA/WCA process is not just a sign of poor judgement or incompetence, it reflects a dogma based on contempt for the sick and disabled, a belief that they are an avoidable drain on society and the sooner they stop it the better.  If they will not pull themselves together and sort themselves out, we (the Government) will have to do it for them.  Society only has room for those that make a net positive financial contribution measured by the standards dictated by a capitalist elite.  We might just feign a little compassion for some of the more seriously ill, but only under sufferance and against our better judgement.  Sorry, this may sound harsh, but this is just Nature at work, first summed up by Charles Darwin many years ago and it is wrong to meddle in the process that God himself probably intended – our attempts at intervention in the past have created the current mess and we do not want that all over again do we?  They don’t put it quite this way, but when you look at what they have allowed to happen (in fact engineered), this is precisely the overall plan and indeed it is going quite well.

Of course, Ministers and the PM fiercly deny that this is the case, but the evidence speaks for itself.  Most telling is the fact that way back in 2008, no risk assessment was undertaken prior to WCA introduction.  If you have not come across the expression before, RA is simply a standard feature of good management practice when changing something whereby you think about all the things that could happen as a result of the change you are making (good, bad & indifferent), assess their likelihood & consequences and put together a prevention strategy, i.e. a proactive plan designed to keep the likelihood of unintended events arising to an absolute minimum, particularly if these events have devastating consequences .

The current Government blames this omission on the previous Government, but it is never too late, so they could easily have initiated an RA once they were in office.  They do point out that they did undertake an RA following the so-called Internal Review in 2011, but don’t mention that it is incomplete - it misses completely the potentially dire consequences of an incorrect fit for work decision resulting in a deterioration in someone’s health.

To be fair, the best assessment process in the world would contain some small risk of an occasional mistake which could never be eliminated completely, but at least one has the comfort of knowing that the risk was recognised and every attempt was made to minimise it.  Not so with the WCA.

Of course there is a risk of error with potentially monumental consequences, but the Government chose to ignore it.  They cannot have been so naive to believe that the WCA process was perfect and would never make a mistake, so the only conclusion one can draw is that they simply don’t care – so what if some people die along the way, one cannot after all make an omelette without breaking eggs, the end always justifies the means and a bit of collateral damage is a small price to pay.

What every voter in the country needs to understand that this philosophy will not be limited to the sick and disabled – it will manifest itself through every Government activity from NHS Reform to motorway speed limits.

More specifically, much criticism is directed at LiMA (the computer system used by Atos), but at the end of the day there needs to be a standardised database for all sorts of good reasons and properly used, this is probably as good as any.  The mischief lies in the simplistic diagnostic algorithm it contains and the way in which it is manipulated to produce the desired results.

The DWP knows this (of course it does), but as long as LiMA/Atos is “doing its job” (designating large numbers as FFW whether they are or not) they do not care.  Its own Decision Makers are perfectly able to rectify an unsound recommendation from an Atos HCP, but rarely do – why should they when they can hide behind the pseudo-intelligence of LiMA – sorry, the computer, it says no.  If DWP had the will, it could change this attitude overnight.

So yes, have a go at LiMA and Atos, but don’t forget who is really driving the “agenda”.   Anyone who has suffered at the hands of a WCA will understand all of this and most politicians do not care, but there is a huge group of people in between that needs to know the true colours of our politicians.  My hope is that we can get the message to them through posts like this, so they know the truth, not the illusion painted in the mass media.

Inequality in the Welfare State? [CIRC Report]

Inequality in the Welfare State?

Report written and produced by Clydebank Independent Resource Centre, 627 Dumbarton Road, Dalmuir Clydebank G81 4ET 0141 951 4040: info@irc-clydebank.co.uk: www.irc-clydebank.co.uk:  Registered charity no. SCO37670. November 2011

http://www.oxfamblogs.org/ukpovertypost/wp-content/uploads/CIRC-Equality-Act-Report.pdf

A  few supplementary thoughts.

Prof Harrington has never challenged the basic premise that fit for work (FFW) decisions can be distilled into a set of parameters that can be adequately assessed by a DWP administrator, “supported” by no more than a lowly-trained medic operating under their direction. 

In addition the question of whether condition variability and task repeatability can ever be adequately assessed in a single short WCA has not been sensibly addressed.

Prof Harrington himself does not pass all of the tests to establish his “independence” from DWP & Coalition dogma and a cynic would argue that his vested interest in certain outcomes makes this impossible.

