Universal Credit New Thread.complete Disaster.

[durhamborn]

What are the chances of Labour cancelling UC if they win in 2015? Has anyone in the party been flying this kite yet? Or are they waiting for the coming failure first?

EDIT: typo

Q

100% certain after a few months.The problem Labour have though (or the left in general) is they don't have a welfare policy.None.

Its likely they would simply keep tax credits,but tax credits are a disaster.With some reform tax credits would be a decent system,however the reform needed is having a family tax credit rather than a child tax credit and having them run out much lower down the income scale.Labour simply hasn't the guts to do such a thing.

Its quite ironic really that tax credits are such a disaster,yet could be made quite a good welfare system with a few easy changes.The problem is the changes would be hard for the left to sell.

That's why IDSs **** up of UC is so annoying.Instead he could of taken tax credits and reformed those.Now we are left with a tax credit system that encourages more and more people to do less and less and a UC system that will never come in.

I don't blame IDS for wanting to reform welfare,i blame him for making a complete hash of it.The left have nothing to cheer about though,,they helped create the mess and have no answers to it themselves.

The autumn statement could have some reform of tax credits in it though,,that would show people in government accept IDS know UC isn't ever coming in.

[winkie]

100% certain after a few months.The problem Labour have though (or the left in general) is they don't have a welfare policy.None.

Its likely they would simply keep tax credits,but tax credits are a disaster.With some reform tax credits would be a decent system,however the reform needed is having a family tax credit rather than a child tax credit and having them run out much lower down the income scale.Labour simply hasn't the guts to do such a thing.

Its quite ironic really that tax credits are such a disaster,yet could be made quite a good welfare system with a few easy changes.The problem is the changes would be hard for the left to sell.

That's why IDSs **** up of UC is so annoying.Instead he could of taken tax credits and reformed those.Now we are left with a tax credit system that encourages more and more people to do less and less and a UC system that will never come in.

I don't blame IDS for wanting to reform welfare,i blame him for making a complete hash of it.The left have nothing to cheer about though,,they helped create the mess and have no answers to it themselves.

The autumn statement could have some reform of tax credits in it though,,that would show people in government accept IDS know UC isn't ever coming in.

Total mess, tax credits generate lots of unnecessary paperwork and duplication...an a administrative nightmare, must cost/waste mega amounts of money before a penny is paid out....talk about creating jobs to create jobs....someone must be making from it all.

[durhamborn]

http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/public-sector/2013/09/universal-credit-failures-put-4.html

I think the above is the best account of just why UC is a 100% failure and the madness behind it all.

Im also pleased to see what I think is the real shocking story of UC brought up,

"When the country was suffering its worst recession for generations, and poverty had forced more than half a million people to get their food from charities; when the department of social security should have had its full attention on helping them up, it was instead tying itself in knots over a hair-brained IT project, a hair-brained reform of the benefits system and a clutch of hair-brained initiatives from the coalition ICT Strategy.",

This is the real failure of UC,

"In October, when DWP is due to begin full roll out of Universal Credit, it will instead be extending a rump of what it planned for a pilot, from one site to just a few more sites. It's molecular cohesion has been shaken as though through sustained shock therapy. It may be too shaken to suffer the stories that will inevitably now recount, relentlessly, over the years it may now take Universal Credit to catch up to where it intended to be today, its failures and the failures of its kind".

In other words UC will limp along,,never working,,never coming in,,wasting billions and worse make sure no real welfare reform happens.

Perhaps one day we might get someone in charge at the DWP (if it even survives the UC debacle as a department) who understands welfare.

IDS pretty much got everything wrong possible.To understand the main risk behind welfare you only have to read the original Beveridge Report.He spells out why you should build welfare around minimum payments and avoiding as much means testing as possible.IDS should maybe avail himself of a copy.

[stormymonday_2011]

http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/public-sector/2013/09/universal-credit-failures-put-4.html

I think the above is the best account of just why UC is a 100% failure and the madness behind it all.

