[arista]

[The benefit cap and two-child limit
would be immediately ditched,
which Labour says would bring
300,000 children out of poverty.
Jeremy Corbyn has promised to scrap
Universal Credit if Labour wins a general election,
calling the much-criticised reforms
an "unmitigated disaster".
The Labour leader has outlined plans
to move from a system designed
to "punish and police" towards one
which supports jobseekers with
"dignity and respect".
The benefit cap and two-child limit
would be immediately ditched.]

https://news.sky.com/story/labour-wo...redit-11821416

[joeysteele]

I've wanted to hear this for years from any Party.
So glad my Party has.

Good time to stop it before it's rolled out totally too.

The hardship this has caused to strong numbers, not all admittedly of claimants is staggering.

Great too, that the hated bedroom tax would be scrapped at last too.

Cons, will hate this policy.
However good they do,they brought the atrocious thing in.
Even when they admitted it was causing big problems, they still never really addressed any big concerns.

So good for me, there's a chance to get this scrapped, while the cost of doing so, likely will be far less than the cost of chaos if it was fully rolled out Nationwide.

[Oliver_W]

In what way is Universal Credit bad? I knkw so little about it, is it much lower than JSA or ESA?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

In what way is Universal Credit bad? I knkw so little about it, is it much lower than JSA or ESA?

It's not that it's lower, although the child element is capped at 2 children (so significantly lower for people with more than 2), it's more that it has been an organisational nightmare / failure. Half the time it just flat out doesn't work, glitches in the system mean people not getting money for no reason, there's another "glitch" that means if people have an irregular pay date (anything other than monthly) then they basically get one huge payment every 2 months instead of paid monthly... when monthly payments was supposed to be the entire point of the new system.

It's also needlessly punitive in making people sign an 2agreement" and then keep in constant contact with the job centre to get ANY type of UC... which can lead to some ludicrous situations like full-time working professionals who are single parents and entitled to the child element, having to attend jobcentre meetings. It replaces tax credits so for example, a full time trained nurse, firefighter or police officer who is a single parent would be occasionally sat in JobCentre interviews justifying their right to claim alongside unemployed jobseekers which frankly is a disgrace.

I've also heard of people being sanctioned for several YEARS for missing appointments for valid reasons, like being seriously ill, or having a family member die suddenly.

[user104658]

In contrast, Tax Credits was based on annual income, and you applied once a year in April then had to notify of any significant changes (like increases in income). That was it, and it was a perfectly well functioning system.

In principle UC was a fine idea (if it worked better and was less punitive) for out-of-work benefits. In-work benefits should have been left out if it, though.

[Oliver_W]

Interesting, thanks!

It's easy to say that new systems will have teething troibles, because of course they will, but when these problems go on and on and affect people's money, it obviously needs to be remedied.

[user104658]

Oh and I shouldn't forget to add... there's the issue of people being switched over from the old system to the new one being left with no money at all for 6 - 8 weeks and being told they'll "just have to get by", and then ending up in debt spirals because they have to borrow.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Interesting, thanks!

It's easy to say that new systems will have teething troibles, because of course they will, but when these problems go on and on and affect people's money, it obviously needs to be remedied.

One of the main criticisms is that the issues were identified in early trials and they should have paused and solved them then, but they decided just to forge ahead regardless. Just recklessness really.

[GiRTh]

They take into account any income earned but not any customer costs. So if you say work for 10 hours a week then that money will be deducted from your claim but your expenses in taking that job will not be paid. Its so bad that in many cases its better for the person to not declare any income because the deductions from their UC are far too severe. They end up better off not taking on any work or doing work on the side which I'm sure was not the intention of the scheme.

Its a disaster and its so bad I cannot for the life of me understand why it was implemented so rigorously knowing full well that people will clearly suffer hardship

[Strictly Jake]

We are on UC. Its a pretty good amount of money to be fair so if it gets scrapped I'd hope we would get more money and not less! That said having a two child cap needs to be changed. Got a newborn on the way that they won't give us benefits for. Seems a bit unfair

[Kizzy]

It's the suicides, the turning to crime and prostitution that has proven it's failed. Yet they've ploughed so much money into the rollout there's no going back without looking more incompetent than they are!