Although many WCAs are poorly performed by Atos, DWP claims to have rigorous quality and audit procedures in place and that Atos routinely achieves its contractual KPIs.  Either this is not true, or they do not work, at least to the standards most would assume.  The fact is that they satisfy only the standards DWP has set – DWP has not on thanking them for their efforts.

Without doubt and despite its protestations to the contrary, the Government largely subscribes to the “benefit scrounging” school of thought.  This can easily be seen in some of the imagery it uses in key publications.

The Government has singularly failed to offer any definition of the work it is glibly passing people fit to perform.  It relies on the concept of ‘general work’ (sic), without even describing its basic characteristics.

DWP has severely criticised the historical contribution of GPs to this process to the point where it has effectively challenged their professional integrity.  Rather than tackle this unsubstantiated proposition directly, DWP has adopted a costly strategy that progressively removes them (GPs) from the process altogether.  It still however claims they (GPs) play an important role to play, albeit from a remote and mistrusted position.  This is one of many contradictions within DWP’s assurances and it is both surprising and disappointing that their representative organisations have not taken great issue with this implication – or is it just a case of same money, less work?

The comments on p15 are not quite correct.  Whilst the Atos HCP does not have direct access to medical records etc, they are required to consider and log ANY evidence a claimant brings to a WCA.  What is missing is a comprehensive briefing for claimants (and their reps) to ensure that they present their situation at the WCA as comprehensively as possible.  The WCA invitation letter covers little more than being able to prove who you are!

The WCA handbook is quite clear (and reasonable) over how a HCP must deal with an apparent contradiction between claimant evidence and their own observations to produce an acceptable report.  It states that the HCP cannot simply rely on their ‘opinion’ and must support any conclusions with evidence of one kind or another – this could take the form of a specifically tailored examination and/or Q&A.  It is therefore vital that the claimant takes everything they can to the WCA or any contradiction might not be apparent – the HCP must not be left in the position where they can (legitimately) say that they were unaware of something relevant to the way the assessment should be performed.

The report rightly highlights DWP’s progressive tightening of descriptor definitions, notably in March 2011.  DWP insists that they are justified based on objective evidence, but this is not confirmed within the documents they themselves rely upon.  In fact in some cases, the reports contain explicit disclaimers where DWP states that it does not necessarily share the views and conclusions of the authors – how absurd it that?

In addition, the joint DWP/Atos process contains a number of surreptitious ‘correlations’ whereby very specific interpretations are placed on the answers to seemingly innocent questions.  A visit to a supermarket for example means being able to cover 800m comfortably and would attract no points.

Worse still, in Mar 2011, ‘walking’ was substituted with ‘mobilising’ again on the surface for legitimate reasons but has given rise to the “invisible wheelchair”.  This allows the HCP & Decision Maker to make the mobility assessment with the claimant in a wheelchair even if they do not normally use one, even if their GP has advised against it and they do not even have to declare that this is what they have done.  All the claimant sees is no points.   The invisible wheelchair can be deployed selectively in that it might appear for mobility assessment on level surfaces, but be abandoned when steps are involved.

DWP insists that a declaration of fit for work does not mean they do not believe you are ill, just that the illness is not severe enough to stop you working.  This is of course (as explained above) despite the fact that ‘work’ is not defined.  Furthermore, it insists that people who find themselves on the job market through this route are at no disadvantage relative to other fully fit job seekers.  It bases this assurance on reports in which it has incorporated a disclaimer (see above) and/or completely contradicts its proposition and universal compliance with long standing disability equality legislation.  The reality is that there is no real evidence to support any of this.

Ongoing DWP Deception & Misrepresentation with WCA (1)

Not a surprise to many that this takes place, but I will continue to highlight examples as best I can to help you avoid the pitfalls and add to the fast growing body of data that exposes the underlying political dogma that lends itself to legal challenge at some point.

This post relates to the March 2011 decision to remove the bending and kneeling test/descriptor from the WCA, the reason given being that these movements are no longer a significant feature of the modern workplace.  Who says?

DWP’s response was that disability equality legislation has been in place for a number of years and this was enough to indicate that the descriptor changes were justified.  They directed me to a couple of reports that would apparently explain the detail and provide the corresponding evidence.

They did nothing of the kind and one even pointed out that overall, there had been deterioration in compliance with the law since 2005!  More ironic was the fact that in the first few pages, DWP has printed is standard disclaimer saying that the view expressed in the report are not necessarily supported by DWP.
If this is the best “evidence” they have, God forbid, but they have been unable to provide anything better to justify the descriptor change.  All this proves of course is that the REAL motivation is coming from political dogma NOT sound scientific evidence – something many know or suspected already.

