back to article Labour vows: We'll pause one-dole-to-rule-them-all for drastic fix-up if elected in 2015

The Labour Party has promised to put the brakes on the deeply troubled Universal Credit system for three months if it gets into government next year. During that time, shadow work and pensions minister Rachel Reeves said that Labour would urge the National Audit Office to conduct a review of the lumpen welfare reform programme …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. codejunky Silver badge

    Shame

    The idea of a universal credit system is admirable and heading in the right kind of direction. Obviously it has been a train wreck but have the various laws surrounding various benefits been simplified? We have a complex tax system with generally poor performing departments like the HMRC routinely failing.

    Instead of telling us they will scrap the pet project, what solutions does labour offer? What hope?

    1. wolfetone Silver badge

      Re: Shame

      An owl for every man in the UK?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Reality

      bit this idea in the ass, and a very good idea it was.

      Unfortuntley some people just cannot be trusted to make the correct decision, and they will spend rent money on booze, fags, drugs and lottery tickets.

      It's a disgusting generalisation I agree, but it's the truth.

      They should have just left the rent side alone, because it's caused more harm than good.

      If anything housing benefit money should always go to the landlord of the property, never to the tenant.

      1. TheOtherHobbes

        Re: Reality

        "Unfortuntley some people just cannot be trusted to make the correct decision, and they will spend public money on crony projects for their old school mates."

        Fixed that for you.

        See also - allegedly - HS2 and HS3, NHS privatisation, mail privatisation, and many, many more.

        But you're worried about a few people spending money on beer and fags?

        1. h3

          Re: Reality

          Pensions / NHS / Housing Benefit are the only ones that matter.

          Rent control (Like even America has) could do more in terms of saving money than anything else they could do but they are stupid about it.

          (Everything else is a drop in the ocean compared to those three).

        2. Chris Parsons

          Re: Reality

          Downvoted for the arrogance of 'fixed that for you'.

      2. J.G.Harston Silver badge

        Re: Reality

        "Unfortunately some people just cannot be trusted to make the correct decision, and they will spend rent money on booze, fags, drugs and lottery tickets."

        A lot of people do that whether they get their money from the state or from an employer. By that argument, salaries should be abolished and employers should provide food and accommodation 'cos the poor plebs just cannot be trusted to spend money on what their betters think they should do.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "... admirable and heading in the right kind of direction"

      How so? Rolling all your payments into one is the only convenience, and that could readily be achieved by feeding them into a central clearing system which makes payments directly into a bank account. A monolithic benefits system makes it harder to track individual awards and increases the risk that cancelling part of the benefit for whatever reason would lead to all of it being cancelled.

      That last is, of course, exactly what the Tories want. People losing their housing benefit or their incapacity benefit because their child turned 19 reduces the number of claimants, and Ian Duncan Smith loves that very much.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    So how...

    ...exactly do you "pause" a messed up rollout? Surely that just leaves it paused as a messed up roll out?

    Still I trust labour, they have a proven track record when it comes to IT roll outs....sorry, I had a funny turn then, my mistake.

    1. Les Matthew
      FAIL

      Re: So how...

      I think you'll find that no government over the last thirty years has a IT track record worth shouting about.

  3. Ketlan
    Flame

    About bloody time!

    'The Labour Party has promised to put the brakes on the deeply troubled Universal Credit system for three months...'

    It's about time Labour got off its communal arse and announced that it will kick UC into touch permanently, along with that moronic liar Iain Duncan Smith.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: About bloody time!

      No real / decent / workable ideas of their own so it's just well we would not do that... how about suggest a solution??

    2. Tom 38

      Re: About bloody time!

      I'm fairly certain that Labour intend, if they are returned to power, to choose someone else to serve as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions rather than keeping IDS in the job..

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The UK could do with a vastly simplified taxation system to go along with UC so that it doesn't require a degree in maths and doublethink to understand it all.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Something simple...

      ...Negative Income Tax, so simple that the Whitehall minions would scuttle it as soon as it was mentioned because it would put so many og them out of a job.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Black hole?

    Welfare spending is a joke, the really disabled get too little and the pretend disabled get free cars. Its a good thing to reform the whole area its just they put that idiot IDS in charge.

    1. Awil Onmearse

      Re: Black hole?

      By a long, long way the largest slice of welfare is spent on pensioners. People pretending to be over 65 really are a burden on the system, eh?