Im also pleased to see what I think is the real shocking story of UC brought up,

"When the country was suffering its worst recession for generations, and poverty had forced more than half a million people to get their food from charities; when the department of social security should have had its full attention on helping them up, it was instead tying itself in knots over a hair-brained IT project, a hair-brained reform of the benefits system and a clutch of hair-brained initiatives from the coalition ICT Strategy.",

This is the real failure of UC,

"In October, when DWP is due to begin full roll out of Universal Credit, it will instead be extending a rump of what it planned for a pilot, from one site to just a few more sites. It's molecular cohesion has been shaken as though through sustained shock therapy. It may be too shaken to suffer the stories that will inevitably now recount, relentlessly, over the years it may now take Universal Credit to catch up to where it intended to be today, its failures and the failures of its kind".

In other words UC will limp along,,never working,,never coming in,,wasting billions and worse make sure no real welfare reform happens.

Perhaps one day we might get someone in charge at the DWP (if it even survives the UC debacle as a department) who understands welfare.

IDS pretty much got everything wrong possible.To understand the main risk behind welfare you only have to read the original Beveridge Report.He spells out why you should build welfare around minimum payments and avoiding as much means testing as possible.IDS should maybe avail himself of a copy.

Anyone who has half an interest in the UC debacle and the current failings of government computer projects should bookmark that article as it possibly the best summary of the reasons why the IT side of this process has been a fiasco that I have read.

The key point to note is that while IDS may have come up with the crazy rules for UC itself he is not really the chief culprit for the fact the IT project keeps bombing. That particular award goes to Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office and the Major Projects Authority who have been promoting the equally barking Digital By Default Strategy which tries to impose an equally unworkable set of IT methodologies on all government departments regardless of what task they are supposed to be carrying out. Of course, in principle there is nothing wrong with delivering government services over the web (though one might query whether modern computer system are any more 'digital' than than those built 30 plus years ago) nor with using RAD/JAD processes such a Agile for development (again a 20 years old concept renamed and warmed over for the modern world) but they do need to be built with the actual capabilities and financial means of the end users in mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_application_development

In particular one has to wonder why some politicians think government departments who struggle to manage large IT contracts and projects with a few major suppliers such as Accenture, Fujitsu and Capgemini are going to be able to organise and control development of such systems better when there are scores of smaller IT providers involved as is currently being proposed under Maudes procurement policy. If politicians and civil servants want to know why government IT projects are always failing no matter what suppliers, software, design methodologies, project management styles are used then all they need to do is to look in a mirror.

Edited September 15, 2013 by stormymonday_2011

[durhamborn]

Indeed it is.The best iv seen so far on why UC is a complete failure.

The question now is will UC be killed off?

There is no way it has any chance of working.Until the HMRCs real time live data is 100% up and running there cant be any interface with the DWP on any scale needed.

So before a UC system can even be talked about an interface would need to be up and running.Iv heard no teams are working on this anymore.At least on the HMRC side.

If there are changes to benefits like tax credits in the autumn statement then its a clear signal the treasury know UC is going to be scrapped/never come in.

Im not sure where welfare reform goes from here.The first action would maybe be to reform tax credits quickly.The problem is IDS has made such a complete dogs dinner of welfare reform,any changes going forward will be harder to sell.

[wonderpup]

Mark O'Neil, director of innovation and delivery at the Government Digital Service

A job spec that in itself is a bit of a contradiction- innovation implies the kind of uncertainty that makes delivery problematic- creating a single role that tries to do both simultaneously is symptomatic of the mindset involved.

[SHERWICK]

Anyone who has half an interest in the UC debacle and the current failings of government computer projects should bookmark that article as it possibly the best summary of the reasons why the IT side of this process has been a fiasco that I have read.

The key point to note is that while IDS may have come up with the crazy rules for UC itself he is not really the chief culprit for the fact the IT project keeps bombing. That particular award goes to Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office and the Major Projects Authority who have been promoting the equally barking Digital By Default Strategy which tries to impose an equally unworkable set of IT methodologies on all government departments regardless of what task they are supposed to be carrying out. Of course, in principle there is nothing wrong with delivering government services over the web (though one might query whether modern computer system are any more 'digital' than than those built 30 plus years ago) nor with using RAD/JAD processes such a Agile for development (again a 20 years old concept renamed and warmed over for the modern world) but they do need to be built with the actual capabilities and financial means of the end users in mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_application_development

In particular one has to wonder why some politicians think government departments who struggle to manage large IT contracts and projects with a few major suppliers such as Accenture, Fujitsu and Capgemini are going to be able to organise and control development of such systems better when there are scores of smaller IT providers involved as is currently being proposed under Maudes procurement policy. If politicians and civil servants want to know why government IT projects are always failing no matter what suppliers, software, design methodologies, project management styles are used then all they need to do is to look in a mirror.

