Universal Credit

[the_bloke 17]

You're probably right, but this will affect more than just the unemployed. It will affect the working poor, those on tax credits and even those getting family allowance (or its modern equivalent) I believe, so that's a lot of people.

 

When you add that to the number of people being affected by lack of public services and cuts across the board, I think they will have surely had enough.

 

Data here:

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/739377/universal-credit-statistics-to-9-august-2018.pdf

 

Currently 880,000 households are receiving UC, of which 37% of those people on UC are employed.

 

There are 27 million households in the UK. So currently 3% of the households in the UK are on UC.

 

Even with the ongoing switch to UC from the myriad of other benefits, I very much doubt there will ever be significant numbers of people to reach a critical mass to cause the Government to reverse a system that has been on the cards since 2013.

 

The buck stops with the Government, but we all know it's the public sector and civil service that's made such a mess of the implementation of UC. Which lets face it, is no surprise.

[Anna B 1,410]

It does give that impression, but they must be pressing ahead for a good reason.

 

When Ian Duncan Smith started it off it might have seemed like a good idea with good intentions. But even he bailed out when he realised it was going to be deliberately underfunded to the tune of 2 billion, so any good it might have done was replaced by the usual Tory urge to stamp hardest on the poorest. These are the most vulnerable people in society, especially the disabled for which there is absolutely no excuse.

 

For once I don't blame the civil service for getting it wrong. There was no way they could get it right. It was sabotaged from the start. Deliberate Tory maleficence to make life as difficult as possible for those in need, like their lives weren't difficult enough already.

 

---------- Post added 18-10-2018 at 13:01 ----------

 

Last night Tory MPs blocked the release of the Government's own analysis on the impact of Universal Credit.

 

Clearly they want to cover up how it's devastating people's lives

Edited October 12, 2018 by Anna B

[Anna B 1,410]

Yet another independent report on Universal credit has come out pointing, out its obvious flaws and the devastation it is going to have on people's lives, But Still the government is refusing to listen...

 

Everybody is going to be affected, but particularly the working poor and the disabled. Disgusting that these two groups are being targeted for cuts, yet little is being done to target the richest people in society in this 'age of Austerity.'

[ivan edake 13]

According to the Mirror anybody who signs on to Universal Credit after Nov 20th will not receive any payment until the new year.This is at least 6 weeks.How on earth is anybody expected to last this length of time with no income? The mirror calls UC a Premeditated Cruelty and they are absolutely right.Thousands of cases of UC causing poverty, people to lose their homes,a massive increase in the use of food banks and people having no food,electricity or gas for weeks on end have been confirmed and reported yet this government still persists in carrying on with this useless payment system.When asked how she slept at night Amber Rudd said " very soundly". This country is, I believe the 5th richest in the world,yet needy people are treat like this.The government needs to sit up and take notice or it will get kicked out.Still, no worries ,all the MPs will have enough money to manage.

[ECCOnoob 1,029]

What do you mean by "signs on"?     

 

Are you talking about someone who has become out of work and then applies?     If that is the case, then they would get paid up to the point they left employment and would live on that until UC commences - just like they would have had to do whilst they are employed.    Its not beyond the realms of reality that people survive gaps between payments WHATEVER their source of income

 

Applications have to be reviewed and things set up in place.    Benefits have always been like that and UC certainly hasn't changed the position.

 

What exactly was the procedure before when someone applied for ye olde' Jobseekers Allowance or back in the days of Family Credit?   How long was the waiting time back then compared to now?

 

I like facts not the "Mirror's" sensationalised opinion. 

Edited November 30, 2018 by ECCOnoob

[Cyclone 10]

It's been well established and widely reported that UC is causing huge delays for a moderate number of people.  And that's longer delays than the system of benefits which it is supposed to replace.  It's being the direct cause of hardship and harm.

[Anna B 1,410]

6 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

What do you mean by "signs on"?     

 

Are you talking about someone who has become out of work and then applies?     If that is the case, then they would get paid up to the point they left employment and would live on that until UC commences - just like they would have had to do whilst they are employed.    Its not beyond the realms of reality that people survive gaps between payments WHATEVER their source of income

 

Applications have to be reviewed and things set up in place.    Benefits have always been like that and UC certainly hasn't changed the position.

