Forum menu
Why on earth is the failure that is Jonathan Ashworth being given so much airtime?
“Think tanks”, and the media’s reliance on them. Still a problem that needs addressing. Reversing cuts in the number of journalists and researchers (BBC and elsewhere) probably the only answer.
Exactly. What are the types of fraud, who is getting away with it and how. And how much money is being lost to it.
HMRC estimates that it collects 95% of all the tax owed in the UK, but the remaining 5% accounted for about £36bn in lost revenue in 2021-22.
And figures HMRC disclosed to Tax Policy Associates in 2021 revealed that UK taxpayers held £850bn in foreign accounts in 2019, of which £570bn was in tax havens.
The cost of benefit fraud
It is estimated in 2020, £65.2 million of public money was lost through benefit fraud. This figure is made up of:
£18 million – Employment and Support Allowance
£2 million – Jobseeker’s Allowance
£7 million – State Pension Credit
£2 million – Carer’s Allowance
£15 million – Universal Credit
£18 million – Housing Benefit
https://www.communities-ni.gov.uk/articles/benefit-fraud-cost-and-results
kerley
Free Member
Exactly. What are the types of fraud, who is getting away with it and how. And how much money is being lost to it.
Statistically it's tiny.
Then compare it to the absolutely industrial sized fraud carried out during Covid that the Tories basically just wrote off.
and the other is poor people who can hardly afford to live trying to get an extra few quid
There is a substantial amount of benefit/tax fraud that is effectively organised crime, lots of low level abuse of the system that amounts to millions/billions. It can also be used as a cover for other more serious illegal activity. It's awful for those genuinely in need who get caught out when we are looking for the bigger fish, and how they are dealt with needs to be more sympathetic.
You've no idea from the outside how hard we try and catch the big tax avoiders. We are genuinely hampered by poorly drafted and stupidly complex legislation creating loopholes for highly paid slippery agents to sneak through, and that needs to stop, maybe the new government will focus on that in the budget.
After 14 years of tory rule theres little to nobody left who could be identified as a ‘benefit scrounger’ The tories hate and i mean hate social security. In their tenure they have implemented policy after policy taking people off benefits.
The Tories love social security when the BoE pays interest income to people with wealth.
We just need to push back against benefit fraud discussion, it's another example of Tory narrative controlling the debate.
Move the discussion to what Rachel Reeves should be doing and what is within her control, that would allow for fiscal expansion. And push back against black-holes. It's all smoke and mirrors
That will totally negate any nominal effects of benefit fraud.
Go after the resource and wealth hoarders for sure.
According to the Telegraph there's a forecast over 9500 millionaires planning to leave over Labour's imaginary tax raid.
Don't know where to start with that.
There is a substantial amount of benefit/tax fraud that is effectively organised crime, lots of low level abuse of the system that amounts to millions/billions.
You'd think it would be fairly easy for the government to articulate that message. I doubt many people would have a problem with that.
So why then is Reeves instead saying things like “look closely at our welfare system, because if someone can work, they should work”. I doubt people involved in organised crime are going to be getting a job stacking shelves in Tesco instead.
There's nothing new in the Labour message of 'clamping down on benefit fraud' You'll have noticed recently in the news that there's a large constituency of folks in deprived and underfunded areas that have had the message "They're taking our jobs" and "They get houses and benefits given to them" when they complain about immigration. Regardless of the truth in both the size of benefits fraud and the nonsense about money jobs and housing being given to immigrants, the messages of "we're clamping down on it" gets heard in these areas.
Labour have historically (going back to the 30's) always had a message about the benefits and virtuousness of work and the move away from reliance on benefits. There's nothing new here.
Regarding 'benefit fraud*', it's worth knowing that the amount of benefits unclaimed by those who are legally entitled to them, is far greater than the amount allegedly lost to fraud:
https://policyinpractice.co.uk/missing-out-2024-23-billion-of-support-is-unclaimed-each-year/
So £23 billion v the £7.3 billion from the government's own figures.
*The actual figures for genuine provable fraud are much, much tinier. What the government might claim is 'fraud', could well not be. I believe they include figures for cases of claims that are stopped due to suspicion of ineligibility, which are often overturned on appeal. I don't know if the government includes the cost of investigating alleged fraud in its loss figures.
I once committed 'benefit fraud', many years ago. I was 18, and working 'full time' for a job agency that would scam us and ended up actually earning less than we'd get from signing on. So I signed on and with the dole money, was just about able to make ends meet. Surprise surprise, the agency wasn't declaring half the workers, and therefore paying no NI on our behalf, so we didn't even get that marked up as our contributions. A common story back in the days before Minimum Wage and computerised, traceable accounts. The agency actually encouraged workers to sign on, knowing that no trace of employment would be found. This enabled them to pay us such shit wages. Had I not broken the law, I'd have starved.
Very, very, very few people committing 'benefit fraud' are actually making anything out of it. The vast majority are just keeping their heads above water. A great case for a Universal Benefit system I'd have thought. Perhaps too radical an idea for this government though.
I see Streeting has practically creamed himself in his rush to chuck Nottingham NHS under the bus WRT Valdo Calocane.
Tech/IT 'wonder solution' from the private sector incoming...
How would you like him to have responded to the CQC report? “Nothing to see here”?
“The hard truth here… is that had the NHS
donebeen able to do its job, had there not been multiple fundamental failures, possibly due to under-resourcing, three innocent people might still be alive… that’s why, whilst I wouldn't necessarily use those words, I totally understand why they [the victim’s families] have accused the NHS of having blood on its hands."
There you go.
The report doesn’t highlight funding as an issue, so that would just be more deflection.
Funding isn't the same as resourcing.
In any case, I'm instinctively against higher-ups throwing their 'staff' under the bus. Particularly given the recent Tory way of denigrating anyone or anything that cannot make their lies true for them.
And, yes, I am aware of how that can go way too far the other way - Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, Post Office etc. And I guess I'm also biased against Streeting because it is documented how close he is to private healthcare.
It's not a straightforward thing.
And I guess I’m also biased against Streeting because it is documented how close he is to private healthcare.
What documentation and where is the proof of 'closeness'?
https://members.parliament.uk/member/4504/registeredinterests
It is reasonable to assume that OPD and MPM are "close" to Streeting otherwise I can't imagine why they would bung him £175k
I’m instinctively against higher-ups throwing their ‘staff’ under the bus.
That’s what the report says. Zero accountability for those running the trust. It’s now the job of Streeting and his department to work out if they need to sort that at that trust and, more importantly, find out if changes need to be made to prevent a repeat of the failure at other trusts.
If that is the case then good - because I'm pretty damn sure that Calocane's treatment wasn't shoddy because his case workers were buggering off early on a Friday to play golf.
To declare my interest, my wife has worked in the NHS for nearly 30 years. She has seen the frog being boiled, the tiers of so-called management come and go, the false market model, the downgrading of previously clinical tasks to admin staff etc. In her current job she deals with staffing, skill levels and rotas etc - she sees first hand what happens when politicians are backed into corners by their lies and lash out at immigrant workers as deflection.
Rant over.
because I’m pretty damn sure that Calocane’s treatment wasn’t shoddy because his case workers were buggering off early on a Friday to play golf.
Given the overall lack of planning, care, communication, and lack of 'clarity of thinking' that the latest CQC report highlights. It may well have been better if they had done just routine work and then buggered off early to play golf. It does appear on reading the report that there was a systematic failure to keep this man safe (and by extension everyone around him). That they decided to discharge him back to his GP without telling the family or GP speaks of a chaotic dept. There may well be funding issues, but there's also basic clinical failures here.
I'm sure that some good will come of this - whether it will be enough good remains to be seen.
The NHS is constantly facing these kinds of challenges. What do you do with a surgeon who has 2% 'failure' rate on their operations with an acceptable rate of 1%, but does 15 ops a week. You've got four of these surgeons and a waiting list that is already deemed too long? The surgeon's failure rate is double the acceptable level. But if you suspend him/her that's 25% of your scheduled ops that need to be done by someone else.
The NHS is a dream political football for all sides. If I could be happy that a politician was coming to it without any agenda other than improvement, then fine. But, to be honest, I also simply do not trust Streeting.
Now for some light relief. In a move that simply reinforces my view of Thérèse Coffey as being a massively over-confident simpleton...
Apparently she applied for a top job, working at a European institution, under Rachel Reeves.
Quite what Ms Reeves thought of this as the application landed in her in-tray, I do not know. But I'll assume the Treasury needed to source a new keyboard...
But if you suspend him/her [sic]
Extend your analogy to Valdo. Would it have been better if a busier specialist had treated him properly as opposed to an incompetent one but on time? I think if you ask patients they'd rather, on the whole; wait. In the short term the extra work is frustrating, but it could give the failing surgeon time to update or retrain, and in the long run, you won't be faced with perhaps having to correct as many previous failures.
I also simply do not trust Streeting.
You're not alone. He has at least so far in his dealings with GPs, signalled a willingness to listen and reach an agreement. He's getting cautious approval so far from GPs/Partners at the practices I manage
The Valdo case is a tragic but extreme example of a system breaking due to being under resourced. It's also a fact that one of the consequences of living in a relatively free country is that we don’t lock people up easily or have constant state surveillance.
The Valdo case, like serious case reviews in child abuse cases, will highlight failures due to caseload, lack of training, lack of effective management and genuine human error.
And both are also examples where investment in early intervention saves greater cost/tragedy down the line.
It is reasonable to assume that OPD and MPM are “close” to Streeting otherwise I can’t imagine why they would bung him £175k
Is it reasonable, two individuals with 'links' to private healthcare provided donations to Streeting for the campaign, but by the way you use bung instead of donation kind of says there'll be bias in whatever happens.
Those donors gave money to Yvette Cooper and Dan Jarvis as well - In fact, they've given those two more money than Streeting, so I expect that both the Home Office and Security are also fatally compromised.
I think if you ask patients they’d rather, on the whole; wait.
In the case of Calocane this is about 180 degrees 'out' though.
His 'preference' was not to engage at all and time was, literally, of the essence. This is where healthcare sort of crosses over into policing...
there’ll be bias
My very obvious bias against Wes Streeting is totally irrelevant to whether he recieves financial backing from private healthcare providers or not. He makes his own entries in the House of Commons Register of Interests, not me.
And the donations are not from two "individuals" with links to private healthcare, as you falsely claim.
The House of Commons Register of Interests makes it absolutely clear that the donations are from limited companies. Here is the exact wording from the Register:
Name of donor: MPM Connect Ltd
Name of donor: OPD Group Ltd
Name of donor: MPM Connect Ltd (a company controlled by Peter Hearn)
Name of donor: OPD Group Ltd (a company controlled by Peter Hearn)
Name of donor: John Armitage
Please do a little research in future, especially around individual donations, hence why Peter Hearn has donated via two companies, one of which i believe only exists on paper as a branch of the parent company.
I don't know a lot about this particular debate but if a company donates money it is not the same as an individual donating money otherwise the donation could have simple been made by the individual.
A company is an entity.
I don’t know a lot about this particular debate but if a company donates money it is not the same as an individual donating money otherwise the donation could have simple been made by the individual.
MPM Connect Ltd is wholly owned by Peter Hearn, with no transactions noted, it is a vehicle set up to pay the donations via this individual.
John Armitage (the second individual) made donations in his own name.
MPM Connect Ltd is wholly owned by Peter Hearn, with no transactions noted, it is a vehicle set up to pay the donations via this individual.
So a company set up to funnel lobbying money to bribeable receptive politicians without oversight of where it is actually coming from and what is expected in return. Nothing to see here, move along......
Political funding and lobbying is a much bigger problem that FPTP in my opinion, I support proportional representation, but I think that it will be nearly as bad as FPTP if current lobbying and political financing rules continue as they are, sorting the money out should be the priority, then we can look at FPTP.
MPM Connect Ltd is wholly owned by Peter Hearn, with no transactions noted, it is a vehicle set up to pay the donations via this individual.
Is it just me who is thinking "this set up does the exact opposite of reassuring me"?
Is it just me who is thinking “this set up does the exact opposite of reassuring me”?
Pretty much the same as what Liz Davies has done with JBC Defence Ltd to support Jeremy Corbyn over the last couple of years.
Quite a few people use this, so that the donations go through their business, so makes it less onerous on individuals declaring to HMRC.
Quite a few people use this, so that the donations go through their business, so makes it less onerous on individuals declaring to HMRC.
Of course it does.
Quite a few people use this, so that the donations go through their business, so makes it marginally less
onerous ontraceable back to individualsdeclaring to HMRC.
FTFY.
Because, of course, the corporate structure around these SPVs and their naming etc makes it immediately obvious who the actual person behind the donation is, right?
Or, to quote Wayne's World - NOT!
it is a vehicle set up to pay the donations via this individual.
I'm lovin the argument "it's okay it's a dodgy company which doesn't really exist set up simply to pay large amounts of money to senior Labour politicians, so what's wrong with that?"
The company has no staff or website and is registered at an office where the secretary says she has never heard of them.
The company's accounts do not disclose where it receives its funding, what it does or why it donates so heavily.
When Sky News went to the office in Hertfordshire, where the company is registered, the receptionist in the building denied any knowledge of MPM Connect.
She told Sky News she did not recognise the names of the two directors.
So dark money is donated to politicians from a non-existent company which no one knows where it gets its funding from.
Only a "biased" person would think there might be anything dodgy about that.
I’m lovin the argument “it’s okay it’s a dodgy company which doesn’t really exist set up simply to pay large amounts of money to senior Labour politicians, so what’s wrong with that?”
As @argee points out, that's exactly what Liz Davies did in order to pay Corbyn's legal fees - without your added pejoratives, obviously.
So what if somebody did it for Corbyn, that is clearly just the same. Why bring up Corbyn as an example?
^^^
Presumably that's at ernielynch for some kind of Corbyn angle.
It doesn't stop it looking dodgy as ****, though - whoever is doing it and for whatever purpose.
Yep, by providing further info it's set them off on another wild goose chase to find corruption, the reality is that the companies have his name all over them, he is not hiding it within a shell company and having donations provided through a lawyer, or third party, he has been donating to Labour for 20 years, almost £1 million i believe, he makes no secret he backs the 'centrist' element of Labour, so providing campaign funding to those mentioned is pretty much what you'd expect.
Again, reading up on him, and i am going back a bit for this thread, but his links to private healthcare are that he makes money in resourcing private healthcare, i believe he also has funding in medical equipment, not exactly mounting a takeover attempt of the NHS.
Peter Hearn ceased to be PWSC in September of 2023 of MPM Connect Ltd.
OPD Group Holdings is now the 'person' with SC.
Don't you just love company structure.
Liz Davies did in order to pay Corbyn’s legal fees
Not sure how a crowdfund with trustees is the same to be honest.
Why bring up Corbyn as an example?
Because they can't think of any other way to justify it?
I also simply do not trust Streeting.
Nor do I. Yet. Still very much unproven in my eyes. But I see nothing in his response to the CQC report that’s out of order. He’s getting on with his job, which isn’t to cover up for the management of the trust, but to expect and insist on them doing their job, and being accountable where they fail people. And, of course, to ensure that lessons learnt are applied to other trusts doing similar work if need be.
The excitement of 0.6% growth April to June eh? People now have to grab each morsel of economic data as a celebration of Tory economic success. (Down from Jan -Mar btw)
Reeves' doing nothing of merit at all - more sexy PFI for the 'clearly' under invested City of London in the shape of the Thames Crossing.
I guess she's desperate to show the success of a big project. Super efficient way of pretending to do it.
And she's looking at more sneaky red tape snipping in the City.
Labour really firing on a disasterous set of cylinders. Is this what a boring safe government does - Tory tinkering?
Don't worry Ms Reeves' the rest of the country is not as needy as London. We don't need the big projects.
Reeves is totally out of her depth with the magnitude of the UK's problems.
Is this what a boring safe government does – Tory tinkering?
Yes, and we knew that was exactly what we would be getting. While it is nice not to have to endure Tory MPs in power and spouting shit that is not really going to make much difference to those who were not privileged enough to have that as something on their radar.
Await the excuses of it only being n weeks since they have been in power but as n gets bigger those excuses are going to get very weak.