DWP spends £39m defending decisions to strip benefits from sick and disabled people

[adreno]

Ministers have spent almost £40m in an “appalling” attempt to stop sick and disabled people receiving the financial help they are entitled to, The Independent can reveal.

Freedom of Information requests have exposed how taxpayers’ money has been spent on futile legal battles to prevent vulnerable people receiving help.

The hit to the public purse could also be far higher than the new data suggests because it is still unclear how much more the state spends running courts where sanctions are challenged.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...sions-department-frank-field-mp-a7886166.html

 

[Alvin2]

Its always the poor and disabled who are punished when the powerful flex their muscles. And the public often votes to expand this

 

[A.B.]

Is this really about saving money or about enforcing an ugly ideology?

 

[hellytheelephant]

Ugly is the word.

 

[alex3619]

Is this really about saving money or about enforcing an ugly ideology?

When their money saving costs more than is saved, I think you have your answer.

 

[skipskip30]

Is this really about saving money or about enforcing an ugly ideology?

I personally think Its more about looking good to the average sun/daily mail readers to stay in power. They can show the stats of how many people have been taken off disability benefits and the reduction in the welfare bill while omitting the figures for defending those atrocities. Your average idiot will just read the newspapers and think they are doing a good job and will vote for them again.

 

[alex3619]

A problem with estimating or calculating the cost of these policies is that only the things directly costed are taken into account. Secondary costs, such as increase in health care costs, or other agencies giving assistance (including food banks and family), even judicial costs outside of appeals, plus the devastating social costs, are not included. If we could put a money value on that what would it be?

When only the most obvious direct costs are included its just not the complete answer. Things are always worse than that.

 

[alex3619]

I personally think Its more about looking good to the average sun/daily mail readers to stay in power.

It seems obvious to anyone looking at the public relations campaigns that go with this that the politics of division and hate are very much alive. I have no doubt its a part of this. However its not clear this is separable from anti-populace ideology. Where does one begin and the other end?