Tories can’t afford Universal Credit!

The Old system costs £124 per claim, UC costs £699!

"Why won’t Amber Rudd the DWP Minister extend Universal Credit to 3 million new claimants? The answer is she can’t afford to do so as it would cost the Government an additional £1.58 billion per year!!

The original Government estimate was it would cost then £173 per year to administer each Universal Credit claim yet the actual cost of administering each UC claim is £699 and £526 per claim MORE than they envisaged. The plan to extend Universal Credit to three million more claimants would cost 3 million times this £526 per year extra cost, which is the £1.58 billion figure."


"The number who will eventually claim UC is 8.5 million and each will cost Government the same £526 more per year in administration costs and which amounts to £4.47 billion more per year and £22.4 billion more over a 5-year parliament. That £22.4 billion over 5 years extra cost of UC is hugely significant as it is AN ADDED COST to Government that needs to find the money from somewhere to pay for their flagship welfare benefit reform and to put this massive added cost into its correct context look at a report in the Guardian a few months back which detailed the £37 billion of cuts between 2010 and 2021:

Some of the most striking cuts are in disability benefits – personal independence payments (PIP) and employment and support allowance (ESA) – which together will have shrunk by nearly £5bn, or by 10%, since the start of the decade."

Read more:

The Tories can’t afford to roll out Universal Credit!

BBC: Universal credit: Vote to extend benefit to three million delayed

Universal Credit was a bad idea and has cost many times more than it should have saved the government. All this rot about ‘helping people back into work’!

Every single time this bloody government (or in fact the Labour Party under Tony Blair) try to ‘simplify’ the benefits system, or ‘modernise’, or ‘save money’, it costs an arm and a leg, is beset by computer problems and costs the least able and most needy money they just can’t afford to lose.

It’s Community Charge / Poll Tax all over again. I was working in local government in 1990 and remember well the utter nightmare that caused. Why do politicians never ever learn from the cock ups of the past?

Let’s just wait until someone eventually recognises that UC does not and will not work and scraps it.

Personally I’m just glad I don’t have to work in any part of today’s ‘welfare’ system. It must be miserable going to work everyday knowing that you are part of the machine that causes so many people hardship, worry and fear. Not everyone who works within the system is a mean-minded, tyrannical, Tory loving, buzzard. And I feel very sorry for the poor souls who have to in order to feed their own children and pay their mortgages.


1 Like

I am optimistic they will scrap it, which ever party takes over. Bring back the Department of Health and Social Security. We need both. Good health and more social security. We have neither at the moment.

Yeah every time this waffle about “helping ppl back to work” comes on the telly, I’m (inwardly) shouting “what about those ppl who CAN’T work!!!??” Morons. how about the 100’s of us acting as unpaid carer’s? There is no one size fits all answer and they are bound to fail. Trouble is, we are the ones who will pay!

1 Like

I have often wondered if universal credit is a con that fiddles people out of four weeks benefits per year. Perhaps somebody could enlighten me.

You see my benefits are paid fort nightly or four weekly. That means it breaks down into weeks.

universal credit is paid monthly.

What I am wondering is, if I am put onto UC will my four weekly DLA suddenly be swallowed into UC and paid monthly meaning I’ll lose four weeks UC per year, saving the government four weeks money.

No. Because UC is only means tested benefits and DLA is not means tested (PIP is the same).


Another establishment figure who thinks Universal Credit should be scrapped.

On Twitter

BBC Newsnight @BBCNewsnight 2 hours ago

“I’d like to see it ditched and rethought from the start, so that we are looking at a system which gives effective assurance to people that they are not going to be abandoned” - Dr Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury, on Universal Credit #newsnight

ESA to UC transfer postponed

Category: Latest news

Created: 07 January 2019

"The government is to postpone the introduction of regulations for the mass transfer of claimants from legacy benefits such as employment and support allowance (ESA) to universal credit (UC) in the face of a threatened backbench revolt, it has been reported. Instead, only a pilot transfer of 10,000 claimants will take place.

In November 2018, the government published a bill setting out the rules that would cover the transfer of claimants from legacy benefits to UC.

The proposal at that time was that a pilot transfer of 10,000 claimants would take place starting in July 2019, followed by the full rollout of the transfer process.

This meant that decision about how the transfer of claimants was to work would have been put into law before the pilot had even taken place.

