Universal Credit New Thread.complete Disaster.

[SuperChimp]

Once again:

Labour, Tories, LibDem or UKIP politicians and their parties do NOT implement IT systems. They only tell civil servants that e.g. they need both information from HMRC and DWP every 24h for their new social policy.

No. You stated:

Tories (the customer) are telling the civil servants (IT experts) what they want (the requirements) and the civil servants (IT experts) will use state money (the IT project budget) to implement it

There are no IT experts at the DWP. They go to private suppliers, tell them what they want and they build the IT system. The main suppliers of the IT for Universal Credit are Accenture, IBM, HP and BT.

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240204715/DWP-writes-off-millions-of-pounds-on-Universal-Credit-IT-damning-NAO-report-reveals

Civil Servants at the DWP and HMRC will be no more computer-savvy than members of the Conservative party.

The idea of the UC to put all the different benefits to only the single one is actually a good idea.

Not really and this has been explained several times in this thread. Just mashing all the benefits together will not save that much money as administering the entire benefits system is only a small cost in comparison to the amount spent in benefit.

Edited October 20, 2013 by 98% Chimp

[Damik]

1/ Civil Servants at the DWP and HMRC will be no more computer-savvy than members of the Conservative party.

2/ Not really and this has been explained several times in this thread. Just mashing all the benefits together will not save that much money as administering the entire benefits system is only a small cost in comparison to the amount spent in benefit.

1/ you do not really have a clue, how the procurement of the IT for government works; and again it is not IDS role to get involved in this. it would be even illegal for IDS to be involved on the program management level in this project. there is a strong separation of duties between civil servants and politicians for obvius reasons

http://www.computerw...-report-reveals

"The department has struggled to set out how the detailed design of systems and processes fit together and relate to the objectives of Universal Credit. This is despite this issue having been raised repeatedly in 2012 by internal audit, the Major Projects Authority and a supplier-led review. This lack of clarity creates problems tracking progress, and increases the risk that systems will not be fit for purpose or that proposed solutions are more elaborate or expensive than they need to be," said the NAO.

...

Furthermore, says the NAO, the DWP could not agree what security it needed to protect claimant transactions and was unclear about how Universal Credit would integrate with other programmes.

...

The NAO agreed it is "still entirely feasible" that Universal Credit will go on to be a success as a result of the reset, but warned: "To do so, the [DWP] will need to learn from its early mistakes. As it revises its plans the department must show it can: exercise effective control of the programme; develop sufficient in-house capability to commission and manage IT development; set clear and realistic expectations about the timescale and scope of Universal Credit; and, address wider issues about how it manages risks in major programmes."

2/ you do not understand my posts. the point of the universal credit is political to show in a single number, how some families with children are milking the system and that work does not really pay till you are earning £45k pa

Edited October 20, 2013 by Damik

[mentalfloss]

They only tell civil servants that e.g. they need both information from HMRC and DWP every 24h for their new social policy.

What in 21st century should not really be a rocket science ...

I must admit the sheer naivete on display brought a tear to my eye. I've had the pleasure of working for such people. "It's not rocket science" they say or even "it's not brain surgery" therefore attempting to suppress any discussion regarding the actual complexity of any given implementation. Perfect world morons they are. In order to provide accurate and up to date information each and every employer will have to have suitable technology and processes perfectly implemented in order to submit information in such a way that its usuable by other agencies. In a perfect world all employers would be tech savvy and be able to rely on other agencies in the data chain.

In reality a massive number of employers can afford the bare minimum and due to other agency incompetence gave to deploy workarounds to ensure basic stuff like you know, people getting paid.

The DWP can't even manage unique identifiers by way of national insurance numbers. They don't know who has them and they don't know if they are valid, duplicate or what. The cornerstone of any "it isn't rocket science" is therefore scuppered.

The "I'm just the ideas man" defence is laughably weak. IDS has attempted the impossible, been told that it is impossible and has paid a great deal of money to find out it is in fact practically impossible. Being blind to complexity is not in fact a strength.

[wonderpup]

To be fair in evading any responsibility for the failure of UC Duncan Smith is simply exhibiting the same pattern of behavior you can see in virtually the entire top tier of British management- which is to take the credit and the bonus's when things go well- and to claim compete and utter ignorance when things go wrong.

Thus we get the spectacle of leading Bankers who were paid millions for their 'expertise' claiming that they had no idea what was going on in their own banks when they collapsed in 2008.

Which begs the question- if they had no idea what was going on what the f*ck were they being paid for?

