Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
who’s going to take the blame for UC failures?
from the guardian this week -
‘There’s high anxiety in the civil service with another high-flyer reportedly facing the chop. The Times reports that having displeased the work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith, and ahead of a report from the public accounts committee about the universal credit debacle, the permanent secretary Robert Devereux is reported to be in trouble. Difficult days indeed for the mandarins, assailed by Michael Gove’s much-loved, departing special adviser Dominic Cummings, who has listed the many deficiencies of politicians, officials and advisers. And who is there to defend them? Not the bigwigs for they too are watching their backs. Sir Bob Kerslake, head of the civil service, is as much under fire as anyone else. He is derided by the Tories – via Matthew d’Ancona’s new book – as a mere sidekick to Downing Street permanent secretary Jeremy Heywood, and attacked in the book by an unnamed cabinet minister, who questions his personal hygiene. Little hope, say beleaguered troops, of any rearguard action led by him.’
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/14/hugh-muir-diary-border-agency-may
‘More on the unpleasant campaign, referenced here earlier this week, to get rid of Department for Work and Pensions permanent secretary Robert Devereux. Shadowy forces have been busy outlining the mandarin’s alleged failings. Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister – who, for all his faults, is generally an unconniving sort – has been urged to insulate his ill-starred colleague Iain Duncan Smith from blame for the catastrophe that is universal credit, and to perhaps transfer responsibility to the mandarin. Universal credit was insisted on by Duncan Smith, and with hindsight, cabinet colleagues deeply regret accepting his bland assurances that it was doable. The parallel is Voldemort Lansley’s health reforms. Both were left to their own devices. The result: fiasco. Coalition Groundhog Day.’
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/17/hugh-muir-diary-socialist-workers-party
Tut tut tut! There are NO UC failings, and you are a very bad person for raising this subject. I have been to a DWP stakeholder meeting and I have seen the light. Bad person! Bad! See below:
WELCOME TO HAPPY-LAND
Welcome to the Claimant-Journey - destination Happy-Land, where welfare reform is needed, sensible, and above all – popular!
It is all good, there is no alternative and it is all going to work! We are all going to be SO HAPPY!
We concentrate on what people CAN do and not what they CAN’T! We’re so POSITIVE!!!! And if you’re found fit for work, well, you’re fit for work aren’t you poppet? Now run along and get a job from the Job Tree over there!
EVERYONE is online! EVERYONE can claim online! It’s so SUPER!!!!!!!
Now some of you are bad, bad puppies, and you don’t manage your pennies very well do you? But never mind, we will make sure you take proper responsibility – by smacking you with a rolled-up newspaper – so by and by you can be all grown-up, just like us!!! Isn’t that FABULOUS???
Now that silly, silly old DLA has got to be replaced with PIP, and we are sending nicens rose-scented letters to everyone to ask them nicely-nicely to change benefits!
And if they don’t we’ll stop their DLA! There now, that will encourage the bad puppies to get in touch with us now won’t it!!!
People who don’t do what their Claimant Commitment says will be sanctioned – it’s for their own good, it’s a way of supporting them, they’ll go to bed with no supper and the next morning the sun will shine and they’ll do as they’re told and all will be well again!
With Universal Credit everyone will be better off in work! Everyone, mind! EVERYONE!!!! And also, death shall have no dominion!
Night-night children. Everywhere.
Nurse! Nurse! He’s out of bed again.
[In the style of the well known Private Eye photo comparison]
Ian Duncan-Smith : Andrew Dutton
but which one is wearing the straight jacket?
Who put the UC in sUCcess?
The same person who put IDS in:
HaemorrhoIDS
HumanoIDS
FungoIDS
MucoIDS
and
TabloIDS support raIDS on your quIDS
(would you rather have egos or IDS)
It may be Friday afternoon and all your brains are addled but the answer is clear and simple.
It will be claimants’ fault.
dear IDS, my consultancy fee for this sound bite is ........
more on this from the telegraph -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10390434/Welfare-fiasco-chief-to-resign.html
And the Bad, Bad Man was made to go away from Happy-Land, and then everything was as Happy as could be once more…..
It may be Friday afternoon and all your brains are addled but the answer is clear and simple.
It will be claimants’ fault.
dear IDS, my consultancy fee for this sound bite is ........
If they can blame ‘the badgers for moving the goalposts’ for the failure of the Somerset badger cull then it will be the work of moments to blame the claimants for any failures of UC
I thought MR was all the fault of Welfs, for willfully withholding all that fantastic and utterly compelling evidence until the tribunal.
Who should take the blame?