[Strictly Jake]

But yeah the not having money for 6 to 8 weeks at the start was difficult! That needs to change for sure

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Strictly Jake

But yeah the not having money for 6 to 8 weeks at the start was difficult! That needs to change for sure

And with that you can take out a loan from the UC but you pay it back over time. Its almost like they know you're going to be screwed but couldn't give a whatever.

[Tom4784]

Good, UC has failed completely and has put so many vulnerable people at risk.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

They take into account any income earned but not any customer costs. So if you say work for 10 hours a week then that money will be deducted from your claim but your expenses in taking that job will not be paid. Its so bad that in many cases its better for the person to not declare any income because the deductions from their UC are far too severe. They end up better off not taking on any work or doing work on the side which I'm sure was not the intention of the scheme.

Its a disaster and its so bad I cannot for the life of me understand why it was implemented so rigorously knowing full well that people will clearly suffer hardship

To be fair, that's always been the case even in the "old system" of JSA + Tax Credits + Housing Allowance. I was unemployed for around 4 - 5 months just before my eldest was born (which is nearly 10 years ago ) and they were expecting me to interview for jobs paying £140 a week, that would have had £80 a week in travel costs. They sanction you if you don't interview or turn down an offer so the only choice was to sabotage interviews .

I found a job (as a li'l cashier at the bookies ) literally 10 days before my daughter was born and have probably never been so relieved before or since that I didn't have to navigate that system as a new dad. Then of course I ended up staying with the company for 9.5 years and going as high as store manager and despising the soul-sucking mess with a firey passion so... swings and roundabouts I guess . Odd remembering how elated I was to get that job offer, unware that it was going to wear me down to a stump over the following decade

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Good, UC has failed completely and has put so many vulnerable people at risk.

That's one of the worst parts really, it's a complicated system full of loopholes so it's the most vulnerable people who are most likely to fall into the (often quite deliberate, imo) traps.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To be fair, that's always been the case even in the "old system" of JSA + Tax Credits + Housing Allowance. I was unemployed for around 4 - 5 months just before my eldest was born (which is nearly 10 years ago ) and they were expecting me to interview for jobs paying £140 a week, that would have had £80 a week in travel costs. They sanction you if you don't interview or turn down an offer so the only choice was to sabotage interviews .

I found a job (as a li'l cashier at the bookies ) literally 10 days before my daughter was born and have probably never been so relieved before or since that I didn't have to navigate that system as a new dad. Then of course I ended up staying with the company for 9.5 years and going as high as store manager and despising the soul-sucking mess with a firey passion so... swings and roundabouts I guess . Odd remembering how elated I was to get that job offer, unware that it was going to wear me down to a stump over the following decade

Thats not my recollection. I was unemployed for almost a year about 15 years ago and I thought they were very understanding and any work I did was fairly judged. It was an easy system to abuse but UC is too far the other way. I'm hearing stories of one person who was recently made unemployed, but as part of his old job he got a bus pass that still had six months left. His employer took six months worth of bus pass from his final pay check which accounted to about £300. The UC took that as income and deducted the £300 from his initial claim. That wouldn't happen under the old system.

[joeysteele]

ToySoldier has detailed all superbly really.

It's the devastation it has caused and left to people really trying to live day to day.

Also a good number of claimants actually ended up with less than on the previous system.
Already in hardship, that made things massively worse.
The Government has been warned repeatedly and they've admitted failings, bad ones with it.

However it's lip service, they've done very little to alleviate the problems.

It was a fair idea in theory.
It has turned into a nightmare for many however.

Had the government paused it and really looked at, and reformed it again.
Fair enough.

They didn't, they continued the slow roll out while things deteriorated further.

For 2 years now, I've thought the only decent thing to do in my view, is scrap it now.
Before the full roll out Nationwide is done.

That's why I welcome this policy.
It's been overall a disaster.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Thats not my recollection. I was unemployed for almost a year about 15 years ago and I thought they were very understanding and any work I did was fairly judged. It was an easy system to abuse but UC is too far the other way. I'm hearing stories of one person who was recently made unemployed, but as part of his old job he got a bus pass that still had six months left. His employer took six months worth of bus pass from his final pay check which accounted to about £300. The UC took that as income and deducted the £300 from his initial claim. That wouldn't happen under the old system.

