In this month we’ve finally seen National (and even International) press, about the DWP’s refusal to publish the numbers of people dying after their benefits had been stopped. This is fully justified and it is with no small thanks to fellow blogger Vox Political for his persistence, that at the time of writing 80,572 people are demanding the DWP release these numbers.

Today in daily updates from whatdotheyknow,  another DWP response caught my eye, a FOI request enquiring about a statement from #Cameron re the Hardship Fund for claimant facing financial difficulties. The request asks several questions including what the Hardship fund is, the criteria for application and the number of applicants, both successful and rejected. The DWP’s response did explain what and how but… regarding the numbers, the response intrigued me:

“Data on JSA awards was last published in September 2012 which stated “the number of hardship awards made between April 2011 and March 2012 was about 64,000“; it continued with “A commitment was made…

A senior DWP manager has a motivational meltdown on twitter.

According to the latest statistics there are currently 1.84 million unemployed people.  There are also 1.3 million people working part time because they cannot find a full time job.  Nearly half a million people who are officially employed work less than six hours a week.  Over 100,000 so-called employed people are actually on unpaid workfare.

But even this only tells half the truth about the number of under and unemployed people in the UK.  There are a staggering 2.25 million people who are ‘economically inactive’ and want a job but who are not included in the unemployment figures.  That means the true number of unemployed people, if unemployed is defined as not having a job and wanting one – which is how it should be fucking defined – is over four million.

The reason you never hear of the missing…

Last week on Red Brick we discussed a series of essays edited by Lord Andrew Adonis for the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) proposing the transformation through redevelopment of existing council estates into ‘City Villages’.

Duncan Bowie has written the following analysis and detailed critique of the report. Duncan writes in a personal capacity but is convenor of the Highbury Group on Housing Delivery – an independent group of specialists from public, private and independent sectors from housing, planning and related professions which prepares proposals for Government – as well as being a member of the EC of London Labour Housing Group. He has worked in London housing and planning for many years, including for Ken Livingstone when he was Mayor.

The wrong solution to London’s housing crisis

By Duncan Bowie

Andrew Adonis’s introductory chapter seeks to describe the housing crisis in London and propose that the shortage…

I feel that my last post ended on a somewhat cryptic note  regarding Professor Wessely, and that I need to support the claim I made about the  undermining of physical medical authority within his ‘doctrine’. This I feel I have previously done to an certain degree with regard to Professor Aylward and his colleagues (here and here), though the potential certainly exists for more to be highlighted.

An insight into what could be termed the ‘under-the-radar‘ approach to undermining the integrity of medical personnel, such as GPs, is provided by Professor Wessely’s article for Unum’s Annual Chief Medical Officer’s Report 2007 entitled “Why and When do Doctors Collude With Patients?” (The CMO for this publication was Michael O’Donnell, now occupying the same role with Atos Healthcare.)

Subtle But Significant

This notion may seem to be introduced with apparent goodwill, even humour, but the important fact…

At times it is easy to get confused about what a Benefit Sanction is compared to a Disallowance of Benefits or  Supsension of Benefits. Today the DWP responded to an FOI request thus:

“What is the difference for benefit claimants between a sanction, a disallowance and a suspension of benefits?

How does each of these actions affect entitlement to Housing Benefit on grounds of low or nil income?

Sanction: This has the effect of either reducing benefit or terminating entitlement to benefit consequent on a claimant taking or failing to take action contrary to commitments entered into both when claiming a relevant benefit and as amended during the award: eg. not applying for work, or refusing to attend a training course when in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) or Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).

Disallowance: This applies where a claim for benefit does not meet the conditions of entitlement for the benefit claimed –…