Keir Starmer

[bluenova]

I know the 800,000 are the poorest, by definition. Because there's 800,000 who are eligible, who don't claim it. That means they have incomes of less than £11k per year and now we're taking £200 or £300 off them.

To be honest the debate should end there. I don't know why I even bother when people on your side are thrashing around trying to justify something that is completely unjustifiable on any basis whatsoever.

But regards the rest, no I am not suggesting that pension credit should not be means tested - don't be ridiculous. Merely that the process is far too onerous and offputting (demonstrably when people on < £11k are not receiving it.)

Can we not just have a consensus on here for once and ALL of us agree that taking £200 or £300 off someone who is on less than £11k per year, is fucking outrageous? Is that so hard for you lot to accept? Do you really have to come out with all sorts of whataboutery to try to deflect from this outrage?

I'm not justifying it. I was just pointing out that your comment wasn't accurate.

Whataboutery is an entirely different thing btw.

 

[meltonblue]

Yeah but it's pension credit and something else and at a different time, its basically a different policy. Anyhow let's hope sense overrules ego and it gets changed before the cold weather comes in.

It’s a change to pension credit policy I wanted to see at the same time, when they do that then I think linking WFA to it will end up being a good policy.

Agree though, like I said, I think the implementation of it is shocking.

 

[metalblue]

I've completed 1000s of benefits checks, and completed well over 1000 benefits claims (all from the point of trying to get people to claim, rather than the official side), so I do know a little about it.

I was also replying to a post suggesting they were the 'very poorest', and I'm arguing that amongst those who "may" be eligible, the ones that don't are likely to be the less poor.

The reasons usually given for not claiming are stigma, complexity etc., and these are genuine, but it's also the case that the more you're in need, the less these matter. I know from personal experience, that if you tell someone you may get a few extra pounds they "will think about it". If you tell someone they're entitled to £100s, they will usually apply. The 'very poorest' are much more likely to come into contact with other support services, and almost any service providing help to people in need, will encourage benefit claims, because it helps reduce pressure on their services.

I’m curious as to why the government says there are 800k who are eligible but don’t apply? Surely they have all the relevant evidence and data to make these assessments?

 

[mancityvstoke]

I've completed 1000s of benefits checks, and completed well over 1000 benefits claims (all from the point of trying to get people to claim, rather than the official side), so I do know a little about it.

I was also replying to a post suggesting they were the 'very poorest', and I'm arguing that amongst those who "may" be eligible, the ones that don't are likely to be the less poor.

The reasons usually given for not claiming are stigma, complexity etc., and these are genuine, but it's also the case that the more you're in need, the less these matter. I know from personal experience, that if you tell someone you may get a few extra pounds they "will think about it". If you tell someone they're entitled to £100s, they will usually apply. The 'very poorest' are much more likely to come into contact with other support services, and almost any service providing help to people in need, will encourage benefit claims, because it helps reduce pressure on their services.

"Likely" isn't really an accurate way of knowing who can afford to put their heating on and who can't. The cut off point for pension credit, and therefore WFA entitlement, is not acceptable.

I'm not sure why you cannot see this point and huge mistake by Labour?

 

[bluenova]

"Likely" isn't really an accurate way of knowing who can afford to put their heating on and who can't. The cut off point for pension credit, and therefore WFA entitlement, is not acceptable.

I'm not sure why you cannot see this point and huge mistake by Labour?

Where did I say it wasn't?

 

[bluenova]

I’m curious as to why the government says there are 800k who are eligible but don’t apply? Surely they have all the relevant evidence and data to make these assessments?

For a start, it's an estimate because they just don't know everything about everyone.

There was an interesting experiment that was undertaken early in the coalition, where they worked out a group of people they "thought" were entitled, and just put the money in their bank account. After 12 weeks they wrote to them and explained where the money came from, and encouraged them to apply, offering support to do so. Yet a big chunk still didn't bother.