 

What exactly was the procedure before when someone applied for ye olde' Jobseekers Allowance or back in the days of Family Credit?   How long was the waiting time back then compared to now?

 

I like facts not the "Mirror's" sensationalised opinion. 

The facts are that foodbank use goes up in nearly every area where Universal credit is rolled out. In some places it has doubled. It's also a fact that people who are being moved from the old system of benefits to UC have their old benefit stopped and it takes a minimum of 6 weeks for the UC to start, and then it's often wrong, or paid inconsistently.  

 

These people usually have no money saved to fall back on, and may often be in debt, but the rent and bills still need to be paid, people still need to eat. What are they supposed to do for 6+ weeks? Live on fresh air?

This causes all sorts of long term problems, and means they get into debt or have to resort to other nefarious means to keep their head above water. 

 

And even when it's finally been calculated and finally kicks in, it's usually less than the old system,  and sometimes considerably less, without warning, and simplynot enough to live on. It was always a cost cutting exercise, as you can tell when it's underfunded to the tune of £2 Bilion.

 

It's also now paid in a lump sum, (rent is not paid separately or straight to the landlord,) so people often have to chose whether to pay their rent, pay for heating and lighting, or pay for food; they can't afford all of them ... 

And landlords frequently refuse even to take tenants who are on Universal credit because they are seen as unreliable. Remember tenants usually need a months rent in advance, plus a bond, and letting agents fees to get a new tenancy which can be upwards of £1,000 (which they don't have) - which is why we have so many homeless.

 

Universal credit is a disaster; the government knows it, but won't do anything about it. 

Edited December 1, 2018 by Anna B

[spilldig 188]

On 3/12/2013 at 11:20 PM, onewheeldave said:

 

Yet with housing, giving money direct to the landlord works really well and the tenants are happy about it and don't feel stigmatised.

 

There simply isn't an equivalent for food- all proposed systems seem to be based on vouchers and people aren't happy with that, and, do feel stigmatised.

 

 

Yes, I agree completely

It didn't work well though because the Labor government just gave the landlords whatever they asked and rents went to silly levels. I can remember row after row of properties with DSS only being advertised. Anybody working could not afford it. 

 

 

[TeaFan 10]

A local campaign against UC is starting to build in Sheffield. If anyone genuinely wants to be involved then please pm me.

 

ta

[phil752 10]

On 3/12/2013 at 4:03 PM, MrSmith said:

The next step is to build huge complexes for those people incapable of managing their free money, a bit like army barracks in which everything is provided leaving them with no need for money.

I take exception to the military quote, apart from single personal, most military have the same commitments as any other citizen, even single service personal have to manage money. So don't dare compare  service personal who have a sense of duty to, well you tell me who?

[geared 305]

Prisoners I assume?

[TeaFan 10]

On 1/14/2018 at 7:34 PM, Robin-H said:

 

Again, that is simply not true.

 

I do not believe that transitional protection is a loan, and so does not need to be paid back.

Hi Robin,

you're getting your terminology a bit mixed up there. Transitional protection is something that you can sometimes get when the government transfers you from one benefit to another, because they have replaced or are replacing one benefit with another. This is called 'migration'. People were migrated from Incapacity Benefit to Employment & Support Allowance, and people are now starting to be migrated from Employment & Support Allowance to UC. Transitional protection allows you to keep some of the features of the old benefit for a defined period of time when you transfer on the new benefit.

 

What Car Boot was referring to (I think) is the advance you can get of UC to tide you over for the 5 weeks before you get a payment. This does have to be paid back, and is deducted from your monthly UC payments thereafter. Given that the normal amount of UC is what the government have calculated is the minimum you need to live on, deducting from it to repay the advance is of course going to leave you without enough to live on. So yes, this is a significant problem for people on UC. On the old ('legacy') benefits, you could get a short-term benefit advance but this would often be about half of your usual fortnightly payment. Because your first payment would come a lot quicker than it does with UC, you could just about budget, and you didn't have to pay it back. This is a significant, negative difference between UC and legacy benefits.