Tag Archives: Work Programme

The tangled web of DWP deception: Now They’re Spinning Lies with WCA Appeals Statistics.

45863_3952412343589_2005032144_n1

We’ve all heard about the enormous number of appeals made against the outcome of  Work Capability Assessments resulting from Atos’ completely unfit for purpose methodology.We’re all aware of the immense cost this has resulted in and the huge number of successful appeals which have overturned DWP decisions and caused embarrassment for the government. And I’m sure , like me, no-one has been too surprised by the attempts by DWP ministers to put a positive spin on the statistics in order to minimise this embarrassment by emphasising the numbers of unsuccessful appeals and playing down the successes.

What we have a right to expect, though, from a government department, is that they at least stick to the truth. Sadly, we’ve seen that this particular batch of DWP overlords seem to have big problems when it comes down to telling it like it really is. They have a truth deficit bigger than that of Osborne’s budget and it seems their version of what the appeals statistics mean  is no exception.

magnifying-glass  According to an excellent website called ilegal the DWP ‘s presentation of statistics on all aspects of WCAs is full of omissions and obfuscations leading to a completely false picture of the performance of this crucial part of their attack on the welfare state. The article presented on ilegal’s website is far too long to reproduce in full here so I want to simply focus on the section on appeals. If you want to read a very detailed account of all the DWP statistics on this subject which explains the figures in a way that even a mathematically challenged dunce like me could understand then you need to go here:-

http://ilegal.org.uk/thread/7816/esa-fit-work

Griffin+Cartoon       According to nickd who wrote the article on ilegal the DWP are claiming that 85%  of ESA decisions are correct, but this is based on incomplete information. The figures he quotes are as follows:-

Overall number of appeals/ reconsiderations against ESA decisions:        793,700

Of which there are –

Appeals/ reconsiderations with a known outcome:                  312,100

Appeals/ reconsiderations where outcome not yet known:     481,700

Of those 312,100 where the outcome is known –

Appeals (Tribunal) where DWP decision overturned:                  116,700

Reconsiderations where claimant moved back to WRAG:            73,300

TOTAL successes for claimants:                                                     190,000

TOTAL successes for DWP:                                                              122,100

piechart     These figures couldn’t be clearer and nickd extrapolated them from the DWP’s own fact sheets after close examination.  The key figure we need to concentrate on is the one relating to cases the DWP can claim as successes in terms of making an ESA decision that wasn’t challenged by the claimant. This figure, as we can see is 122,100.

So when the DWP claims it has got things right in 85% of decisions then we can reasonably expect them to be referring to this figure. But its pretty obvious that 122,100 is not 85% of either the overall number of appeals/ reconsiderations applied for i.e 793,700 of which it is a mere 15% or of the number of appeals/reconsiderations for which the out come is known, 312,100 of which it is a somewhat better 39%. It is, though, a long way short of the claimed 85%.

download  So where have the DWP’s devious spinners of tangled webs  of deception got this amazing statistic from? As far as I can see the following calculation is the only way they can have done it.

First of all its important to note that they are saying that 85% of ESA decisions appealed against are correct. They don’t mention reconsiderations by the DWP specifically.

So if you take the figure for successful Tribunal appeals – 116,700 – and express it as a percentage of the overall number of appeals i.e. both those whose outcome is known and those whose outcome is not yet known, 793,700, you get 15%. 

So, if 15% are successful using this overall figure you can then claim, by a simple subtraction, that  85%  of appeals at Tribunal must be unsuccessful for claimants.

ian-duncan-smith-teddy-bear

By conveniently failing to include the other 73,300 positive outcomes for claimants – the successful reconsiderations – and then expressing the smaller number of successful outcomes as a percentage of a much bigger overall total of appeals over half of which have not yet produced a known outcome and could well contain many more successes the wily DWP has managed to totally rearrange reality to make itself look good. That’s pretty dishonest in my book when they have to hand further entirely relevant data that they could and should have included in their analysis if they were sincere in wanting to provide the public with a true and transparent picture of how their policies are working. The only conclusion to be taken from this can be that they don’t want to be that transparent government that Francis Maude is supposedly devoting his time to achieve.

images (8)   This kind of dishonesty in government has now become the norm, it seems, with DWP ministers. When you think that someone working for this thoroughly corrupt department is being paid a wage with taxpayers’ money to produce this kind of propaganda in order to make ministers look good…and when you also think that the single underlying purpose of doing this is to give those ministers the means to justify being re-electing – basically for party political gain – when you consider this, you have to despair and wonder if we can ever rescue any kind of democratic process for our children and grandchildren.

So given this sorry state of affairs, I’d like to introduce a new term into our vocabulary to describe what  is now happening ….. the Toryfying of statistics.

Advertisements

Baron Freud admits over 40,000 households will be hit by benefit cap: Almost 8500 could lose more than £100 per WEEK.

images (7) Yesterday, 27th June, in the House of Lords, the ignoble Lord Freud (aka Baron Freud) was asked by Labour member Baroness King of Bow to confirm that a revised estimate of the number of households who would be affected by the savage benefit caps was now 40,000. She also asked him for a breakdown of these figures by local authority.

HouseofLords_32316c  This was his reply:-

” A breakdown by Local authority of the revised estimate of 40,000 as the number of households that may be affected by the benefit cap has been placed in the library. The benefit cap is being applied through a phased implementation which commenced on 15 April 2013 in Bromley, Croydon, Enfield and Haringey. It will be introduced at a national level from 15 July 2013 and all appropriate households will be capped by the end of September 2013.

Estimates assume that the situation of these households will go unchanged, and they will not take any steps to either work enough hours to qualify for Working Tax Credit, renegotiate their rent in situ, or find alternative accommodation.

The Department has made extensive contacts with households who are likely to be affected by the cap and we are offering advice and support through Jobcentre Plus, including, where appropriate, early access to the Work Programme before the cap is introduced.”

Satellite    The breakdown shows that across the country,

  •  8,200 households are likely to lose OVER £100 per week. The majority of these live in London boroughs.
  • 4,900 households will lose between £50 and £100 per week across the whole country.
  • 113,000 households will lose up to £50 per across the whole of the UK.

However,actual figures for local authorities where there are less than a 100 households affected by the cap are not given so the table the Baron provides doesn’t show the level of losses that will affect these households.

Going off his estimate of 40,000 in total, this leaves a further 15,600 households whose level of hardship he’s not admitting to, except to say they will be affected to some extent. We don’t know, therefore, how many of these households will lose over £100 a week but we can assume that the figure of 8,200 that we do know about is likely to be quite a bit bigger and quite possibly over 8,500.

I’d love to know what the ‘extensive contact’ he claims the DWP has made with families likely to be affected by this evil measure consisted of. I suppose we should be grateful that he didn’t also add the usual insulting lie that ‘the DWP is committed to helping struggling families blah blah blah…’

You can read the table for yourself here

http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2013-0676/Local_Authority_breakdown_ of_those_affected_by_the_benefit_cap_final.doc>