Sooner or later, this continual drip, drip, drip of undermining and disproving the propositions on which policies have supposedly been based will expose the sham for what it is and bring about the obvious and simple change of direction needed.

Welfare Reform - 3 big assumptions

Much of the Government’s strategy over Welfare reform is based on three massive assumptions:

1.         Society needs as many people to work as possible as it is work that creates wealth.

2.         Work is inherently good for us all, physically & psychologically as it has therapeutic qualities.

3.         Very many sick and/or disabled people are capable of some kind of work.

Assumption #1

Assume, at least for the time being, that this is correct.

Assumption #2

A huge and sweeping generalisation.   My GP has signed up to the Hippocratic Oath.  I know him/her, he/she knows me.  I have learned to trust their judgement as being in my best interests.  If I disagree, we will have a discussion and reach agreement.  If he/she says I am fit for work and I think I am not, we will have the same discussion – I would not expect him/her to change their view unless I can logically and rationally convince them of my case.  I would not expect them to just cave in under irrational and illogical pressure.  If they did, not only do they break the Oath, but immediately lose my confidence and respect as well as their own integrity – who wants a GP whose diagnosis & prognosis are influenced by a bit of shouting?

The point is that if Assumption #2 is true, my GP would have told me and factored it into my recovery programme.  Any suggestion to the contrary forces some very serious consequences that cannot simply be ignored.  Either my GP is doing their job or they are not and the Government cannot hide behind this new fangled branch of medicine called “Work Capability Assessment” which is evidently missing from the lengthy university based training plan.  Nor can it create non-existent barriers by suggesting loss of patient confidentiality & trust when properly handled, this should achieve precisely the opposite – more of both!

Assumption #3

Phrased this way, quite possibly true.  However, is it unlikely to be ‘conventional’ work.

The one thing an employer needs is reliability and this is one thing that many sick and disabled people struggle hardest to provide due to the often unpredictable nature of their condition.  They have learned to adapt their lives around it and employers need to do likewise – to offer the flexibility that the solution requires – flexibility over attendance times, flexibility over hospital visits, flexibility over rest periods at work etc.

The Government claims to be providing support, but has put the cart before the proverbial horse.  Ignoring the fact that there are not enough conventional jobs to go round and disabled people will generally find it tougher to get one, what has the Government done specifically to address this question of flexibility?  NOTHING, and this was the very place it should have started.  This goes much further than installing a few ramps and automatic opening doors, to the very way in which an employer schedules the workload through the day.

Instead, they have taken a completely unrealistic view of the impact disability has in the workplace based on totally spurious theories about the impact of equality legislation.  Their proposition is that employers have responded to the spirit as well as the letter of it so willingly and comprehensively that any form of disability need never be a topic of conversation again.

So on this basis all work (or whatever is available at any point in time) is equally suitable for disabled and able bodied people alike and disabled people are considered on a completely equal basis.

By putting the cart before the horse, they have simply moved people from one queue to another (arguably), more frustrating and de-motivating queue and what is the point in that?

To further demonstrate how seriously they do not understand, they are scaling down REMPLOY.  Explain that if you can.

Employment for the disabled – a fresh look at one aspect

I’m all for integration within the workplace but it is not always practical and the issues go far further than a few ramps and PIR operated doors.

The one thing most employers want is reliability.  There is an amount of work to get through in the day and they need to know that the requisite number of people will be available to complete it on time.  The trouble is that many disabilities are unpredictable – the intensity varies and there is no way of knowing when it will start and when it will subside.  It’s not that some form of work is not possible; it just has to be arranged around the disability – maybe totally.

The solution requires a much more open-minded approach that considers not just the design of the workplace, but the design of the work itself.    Modern technology offers all sorts of imaginative and flexible solutions, working at home (WAH) being an obvious example.

Our local council has decided its offices are largely uninhabitable and something new is needed.  There is an unavoidable gap when there is simply not enough office accommodation available and they have been surprised at how easy WAH has been to organise and their fears over control & productivity have turned out to be ill-founded.

Although it rather contravened the “integration” objective, Remploy had a place within all of this, but sadly the Government seems to have decided it will not continue.  Organisations like this are not an admission of defeat, but a recognition of reality – that with the best will in the world, some disabilities are impossible to integrate – I for one would find it hard to work alongside someone with extreme Tourette’s .

