It was done out of pure spite then.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Treasury officials were always very sceptical about the cost savings to be fair to them. This does somewhat expose the idea that this was somehow a deliberate agenda of cruel cuts to disability benefits
-
?? It was precisely a deliberate agenda of "cruel" cuts to disability benefits. There was never any attempt to make any objective assessment of whether more, less or the same spending was "right" - the 20% was an arbitrary target cut. It just didn't work.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The policy may have caused upset & hardship to many but at least it was more expensive
-
That’s a feature, not a bug. Modern conservatives are overwhelmingly willing to pay more as long as the right people (read: not them or their family/friends) suffer.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
In one way it's astonishing, in another way it's painfully predictable.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Those endless
@DWP appeals to the@UKSupremeCourt don't come cheap do they?@WOWpetition@johnpringdns#PIPThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How much of that is due to the cost of mandatory reconsiderations and tribunal appeals and defending High Court cases? What is the DWP explanation for the increase?
-
Yeah, such a genius system: the gov pay ATOS/Maximus to lie and then end up paying for the appeals system to rectify those lies. It might even be cheaper (imagine that) to just take GPs and specialists word that someone isn't fit for work in the first place.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But where did the extra cost go to when the payments to claimants are lower?
-
ATOS don't work for free.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.