Bolitics The New Condem Government

[mockingbird_franklin]

A little quiz to kill a few minutes

 

http://tompride.polldaddy.com/s/tory-or-victorian-villain?pop=10

[Jon]

New poll on attitudes to nationalisation etc:

 

Public Far to the Left of Labour Party Finds Poll   

By Nick Assinder Political Editor : Subscribe to Nick's RSS feed | November 05, 2013 11:01 AM GMT

        

If David Cameron genuinely believes "Red" Ed Miliband is a socialist then a new poll suggesting the public are far to the left of Labour and want state control of key sectors of the economy, will be enough to provoke nightmares of a Marxist revolution in Downing Street.

 

According to the poll, voters support state-imposed price controls on the utilities, re-nationalisation of the railways and Royal Mail, an end to private cash in the public sector and even state power to regulate rents.

But perhaps more worrying for the Tories is that, when asked, voters said they didn't believe either party was on the side of working people, suggesting they want to see even more radical policies.

And that could lead to pressure on Miliband to come up with even more populist policies such as his energy price freeze which has struck such a chord with the public - the poll showing 74% back such controls.

And it gets worse for Cameron. Even Tories support some of the more radical proposals such as state control of transport and utilities and almost 80% of voters feel they are not personally benefitting from the economic recovery, with even 70% of Tory voters feeling the same way.

 

The YouGov survey for the Centre for Labour and Social Studies (Class) think tank was carried out at the end of last month as the full impact of the political party conferences and subsequent debate over energy prices hit home.

 

It found huge opposition to private sector involvement in the public services, with an overwhelming 12 to 1 against the NHS being run by the private sector; 67% in favour of Royal Mail being run in the public sector; 66% backing nationalisation of railway companies; and 68% in favour of nationalising the energy companies.

The poll will be a boost for the Labour Party, showing twice as many people see Ed Miliband (32%) as more on the side of working people than David Cameron (16%). However the survey also found that a greater number of people (38%) don't see either leader as being on the side of working people.

The poll suggested big support for Labour's policy to freeze energy bills for 20 months, with 74% of people in favour of governments having the power to control energy prices. But the poll also suggested the public would like Labour to go further - nearly three quarters of people think the government should also control transport costs.

The poll also found 45% of the public believe that the state should have the power to control private rents, against 43% which opposed to the idea.

The findings will come as a genuine shock to politicians on all sides as they suggest the public is demanding far more radical, left-wing action to control the economy and utilities than any of the big parties are currently offering.

It will encourage some to press Labour, in particular, to go even further with its plans to control key sections of the economy, way beyond what Ed Miliband or Ed Balls are contemplating.

And it is likely to dismay the Tories whose claims that such policies would take Britain back to the bad old days of nationalised industries and state control, seem to be falling on deaf ears.

But, if the findings continue to be borne out as the general election campaign moves into top gear, and if Labour takes them to heart, it could spark the sort of ideological debate which Britain has not seen since the late 1970s and 1980s - for good or ill.

[mockingbird_franklin]

No doubt the fault of those damn civil servants will be the (usual) IDS excuse, god forbid he'll ever be man enough to own up to his failings, but then delusional incompetents rarely do

 

7 November 2013 Last updated at 09:00

Universal Credit welfare overhaul lambasted by MPs

Robert Devereux recently defended the handling of the project but admitted some shortcomings

Benefits changes

The implementation of the government's flagship welfare reform has been "extraordinarily poor", with much of the £425m expenditure to date likely to be written off, MPs have said.

The Commons Public Accounts Committee said oversight of the Universal Credit scheme had been "alarmingly weak".

Warning signs were missed and there was a "fortress culture" among officials, it claimed.

Ministers said there was new leadership and controls had been strengthened.

The criticisms by the cross-party committee echo those by the National Audit Office - which said in September that management of the £2.3bn project had been weak and financial controls had been inefficient.

Ministers have insisted the plan to consolidate six separate means-tested working age benefits into a single payment - designed to increase incentives for work - is back on track following a "reset" of the programme at the start of the year.

But the committee said the project had been beset by a string of problems and still faced considerable challenges if it was to achieve its long-term objectives.

It suggested much of the £425m spent up to April, about a third of which has been on computer software and other IT systems, was unlikely to have any worth in future and its value would have to be written off.

“Start Quote
Margaret Hodge

The failure to develop a comprehensive plan has led to extensive delay and the waste of a yet to be determined amount of public money”

Labour chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee

'Ad hoc reviews'

Controls over suppliers, it added, had been largely absent with, in some cases, multi-million pound orders being signed off by secretarial staff.