[Damik]

I must admit the sheer naivete on display brought a tear to my eye. I've had the pleasure of working for such people. "It's not rocket science" they say or even "it's not brain surgery" therefore attempting to suppress any discussion regarding the actual complexity of any given implementation. Perfect world morons they are. In order to provide accurate and up to date information each and every employer will have to have suitable technology and processes perfectly implemented in order to submit information in such a way that its usuable by other agencies. In a perfect world all employers would be tech savvy and be able to rely on other agencies in the data chain.

In reality a massive number of employers can afford the bare minimum and due to other agency incompetence gave to deploy workarounds to ensure basic stuff like you know, people getting paid.

The DWP can't even manage unique identifiers by way of national insurance numbers. They don't know who has them and they don't know if they are valid, duplicate or what. The cornerstone of any "it isn't rocket science" is therefore scuppered.

The "I'm just the ideas man" defence is laughably weak. IDS has attempted the impossible, been told that it is impossible and has paid a great deal of money to find out it is in fact practically impossible. Being blind to complexity is not in fact a strength.

believe me or not there are places in EU, where government tax and social security systems are integrated and for example there is no problem to implement tax credits for married couples, when one of them does not work

http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=9184&langId=en

and it is not considered as a rocket science

I am not sure why do you suggest that we should just accept that in 21st century DWP and HMRC IT departments are piece of crap and are not able to do their job at the first place

Edited October 20, 2013 by Damik

[Damik]

To be fair in evading any responsibility for the failure of UC Duncan Smith is simply exhibiting the same pattern of behavior you can see in virtually the entire top tier of British management- which is to take the credit and the bonus's when things go well- and to claim compete and utter ignorance when things go wrong.

Thus we get the spectacle of leading Bankers who were paid millions for their 'expertise' claiming that they had no idea what was going on in their own banks when they collapsed in 2008.

Which begs the question- if they had no idea what was going on what the f*ck were they being paid for?

as far as I know it is the government's responsibility to keep inflation about 2% and it was Brown's decision to remove house prices from CPI

and it was government, who was telling banks and public that house prices will grow 20% pa forever

you are crying on a wrong grave here

[GinAndPlatonic]

believe me or not there are places in EU, where government tax and social security systems are integrated and for example there is no problem to implement tax credits for married couples, when one of them does not work

http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=9184&langId=en

Several proposed policy reforms (mainly concentrated on tax

schedule)

But: Conflicting goals

I Positive employment effects (higher employment rate)

I Positive distributional effects (lower income inequality)

I Neutral or positive budget effects (no revenue losses)

None of the proposals met all of these goals.

Main problem: Most reform proposals neglect the importance of

social security contributions and the interaction between SSC and

income taxation in Germany.

It seems to me the paper you linked to are just proposals and nothing else. The same sorts of proposals that IDS advocates but anything concrete please.?

[Britney's Piers]

Say £500 per person per month or £6,000 p/a gives you an absolute minimum subsistence income.

Giving that to 65,000,000 people is going to cost the country the small matter of £390 billion pounds per year.

Not sure how that's going to ever be affordable.

Why have a fixed amount? Simply set the CI budget as a percentage of tax take for the year.

[Damik]

Several proposed policy reforms (mainly concentrated on tax

schedule)

But: Conflicting goals

I Positive employment effects (higher employment rate)

I Positive distributional effects (lower income inequality)

I Neutral or positive budget effects (no revenue losses)

None of the proposals met all of these goals.

Main problem: Most reform proposals neglect the importance of

social security contributions and the interaction between SSC and

income taxation in Germany.

It seems to me the paper you linked to are just proposals and nothing else. The same sorts of proposals that IDS advocates but anything concrete please.?

the social security and tax IT systems in Germany are already integrated

[Goat]

Why have a fixed amount? Simply set the CI budget as a percentage of tax take for the year.

I think the key phrase in my post was "absolute minimum subsistence income".

[GinAndPlatonic]

the social security and tax IT systems in Germany are already integrated

It depends on what you mean by integrated. You could say our system is integrated but does it work. ?

Is the system in Germany working either...Quote :

Social security in Germany is organized in a somewhat haphazard fashion. The welfare system was obviously not designed from scratch, but has grown over a period of more than 125 years. Generally, there are three categories of benefit funds: funds paid solely by the employer; welfare funds where employer and employee share the costs, and tax-based benefits.

Source : http://www.internations.org/germany-expats/guide/15984-social-security-taxation/social-security-in-germany-15970

Von Braun may have invented the Rocket. But their tax and social security system doesn`t run smoothly.!

Edited October 21, 2013 by GinAndPlatonic

[erat_forte]

I think the key phrase in my post was "absolute minimum subsistence income".