The fact is we need some realism from the top, this whole UC project is not close to being realisable.
It is based on a number of assumptions.
That the IT will work. (AGILE is not a magic solution)
That claimants can be changed into the people we want them to be. Not the people they are.
We can make this work in a historically high period of unemployemnt.
We can make this work in a period of net inward migration, in a Europe where welfare systems differ vastly.
There is no or little meaningful sign up/enthusiam from claimants, employers, councils, advice agencies, landlords, housing associations or the so called big society. If contractors are enthusiastic, this only extends into doing…. what they are contractually bound.
We can make this work during a period of reduced state spending.
We can make this work in a period of zero hours contracts.
Who is to blame? Or is this a deeper problem?
We had a benefit system that for all its faults still functioned, reasonably well.
We opted for a new system, based on hopelessly optimistic assumptions.
Maybe I am just resistant to change.
Really not sure about this term “Welf”. These things have connotations.
The term “Welfs”? Hmm.
Welf: What a Cockney accumulates :-)
Seriously, it’s a shortcut used on these boards to describe us. Admittedly I’m not usually a fan of using single words to describe certain groups since that can lead to sterotyping. But I’m not seeing that with this. It doesn’t ‘sound’ nice but I don’t see anything negative in it.What connotations are you seeing Mike? Should we stop using it and stick to the various acronyms beginning WR or WB?
I’ve always thought it sounded like something from Tolkein, along with Orcs and other imaginary creatures. I wonder what IDS calls us?
I could have a fair guess but not printable on here
Welf: What a Cockney accumulates :-)
Seriously, it’s a shortcut used on these boards to describe us. Admittedly I’m not usually a fan of using single words to describe certain groups since that can lead to sterotyping. But I’m not seeing that with this. It doesn’t ‘sound’ nice but I don’t see anything negative in it.What connotations are you seeing Mike? Should we stop using it and stick to the various acronyms beginning WR or WB?
I’ve always thought it sounded like something from Tolkein, along with Orcs and other imaginary creatures. I wonder what IDS calls us?
Just to say that this posting was not made by my esteemed colleague Sue but by me, pete c. For some reason the site seemes to have logged me in as her.
Is there something your’e not telling us? Have you confused your weekend proclivities with your day job?
hi pete - not sure how it happened that you posted as sue and then yourself again - did you log on again after first post?
cheers ros
Yes I did, for some reason the system logged me out of the subscription service and the forum overnight, when I logged back into the subscription service it seems to have automatically logged me into the forum as Sue. I then had to log in as me!
Its never done this before but I have just started to disconnect my lap top each night, could this be causing the log-out
that is most strange - i really can’t see why that’s happened so apologies - if it happens again please email us at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
cheers ros
that is most strange - i really can’t see why that’s happened so apologies - if it happens again please email us at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
cheers ros
Thanks Ros, i will . I don’t want nevip to ‘out’ me again!
oh well, thank for the feedback - we’ll look into it.
cheers ros
I’m also having random logging on problems. Sometimes Rightsnet remembers me, other times not and I have to log on again even though I have checked the “remember me” box
I sent Shawn an email pointing out that my iPad doesn’t let me remember login any more. On the other hand I have upgraded to IOS 7 but, on the other other hand, other sites still remember.
hi all - apparently deleting cookies is the first thing to do to stop the random re logging in.
maybe give that a go and let us know if still having the problem.
thanks very much ros
and it certainly looks like a faliure…
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/31/universal
“The documents include a risk assessment of each option, which criticises both plans and warns that a maximum of 25,000 people – just 0.2% of all benefit recipients – will be transferred on to the programme by the next general election, whichever route is taken.”
and it certainly looks like a faliure…
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/31/universal
“The documents include a risk assessment of each option, which criticises both plans and warns that a maximum of 25,000 people – just 0.2% of all benefit recipients – will be transferred on to the programme by the next general election, whichever route is taken.”
This section is even more shocking if you ask me:
The risk assessment, dated 11 October, says the plan for a faster, more web-based system would involve writing off £119m of previous work, and cost the DWP £96m to develop. However, it warns ministers that they will have no idea if the web-based system will work until the summer of 2014 “when it is live for 100 claimants”.
Fixing the existing system would cost £226m, the report says, and the completed design would still be vulnerable to security flaws. While this option offers a chance for reputational recovery, a smaller write-off cost of £21m and less disruption, the report warns it may ultimately not prove value for money.
Lest we forget, the annual budget for legal aid on welfare benefits was about £25m per year, before it was abolished. These clowns have wasted somewhere in the region of 10 times that amount on this crazy project so far, with absolutely no sign that they’re not prepared to continue pouring our money down the drain.