From the outset of the project in 2011, it said, senior civil servants had "failed to grasp the enormity" of the task they had been set by ministers, did not monitor progress adequately and had not intervened when issues arose.

A lack of day-to-day control meant that top officials only became aware of difficulties through "ad hoc reviews" and as problems mounted, those in charge of the scheme had become "isolated and defensive".

"Universal Credit is the Department for Work and Pensions' single biggest programme and enjoys cross-party support yet its implementation has been extraordinarily poor," Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP who chairs the body, said.

"The failure to develop a comprehensive plan has led to extensive delay and the waste of a yet to be determined amount of public money.

"Pressure to deliver a programme of this magnitude within such an ambitious timescale created a fortress culture where only good news was reported and problems were denied."

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has insisted that Universal Credit can still be rolled out to all existing and new claimants as planned by 2017 - a view endorsed by officials from the Major Projects Authority who were drafted in earlier this year to run the rule over the scheme.

ORIGINAL TIMETABLE

• From October 2013 to April 2014 about half a million new claimants were due to receive universal credit instead of jobseeker's allowance, employment support allowance, income support, housing benefit, working tax credit and child tax credit.
• At the same time, another half a million existing claimants and their families were due to be transferred to the new credit when their family circumstances changed significantly - for instance if they got a job or had another child.
• From April 2014 a further 3.5 million claimants and their families were due to move to universal credit.
• And from the end of 2015 to the end of 2017 a further three million people are due to be moved over, focusing on housing benefit claimants

2017 deadline

But the committee said the pilots conducted to date had been unsatisfactory and a target to enrol 184,000 new claimants on to the single benefit by next April would be missed.

"The department will have to speed up the later stages of the programme if it is to meet the 2017 completion date but that will pose new risks," Mrs Hodge added, urging the government not to throw "good money after bad".

"We believe strongly that meeting any specific timetable from now on is less important than delivering the programme successfully."

Appearing before the committee in September, the top civil servant at the Department for Work and Pensions rejected suggestions the Universal Credit was launched "without a plan".

Robert Devereux said the strategy behind the policy was "very clear" and the "best available" people were running it.

But he accepted there had been a "let's punch through" mentality among the original management team and its leadership was changed once it became clear that a different, more reflective approach was needed.

'Comprehensive action'

 “Start QuoteDepartment for Work and Pensions

We have already taken comprehensive action including strengthening governance, supplier management and financial controls”

Howard Shiplee, who took over the running of the project in May, has admitted mistakes were made but said real progress was now happening and much of the existing IT systems could be used.

Responding to the committee's report, the Department for Work and Pensions said Universal Credit was a "vital" reform which would ultimately bring £38bn in benefits to society by helping people into work and reducing fraud.

"This report doesn't take into account our new leadership team, or our progress on delivery," it said. "We have already taken comprehensive action including strengthening governance, supplier management and financial controls."

It said it did not accept "the write-off figure quoted by the committee" and expected it to be substantially less.

A spokesman for Mr Duncan Smith said he had "every confidence" in the team now running the programme, including Mr Devereux - whose position some newspapers have suggested is under threat.

"Both the National Audit Office and the public accounts committee acknowledged a fortress mentality within the Universal Credit programme," he said.

"Iain was clear back in the summer about how he and the permanent secretary took action to fix those problems."

For Labour, shadow work and pensions secretary Rachel Reeves said the report was "another nail in the coffin of the government's promise to deliver Universal Credit on time and on budget", adding that "families facing a cost of living crisis need welfare reform they can trust".

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24839358

Edited November 7, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[mockingbird_franklin]

Oh and here are some of the lies IDS told the Commons

 

in march 2013 when question on delays and the deliver-ability of the IT

 

“What we are talking about will have no practical effect on the implementation of universal credit, which, by the way, is proceeding exactly in accordance with plans.”

 

in may 2013 when challenged that there were major problems with the IT for universal credit

 

“This system is a success. We have four years to roll it out, we are rolling it out now, we will continue the roll-out nationwide and we will have a system that works—and one that works because we have tested it properly.”

and

“The hon. Gentleman is fundamentally wrong. All the pathfinders are going ahead. The IT system is but a part of that, and goes ahead in one of the pathfinders …All that nonsense the hon. Gentleman has just said is completely untrue.”

 

And again in july 2012 when questioned about the roll out

 

“The pathfinder exercise has shown that the IT system works.”