Ignoring the fact that there are currently no jobs available for anyone, the Government’s attitude is narrow-minded and unrealistic to say the least.  It ignores the flexibility needed and relies exclusively on the assumption that anti-discrimination legislation is both comprehensive in addressing all of the issues (which it is not) and has been universally adopted by employers regardless of industry and size (which it has not).

We will undoubtedly soon be faced with another failed initiative, a huge amount of wasted expenditure and much head-scratching before another initiative is conceived, which unless it defines the issues correctly, will also be doomed to follow the same path.

UK Government to withdraw work capability assessments from Cancer patients Petition

<a href="http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/ask-uk-government-to-withdraw-work-capability-assessmen.html%22%3EAsk UK Government to withdraw work capability assessments from Cancer patients Petition | GoPetition</a>

WCA Philosophy - ID-S mantra

Thought I'd give this a go through FoI Act, but to no avail.  Perhaps I'll try through my MP . . .

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request on 15th November. You asked:

Germany is regarded as the only European nation that can solve the EU’s economic problems and its economic model is held in high regard. The German expression “Arbeit Macht Frei“means "work sets you free" or "work liberates”. Mr. Duncan-Smith in particular has been promoting an identical philosophy based on work being both

physically and mentally beneficial. Do you/does he feel that the sentiments contained in this expression could be applied to his current objectives and policies?

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 was introduced to bring about more openness and accountability within public authorities.

The Act gives two related rights which came into force from 1 January 2005

·         The right to be told whether information exists

·         The right to receive that information

As your request does not ask for any recorded information, we are unable to answer your request.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 was not introduced to give opinions or views.

If you would like more information on any specific Government matter, please contact your local MP.

If you have any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely,

DWP Central FoI Team

THE REAL BENEFIT FRAUDSTERS

We certainly have some, not on the streets as the Government would have us believe, but within their own ranks and in office running DWP. 

The purpose of this blog is to warn you about a couple of particularly dishonest facets of a WCA that you will have to face.  There is no point bellyaching at Atos or DWP Decision Makers (DM), because they will rightly tell you that they are just following the rules laid out in the legislation and they are right.  So target the legislators!!!!  It goes like this:

In around March 2011, the test relating to bending and kneeling was completely removed from the WCA.  This has been in the pipeline for the best part of two years.  For most people with a muscular-skeletal problem, this is usually the most difficult manoeuvre and so would attract most WCA points.  What better way therefore to reduce points totals than to remove the test altogether.

The “justification” is that years of H & S legislation has meant that bending and kneeling is no longer a significant feature of the modern workplace.  You can argue this until you are blue in the face, but this is what the law now says.  It is supposedly the view of the occupational health experts, but I have yet to find any research or empirical evidence that suggests this might be true, nor anything from the Government that measures the level of compliance.

A rough analogy is with the 70 mph limit on the motorways – in place for years and despite fairly proactive policing, on the Government’s own admission, 50% motorists ignore it.  I do not know why they think compliance here would be any better and with less active policing, probably much worse.

Then there is the question of mobility.

The first test used to be about walking, now referred to as “mobilisation” (slightly odd as the word is more to do with preparing to move than actually moving).  This in itself is ok and better accommodates anyone in a wheelchair who can get about just as well as anyone walking.  However, the Government (not Atos and not the DWP civil servants) have placed an interesting twist on this.

You will now be judged not just on the distance you can walk (without exhaustion & pain free etc) on level ground, but whether you could cover the distance in a wheelchair WHETHER YOU ALREADY USE ONE OR NOT.  Atos HCPs are told in the WCA Manual (sanctioned by DWP) that they must make this consideration and that self-propelled wheelchairs are in ample supply.  So be very careful how you answer questions about upper body strength, as this is what they have in mind.  State quite clearly that you could not manage to propel a wheelchair, or they will assume you can. 

In my WCA, we talked about making a cup of tea and in the absence of any indication to the contrary, the HCP concluded that there was no reason I should not be able to self-propel a wheelchair more than 200m = zero points.  There was absolutely no specific discussion about the possibility – how dishonest can you be???

If this was not deceitful enough, it gets worse.  The next test is about getting up and down two steps and (like me) you may have said on your ESA50 questionnaire that this is something you could manage, so zero points.  However, the situation has changed, because I have now been consigned to a wheelchair as described above, so would accrue some points here you would think – but no, on the basis of what I said on the ESA50. 