A DWP spokesman said: “Our work on the development of universal credit is ongoing and, as we said back in July, we will be announcing the next stage of rollout later this year. Our plans for delivery, which will ultimately bring a £38bn benefit to society, remain on track.”
- so they’re going to get all that naughty money back when it all goes right, y’see?
OnTime And On Budget
OnTime And On Budget
OnTime And On Budget
OnTime And On Budget
OnTime And On Budget
(etc etc ad nauseam)
It gets worse - http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240208342/DWP-refused-to-release-Universal-Credit-IT-review-to-MPs
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has refused to provide MPs with a copy of a new report into the state of the IT developed for the troubled Universal Credit project.
Universal Credit director general Howard Shiplee was asked by MPs on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) at a hearing last month to report back once he had completed a review to assess whether the IT developed so far for the government’s flagship welfare reform programme had any value.
The National Audit Office (NAO) had previously revealed in a report that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had already written off £34m of IT work that could not be re-used. MPs on the committee subsequently heard that as much as £200m of Universal Credit IT work could yet be scrapped – but that Shiplee’s review would provide the answers.
Computer Weekly has seen a copy of Shiplee’s follow-up letter to PAC chair Margaret Hodge MP, in which he suggested that much of the IT can in fact be re-used, but avoided providing details.
“I explained at the recent hearing that I had brought in independent experts… to review the existing IT build, only part of which has so far been deployed in the Pathfinder… This has led me to conclude that there is substantial real and intellectual value in the work undertaken by the department and its suppliers up to February 2013,” wrote Shiplee.
“My response therefore to the question is that it is clear that there is existing utility not yet deployed that, with some investment, would be scaleable through to 2017. The economic case to support this will be in the refreshed business case for agreement with [HM Treasury].
“In agreement with the Ministerial Oversight Group, who provide a steer on Universal Credit delivery, I am progressing work to review the comparative costs and benefits of the end to end digital solution, as recommended by the MPA (Major Projects Authority) / Cabinet Office, with the option of utilising the existing IT utility in full or in part. I trust this provides the assurance you were seeking.”
Computer Weekly has learned that members of the committee were not satisfied with this response, calling it “clearly inadequate” and asked DWP to provide a copy of Shiplee’s report, but the request was declined.
Among the many criticisms of Universal Credit made by the NAO was the existence of a culture of secrecy around the project, and DWP’s refusal to provide Shiplee’s report will be seen by some as evidence that culture has not been addressed.
DWP said further details on the IT development plans will be outlined later in the year.
“We continue to work closely with the PAC - and writing to the committee as requested in respect of the technology developed so far is clear proof of this,” said a DWP spokesman.
Shiplee was brought in to the troubled programme in May with a brief to get a handle on the problems and put the project back on track. He conducted a 100-day review that concluded in October, but was not complete at the time of the PAC hearing.
Meanwhile, a report in The Guardian suggested that DWP is considering two options to take the Universal Credit IT forward.
Read more on Universal Credit IT
• How much worse will Universal Credit IT problems get?
• £200m of Universal Credit IT could be scrapped, MPs told
• DWP writes off millions of pounds on Universal Credit IT, damning NAO report reveals
• Why agile development failed for Universal Credit
• Universal Credit has the hallmarks of another IT failure
According to leaked documents quoted by The Guardian, one option involves a faster development of a web-based system that would involve writing off £119m of existing work, with an additional cost of £96m for development.
The article said that fixing the current system would cost £226m, and would keep the write-off down to £21m, but warned that this option may not prove to be value for money and could still suffer from security flaws.
DWP has brought in the Government Digital Service to help with work on the web-based front-end for Universal Credit, while key suppliers IBM, Accenture, HP and BT continue to work on back-end systems.
The Universal Credit IT system had long been rumoured to be having serious problems, but until the NAO report was published in September, DWP had continued to state publicly that the project was on track.
“Computer Weekly has learned that members of the committee were not satisfied with this response, calling it “clearly inadequate” and asked DWP to provide a copy of Shiplee’s report, but the request was declined.
Among the many criticisms of Universal Credit made by the NAO was the existence of a culture of secrecy around the project, and DWP’s refusal to provide Shiplee’s report will be seen by some as evidence that culture has not been addressed.”
As Parliamentary Committees have formal powers (albeit rarely used) to insist on the production of written material I’m curious as to what grounds the DWP is relying on in refusing to produce the report. Of course, the request would usually have been an informal one at first instance so it will be interesting to see what the PAC does next