 

IDS a fine example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. In fact this Government is riddled with fine examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect and not much else

[MakemineVanilla]

 

IDS a fine example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. In fact this Government is riddled with fine examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect and not much else

 

Thanks for that!

 

Looks well worth remembering.

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 

IDS a fine example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. In fact this Government is riddled with fine examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect and not much else

 

Thanks for that!

 

Looks well worth remembering.

 

well IDS brings stupidity and arrogance to the effect which is hard to see as a good combination

Edited November 7, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[coda]

Christ that Tory woman on QT has a big Thatcher vibe.

[markavfc40]

that Tory woman on QT has a big Thatcher vibe.

 

 

Christ when did the evil witch release her own range of sex toys?

Edited November 7, 2013 by markavfc40

[mockingbird_franklin]

The (intellectually) poor Tory party are getting a bit of an undefended (well they are indefensible) kicking lately so it's time to remind ourselves of the fact it's easy to forget, that they are actually part of a coalition government, even if the other party does a mighty fine impression of a nodding dog.

 

http://tompride.wordpress.com/

 

07 Thursday Nov 2013

Posted by Tom Pride in pettiness

Nick Clegg Accuses Nick Clegg of ‘Sneering’ at Politics While Taking The Money

(satire?)

The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has accused the leader of the Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg of “sneering” at politics and politicians while at the same time happily accepting a large pay cheque from the taxpayer.

Speaking during his weekly LBC radio show on Thursday morning, the Deputy Prime Minister also said it was an “abdication of responsibility” for people like the Liberal Democrat leader to make pledges to voters during election campaigns which they have no intention of keeping once they are in power.

However, in an interview on the same LBC radio show, Mr Clegg hit back at Mr Clegg’s accusations:

.

Here’s a guy, me, and what does he get paid? Expenses, a ministerial salary? Paid for by the taxpayer. He lives off politics and he spends all his time sneering at politics. Mr Clegg should be ashamed of himself. And so should I.

Related articles by Tom Pride:

Authorities return Nick Clegg to natural family after DNA tests reveal he’s a Tory

Scientists finally discover function of Nick Clegg

Nick Clegg Sells Principles To Debenhams

Nick Clegg pledges clampdown on harassment of hot Lib Dem peers by women

Nick Clegg to Lib Dems – “Prepare for Oppositionment!”

Lib Dems poll fewer votes than the Pirate Party in by-election (not satire!)

Sheffield man left with nothing after falling victim to Westminster conmen

All Lib Dem MPs in England and Wales to be microchipped by 2015

Coalition split after Tory minister says UK ‘peppered’ with too many wind-powered Lib Dem MPs 

.

 

Edited November 8, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[Awol]

 

 Is it worth it? A new winter coat and shoes for the wife and a bicycle on the boy's birthday...

 

Does anyone believe that the decision to end ship-building in Portsmouth and continue it in Govan, was entirely a commercial decision?

I was up in Glasgow yesterday and the the comments up there were very much that it was a politically motivated thing. Obviously its good for those there keeping their jobs but you cannot help feel that if the referendum thing was not coming up soon then they would have closed that 

 

I appreciate its not the same but on more than one occasion I heard the comment along the lines of the differences in attitudes from this Gvmt towards the finance sector (that contributes so much to the Tory party coffers) and the approach taken towards ship building etc

 

It does seem like a politically motivated sweetener to our northern brethren, or at least trying to remove a potential bullet from Salmond's magazine. If they vote to leave in 2015 then Portsmouth will be ramped up again and the RN contracts will move south.  The RN itself is probably 30-40% smaller than it should be to meet its commitments and that is down the successive governments making poor decisions.

 

In the absence of sufficient RN contracts the UK's shipyards can't compete with the Far East to capture sufficient share of commercial ship building market. Korea and Japan modernised faster and had a greater level of automation, leading to reduced labour and greater cost efficiencies. These working practices were broadly opposed by UK ship builders unions at the time who failed to realise that refusal to adapt to new economic realities would eventually lead to the downfall of the entire industry - a familiar tale in post-war Britain.

 

The only thing the Tories could do to save these jobs now is order more vessels for the RN which they have no intention of doing - although they should. 

[drat01]

:-) I see you could not resist a blame on the Union's there AWOL.

 

When the real cause of the demise has been Gvmt's attitudes to the industry in general and it's view on defence etc, the Unions are not to blame other than wanting, as it turns out rightly, to protect the rights and welfare of the workers

[Awol]

:-) I see you could not resist a blame on the Union's there AWOL.

