Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
Neil Coulings’ tweet v The Lancet
Neil Couling considers the problems with UC from a mental health point of view are to do with the fact that people are scare mongering:
https://twitter.com/NeilCouling/status/1233098597044031494
He has provided 1 example of someone who was helped by a good workcoach.
Meanwhile, as highlighted on the news page of rightsnet, researchers in an article published in The Lancet have produced a longitudinal controlled study which identifies an increase in mental health problems that correlates with the introduction of UC:
The researchers studied data concerning 52,000 individuals.
It is nice to see the DWP’s UC lead taking such an evidence based approach to policy.
Of course the two separate views could be squared by assuming that the reason for this increase is simply that people have wrongly talked down UC…. Mustn’t grumble.
One could alternatively consider the possibility that UC has some real issues- indeed a program which is designed to reduce, as compared to legacy benefits, income for (amongst others) disabled people, parents who are aged less than 25, parent’s of disabled kids etc might be thought to be likely to produce worse results for those people….
Also added here re Mr Couling’s response this morning to Tom Pollard, a specialist mental health worker who previously spent 18 months at the DWP seconded from Mind:
When we talk to claimants it is predominately fear of the system driven from what they have heard rather than the system itself that is driving anxieties. When we explain how the system actually works the predominant reaction is relief
What’s the control group for the study?
Would be reasonable to think that people would struggle with the introduction of any new benefits system.
No question that there are serious flaws in UC, including regulations that no sane person would have introduced unless s/he was a sadist. But, I’m not sure how useful studies like this are unless they can account for very many variables, and find causation between specific aspects of UC and detriment to health.
You could probably draw stronger evidence from certain *cough* ruling parties’ negative influence on mental health.
I don’t think we’ll see any significant improvements until there is a political shift. Not to mention an improvement in the reporting standards (and political bias) of British mass media.
Phew. That’s my little rant for the end of the week. Few more hours and it’s into the wonderful (and comparatively comprehensible) world of sci-fi farming boardgames set during an alternative WWI era.
Inre: the introduction of a new system of social security, I worked at DSS when Income Support was bought into replace Supplementary Benefit. The change was done overnight, in an age when everything was done by hand on manual calculation sheets (A124).
There was nothing like the reaction that there has been to the introduction of UC and I think it’s disingenuous to seek to undermine what looks to be quite a thorough piece of research that I believe accurately demonstrates just how punitive and fiscally punishing this new system of support is for many vulnerable people.
Mr Couling is about to sneap us all by showing how many Thank You Cards he has received….
I am also unsure about whether it’s professionally responsible to be sharing a personal email message of this nature from an apparently vulnerable person on social media as a means to promote the benefit that you’re being paid to deliver.
And now I’ve just seen this as well. The good news is piling up fast..
Bradford is part of a team at UCL that has been researching the impact of Universal Credit on crime. The findings are being reviewed and are yet to be published. But he tells CSW there appears to be “quite a strong” link. We found quite a strong effect. The introduction of Universal Credit into an area looked like it had the effect of increasing recorded crime in that area.”
Blunting the spike: how government is working to cut knife crime
Inre: the introduction of a new system of social security, I worked at DSS when Income Support was bought into replace Supplementary Benefit. The change was done overnight, in an age when everything was done by hand on manual calculation sheets (A124).
There was nothing like the reaction that there has been to the introduction of UC
I too worked in the DHSS on Supp Ben as IS was introduced. As I recall there were quite a lot of problems with the intro. particularly the transfer of assistance with private sector rents from Supp Ben to HB, with transitional payments etc. On the other hand a lot of preparatory work was done in advance of the change over including pre-calculating the IS award - Supp Ben claimants weren’t required to make a new claim for IS. And Supp Ben and IS (as originally enacted) was a lot simpler that UC (at least that’s how it now seems through rose tinted specs?).
We all know Neil is not interested in evidence based research unless it confirms the DWP narrative on UC. Any evidence provided by those at the front line or following rigorous research will continue to be dismissed as anecdotal / scaremongering.
It might help if the Opposition had something more substantial / critical to say than pause / abolish UC and replace with a system based on compassion and dignity. IDS bequeathed UC to us with similar nice sounding spin.
The phrase ‘they never learn’ rings true just like it did for all the previous ‘reforms’.