So the full scenario that goes alongside zero points for both is that you cover the flat surfaces in your wheelchair, but when you reach the two steps, you hop out and walk down them and get back in the wheelchair.  But hang on, the wheelchair is still at the top of the steps . . . . . . . . .

Decision Makers have been told to ignore this broken logic, so little point in shouting at them.  Nor is it worth asking for an opinion, as they will not give one.

I am sure there will be other equally dishonest and unfair clauses in the legislation that I have just not come across and the only answer lies with parliament, so lobby your MP as loudly as you can as often as you can.

Muddled Government Thinking

It repeatedly tries to tell us that GPs are rubbish at assessing fitness to work – they have an axe to grind, so cannot be regarded as independent, impartial or objective.  What this means is that they disregard the Hippocratic Oath and will actively work against government policy and the best interests of the national economy for no good reason other than presumably subversion and self interest.  This is of course based on nothing other than the fact that the Government does not like the outcomes from GP health assessments and so feels the need to undermine their credibility.  If I was a GP, I would be incandescent over this slight on my integrity.

It is very important to separate out the different elements of the WCA and address them separately.  The simple fact is that GPs make their judgement based on different criteria, so a direct, simplistic comparison in any way with Atos HCPs is automatically invalid.  So the first step is to segregate the 3 main elements of the WCA:

1.    The parameters within the WCA – what tests should it contain to make a sensible and realistic assessment of one’s ability to work?  This includes the consistency needed (same times every day) as well as the ability to get about etc.  I have worked for 40 years and none of my 3 WCAs tested anything like what it takes to survive a typical day.

2.    Who could and who should perform it (and probably where)?  For debate another time.  Actually this hardly matters if the assessment itself is correctly constructed and performed well – as long as the HCPs are suitably qualified/experienced.

3.    Compliance with the WCA specification – how well do the people doing it actually do it?

Despite the Government’s protestations that the content of the WCA has been designed by experts, there is still a widespread and justified belief that is not fit for purpose.  As I’ve said above, it bears little resemblance to any job I have ever done, so no surprise its outcomes are so regularly challenged successfully.

In an attempt to fix this problem the Government has progressively and dishonestly changed the assessment parameters simply to manipulate the results and in so doing has lost all credibility for itself as well as the WCA.  These changes have been based on some wholly spurious but convenient assumptions about the effect of legislation that cannot be supported with hard evidence or empirically.   In addition it has turned a blind eye to the non-compliance that is endemic both within Atos and its own Decision Making ranks.  I have never seen such a transparent deception and the fact that so many chronically disabled people have been so badly mis-assessed should cause it to hang its head in shame.  A justification based on not being able to make an omelette without breaking eggs is both inappropriate and pathetic – the ends do not justify the means nor vice versa.

A muddled approach to solving quite seperate issues is guaranteed to produce a muddled solution doomede to failure.

Saddest of all, approached logically, none of this is necessary, so I am left wondering whether the Government is stupid or evil?  Answers on a postcard please . . . . . .

A few Pragmatic Thoughts about the WCA and Welfare Reform

From time to time, society is forced to shift its position and adapt to changing circumstances.  It is of course the job of Government to bring these changes about fairly, but more than anything else, it must be honest and declare its real agenda – how much of the current strategy would still be happening without such a large debt, purely out of political dogma?

I have just a few pragmatic perspectives on this:

1.         When the public sector has a function that is not performing the way it thinks it should, it creates another function to either monitor the first one of take on part of its workload.  If this doesn’t work, it will overlay another audit-type operation.  It then wonders why its costs run out of control.  In the private sector, the approach is more logical and efficient – if something is not working properly it gets mended.

2.         This attitude can only be due to the poor quality of management available and the false assumption that more mediocrity is a substitute for “good”.  Outsourcing piecemeal to the private sector is likewise not the answer, as the outsourced service will only ever perform to the same standard as its “customer”.  The task of managing an outsourced service is different, but no easier than an in-house operation.  One thing is for sure – responsibility & accountability for the quality of the service delivered can NEVER be outsourced.

3.         Occupational health is not a new branch of medicine; it is simply looking at an individual’s condition and abilities from a slightly different angle.  It does not therefore need an army of newly qualified specialists and an entire educational infrastructure; just perhaps some retraining around expertise that already exists.  Why are GPs so incapable and why must they remain that way forever?