 

When the real cause of the demise has been Gvmt's attitudes to the industry in general and it's view on defence etc, the Unions are not to blame other than wanting, as it turns out rightly, to protect the rights and welfare of the workers

It would be untrue to suggest that the unions haven't been part of the problem, but they were not the only element getting it wrong. It's one thing to fight for workers rights, but when a refusal to accept changed economic realities in a global marketplace leads to those jobs being lost entirely, I'd suggest the unions aren't doing their members a great service. 

 

Look at the mess Unite made at Grangemouth, the only reason those poor buggers are still working is the intervention of UK Gov with the owner, had Unite been left to their own devices the place would be shut by now - and the also unemployed management would still be having their families harassed at home by vicious thugs, sorry the Unite "intervention squad" or whatever it is those tossers call themselves.

[drat01]

Sorry AWOL you could not be more wrong if you had joined the "I am 100% wrong" club in Wrongville, Wrongland

[Awol]

Sorry AWOL you could not be more wrong if you had joined the "I am 100% wrong" club in Wrongville, Wrongland

Well, that's a convincing rebuttal. 

[Eames]

 the Unions are not to blame other than wanting, as it turns out rightly, to protect the rights and welfare of the workers

 

The evidence from Grangemouth is pretty clear that the opposite of this rather rosy view is true. If Unite feel the best way to protect the rights and welfare of their workers is to create a situation where EVERYONE loses their jobs as opposed to a few I'd hate to see what they'd get up to if they weren't all that fussed. 

[Eames]

 

It seems that it's not just those in parliament from the Tory party that are intent on screwing Joe Public. The Tory councils are equally shafting one and all

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24837087

 

 

Almost a third of all English councils plan to increase council tax next year despite a government cash incentive to freeze it, a survey suggests.

According to the research published by the Local Government Chronicle, Conservative-run county councils are most likely to be considering a rise. ....... more on link

 

I'd like to know what ANY  Council regardless of political affiliation are supposed to do instead. 

 

My lot have frozen Council Tax for 3 years despite the need to make saving of over £500m during the same period with a further £270m saving needed over the next few years. 

 

The cash insentive not to increase is the equivilent of pissing in the wind

[drat01]

the Unions are not to blame other than wanting, as it turns out rightly, to protect the rights and welfare of the workers

The evidence from Grangemouth is pretty clear that the opposite of this rather rosy view is true. If Unite feel the best way to protect the rights and welfare of their workers is to create a situation where EVERYONE loses their jobs as opposed to a few I'd hate to see what they'd get up to if they weren't all that fussed.

except you are wrong (and very interesting to see a tory councillor agree with your view) . As has been proven the company were the ones that wanted and threatened to pull the plug. At no point did unions refuse to negotiate despite what tory hq would have you gelieve. Shame you brought into what was another set of lies that tory hq and their supporters put out

[drat01]

It seems that it's not just those in parliament from the Tory party that are intent on screwing Joe Public. The Tory councils are equally shafting one and all

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24837087

Almost a third of all English councils plan to increase council tax next year despite a government cash incentive to freeze it, a survey suggests.

According to the research published by the Local Government Chronicle, Conservative-run county councils are most likely to be considering a rise. ....... more on link

I'd like to know what ANY Council regardless of political affiliation are supposed to do instead.

My lot have frozen Council Tax for 3 years despite the need to make saving of over £500m during the same period with a further £270m saving needed over the next few years.

The cash insentive not to increase is the equivilent of pissing in the wind

and you miss the point of the post. Despite the BS spouted by pickles cameron and tory council leaders it certainly seems that tory led councils are more likely to hit joe public with rises

[mockingbird_franklin]

Hmmm, ever since I discovered we have a discredited IP selling firm in UMUN insurance advising the DWP on benefit reform, I wondered when stuff like this was going to start appearing. TBF though it's been rumbling away from day one of UMUM involvement with the DWP

 

Legal & General pushes Govt to introduce IP auto-enrolment

25 October 2013 | By Samuel Dale

 

Legal & General group chief executive Nigel Wilson is calling on the Government to expand auto-enrolment to include other products such as income protection.

Speaking at an Association of British Insurers conference on competition yesterday, Wilson said the FCA has to help insurers sell more products through the workplace.

Related articles

 

Last month, a senior DWP source told Money Marketing the Government is open to a debate on income protection auto-enrolment but needs more evidence.