Now, however, Amber Rudd is said to be ready to abandon the vote on transferring millions of legacy benefit claimants. Instead, she will only go ahead with the element of the bill that allows for the pilot to take place.

The result should be that any regulations about transferring claimants will only be voted on once the pilot has been evaluated and the results published.

An announcement is expected from Rudd later this week.

Sadly, there is still no indication that the government would consider scrapping the transfer of claimants from ESA to UC altogether. Instead, the process has simply been delayed even further."

Read more:

Benefits and Work website

In all honesty i would expect the majority of em are at least slightly left leaning? Certainly any we met face to face when my wife was forced to sign on were very decent people who showed humility and empathy and treated with her respect and dignity. They seemed embarrassed by what was happening and i got the distinct impression they were all completely demoralised by it all.

Exactly my point Ollie, they end up doing a job, because people need to work. It’s not necessarily well paid, and a lot of people just generally hate everyone who works in that department for no good reason.

It’s a job. And some of them do it well, with empathy and kindness. Others do it with a mean spirit, because they have to work in a poisonous bureaucracy. With horrible targets and penalties for screwing up.

I wouldn’t do it.



UPDATE: DWP’s interpretation of Universal Credit regulations ‘unlawful’, court rules.

The High Court today has ruled that the way the Department for Work and Pensions interprets Universal Credit regulations is ‘unlawful’. Under the current system, the DWP treats UC claimants as having earned twice as much as they do if they receive two pay cheques in one monthly assessment period. It also assumes they have no earnings in the next assessment period if they receive their monthly pay earlier than the start date of that assessment period.

This interpretation of the UC regulations impacts on the amount claimants are awarded. Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Lewis, in a case brought by Child Poverty Action Group and solicitors Leigh Day on behalf of four lone mothers, ruled that this was wrong.

The four mothers lost several hundreds of pounds each year and were subject to large variations in their Universal Credit awards because their monthly paydays clashed with the dates of their UC assessment periods Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Lewis characterised the DWP’s interpretation of UC regulations as ‘odd in the extreme’. They added that the DWP’s interpretation of the regulations had caused ‘severe cash flow problems for the claimants living as they do on low incomes with little or no savings’.

The court found that correctly interpreted, the regulations mean the DWP should adjust its calculation of UC awards when ‘it is clear that the actual amounts received in an assessment period do not, in fact, reflect the earned income payable in respect of that period’. The DWP argued that adjusting the assessment system would be costly.

In response, the court said: ‘If the regulations, properly interpreted, mean that the calculation must be done in a particular way, that is what the law requires. ‘We do not belittle the administrative inconvenience or the cost involved but the language of the regulations cannot be distorted to give effect to a design which may have proceeded on a basis which is wrong in law.’

Commenting on the judgment, Child Poverty Action Group solicitor Carla Clarke said: ‘This is a very welcome and common-sense judgment which clearly establishes that the DWP has been applying its Universal Credit regulations incorrectly. ‘Working parents on low incomes should not lose out on the support that Parliament intended them to receive because the DWP has designed a rigid process that is out of step with both actual reality and the law.’

Tessa Gregory, solicitor from Leigh Day who represented the first claimant, Ms Danielle Johnson, stated: ‘My client is a hard working single mum doing her very best to support her family. She is precisely the kind of person Universal Credit was supposed to help, yet the DWP designed a rigid income assessment system which left her £500 out of pocket over the year and spiralling into debt due to a fluctuating income.

‘Quite rightly the court has found that the secretary of state has been acting unlawfully and ruled that a correct interpretation of the regulations would not lead to such absurd results.’ ‘It is extraordinary that when this issue was first raised, the secretary of state did not act quickly to remedy the problem, instead choosing to fight these four women in court arguing that the system was fit for purpose despite the hardship being caused to working families,’ she continued. ‘This is yet another demonstration of how broken Universal Credit is and why its roll out must be stopped.’

Ms Gregory called on Amber Rudd to take ‘immediate steps’ to ensure that no other claimants lose out and to compensate all those who have been adversely affected by the DWP’s ‘unlawful conduct’.

A DWP spokesperson said: ‘We are carefully considering the court’s judgment.’

Read more: - Your authority on UK local government - DWP’s interpretation of Universal Credit regulations ‘unlawful’, court rules