Great post! However, I'd like to point out that not ALL government IT projects fail, e.g. Stamp Duty online, Corporation Tax online, Disclosure of Offshore Accounts online... it may be pure coincidence that I used to manage them all of course, the latter from inception to Deployment.

[stormymonday_2011]

Great post! However, I'd like to point out that not ALL government IT projects fail, e.g. Stamp Duty online, Corporation Tax online, Disclosure of Offshore Accounts online... it may be pure coincidence that I used to manage them all of course, the latter from inception to Deployment.

Sadly the government tends to ignore its successes and prefers to repeat its mistakes.

[workingatthepyramid]

Great post! However, I'd like to point out that not ALL government IT projects fail, e.g. Stamp Duty online, Corporation Tax online, Disclosure of Offshore Accounts online... it may be pure coincidence that I used to manage them all of course, the latter from inception to Deployment.

Yeah because there are no longer any problems with corporation tax or offshore accounts :/

[SHERWICK]

Yeah because there are no longer any problems with corporation tax or offshore accounts :/

There may be problems with the policy but please point out the problems with the online transactional site for disclosure of offshore accounts?

[workingatthepyramid]

There may be problems with the policy but please point out the problems with the online transactional site for disclosure of offshore accounts?

The main problem appears to be that the intended user base have been able to ignore its existence. I am sure the software is top notch though.Thanks.

[SHERWICK]

The main problem appears to be that the intended user base have been able to ignore its existence. I am sure the software is top notch though.Thanks.

I did this back in 06, which was the first Disclosure of Offshore Accounts. From what I heard and read, it was a big success. ( I did say "used to"). I haven't followed how the current scheme is performing as I left Government work back in 2008.

[@contradevian]

https://www.gov.uk/g...e-employers.pdf

How does it affect my business?Universal Credit will have a positive effect on your business as you will:•find it easier to fill any job as more jobseekers will be willing to consider short term or irregular work •be able to identify opportunities for flexible working using your existing part time employees to meet business peaks and troughs, without the overheads associated with recruiting and training new staff •have access to a wider pool of applicants for your jobs, many of whom are registered on our Universal Jobmatch service, to help you fill your job vacancies quicker

It is basically designed to further casualise the workforce

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/the-real-dwp-reveals-the-real-agenda-behind-universal-credit/

Edited September 18, 2013 by aSecureTenant

[durhamborn]

https://www.gov.uk/g...e-employers.pdf

It is basically designed to further casualise the workforce

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/the-real-dwp-reveals-the-real-agenda-behind-universal-credit/

Yes it is.The government (and the Labour one before it) decided theyd rather workers had no rights in the workplace topped up with benefits.They seem to think that's the way to a strong economy.Debt slaves and means tested benefit slaves.

As the productivity thread on here shows the policy is a disaster.

Luckily UC will never come in.

[Damik]

Yes it is.The government (and the Labour one before it) decided theyd rather workers had no rights in the workplace topped up with benefits.They seem to think that's the way to a strong economy.Debt slaves and means tested benefit slaves.

As the productivity thread on here shows the policy is a disaster.

Luckily UC will never come in.

I am sorry but the Citizen Income is unworkable:

- politically it is dead

- it would cost same £2 billions pa as current system

- the currentsystem is fixable - cancel tax credits, replace housing benefit by new social housing and reduce public sector pensions

[Damik]

For anyone wanting to see HMRCs real time data this sums up a lot of the problems with it,

It will take years to iron them out,

Now imagine even if we had a UC interface.All that dodgy data being fed into UC claims,millions a month wrong,complete chaos.

http://www.payerti.o...me-key-problems

it is seems like a good idea to fix this problem and connect various state offices. or do you suggest that we should just watch it as it has to fail ??? it seems that yuor comments are a bit nihilistic ...