Are you suggesting that the UK is such a poor country, that we have to accept that not everyone can expect to have an "absolute minimum subsistence income"?

[Goat]

Are you suggesting that the UK is such a poor country, that we have to accept that not everyone can expect to have an "absolute minimum subsistence income"?

I assumed that Britney wanted a CI lower than my proposed £6,000 absolute minimum subsistence income.

[wonderpup]

please start reading papers. this is already sorted out by the both parties as both of them will implement the same thing: workfare

Workfare is a citizens income-but with none of the advantages- it's an income guaranteed by the state but is still means tested in that people on workfare will-I assume- be forbidden to take on other paid work.

The thing to grasp is that in a jobs market increasingly populated with short term, temporary or zero hours jobs Workfare is a competitive offering- it's secure, paid work with a guaranteed income and long term job security-plus free dental, free eye care and housing benefit- for many low paid workers this deal is not something to be avoided, it's something to be embraced.

And there will be no stigma if you work for your money- right?

[Damik]

Workfare is a citizens income-but with none of the advantages- it's an income guaranteed by the state but is still means tested in that people on workfare will-I assume- be forbidden to take on other paid work.

The thing to grasp is that in a jobs market increasingly populated with short term, temporary or zero hours jobs Workfare is a competitive offering- it's secure, paid work with a guaranteed income and long term job security-plus free dental, free eye care and housing benefit- for many low paid workers this deal is not something to be avoided, it's something to be embraced.

And there will be no stigma if you work for your money- right?

once again just for you. even Labour thinks now that giving people money for staying at home is economically and morally wrong. get ready on your bike:

http://www.labour.org.uk/labours-compulsory-jobs-guarantee,2013-01-04

In an article for Politics Home calling for a One Nation approach to welfare reform shadow chancellor Ed Balls says that, under the jobs guarantee, government will ensure there is a job for every adult who is long-term unemployed and people out of work will be obliged to take up those jobs or face losing benefits. Initially the guarantee would be for adults who are out of work for 24 months or more, but we would seek to reduce this to 18 or 12 months over time.

There are currently 129,400 adults over the age of 25 who have been out of work for 24 months or more – a rise of 88 percent since the same month last year and a rise of 146 per cent in the last two years.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

once again just for you. even Labour thinks now that giving people money for staying at home is economically and morally wrong. get ready on your bike:

http://www.labour.org.uk/labours-compulsory-jobs-guarantee,2013-01-04

In an article for Politics Home calling for a One Nation approach to welfare reform shadow chancellor Ed Balls says that, under the jobs guarantee, government will ensure there is a job for every adult who is long-term unemployed and people out of work will be obliged to take up those jobs or face losing benefits. Initially the guarantee would be for adults who are out of work for 24 months or more, but we would seek to reduce this to 18 or 12 months over time.

There are currently 129,400 adults over the age of 25 who have been out of work for 24 months or more – a rise of 88 percent since the same month last year and a rise of 146 per cent in the last two years.

Watch what they do...not what they say.

[Damik]

Watch what they do...not what they say.

who could resist a face like his ... ???

[erat_forte]

I assumed that Britney wanted a CI lower than my proposed £6,000 absolute minimum subsistence income.

It's minor details. If there is enough productivity in the system to allow everyone to live on £6000 a year or more, then a system can be designed to make sure no-one gets less.

Some would argue that even if there is enough productivity in the system for everyone to live on £6000 a year or more, that some people can be let go and allowed to starve on less than this, while others take proportionally more.

Others might argue that actually we can't afford for everyone to be on £6k or more, i.e. there is not enough productivity in the system to support this. Therefore trying to achieve it is doomed to failure.

Personally I'm in the first of those three categories.

[wonderpup]

once again just for you. even Labour thinks now that giving people money for staying at home is economically and morally wrong. get ready on your bike:

Once again you fail to even read the post to which you are replying- my point is that making people work for their dole is the same as a citizens income- it's a state guaranteed income.

The problem with workfare is that it is still a means tested benefit- it does not free up the people in receipt of that state income to take on additional work- so it has all the disadvantages of a proper CI but none of the advantages.

All they are doing is replicating the dependency on out of work benefits with a dependency on benefits that involve pretend work- the core problem remains that people will be unable to work their way out of that dependency by taking on those small or infrequent jobs that might in time turn into something more substantial.

Workfare will not achive it's objectives for this and another reason- in the current jobs market for unskilled work workfare is not a poor choice- it offers a level of security and stability rapidly disappearing in a world of zero hours bullshite contracts.

It's ironic that so many of the people who complain about the number of people being employed by the government seem to be so much in favor of workfare- a scheme that involves lots of people being employed by the government.