Wilson said pensions auto-enrolment has been a huge success and the Government needs to consider add-ons.

He said: “We should now be thinking about what add-on products we have that are in the customers’ interests and doing it in a large scale, low cost way to deliver huge benefits.

“One of the products we would like to see is that when people have issues at work they can be comforted by having funds available.

“The direct to employer space is going to see huge growth in the coming years as Government shrinks the welfare state.

“We would like to play an active role in it and we welcome further FCA discussions about what add-ons we can introduce to add to the success of auto-enrolment.”

Speaking alongside Wilson, FCA director of policy, risk and research Chris Woolard said the workplace is a good place to enact big social changes.

He said: “The closer we get to very strong nudges or compulsion then the regulatory stakes are raised quite a lot. There are a number of areas where we have to be really clear about what we want from a market.

“We need to be really clear what consumer protection is in place and Government is thinking about it quite carefully.”

 

I'd love an explanation as to why the FCA, a regulatory body who's mandate is

"The FCA regulates financial firms providing services to consumers and maintains the integrity of the UK’s financial markets.^[2] It focuses on the regulation of conduct by both retail and wholesale financial services firms"

 

should "Help Insurers sell more products through the workplace" in other words help lobby for compulsory Income protection Insurance.

 

Actually I agree it may be suitable to make it compulsory for IP to be taken out, but if it is it should be by Employers and it should be in addition to a social security benefit net. No doubt the CBI and government would scream it's unaffordable for business, yet I'm sure they will tell us how affordable for employees it will be despite being in one of the biggest squeezes on wages and disposable Income in modern history,

It's not unaffordable for companies, The company I work for switched just over a year ago paying wages during sickness themselves to using an insurance policy to cover 75% of wages (they cover the other 25% for up to six months) and the indications in the year it's been in force it's not cost a penny in real terms and we now enjoy and extra 2,5 years of 75% pay, Of course individuals often have a very different experience with insurers than other large companies do.

But back to the article, What is happening is what you get when you let private companies "advise on policy" that they may profit from in the similar way you won't clamp down on tax avoidance when you get Tax Avoidance firms to write the tax laws. "Corruption and Collusion in pursuit of unjust profits for the few at the expense of the many" should really be the new motto of UK Government

Edited November 9, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[mockingbird_franklin]

And here's another article

 

MM leader: Getting income protection higher up the agenda

7 November 2013

 

Despite plenty of good intentions and the strong likelihood that whatever is left of the welfare state will provide even less of a safety net in future, income protection sales continue to disappoint.

As Income Protection Task Force chairman Peter le Beau highlights in this week’s issue, the 120,000 IP policies sold each year are a tiny speck on a 20 million potential market highlighted in a recent Government-backed review.

 

 

The workplace will play a big role in any significant IP increase and there is plenty of lobbying about using auto-enrolment or tax incentives to encourage greater take-up.

Unum research suggests long-term illness costs businesses £3.1bn each year or £620,000 per annum for firms with over 500 employees. IP also offers the Government a chance to cut its welfare bill.

But while industry lobbyists are busy highlighting the fiscal and business benefits of IP, more needs to be done to convince the general public about the dangers of being uninsured and tackle confusion over its interaction with state benefits.

Step forward the IP Taskforce. Next year it will embark on a campaign to highlight the impact serious illness and disability can have on families, alongside working closely with the Money Advice Service to promote IP. It is also helping to create a simple questionnaire on whether IP is likely to affect an individual’s benefits.

It is obviously very difficult to engage people on matters they’d rather not think about.

Working with a range of charities, the IPTF will identify up to 10 families where the main breadwinner has suffered a serious illness or accident. It will then look to support the family for a year through a charitable donation from a trust funded by insurers and reinsurers.

TV production companies have shown an interest in making a series to highlight the impact of such payments. Getting this message out to a large TV audience would have a huge impact on the public’s awareness of the need to protect their incomes and the depressing outlook for those who don’t in the event that disaster strikes.

The IPTF speaks of breaking the “depressing link” between disability and poverty. Tax incentives or auto-enrolment could have a major role to play but such policies will only succeed if there is buy in and understanding from the public. The IPTF’s Family Support Initiative could be a big step in the right direction.

 

And another

 

Peter Le Beau: How we are looking to shake-up income protection

7 November 2013

 

There is a massive conundrum that sits defiantly as a challenge to the protection industry in the UK.