      1. PJI

        Re: Black hole?

        And what's worse, they seem to think they have some kind of entitlement to a decent pension just because they paid into it for forty years.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Black hole?

        I'm gonna spend every pound and penny of my savings before I retire. That way I can live royally on the state until I kick the bucket. After all, every pound I have in savings over 16K means I get reduced benefits. That way I can keep above the poverty line.

        The alternative is to live on the pension pot I have built up over the last 40years and still pay Income tax on my income of around 12K a year plus state pension.

        Being a pensioner is not the bed of roses that some people make out but if I spend my pension pot on a new car/holiday, I'll get more income with all those extra benefits I'll get from the state. Oh what a hard decision.

        {never been on the dole or had any state handouts in my life}

  6. ginger_tosser
    FAIL

    Nice idea..

    The whole UC idea is technically a good one in that it is supposed to link to HMRC to determine the earnings of a claimant (if any) and adjust benefit payment accordingly such that people are always better off working than not.

    The fact that the various civil service departments are completely incoherent in their IT systems is a major issue for the roll out of such a system and is the main thing that should have been sorted prior to the introduction of UC.

    How many of you El Reg readers have had letters through from HMRC regarding child tax credits etc and asking you to tell them you and your partners earnings - they have your NI numbers etc, why the hell can't they just look it up??

    By having a real-time link between systems (or even better, a single system) then the roll-out of any such link to benefits would be much simpler.

    1. IHateWearingATie

      Re: Nice idea..

      How easy to type, how hard to implement in practice.

      The idea behind UC was kicking around for YEARS in DWP before IDS came in. A smaller attempt was made to bring benefit systems together in the mid 2000s which was scrapped as it quickly ran into the sand.

      There are two reasons the benefits system is complex - one is the incremental nature of it, with things being layered on top of each other for years and years until we end up where we are now.

      The other is that life is stupidly, incredibly, ridiculously, unbelievably complex, and the benefits system has to take account of that as the impact of ignoring it can have profound consequences for people.

      Lets take an example - I'm a bank and a customer wants to open an account and give his 3 wives (he has a polygamous marriage from his time living in Qatar) access. A bank may look at that use case and say "screw it, too costly to implement the functionality, hardly anyone needs that so I won't build the functionality in to the system and if he doesn't like it I don't care, he can naff off to another bank"

      The DWP can't say that, as if he can't claim benefits he and his wives and his kids will starve (lets ignore the arguments over whether or not he should get benefits). In the UK polygamous marriage is not legal, so which marriage do we recognise (the first one, as the rules currently go - yes this is a real example I've worked on in the past) ? What do the other two women with kids do about their benefit claims? They all live in the same house, so how can we work the rules to ensure they have enough to live on, but don't get more than their fair share and take the piss.

      If you think that is a ridiculous use case, then you clearly have never worked on social security or tax systems. There are many many many examples like this - my favourite is the guy who changed his name to his national insurance number which caused a re-write in a bunch of modules as it broke some validation rules designed to weed out mistypes.

      As my boss used to say, when your IT system has to deal with the entire working population every month (for example with national insurance), then one in a million situations happen at least once a day.

      1. ijustwantaneasylife
        FAIL

        Re: Nice idea..

        Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is why so many systems - not just Government ones - fail to get implemented sensibly or stay within timescales/budget. You're trying to do too much!

        This is not HAL - it doesn't need to be perfect (OK, HAL wasn't perfect either). All you do in this situation is pass the benefit application to a fleshy computer - you know, the ones with arms and legs and a brain! - and get them to work it out manually.

        This is a ridiculous use case to try and accommodate. If you get a swarm of these things then possibly it could be worth while - otherwise, don't waste your time.

        1. IHateWearingATie

          Re: Nice idea..

          See my comment above - you clearly haven't worked on social security or tax systems.

          I've seen more complex and seemingly outlandish examples included because of the sheer number that crop up, meaning meatbag processing would be quickly overwhelmed .

          We were not stupid - only complexity that needed to be in the system was there. There are plenty of manual workarounds on the system for complex situations where the numbers are small. However, you also need to consider the number of workarounds - they soon mount up, and before you know it there are as many cases being processed off system as on system.

          I seem to remember the particular example above was included as it tipped over the de minimus for stupidly complex cases - can't remember exactly what it was but it was in the low thousands. Sounds unbelievable, but to be honest once you've worked on social security systems your threshold to be surprised by the situations people can get themselves into is pretty high.

      2. Tom 38
        Joke

        Re: Nice idea..

        ...then one in a million situations happen at least once a day.

        Everyone knows one in a million shots come up 9 times out of 10.

  7. TopOnePercent

    It'd be cheaper, fairer, faster, and all round better, if we just abolish all benefits other than OAP, and give people larger tax free allowances - that way all work pays, and not working ceases to be a lifestyle choice.

    People could then buy their own short term unemployment insurance from the private sector (as those of us with any assets must) to cover any transient unemployment.

    1. hammarbtyp

      It'd be cheaper, fairer, faster, and all round better if we just shot the long term unemployed, disabled, immigrants, labour voters, people who didn't go to Eton, blah, blah, blah

      1. wowfood

        Nah

        bullets cost too much, we'd be better of bludgeoning them all to death.

        1. JimmyPage Silver badge
          Stop

          we'd be better of bludgeoning them all to death.

          better still, get them to bludgeon each other to death.

          We need an Idi Amin icon :(

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: we'd be better of bludgeoning them all to death.

            Could be like Running Man and sell the TV rights ;|

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Downvote ?

            clearly somebody who doesn't know their history.

        2. John G Imrie

          RE bullets cost too much, we'd be better of bludgeoning them all to death.

          Too expensive.

          Get them to bludgeon themselves then televise it. That way we can raise some money for the TV rights.

          1. TheOtherHobbes

            Re: RE bullets cost too much, we'd be better of bludgeoning them all to death.

            Why not make them pay for the bludgeons out of their benefits?

    2. glen waverley

      lifestyle choice. really? always?

      You probably understand what I am about to say,but I want to say it anyway.

      Some people can't work. They might be very disabled. Or they might be looking after someone who needs lots of care. So not working isn't really a lifestyle choice.

      So tax rebates / deductions don't help these members of society. Which is where a credit (aka negative tax) comes in. But, as has been shown, this is very hard to do right in a simple manner.

      I could go on and on, but others have already pointed out the practical difficulties.

      1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

        Re: lifestyle choice. really? always?

        Or, after 1800 job applications, people *STILL* refuse to actually pay them to work.

        "You're trying too hard to get work, fuck off and die!"

      2. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

        Re: lifestyle choice. really? always?

        This is why we need a basic income - given to everyone automatically (cutting down enormously on admin) and paid for by land value tax...

      3. PJI

        Re: lifestyle choice. really? always?

        plus, I assume that anyone thinking that withdrawing support enables everyone to find work that pays enough to live, if any at all, has been living in the happy daydreams of a ten year old, whose parents are both employed and never lost their jobs through their own firm, their employers going bankrupt, or sacking them because the firm wants to save money or even must to cut real costs or ….

        Please, grow up a little.

      4. TopOnePercent

        Re: lifestyle choice. really? always?

        You probably understand what I am about to say,but I want to say it anyway.

        Some people can't work. They might be very disabled. Or they might be looking after someone who needs lots of care. So not working isn't really a lifestyle choice

        You're right, on both points - I understand that, and I agree with you that their situation should not be penalised.

        However, no system is perfect and there will always be edge cases for whom no system works. That's not a reason to persevere with the current mess, especially where the situation you describe will be a small minority of cases.

        Doing nothing will simply soak up still more cash that we as a society don't have, until the tipping point is reached where welfare implodes.

        My two disabled friends both have highly lucrative careers, despite what I would consider significant adversity - to them its just life. While disability varies from case to case, I'd say each of them was more disabled than half of all claimants I've met.

    3. Mark Dempster

      >It'd be cheaper, fairer, faster, and all round better, if we just abolish all benefits other than OAP, and give people larger tax free allowances - that way all work pays, and not working ceases to be a lifestyle choice.

      People could then buy their own short term unemployment insurance from the private sector (as those of us with any assets must) to cover any transient unemployment.<

      And presumably workhouses / prisons for those who chose to buy food instead of such insurance, etc.... you're obviously someone who's never been under financial pressure. I'm all in favour of stopping those who chose not to work from claiming benefits, but I'm a staunch supporter of the welfare state for those in genuine need. Unfortunately, those people often don't get enough help.

  8. batfastad

    Fix

    Not promising to sort out Tone's botched regime change in the Middle East then?