[Tonkers]

https://www.gov.uk/g...e-employers.pdf

It is basically designed to further casualise the workforce

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/the-real-dwp-reveals-the-real-agenda-behind-universal-credit/

This is terrifying, we are the labour of the state, whom we pay, ostensibly to serve us.

Now, either employers will not go for this, or we will breed the sort of employers that do, then it's adios Britain.

This effects everyone, however secure you think you are.

This has to hit mass media, people need to understand what is happening, where the ideology of our politicians to profiteer from the electorate is paramount. We are too far down road and still sleepwalking.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Tonkers

[Ulfar]

I am sorry but the Citizen Income is unworkable:

- politically it is dead

- it would cost same £2 billions pa as current system

- the currentsystem is fixable - cancel tax credits, replace housing benefit by new social housing and reduce public sector pensions

This has been discussed before, even if the same amount of money is given out as per the current benefit system, you cut whole swathes of bureaucracy away which saves money.

In addition it frees people from the bureaucracy so they can actually go do something. They can start a business that doesn't make mega amounts of money or take a part time job and not worry they are going to lose all of their benefits.

Also if it costs the same when couple with LVT then it is a win. Rather than paying all the large land owners for simply possessing land we should be charging them for its use. They certainly wouldn't be happy if we were invaded and their land was taken away, so why should we be happy that they are enforcing their land ownership based on past use of force.

[Damik]

a/ This has been discussed before, even if the same amount of money is given out as per the current benefit system, you cut whole swathes of bureaucracy away which saves money.

b/ In addition it frees people from the bureaucracy so they can actually go do something. They can start a business that doesn't make mega amounts of money or take a part time job and not worry they are going to lose all of their benefits.

c/ Also if it costs the same when couple with LVT then it is a win. Rather than paying all the large land owners for simply possessing land we should be charging them for its use. They certainly wouldn't be happy if we were invaded and their land was taken away, so why should we be happy that they are enforcing their land ownership based on past use of force.

a/ nope in the range of billions of £

b/ majority of unemployed people are low skilled, so no extra billions of £ here either

c/ if you introduce the LVT you would need to decrease other taxes to compensate (such as income tax). so the tax man income remains the same

also where do you think the LVT money (e.g. 100 billions of £) would come from?

- friend of mine sells holidays over the phone, wife works just a bit, 3 kids and house worth over £600k. without the tax credits and other benefits they would be already doomed. LVT would kill them

- farm land is a similiar story; in this case the LVT would increase food prices and majority of farmer owners would go bankrupt

-------------------------------------------------

an idea to give everybody £350 pm is an utopia

what we need is a system where 90% of the population are productive producers and only 10% are net consumers

current system with the tax credits, housing benefit and public sector pensions is like 30% of the population are producers and 70% are almost net consumers

Edited September 18, 2013 by Damik

[wonderpup]

Yes it is.The government (and the Labour one before it) decided theyd rather workers had no rights in the workplace topped up with benefits.They seem to think that's the way to a strong economy.Debt slaves and means tested benefit slaves.

As the productivity thread on here shows the policy is a disaster.

Luckily UC will never come in.

Does anyone else find it strange that an elite composed mostly of rent seekers is seeking to undermine the ability of their debt slaves to both obtain credit or service it- both of which require a regular predictable income?

The more they succeed in undermining the job security of the working population the faster they will run out of credit worthy people to take on the debt they require to prop up the system upon which they feed.

Even the dumbest parasite in nature knows when to stop sucking- but it seems our glorious leaders have no such wisdom.

[Tired of Waiting]

I am sorry but the Citizen Income is unworkable:

- politically it is dead

- it would cost same £2 billions pa as current system

- the currentsystem is fixable - cancel tax credits, replace housing benefit by new social housing and reduce public sector pensions

I used to think that as well, that it would be unaffordable, but after some estimates, it may be possible. As you say, it wouldn't cost much more than the current system, but with some economic and even political advantages.

Economically the two main advantages are the elimination of perverse incentives and the huge bureaucracy needed for means testing the current system.

Politically, remember that taxpayers (and family) will get CI too, getting a partial return on their taxes, reducing their resistance, and the economic advantages above can be explained to them.

It may be possible after all.

[Tired of Waiting]

This has been discussed before, even if the same amount of money is given out as per the current benefit system, you cut whole swathes of bureaucracy away which saves money.

In addition it frees people from the bureaucracy so they can actually go do something. They can start a business that doesn't make mega amounts of money or take a part time job and not worry they are going to lose all of their benefits.

Also if it costs the same when couple with LVT then it is a win. Rather than paying all the large land owners for simply possessing land we should be charging them for its use. They certainly wouldn't be happy if we were invaded and their land was taken away, so why should we be happy that they are enforcing their land ownership based on past use of force.

Again, I should have read the whole thread before replying...

[doomed]

- friend of mine sells holidays over the phone, wife works just a bit, 3 kids and house worth over £600k. without the tax credits and other benefits they would be already doomed. LVT would kill them

This is exactly why it should be implemented. Why should the people who are producing more subsidise your friend to live in a house he otherwise could not afford?

[Tired of Waiting]

a/ nope in the range of billions of £

b/ majority of unemployed people are low skilled, so no extra billions of £ here either

c/ if you introduce the LVT you would need to decrease other taxes to compensate (such as income tax). so the tax man income remains the same

also where do you think the LVT money (e.g. 100 billions of £) would come from?

- friend of mine sells holidays over the phone, wife works just a bit, 3 kids and house worth over £600k. without the tax credits and other benefits they would be already doomed. LVT would kill them

- farm land is a similiar story; in this case the LVT would increase food prices and majority of farmer owners would go bankrupt

-------------------------------------------------

an idea to give everybody £350 pm is an utopia

what we need is a system where 90% of the population are productive producers and only 10% are net consumers

current system with the tax credits, housing benefit and public sector pensions is like 30% of the population are producers and 70% are almost net consumers

Plenty of low skills jobs around, and with CI people would be allowed to do them, to top up their monthly income.

Yes, we should reduce another property tax, not income tax, like eliminating Council Tax and Stamp Duty.

Your friend can't afford and doesn't deserve that house.

Farm land can have a much lower rate than residential properties.

With CI all barriers and disincentives to work would be removed.

[durhamborn]

it is seems like a good idea to fix this problem and connect various state offices. or do you suggest that we should just watch it as it has to fail ??? it seems that yuor comments are a bit nihilistic ...

Of course the answer was to get the HMRC real time data working before any form of UC was talked about.

Once the real time data worked the next step was to work on an interface to the DWP.

Once that worked then they could look at a system like UC.

To understand welfare you need to understand the original Beveridge report.Then you need to understand how from the mid 80s welfare was used not for the original idea but to cover up de-industrialisation of most of the north.

This didn't happen because of unions or workers as spouted by the government then,it happened because interest rates were too high,for too long and sterling with them to try to tame house prices in the south.Most of the industry was pretty much competitive and even the loss makers were very low loss makers.

A plant (exports) that I dealt with had 2000 workers and the year they closed it the loss was 600k (interest rates at 11% and sterling 30% overvalued).The benefit bill in that town is now £12 million a year.Drug use up 18,000%.

Single parents up 498%

Incapacity up 289%

Labour decided when they were elected not to deal with the lack of good jobs and wages and decided they couldn't because they wanted to encourage mass immigration.Instead they decided to create tax credits.The idea was business would get their workers subsidised by the state and the state would get the money back through corporation tax.

The reason I was ,and am so against UC is because it fails to address any of the real problems in welfare.It also once again is aimed at stripping away the last few workers rights and will cement the 0 hours contract as the norm.

Besides that fact it will never ever work because IDS and the people behind UC don't understand welfare.They have set back welfare reform by a decade.

The only long term answer to the welfare problem is some form of none means tested flat benefit.I agree it would be very difficult to bring in and might not be possible but the debate needs to be had.

It doesn't change the fact though IDS is still pushing UC and it will never ever come in for the millions on tax credits.