[Damik]

Once again you fail to even read the post to which you are replying- my point is that making people work for their dole is the same as a citizens income- it's a state guaranteed income.

The problem with workfare is that it is still a means tested benefit- it does not free up the people in receipt of that state income to take on additional work- so it has all the disadvantages of a proper CI but none of the advantages.

All they are doing is replicating the dependency on out of work benefits with a dependency on benefits that involve pretend work- the core problem remains that people will be unable to work their way out of that dependency by taking on those small or infrequent jobs that might in time turn into something more substantial.

Workfare will not achive it's objectives for this and another reason- in the current jobs market for unskilled work workfare is not a poor choice- it offers a level of security and stability rapidly disappearing in a world of zero hours bullshite contracts.

It's ironic that so many of the people who complain about the number of people being employed by the government seem to be so much in favor of workfare- a scheme that involves lots of people being employed by the government.

................................................

there is a principal difference between workfare and citizen income. let's see how long does it take you to find out ...

Edited October 22, 2013 by Damik

[Jeremy424]

there is a principal difference between workfare and citizen income. let's see how long does it take you to find out ...

Yes, as I have heard you say before, probably 'getting paid to do nothing as opposed to being paid to do something'. The problem with that is that people aren't paid to do nothing. For JSA you have to be looking for employment. Seeking employment can be a genuinely arduous and demoralising process. I don't see being 'paid to do something' as necessarily worthwhile when that 'something' is pointless or exploitative. You could get people on benefits to dig holes, but if there is no need for the hole then aren't we just keeping people occupied for the sake of it? Isn't it more likely that people are becoming increasingly redundant as workers and it is our conceptions about always being 'in work' (in the traditional sense) that need to change?

I have considered 'citizens income' and I don't know whether that would be a way forward, but imo 'workfare' is a no go, mainly for the reasons that you create categories of people who work but are paid less and have no rights compared to employees, the people are still on benefits and the private employer is getting a free ride. For all your talk of people being paid to do nothing I don't think I've ever heard you question this last point. Why is it ok for employers to get state subsidised free workers, but not for people to claim benefits?

My real problem isn't with people getting paid to do something, it's who's doing the paying and who's getting the benefit.

[Damik]

Yes, as I have heard you say before, probably 'getting paid to do nothing as opposed to being paid to do something'. The problem with that is that people aren't paid to do nothing. For JSA you have to be looking for employment. Seeking employment can be a genuinely arduous and demoralising process. I don't see being 'paid to do something' as necessarily worthwhile when that 'something' is pointless or exploitative. You could get people on benefits to dig holes, but if there is no need for the hole then aren't we just keeping people occupied for the sake of it? Isn't it more likely that people are becoming increasingly redundant as workers and it is our conceptions about always being 'in work' (in the traditional sense) that need to change?

I have considered 'citizens income' and I don't know whether that would be a way forward, but imo 'workfare' is a no go, mainly for the reasons that you create categories of people who work but are paid less and have no rights compared to employees, the people are still on benefits and the private employer is getting a free ride. For all your talk of people being paid to do nothing I don't think I've ever heard you question this last point. Why is it ok for employers to get state subsidised free workers, but not for people to claim benefits?

My real problem isn't with people getting paid to do something, it's who's doing the paying and who's getting the benefit.

well in this case you will need to change the mind of the top 3 main political parties in UK

[Bora Horza]

Damik what are you expecting workfare to achieve?

If I was an employer and I could get someone working for me for free - in fact the Government are even discussing paying an employer to take on workfare placements - how will this reduce unemployment?

All workfare will do is reduce opportunities for employment and increase private companies profits at the taxpayers expense.

[NorthamptonBear]

Damik what are you expecting workfare to achieve?

If I was an employer and I could get someone working for me for free - in fact the Government are even discussing paying an employer to take on workfare placements - how will this reduce unemployment?

All workfare will do is reduce opportunities for employment and increase private companies profits at the taxpayers expense.

And the people the customers will interact with will most likely be resentful and grumpy. Wonderful!

Forcing people to work will not be a good idea.

[Damik]

And the people the customers will interact with will most likely be resentful and grumpy. Wonderful!

Forcing people to work will not be a good idea.

Nope. Ed says that you want to work ... you will need to get on your bike ...

http://www.channel4.com/news/balls-attacks-benefit-claimants-who-are-playing-the-system

"I think it's fair to say to the taxpayer ... that there is no option of being on benefits year after year.

"To the small minority who are playing the system, no ifs and buts - benefit cut. There will always be some people playing the system, but the vast majority want to work."