4.         One of the main justifications for a change in approach is absenteeism rates of c 7% (allegedly).  This may be true in the public sector, but I have never worked anywhere where it has exceeded 3%, below 2% if you take out the individuals whose illness is indisputable – short or long term.  This can be achieved with fair, but diligent and consistent management.

5.         It has recently said that GPs have no incentive not to sign people off work – no incentive that is other than a responsibility to act in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath.  Why does everyone need an incentive to do their job correctly?  The Government’s starting assumption with the sick and disabled is that they are all fraudsters and it appears it has a similarly dim view of GPs.  They must stop judging others by their own duplicitous standards.

6.         There has to be a definition of “work” and the Government must describe clearly what it proposes to subsidise (through benefit payments of one kind or another) and where it will draw a line.  For example:

a.    To what extent will it help an individual return to their profession?  When and against what criteria will it abandon this in favour of finding any job?

b.    Within a) to what degree will it reflect the characteristics of particular job markets – some are very much tougher than others?

c.     How long a term view will it take?  E.g. would it bear with someone who could return high income tax payments if found the right employment longer or press them into any menial, low paid job?

7.         The Government has knowingly & dishonestly amended (i.e. toughened) WCA criteria on the basis that workplaces generally are now far more accommodating than they were and have been developed such that they are considerably less demanding (at least physically) than ever before.  The clearest example is the statement that the modern workplace no longer requires either bending & kneeling, which is why this test has been removed from the WCA.

This assertion is based on nothing other than an assumption that employers have responded to various layers of legislation in a particular way – it is based on no empirical evidence whatsoever.  The assumption does however suit its purpose very well.

8.         In behaving disingenuously, the Tories do not just damage their own party; they damage the reputation of Westminster as a whole.  Government must at all costs retain integrity and be constantly monitored against the Civil Service code of ethics and it is down to the other political parties to ensure this comes about.

ESA Decision Appeals heard by Tribunal Service (2)

Following on from my previous blog, the same report states that about 2/3rds of TS reversals are because the TS was presented with additional information.  DWP will of course use this in an attempt to explain that the high reversal rate is not down to poor decision making.  However, they will not so readily admit that the report also states:

“The 65% figure for the production of additional evidence suggests that an important source of information is being overlooked in the decision-making process. There continues to be a tendency on the part of decision-makers to discount oral evidence received from the appellant in the process of evidence gathering prior to the decision and then in the preparation of the appeal, and not to seek out new evidence to verify the facts where the decision has been challenged. Where a decision is challenged it is the duty of the decision-maker to review the initial decision, satisfy themselves that the facts are correct, ensure that there is no further evidence that might lead to a review and where they do not accept evidence or doubt it explain why, making this explicit in the submission to the tribunal.”

One would imagine that in the interests of effective staff performance management, DWP collates TS outcomes by Decision Maker as the basis for re-training etc. but NOT SO.  The strong and clear recommendation above has just been ignored for the past 2 years!!!

I have also asked DWP what disciplinary action would be taken against an experienced DM who ignored an important, relevant and readily available piece of information when making their decision and the answer is none, but based on the obviously false premise that the training is so good and instructions are so rigorously followed that this could not really happen – purely hypothetical therefore.  If you then refer to the TS reversal rate, DWP does not consider that it reflects poorly on DM’s – talk about burying your head in the sand!!!

The management here is so demonstrably poor it amounts to a dereliction of duty. 

Teresa May has demonstrated this week (albeit over zealously and therefore to our cost) that the Government can take swift action with poor performers on the payroll, so why not here too?

The DMs do not appreciate (and probably don’t care) about the devastating effect their decisions can have on people’s lives.  No one would begrudge them the odd mistake, but the wholesale, overt bias in what they are doing is unforgivable and they should be brought to account accordingly.

Dear Mr Osborne - give it a break!

George Osborne has made his loathing of the sick and disabled plain enough since he has been in office, but now he is trying to cast his net even wider.

The rule is that annual inflationary increases to benefit payments are based on the September figure - 5.2% and barely in line with inflation.  OK, so it is higher than he would have liked and what he feels he can afford, but a promise is a promise. 

In previous years when the Semptember figure was lower than inflation, out of a sense of fairness, did he bump it up - NO HE DID NOT.  So, Mr Osborne you have no need to make your intentions any clearer, but this time if you do have a shortfall, find it elsewhere - the area within the MoD that thinks it is fine to pay £26 for a light bulb would be one place to start.

http://www.pensioncalculator.org/12158/news/state-pension-pensioners-to-dodge-govt-benefit-cuts/