Why do we only sell about 120,000 individual income protection policies a year when the recent consultation paper on a simple income replacement product suggested that the market for such a product amounted to well over 20 million people? 

 

 

However you look at, it this is a mismatch that we have to do something about.

Next year the Income Protection Task Force hopes to change the perception of income protection in the UK forever. Our plan is ambitious, high-profile and designed to make everyone in employment aware of the likely consequences of becoming too ill to work.

We are launching the Familiy Support Initiative. Combining with a series of leading charities, we will identify a number of families where the breadwinner has suffered a serious illness or  accident. We will support them with a charitable donation, equivalent to a year’s salary for someone earning close to the national average, from a trust created by donations from leading providers and reinsurers.  

We want to look at the financial effects of that illness on the family, how they cope with the problems that beset them and to try to bring to a nationwide audience the awareness that major health problems can arise unexpectedly but that it is possible to break the depressing link between disability and poverty.

It is an attempt to help families in distress, to educate the British public about their financial  vulnerability in the event of the unthinkable happening and also to look at the way insurers and associated agencies can help people back to work after the trauma of a serious accident or health event.

The sort of medical problems we highlight will cover a wide range of illnesses from severe depression to cancer, heart problems, stroke and neurological diseases. We hope with sensitivity and compassion to underline how we can help – both initially and while disability continues – and to outline the key issue that the state cannot provide an adequate level of support .

TV production companies are showing an interest in making a series to highlight the impact of people struggling to make ends meet and the ways in which serious illness changes the lives not just of the sufferers but also of those around them. We will make extensive use of social media, blogs and regular reports to enable people to follow the families’ stories and express their concern.

The key focus of this campaign will be to underline the fact that disability can happen to anyone. This is the mantra of the American Council of Disability Awareness, a body funded by the US insurance industry that aims to educate the American public about disability risks.

The key focus of our campaign is similar but even bolder and we believe that it will dramatically increase people’s awareness of the need to think about the impact of serious health problems. 

When we first started speaking to chief executive officers in the protection industry they responded in two different ways.

Some were wildly enthusiastic, believing that this could be a unique way to get a key message across to employees. Others were a little taken aback but curious to see how such an approach might play out because it is a more overt approach than we have previously adopted in the industry. And therein lies the reason we want to do it.

For years income protection sales have been profoundly disappointing despite there being some very attractive group and individual products available. Only just over three million people in the UK have any sort of disability cover. And while this problem rumbles on, our charities are amazed that the industry does not seem to make greater efforts to sell cover that people so desperately need.

This year, Macmillan Cancer Care, a highly respected charity, will pay financial grants to well over 30,000 families – possibly more people than will receive individual disability claim payments this year.

There has been a dip in energy in many parts of the income protection market. The level of adviser knowledge of the product could be substantially higher in many places. The IP Task Force is looking at a three-pronged plan to tackle this.

We are producing an interactive publication, Signposts for Income Protection, in January to point out the strategic challenges the industry faces. One of these is the commonly held belief that buying income protection affects eligibility for means-tested benefits. This will be the subject of a detailed analysis, which we believe will lead to an easy-to-follow questionnaire that will make it clear to potential buyers whether IP is a suitable solution for them.

We have shared our thinking with the Money Advice Service and will work with them to increase public awareness of this product. And we will, of course, mount the Family Support Initiative – the campaign that I have already described.

In research that we are undertaking for the Syndicate, and in the recent Swiss Re Insurance Report, we are seeing a worrying low water mark in the level of trust that the public has in insurers. 

We can react to this in two ways. We can wring our hands and complain about the injustice of it all. Or we can attempt to interact with real people in an exercise that we believe will increase awareness, education and trust. 

The Family Support Initiative is a bold step but we contend it is the only way to persuade people that disability can happen to them but that the insurance industry can be a marvellous source of support if it does.

 

And Another

 

Insurers lobby Government on IP auto-enrolment

8 November 2013 | By Tessa Norman

 

Three major insurers are lobbying the Government on the financial benefits of introducing auto-enrolment for income protection.

Unum, Legal & General and Zurich are separately carrying out research to identify the cost implications of such a proposal and the most appropriate group of consumers to auto-enrol....

.

 

I'll spare you further details but how much of a coincidence is it UNUM that advise the Government on the cutting back of the social security net of the welfare state whilst lobbying to make it's insurance products compulsory, UNUM have an awful record for avaioding paying out on policies is the USA through dubious means, they same dubious means that are being employed by the DWP to cut back on sickness and disabled benefit payouts.

Edited November 9, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin