Incapacity benefit – the truth


2:02 pm - September 18th 2010

by Mike Killingworth    


      Share on Tumblr

Iain Duncan Smith recently announced that he intends to move 500,000 IB claimants onto Job Seeker’s Allowance, at a saving of £1,500 a year each to the public purse.

Supposedly.

In fact, like all the Coalition’s welfare reforms, this is not so much about cutting the tax bill as transferring the money from those who need it to their own friends.

Claimansts of Job Seeker’s Allowance, particularly those who haven’t even been looking for work for many years, will of course need support. Let’s say a support worker costs £30/hour (including office costs, training, NI etc etc) and can see two clients a day, the rest of the time being devoted to paperwork.

So if she sees each client once a week, that’s all but £5 of the difference between the two Benefits accounted for already.

And the companies who hire these people aren’t going to be satisfied with a mere 15% profit rate. Government contractors look for much more than that (see PFI in hospitals and railways, passim).

They’ll probably look for twice that. So instead of the cost to the taxpayer of each claimant being £90/week (to the claimant) it’ll be £100/week – £60 to the claimant, £30 to the workers of the “support agency” and £10 to the agency’s profits.

That is to say that the directors of these “support agencies” can look forward to £250 million a year in profits, from this single decision alone.

Even if they only gave 1% of this windflall back to the Coalition parties in gratitude, it would still make a significant contribution to the parties’ running costs.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Mike is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He does not yet blog anywhere.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Equality ,Reform

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Let’s say a support worker costs £30/hour […]

Where is this figure from?? Not saying it’s false but it seems a bit out of the blue..

Agree with the main thrust of the article though, shifting a lot of long-term IB claiments to JSA will undoubtedly put strain on the system. Yet more wrong-headedness from IDS.

£30 an hour for support workers? That would eat into profits. A4E are advertising for unpaid volunteer “mentors” and rival CDG are attempting to recruit an “expert volunteer corps” (unpaid of course).

3. Beatrice Bray

I have been on Incapacity Benefit since 1991. In 1997 I won a prize in memory of David Thomas, a Financial Times journalist who died in Kuwait in the wake of the first Gulf War. The challenge was to devise a policy idea from abroad for the next Prime Minister. I wrote about employment and mental health.You can read my 1997 proposal on my blog.

http://alligin.tumblr.com/

Curiously enough Nick Clegg was a previous winner of this prize. Look where he is. I am still on Incapacity.

Mike Killingworth is right to focus on the figures but he fails to discuss what is meant by the term “employment support”. It is necessary in certain circumstances and there is plenty of policy ideas on that but the state should not feel obliged to pay for support if the real problem is discrimination. There is a huge amount of stigma with regard to mental health and it exists on the left and in the public sector as well as on the right and in the private sector.

Mike also does not acknowledge that there are people who would like to work. We have been campaigning for that opportunity for a good many years. We have also been demanding a more sensitive process for helping people with health problems move in and out of employment. We do not see all “support” initiatives as wrong. Some are better than others. The best in my view involve people with disablities in the running of their organisations. I would say the same with journalism on welfare. The best incorporates the views of all parties concerned. Mike singuarly failed to acknowledge the varied views of people on Incapacity Benefit. That falls a bit far from the truth.

“Claimansts of Job Seeker’s Allowance, particularly those who haven’t even been looking for work for many years, will of course need support”

The problem is the assumption that the government intends to provide that support, when the evidence suggests they won’t. They are from a political philosophy that assumes all you need to do is get the incentives right and people will obtain jobs by magic, so in this case reducing their benefits and raising the personal allowance is all they need to do.

“Mike also does not acknowledge that there are people who would like to work. We have been campaigning for that opportunity for a good many years. We have also been demanding a more sensitive process for helping people with health problems move in and out of employment.”

Its this that is the crux of the issue – the conservatives view anti-discrimination laws as political correctness and are opposed to them. Yet part of the answer in getting people with disabilities into work means ending discrimination and prejudice about the capabilities of people, particularly those with mental health issues. I’d also argue it needs a wider change in the culture of work – a high stress, high pressure job where the boss is a bullying shit is clearly not the place for somebody who has had depression, yet these types of low wage jobs are where people are likely to be forced into. Furthermore any legislation against workplace bullying gets opposed by the conservatives.

As I recall, Blair and his ministers in 2005/6 were developing more ambitious schemes to move a million or so recipients of Incapacity Benefit recipents into work:

Prime Minister Tony Blair has outlined plans for getting more people off incapacity benefit and into work.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4224721.stm

Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton has unveiled plans to get one million incapacity benefit claimants back into work, saving £7bn a year.

More severely disabled people will receive a higher rate of benefit and have no obligation to look for work. But claimants who refuse to take part in back-to-work schemes risk losing part of their benefits, Mr Hutton said.

There will also be moves to get a million older people and 300,000 single parents back into work, he said.

About 2.7m people currently claim incapacity benefit, resulting in an annual bill of £12.5bn. From 2008 it will be renamed the Employment and Support Allowance.

If one million incapacity benefit claimants return to work, the country would move closer to Labour’s ambition of an 80% employment rate, Mr Hutton said as he unveiled the Welfare Reform Green Paper.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4641588.stm

It’s like groundhog day again, just as the Thatcher government failed to predict the consequences of their benefit reform, we’ve got son of Thatcher attempting another misguided attempt at ‘saving’ public funds.

7. lilwatchergirl

The ‘Where’s The Benefit?’ blog, at http://wheresthebenefit.blogspot.com/ , is working to highlight these and other serious concerns around disability benefits. Disabled people are being systematically targeted by this government in high-profile, headline-grabbing cuts, apparently regardless of the poverty and even death that will result – in some cases, is already resulting.

A quicky web search round forums will demonstrate the incompetence and uselessness of A4e “training courses”.

Still it has made its founder Emma Harrison a multi-millionaire and that’s what matters.

But claimants are not entirely impotent:

“Protesters Shut Down A4e Edinburgh Office”

http://indusdelta.co.uk/discussion/protesters_shut_down_a4e_edinburgh_office/4388

It is helped at least one person with a disabiltiy; David Blunkett works as an “adviser” for A4e for 30 grand a year.

I am no mathematcian but I think that works out at rather more than the £63-a-week Jobseekers Allowance claimants receive.

9. Mike Killingworth

[3] Employers will not take on people with mental health issues at a time when they are under pressure to reduce levels of sickness absence. Indeed, I suspect that failure to disclose a history of past mental health issues (even a teenage suicide attempt and absolutely nothing since) is probably a breach of employment contract in many cases these days. Whether such people want to work or not is beside the point.

[5] The only way to increase the employment rate is to take steps to ensure that British workers are globally competitive. This means abolishing the minimum wage – the JSA rate equates to about £1.60/hour which is about what call centre workers are paid in the sub-continent, the Phillippines etc. If British workers were paid what they’re actually worth on the global market they couldn’t meet their mortgage payments and the banking system would collapse. Again.

#5 it failed http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jTmnjoRFlNL8uQyCdLXKB-uzTltw So of course IDS wants to sling more money at it while Osborne would prefer the poor to chopped up and fed to the hounds

@ Mike

The only way to increase the employment rate is to take steps to ensure that British workers are globally competitive. This means abolishing the minimum wage – the JSA rate equates to about £1.60/hour which is about what call centre workers are paid in the sub-continent, the Phillippines etc.

Tend to agree. However you will note that those paid at the JSA rate here are also entitled to all sorts of other benefits. To truly compete in a global marketplace with Bangladesh etc, those would have to go too.

Employers will not take on people with mental health issues at a time when they are under pressure to reduce levels of sickness absence.

Sorry. Are we trying to compete or not? Are you suggesting employers should be compelled to take on workers who they know will be unproductive?

You do understand that, in undeveloped countries, the crippled and deranged tend to be found begging in the streets?

12. Mike Killingworth

[11] Agree with all that – however, you may care to read the last sentence of my previous comment again, Pagar.

13. Beatrice Bray

@pagar

You said this:

“You do understand that, in undeveloped countries, the crippled and deranged tend to be found begging in the streets?”

I think you have just given an example of the kind of discriminatory language that prevents people with abilities from making the most of their talents. The words “crippled” and “deranged” do not belong in any modern-day political discussion. Your choice of language is offensive.

I always speak of people with disabilities and people with mental health problems. That is the accepted convention these days. Face-to-face I address people by name.

@Mike Killingsorth

You appear to assume that there are no people with mental health problems in the labour market and your comment suggests that there has been no thought about how to work when one has a mental health problem. This simply is not true. You have not demonstrated any knowledge of the debates that have been going on in this field for the past couple of decades. There are lots of things that employers and employees can do to improve standards of mental health in the workplace and by the way the need for this is very great in the middle of a recession. There is a lot of stress around in today’s workplaces.

You tell me that the views of people with mental health problems are irrelevant. How condescending is that? Do you want to patronise me some more? Would you write about any other issue without considering the views of the people involved? Do you think we are incapable of forming policy and negotiating deals with the people around us?

Very fortunately there is a core group of people who have been involved in this area for years. Economic cycles come and go. Governments come and go. But for those of us who live the life we get on with it. It would be plain irresponsible for any disablity activist to turn round to the current generation of unemployed and tell them they may as well give.

What matters now is that people are ready and able to move into new jobs once the economy picks up. With the last boom that did not happen. Let us not make the same mistake again.

@ Mike

If British workers were paid what they’re actually worth on the global market they couldn’t meet their mortgage payments and the banking system would collapse. Again.

Very probably.

And if we are living beyond our means (as we are) that might be the best outcome in the long term. But let’s do it properly next time.

@ Beatrice

Your choice of language is offensive. I always speak of people with disabilities and people with mental health problems. That is the accepted convention these days.

I’m sure you do. But the above is only a small salvo in the battle to reclaim real words from the self-appointed language police.

Frankly, I find your use of mealy mouthed euphimisms offensive but I will fight to my last gasp to protect your freedom to spout them.

In the meantime, I’ll call a spade………well……. whatever I like really……

15. Mike Killingworth

[13] To take your last point first, I do not share the widespread assumption that when the economy “picks up” that will create jobs in the UK. It may simply retard the rate at which they are moved offshore. There is of course a considerable body of opinion that suspects that the economy will not grow for several years to come. In any case we have a demographic time bomb in terms of the number of pensioners which will swallow up future growth quite easily,

I am afraid that your ad hominem remarks do you no credit. Unlike Pagar I did not use emotive language – although if you had the awareness of disability politics that you claim to have you would know that not all disabled people are opposed to the use of such terms. FYI I have been a member of a 12-step fellowship since the end of 1997 (to say nothing of £10k spent on shrinks) and believe me, Beatrice, I can tell when someone is acting out. Accusing people who disagree with you of being patronising is in itself frequently a indication of mental disturbance.

To return to the general question, the truth, whether we like it or not (and I don’t much) is that it is the views of employers and prospective employers which matter in the labour market, not those of employees or would-be employees. Think about why Trade Unions were formed, for one thing. Think about how universities and colleges decide which courses to offer. Think about why people send CVs to employers and not t’other way round. And so on…

@ 13

Beatrice – I may be entirely wrong here, but I think Mike Killingworth & pagar are being ironic and sarcastic about this right wing nuttery (and if they are not I will have words).

I entirely sympathise with your situation, I have a close personal friend on Incapacity Benefit due to mental health problems. I accompanied her, (as you are allowed to) to her ATOS Healthcare medical assment for the DWP.

It was just a mechanistic, series of box-ticking, like “can you bend your knees?”, “how far can you walk unaided?” etc with little about the state of her mental health. I felt like bawling out the assessor, but knew this would not be advisable.

Still it made ATOS shareholders a few bob eh?

I hope your situation improves and ATOS don’t get you down.

@ 15

“12-step fellowship” eh?

AA I presume, or NA.

12 Steps is a cult is ever there was one with its origins in the Oxford Group who also founded ‘Moral Re-Armament’.

Of course, no one knows the outcomes of “treatment” by these most commonly used alcohol/drug services, because it is all anonymous and unevaluated.

However, the most detailed study into AA estimated that only eight per cent of those who attended meetings achieved long-term abstinence from alcohol.

In these days of outcomes and targets I reckon most people would reckon an eight per cent success rate was, to use the vernacular piss poor.

The one thing everyone forgets is of course the happy go lucky employer who is going to employ a bloke who says look mate I do not want this job, I hate working and if you take me on I’m going to cause you shit.

When I was a foreman working on a very large building site with 5,000 people a New Power station, this is what I would get often from people who did not want to work.

It was during this job I fell from a great height damaging my spinal cord, now when I seek work which I would like, most employers will ask can you do the same work as a non disabled person, well I’m in a wheelchair, so sending me to work on a building site is a waste of time, yet I’ve been sent to one company who was looking for window cleaners.

I went for a job in the job center as an adviser to help the disabled, guess what they said, this job would not suit a disabled person.

But of course this is more to do with saving money, I get IB, and it’s £130 not £90.

I also get DLA which is about £120 so I get £250 a week, now then if I’m placed onto JSA I do not lose a small amount I lose £190 a week.

Now the idea that when you go to ESA and you cannot work, you will get more thats wrong, because the extra £40 I get on my IB to make it £130 the age allowance and how long your on IB is being removed so I will lose £40, IDS intends to give me back £10 of that for being severely disabled.

So it was new Labour that planed all this, so it’s New Labour that must take the blame.

I’m classed as Paraplegic.

19. Seamus Smith

It’s hilarious when Chris Grayling talks about people being “abandoned” on Incapacity Benefit.

One might infer from such language that throwing someone off IB will open up a wonderful future for them in the world of work.

Matthew Norman in The Independent put it more realistically when he imagined a former IB claimant in the jobs market:

“…he must either explain that all those years ago he was declared incapable of work on psychiatric grounds – what a glorious tie-breaker in a crowded job market – or end the charade with a wryly resigned “I’ll get me coat”.

As Mike says, this isn’t about saving public money. It’s about enriching the likes of Atos Origin, Shaw Trust and A4E – in other words, the distribution of public funds from the poor to private companies (whose pitiful performance in helping people back to work was exposed over the summer by a Public Accounts Commitee.)

20. Beatrice Bray

@Mike Killingworth

“Accusing people who disagree with you of being patronising is in itself frequently a indication of mental disturbance.”

I think you are abusing the comments policy here. You have said that I show signs of having a “mental disturbance” just because I say you are patronising. I have read a lot of mental health texts and I have not a clue where you picked up this idea. I think you are wanting to escape my criticisms of your article by acusing me of madness. That is low.

Let me remind you of the moderation policy.

“•Abusive, sarcastic or silly comments may be deleted.”

So maybe your abuse of me may not stay on screen but let us look at the reasons why I say you are patronising because I think my comment lies within the moderation rules. These are your words. I quote them exactly.

“Whether such people want to work or not is beside the point.”

Let me cite the definition of patronising as given in the Oxford English Dictionary. “Treat with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority.”

There you are. You think your view matters. The view of Incapacity Claimaints with mental health problems are, to quote your words, “beside the point”.

I call that patronising and when I say that I am not been in the least derogatory about your mental health. I mean to say you think you are better than me and all my fellow claimants. That is hardly a slur on your mental health but you are being plain rude about mine. You do not like ad hominem remarks about you so why do you deal out the punishment to me?

The fact of the matter is that your original article does not cite any evidence or any views that I recognise as coming from the diverse world of disablity politics.

How on earth can we have a debate about Incapacity Benefit if the guy writing the article resorts to abusing someone who is honest and brave enough to speak up in public? I can take the flack but I know some readers will be distressed by Mike Killingworth’s abusive language towards me. An inclusive debate need not descend into slurs.

@captain swing

If you have any influence over Mike Killingworth & pagar please could you teach them that irony is a difficult tool for a writer to use, especially when you know that some of the readers are ill and in pain. They are nonetheless entitled to take part in debate. It is better to be straight and say what you mean rather than go in for ironic quips which can badly misfire. I did not recognise irony myself in their words. I doubt I am alone in thinking that.

By the by none of you are going to impress me if you speak of “right wing nuttery”. Grow up. That is derogatory language and it is not tactful given the fact that 40% of people on Incapacity Benefit have mental health problems. Do you think we are going to rally behind you if you use that sort of rhetoric?

There are so many more important things to talk through on the subject of Incapacity. For example we could have discussed what the word “support” entails for the people involved. That has not been possible in this thread.

If you want to see how I write when I actually have a chance to speak about policy I refer once again to the essay I wrote for the Financial Times. Though I wrote it in 1997 I still think it could teach a thing or two to some people here. I at least know how to be constructive.

http://alligin.tumblr.com/

Accusing people who disagree with you of being patronising is in itself frequently a indication of mental disturbance.

This isn’t right Mike – please stick to debating rather than questioning people’s sanity on such a sensitive issue.

11
This is complete crap,mentally ill people in underdeveloped countries do much better than people with mental illness in the west, why? – because they are actively involved in cultural norms, which includes work
People in underdeveloped countries, who have to beg, are not victims of mental illness they are victims of an inequal society.
What is often forgotton is that the massive amount of means-tested benefits paid-out are used to pay taxes as well as consume goods, in other words public monies are used to purchase goods from private owners. @Mike, do you really believe that without those funds, there would be many private companies to compete against newly developing countries, and that’s not including the high level of subsidies that many developing countries receive. You’ve either lost it or your tongue is firmly in your cheek.

23. Just Visiting

Sunny

wow – that is the first time in ages that I’ve you seen tell someone off for an ad hominen attack.

Goodness me, I’ve been on the butt end of a few myself.. and you never rode to my defence…

@22 steveb

mentally ill people in underdeveloped countries do much better than people with mental illness in the west

Source, please.

24
‘World Health Organization Study Comparing Mental Health Recovery in Developed and Developing Nations’

@25

Cheers 🙂

About 877,000 people die by suicide every year.
One in four patients visiting a health service has at least one mental, neurological or behavioural disorder but most of these disorders are neither diagnosed nor treated.
Mental illnesses affect and are affected by chronic conditions such as cancer, heart and cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and HIV/AIDS. Untreated, they bring about unhealthy behaviour, non-compliance with prescribed medical regimens, diminished immune functioning, and poor prognosis.
Cost-effective treatments exist for most disorders and, if correctly applied, could enable most of those affected to become functioning members of society.
Barriers to effective treatment of mental illness include lack of recognition of the seriousness of mental illness and lack of understanding about the benefits of services. Policy makers, insurance companies, health and labour policies, and the public at large – all discriminate between physical and mental problems.
Most middle and low-income countries devote less than 1% of their health expenditure to mental health. Consequently mental health policies, legislation, community care facilities, and treatments for people with mental illness are not given the priority they deserve.
Objectives
The Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse provides leadership and guidance for the achievement of two broad objectives: (a) closing the gap between what is needed and what is currently available to reduce the burden of mental disorders worldwide, and (b) promoting mental health. The recently launched mental health Global Action Programme (mhGAP) focuses on forging strategic partnerships to enhance countries’ capacity to combat stigma, reduce the burden of mental disorders and promote mental health.

The objectives are pursued through strong linkages within WHO, collaboration with regional and country offices and more than 100 collaborating centres around the world and through combined action in education, social welfare, justice, rural development, women’s affairs. We ensure that our policies and interventions are evidence-based and reflect our commitment to equity, ethics, human rights and gender equality.

Related Stories
– For more information, please refer to the list of publications.

28. Mike Killingworth

[17] AA/NA has plenty of problems, not least the fact that the people who get well through its programmes tend to stop attending its meetings which are consequently organised by those who continue to have “issues” – even though they are abstinent. As I have no idea what you mean by the word “cult” I cannot comment further except to say that organisations do grow and change and, FWIW, the co-founders of AA were actually expelled from the Oxford Group/MRA.

[21] You may not like it, Sunny, but it’s true. That’s what the word “frequently” means. I deliberately did not say that Beatrice was mentally disturbed, merely that she exhibited one symptom of it. I do not, for example, assume that all fat women are pregnant although obviously some of them are. Why it’s OK for her to say she has mental health problems but not for anyone else to agree with her I’ve no idea.

Beatrice is the second person on this blog to accuse me of abusing the comments policy. Sunny knows full well who the other one was – someone else who sees herself as a Victim with a capital “V”.

And FWIW anger is also a symptom of mental disturbance but if we closed down all the angry comments on the Internet I reckon it would shrink by what – 80%? 90%?

Not much of a person are you, god help anyone who has a mental health issues who writes on here.

Your full of your self mate.

28
I work in The Mental Health Services and I can assure you that accusing people of being patronizing isn’t known to be a symptom of mental disturbance, nor is it mentioned in any diagnostic manual that I have ever seen.

Can’t speak for Mike but, for the sake of clarity, can I say that I no longer use irony on the internet.

@ Beatrice

The combination of your attempt to censor my language and your grassing up the original poster to the blog gestapo seems to demonstrate a worryingly totalitarian mindset.

Presumably I can say that without being accused of questioning your sanity?

Oh dear.

Is sanity still on the approved list?

What about insanity?

Reality challenged maybe?

I’m sure you’ll know.

31
Since when was accusing someone of suffering from a mental disturbance irony?
But I see you know what sarcasm is.

33. Mike Killingworth

[30] I should have expressed myself more clearly. For that I apologise.

Accusing someone of being patronising when they have only made general remarks is a tried and tested tactic for foreclosing debate. It is, in other words, a form of bullying. The truth is that (at the moment) Beatrice and I each regard the other as bullies – perhaps if we were to meet we would see that we were both wrong.

“The combination of your attempt to censor my language and your grassing up the original poster to the blog gestapo seems to demonstrate a worryingly totalitarian mindset. ”

Well pointing out the terms you used are considered offensive by the people they refer to is hardly totalitarian. By this logic every time somebody being offended complains and stands up for themselves then that is totalitarian, and conversely allowing people to be bullied and intimidated isn’t? It isn’t like Beatrice was calling for the authorities to turn up and throw you in jail is it? Get a grip.

Comments policies exist to stop this place becoming dominated by aggressive loudmouths with limited vocabularies and creating an atmosphere where people with intelligent things to say are put off.

Perhaps somebody should pop around and amputate a couple of limbs for you? Then you might just have to experience life as part of a minority, and we’ll see how you react when others start calling you crippled and deranged, businesses deny you services, employers discriminate against you in jobs you are still able to do and planning to enjoy yourself by going out for an evening requires planning worthy of a military operation. Maybe then you’ll have less time for dealing with idiots who think they are funny on the internet.

Try and see it from the point of view of others will you.

@ Planeshift

To accuse me of being unsympathetic to “people with disabilities” (the term I am currently instructed by Beatrice to use) is to entirely miss the point I intended to make.

Which is to do with language.

The word cripple is defined as A person or animal that is partially disabled or unable to use a limb or limbs Now I see nothing derogatory or intrinsically offensive in accurately using that word and I object to the trend where minority groups are allowed to seize control of the use of language and claim offence when their preferred terminology is not used.

As I understand the current state of play in this area (and it is easy not to keep up) “crippled”, “handicapped” and “disabled” are all prohibited. A “person with disabilities” is acceptable to some while others prefer “Dis Abled” (haven’t really worked that one out) and others again “differently abled”. Some “people with disabilities” are attempting to reclaim the word “cripple” in the same way as some black people have tried to reclaim the word “nigger” and some gays have tried to reclaim the word “queer”.

In any case, it is not acceptable for self-appointed representatives of minority groups to prohibit and manipulate the free use of language by declaring some words to be intrinsically offensive.

So I hope you will withdraw the allegation that I am unsympathetic to the problems experienced by “people with disabilities”- I assure you that was not what I intended to convey.

Of course some cripples find expressions of sympathy to be patronising and offensive. Actually, I do.

Comments policies exist to stop this place becoming dominated by aggressive loudmouths with limited vocabularies and creating an atmosphere where people with intelligent things to say are put off.

Perhaps somebody should pop around and amputate a couple of limbs for you?

Irony, right?

It doesn’t work on the internet.

35
I don’t think for one minute that you are as obtuse as you are trying to make out, language is complex and subtle and using a word such as ‘crippled’ in a sentence such as ‘these shoes have crippled me’ or ‘she was crippled with arthritis’ has a totally different meaning to calling someone a cripple within a sentence that clearly means something negative about the person you’ve addressed.
And while I’m at it Mike, I used to think that your posts were some of the most interesting and analytically sound (although I’m not of the same political persuasion).


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Incapacity benefit – the truth http://bit.ly/9tAjIW

  2. billshankly

    RT @libcon: Incapacity benefit – the truth http://bit.ly/9tAjIW

  3. Mind In Flux

    RT @libcon Incapacity benefit – the truth http://bit.ly/9tAjIW #mhuk

  4. BendyGirl

    RT @MindInFlux: RT @libcon Incapacity benefit – the truth http://bit.ly/9tAjIW #mhuk

  5. Anna

    RT @libcon: Incapacity benefit – the truth http://bit.ly/9tAjIW

  6. TeresaMary

    Lessons from PFI-out-sourcing transforms our taxes into private profits RT @libcon: Incapacity benefit – the truth http://bit.ly/9tAjIW

  7. Alec Speight

    "Incapacity benefit – the truth | Liberal Conspiracy" ( http://bit.ly/dvdTJM )

  8. Beatrice Bray

    @libcon If you're want to run an article on Incapacity can you pick someone who acknowledges views of claimants? http://bit.ly/9tAjIW

  9. Beatrice Bray

    @MindInFlux @libcon writer on Incapacity, says views of ppl w #mentalhealth probs are "beside the point". http://bit.ly/9tAjIW #mhuk

  10. Pamela Heywood

    Incapacity benefit – the truth http://twurl.nl/xjnuj1

  11. SMS PolicyWatch

    RT @libcon: Incapacity benefit – the truth http://bit.ly/9tAjIW





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.