The issues around complexity and stigma, are very, very real, but there was also some research around the same time, which found the main reason people didn't claim was that they thought they wouldn't qualify (some two thirds said this), because they had enough money.

With the comment I made, I was in no way suggesting that people didn't deserve it. Ideally I'd love take up to be as high as possible, and I'd prefer it to be paid at a much higher rate (and for the state pension to also be much higher). I just had an issue that these were automatically the "very poorest", when a good proportion aren't likely to be. There have been a lot of comments in the press, comparing this group to the average pension credit claim amount, when it's much more likely they would skew heavily towards being eligible for smaller amounts. And while I do hope they would all claim, I'm sure you can understand that if you don't *want* to claim benefits, either because of the stigma, or the effort, that you're more likely to make that decision if the amounts involved are relatively small.

 

[metalblue]

For a start, it's an estimate because they just don't know everything about everyone.

There was an interesting experiment that was undertaken early in the coalition, where they worked out a group of people they "thought" were entitled, and just put the money in their bank account. After 12 weeks they wrote to them and explained where the money came from, and encouraged them to apply, offering support to do so. Yet a big chunk still didn't bother.

The issues around complexity and stigma, are very, very real, but there was also some research around the same time, which found the main reason people didn't claim was that they thought they wouldn't qualify (some two thirds said this), because they had enough money.

With the comment I made, I was in no way suggesting that people didn't deserve it. Ideally I'd love take up to be as high as possible, and I'd prefer it to be paid at a much higher rate (and for the state pension to also be much higher). I just had an issue that these were automatically the "very poorest", when a good proportion aren't likely to be. There have been a lot of comments in the press, comparing this group to the average pension credit claim amount, when it's much more likely they would skew heavily towards being eligible for smaller amounts. And while I do hope they would all claim, I'm sure you can understand that if you don't *want* to claim benefits, either because of the stigma, or the effort, that you're more likely to make that decision if the amounts involved are relatively small.

Of course there are broad strokes applied. I believe Aged UK says 2m pensioners live on under £219 a week from their research, the government know 1.2m claim it leaving 800k who don’t.

Age UK also say 1m more live on between £219 and £269. They clearly haven’t asked everyone but they’ve undoubtedly done a survey of a few thousand and extrapolated the result out to land at some numbers, statistically if they asked 20,000 people the results would have a margin of error of 0.7%. It’s probably the best assessment we have.

As to why people don’t claim, it’s complicated and multifaceted. As you say the previous government tried some interesting tacts to get people to claim with little success.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I'm not justifying it. I was just pointing out that your comment wasn't accurate.

In what way exactly. I am not aware of any inaccuracies.

Whataboutery is an entirely different thing btw.

whataboutery
/ˌwɒtəˈbaʊtəri/
nounBritish
the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.

This is exactly what's been going on on this thread. What about the Tories doing XYZ is mentioned constantly.

 

[Chippy_boy]

And BTW, "The issues around complexity and stigma, are very, very real, but there was also some research around the same time, which found the main reason people didn't claim was that they thought they wouldn't qualify (some two thirds said this), because they had enough money."

Does NOT prove they are ineligible, merely that they thought they would be.

 

[bluenova]

Of course there are broad strokes applied. I believe Aged UK says 2m pensioners live on under £219 a week from their research, the government know 1.2m claim it leaving 800k who don’t.

Age UK also say 1m more live on between £219 and £269. They clearly haven’t asked everyone but they’ve undoubtedly done a survey of a few thousand and extrapolated the result out to land at some numbers, statistically if they asked 20,000 people the results would have a margin of error of 0.7%. It’s probably the best assessment we have.

As to why people don’t claim, it’s complicated and multifaceted. As you say the previous government tried some interesting tacts to get people to claim with little success.

Even the government's own stats are all over the place - with take up as high as 80% on some measures. They also have the takeup of "people" as a lot less than the takeup of benefits, which means the unclaimed benefits could be around half the average that keeps getting quoted. You then have take up for single people a lot higher than for couples, which of course makes sense to anyone who has lived on their own, and in a couple.