Talk:Employment and Support Allowance

Employment and Support Allowance is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I've amended this to update the existing text in the light of changes introduced in the 2008 budget (existing IB claiants will have to satisfy the WCA) unfortunately i forgot to log in first! I'll return to the article and add more info in due course.Also removed comments about claimants getting the Disablity Alliance guide, which, whilst I agree with them are decidedly POV! 21:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"The allowances" just gives figures in pounds. No indication of them being weekly rates or monthly rates or anything like that. So all you get is a one-off payment? -- Smjg (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the link to the personal experience website be on this page? Having read some of this site, whilst there are a few fair points a lot of it is irrational ranting (such as moaning on and on about how evil it is to be called a 'customer'. I'm sure there are better pages to link to, eg citizens advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.102.83 (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Para 2 "... or indefinitely (if they get the support component)" - I am in receipt of ESA and in the support group, there is no "indefinite" award period. Claimants will be re-assessed at various periods, max 3 years from what I understand ? TrustAM (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase means that claimants in the work-related group who are receiving contribution-based ESA have it stopped automatically after 12 months. This does not apply for those in the support group.--Phil Holmes (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article, especially re the WCA. I think it's a C now. Regards, Dr Greg Wood (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with one of the comments above about the personal experience link. It's interesting, but probably not right for an encyclopaedia. Dr Greg Wood (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Controversy section. It's well put, but is covered in the WCA article on Wikipedia. Hope no one is offended! Dr Greg Wood (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A minor way to improve the article would be to do all of the references properly. A pain, but probably necessary if you want to start moving up the quality scale. Have fun reading WP:CITE, and let me know if there are any better pages on the issue. Kookiethebird (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement for the WCA

There's an interesting piece in the Mail^[1] suggesting a possible replacement for the WCA. It seems to imply that all existing ESA claimants (particularly those with mental health problems) will be tested again, this time to determine "what they are able to do – not what they cannot" do, and then given around ten hours of compulsory work per week. There's a strange reference to the WCA being too binary ("you are either capable of work or you are not") in contrast to the new test which distinguishes between "those deemed capable of some types of work "and some claimants [who] will still be judged unable to work at all". I wonder if this has any connection to the proposed replacement of the Work Programme with "a new Work and Health Programme" announced in November.^[2] Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ James Slack; Jason Groves (18 January 2016). "Duncan Smith bid to get 2million on sick benefits back to work: Work and Pensions secretary to call for shake-up of 'fundamentally flawed' system". Daily Mail.
^ "Department for Work and Pensions' settlement at the Spending Review" (Press release). Department for Work and Pensions and HM Treasury. 25 November 2015. Retrieved 17 January 2016.

Yes, I saw that too. I added something to the WCA page about that under 'credibility of the test'. I'm sure it ties in with the Reform think-tank work on ESA that's mentioned at the bottom of the ESA Wiki article.

I know what IDS means by "binary" even though it's not really the right word; 'all or nothing' or 'yes/no' might be better as a description - but as you point out, the new system would still seem to have an arbitrary cut-off between the Support Group and the WRAG equivalents. Dr Greg Wood (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Employment and Support Allowance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305114506/http://www2.labour.org.uk/uploads/TheLabourPartyManifesto-2010.pdf to http://www2.labour.org.uk/uploads/TheLabourPartyManifesto-2010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I feel that this article has been written in a way to show the DWP in the most negative light possible. I am aware that ESA is very controversial. But Wikipedia should cover the facts about ESA. I would advise people editing this article who feel strongly about ESA to review WP:SOAPBOX. CircleGirl (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sources Needed and Original Research

In addition to the NPOV tag, I have added the additional sources needed tags and original research tags. Although the article has lots of references, there are sections where there are unsourced statements. There are also sections of what I suspect is original researech. I will look for sources, but I will remove suspected original research next week if no sources are found. CircleGirl (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC) EDIT:Just to add, editors should read WP:Original Research and WP:Cite.CircleGirl (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] James Slack; Jason Groves (18 January 2016). "Duncan Smith bid to get 2million on sick benefits back to work: Work and Pensions secretary to call for shake-up of 'fundamentally flawed' system". Daily Mail.

[2] "Department for Work and Pensions' settlement at the Spending Review" (Press release). Department for Work and Pensions and HM Treasury. 25 November 2015. Retrieved 17 January 2016.

[1]

[2]