I believe it was something called "New Deal" (I might be remembering the name wrong) that was just coming into play when I was on JSA. They were also phasing in mandatory weekly "jobseeking classes" - I had to attend ONE of them, even though I had already secured a job, because I still had to claim for the three weeks up until my start date. So I was lucky enough to know that I was just there as a "box ticking exercise"... but it was utterly awful. Everyone lumped in a room together, so you literally had guys stinking of alcohol and people who were struggling with literacy in with temporarily unemployed professionals with Masters degrees, being patronised by some of the worst people on the planet. Like I say... I'm glad I could treat it as a "fly on the wall" situation because if I'd actually felt like I was "in it" it would have pushed me over the edge at that point. And all of that was a Labour initiative. Again, none of it anywhere NEAR as bad as the mess that is UC, but it would be an error to remember the "final" Labour system with rose tinted glasses.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

They take into account any income earned but not any customer costs. So if you say work for 10 hours a week then that money will be deducted from your claim but your expenses in taking that job will not be paid. Its so bad that in many cases its better for the person to not declare any income because the deductions from their UC are far too severe. They end up better off not taking on any work or doing work on the side which I'm sure was not the intention of the scheme.

Its a disaster and its so bad I cannot for the life of me understand why it was implemented so rigorously knowing full well that people will clearly suffer hardship

I think they used to deduct something like 60% of your earnings from what benefits you get or something, have they stopped that? I assumed that was to cover travel and other expenses?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I think they used to deduct something like 60% of your earnings from what benefits you get or something, have they stopped that? I assumed that was to cover travel and other expenses?

UC has a "full taper" where it gradually decreases as earnings increase, right down to zero (like you could in theory be getting £4 UC a week once you have much better earnings). This is one of the things that UC actually gets right over JSA in my opinion, which has a "hard cap" where you lose lump sums in steps as soon as you hit a certain threshold, which (for example) lead to situations where, let's say, someone could be working 16h a week and be offered an hours increase to 20h a week, but they would actually end up financially worse off if they took the extra hours.

Again though, it's part of UC that looks good in theory but is full of glitches that make it not actually work as it should, and people are turning things down based on the sheer uncertainty of what will actually happen.

Another "on paper improvement" of UC for example is monthly payments, rather than the weekly / four-weekly current system, which is in theory much better. Getting money in 4-weekly when your rent and bills come out monthly gets really messy. However, again, it's broken... some people end up getting their full payment for 2 months, every 2 months... so 6 lump sums a year. Who can budget with that? Just a mess. And there's no reason for it other than that the system is full of bugs that they haven't managed to fix.

But I do honestly suspect it's deliberately messy to stop people from being able to easily access it. Like I said above though - that leads to the worst possible situation where the people who need it most - vulnerable people who are less likely to be able to get their head around the system - are the ones most likely to end up with no help.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I believe it was something called "New Deal" (I might be remembering the name wrong) that was just coming into play when I was on JSA. They were also phasing in mandatory weekly "jobseeking classes" - I had to attend ONE of them, even though I had already secured a job, because I still had to claim for the three weeks up until my start date. So I was lucky enough to know that I was just there as a "box ticking exercise"... but it was utterly awful. Everyone lumped in a room together, so you literally had guys stinking of alcohol and people who were struggling with literacy in with temporarily unemployed professionals with Masters degrees, being patronised by some of the worst people on the planet. Like I say... I'm glad I could treat it as a "fly on the wall" situation because if I'd actually felt like I was "in it" it would have pushed me over the edge at that point. And all of that was a Labour initiative. Again, none of it anywhere NEAR as bad as the mess that is UC, but it would be an error to remember the "final" Labour system with rose tinted glasses.

I remember new deal. It was the start of the new way of thinking that has lead to UC. I remember I once claiming a tax credit for a year after I was no longer eligible. It was almost too easy to exploit but UC is too much of a correction. The queues to food banks are now filled with people waiting for their first UC payment to be released.

ITs like they think every one leaves a job with a final pay packet of a about 4 grand. The system is so stacked toward causing hardship that they clearly didnt think it thru properly

[user104658]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

ITs like they think every one leaves a job with a final pay packet of a about 4 grand. The system is so stacked toward causing hardship that they clearly didnt think it thru properly

The problem is that it's designed by Tories who, I think, genuinely believe that everyone "has savings to dip into" while they wait, or a family that can support them, because they've never known anything else.