    On topic, yes they'll pause it. Then resume it. Called something like Universal Cloud Credit Big Data Reboot Beta Internet Of Things, specced by the same unqualified moronic civil serfs, needing another £Xbn in project managers, project manager managers, and contractors familiar with FlapsDB or some other NoSQL startup database currently trending on GitHub.

    The colour of a governing party might change and lurch 1 degree to the left but sadly that's no guarantee of competence. I've seen this film before and it's sh*t.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "We hit a bump," was the most IDS could confess to Parliament about the shambolic deployment of Universal Credit.

    A bump? Stop blinding us with science Iain. Had the captain of the Titanic survived the maiden voyage, doubless he would have described the iceberg as a 'bump'.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    The project is clearly a runaway success, having moved £34 million from the taxpayer's purse into the accounts of private companies.

    Living off benefits has never looked so rosy.

  11. AceRimmer

    As an IT contractor

    I welcome changes in Government with open arms

    1. Chika

      Re: As an IT contractor

      I'm not so sure that it will be an owlling success, but then I could be wrong. But could I give a hoot? We shall see.

  12. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Flame

    A textbook example

    of ideology over practicality. It matters not a jot that this project will cost far in excess of any putative "saving" it will deliver. Because that wasn't it's aim to begin with.

    It's real aim is to deliver an extremely cheap labour force to be exploited by the fatcat companies.

    Personally I would question Labours sincerity. Don't forget they voted *with* the government to deny jobseekers who had been unlawfully deprived of benefits compensation. Something against the principles of natural justice, where a citizen has a right of redress against state misbehaviour.

    1. FlatSpot
      Megaphone

      Re: A textbook example

      Its not the same as buying a car.. you are being *given* money and the giver decides not to give it to you anymore, so how are you therefore entitled to compensation?

      Secondly the savings can be whatever you chose them to be, depending on how you define the timeline to suit your argument/agenda. If you decide the timeframe as 1yr then it will be zero savings, but over 10 yrs or 20 yrs the savings will be considerable.

      1. JimmyPage Silver badge
        Mushroom

        so how are you therefore entitled to compensation?

        We live in a liberal democracy. That supposes we *all* live under the rule of law. Including (and especially) the government.

        If the government causes people to suffer, because it breaks it's own laws (which it did in the JSA case) then those people are entitled to redress.

        For a government to rush legislation through parliament to retrospectively deny claimants the money they were due (again, under the governments own laws) is a shocking abuse of process, and one which may well be found to be unlawful, when reviewed against the UKs undertakings to the European Convention on Human Rights.

        The fact that Labour colluded with the government on this makes them hypocrites of the highest order. The fact that the poor in society have some notion that Labour is looking out for them is one fact that might be used to demonstrate the stupidity of poverty.

        1. gerryg

          Re: so how are you therefore entitled to compensation?

          "...is a shocking abuse of process, and one which may well be found to be unlawful, when reviewed against the UKs undertakings to the European Convention on Human Rights..."

          You are just grandstanding. Parliament is sovereign and ultimately makes the law. Democracy changes Parliaments.

          If something has got out of control then retrospective legislation is used. It's not new, albeit rare. It has been used to undermine aggressive tax avoidance schemes

          Come back and condemn that and then I'll listen to you about welfare reform

          By the way from the article "The judge also pointed out that retrospective legislation was not prohibited by human rights law, although there is a strong presumption against it"

  13. Spleen

    The way welfare works is that you promise to raise £1bn in extra taxes in order to redistribute to the needy. The needy (and those who are afraid of being thought uncaring) elect you into power. You then raise £1bn in taxes, and devise an immensely complicated benefits system which the poor serfs can't possibly understand, which means that they only claim about £300m of the £1bn you've promised them. You then pocket the difference.

    UC, like flat taxation and a flat rate state pension, won't happen under any system run by London. Even if it did it would be reversed by the next incoming government, who will start tacking on new entitlements (if Labour) or means-testing existing ones (if Conservative).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      UC, like flat taxation and a flat rate state pension, won't happen under any system run by London

      Lots of people like moaning about how London-centric everything is, but they don't seem to mind when the taxes generated by London pay for their roads, hospitals and welfare state.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Yes let's tax the people working and earning (even) more to pay the people who are not working - indeed let's increase benefits so there is less reason to work then up the taxes more on the rest - where does that get you?

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.