Georgia Banjo
@georgiabanjo.bsky.social
Writer at The Economist, mainly covering Britain and health.
Forever working on a memoir about brain injury
Forever working on a memoir about brain injury
Hence why they took so long to ratify the UNESCO convention! That's what the article is about.
May 30, 2025 at 9:04 AM
Hence why they took so long to ratify the UNESCO convention! That's what the article is about.
Haha not enough space sadly! So much to write about it
May 30, 2025 at 9:02 AM
Haha not enough space sadly! So much to write about it
I agree, but for a different reason!
May 30, 2025 at 7:56 AM
I agree, but for a different reason!
Haha I think if a wheel of cheese hit you in the face at 70mph anyone would be intolerant! (It is a risk apparently)
May 29, 2025 at 6:14 PM
Haha I think if a wheel of cheese hit you in the face at 70mph anyone would be intolerant! (It is a risk apparently)
Ah, I’ll have to try to wing a trip to Finland next time! Wife carrying races sound fun
May 29, 2025 at 6:12 PM
Ah, I’ll have to try to wing a trip to Finland next time! Wife carrying races sound fun
Certainly more action than golf!
May 29, 2025 at 1:31 PM
Certainly more action than golf!
I respectfully disagree :)
May 29, 2025 at 1:29 PM
I respectfully disagree :)
Indeed, would ruin the fun!
May 29, 2025 at 1:28 PM
Indeed, would ruin the fun!
I was talking about Access to Work, not the benefits system in general (which I pointed out is stingy). I’m by no means an expert, but I was on disability benefits myself for 7 years as well as doing some reporting on them. So I think I have some idea, but of course you’re entitled to disagree ;)
February 14, 2025 at 12:49 PM
I was talking about Access to Work, not the benefits system in general (which I pointed out is stingy). I’m by no means an expert, but I was on disability benefits myself for 7 years as well as doing some reporting on them. So I think I have some idea, but of course you’re entitled to disagree ;)
I think we mostly agree Chaminda. The problem is thats not at all how the current system is set up! We need a scheme that can be used by all who most need it, but it would not be sustainable for that to be the level of support that is currently for a select few. The question is what to do instead.
February 14, 2025 at 10:47 AM
I think we mostly agree Chaminda. The problem is thats not at all how the current system is set up! We need a scheme that can be used by all who most need it, but it would not be sustainable for that to be the level of support that is currently for a select few. The question is what to do instead.
It was mostly looking at coaching (you’re right that mental-health support is provided separately), which is classified as a form of support work. If you look at the graph that’s what’s skyrocketed in recent years, and is why the DWP has cut hourly rates from £450 to £205 and capped nos of sessions
February 14, 2025 at 10:38 AM
It was mostly looking at coaching (you’re right that mental-health support is provided separately), which is classified as a form of support work. If you look at the graph that’s what’s skyrocketed in recent years, and is why the DWP has cut hourly rates from £450 to £205 and capped nos of sessions
Suggest you read my article. It’s not exaggerated, thats where the biggest increase in spending seems to be coming from. Hence why it’s topical
February 14, 2025 at 10:12 AM
Suggest you read my article. It’s not exaggerated, thats where the biggest increase in spending seems to be coming from. Hence why it’s topical
But where’s the evidence that is does? And surely when it comes to public money, isn’t the question whether this is really the most effective use of it? I get that for some with high needs they will need more support from a scheme like this. But for others it seems unfair to give to a select few
February 14, 2025 at 10:11 AM
But where’s the evidence that is does? And surely when it comes to public money, isn’t the question whether this is really the most effective use of it? I get that for some with high needs they will need more support from a scheme like this. But for others it seems unfair to give to a select few
Do you think we should be spending millions of pounds so a few thousand office workers who know about a scheme can receive unregulated ADHD coaching 1-1, at £200+ per hour? I personally don’t think that’s the best use of taxpayers’ money, even if it helps those individuals.
February 14, 2025 at 10:09 AM
Do you think we should be spending millions of pounds so a few thousand office workers who know about a scheme can receive unregulated ADHD coaching 1-1, at £200+ per hour? I personally don’t think that’s the best use of taxpayers’ money, even if it helps those individuals.
An article I did recently on this unfortunately ended up getting sensationalised in the right-wing press. But clearly there are signs that the incentives have become distorted (e.g. how is it way easier for an influencer to get £70k from AtW than receive PIP?) The whole thing needs reforming
A much-praised British scheme to help disabled workers is failing them
It lavishes spending on some, and unfairly deprives others
www.economist.com
February 14, 2025 at 10:04 AM
An article I did recently on this unfortunately ended up getting sensationalised in the right-wing press. But clearly there are signs that the incentives have become distorted (e.g. how is it way easier for an influencer to get £70k from AtW than receive PIP?) The whole thing needs reforming
Sure, the imperative to cut costs is bad. But looking at the figures, it’s clear that the system was never really designed to support those with greatest need, just those who were best at articulating their needs. It becomes unviable as soon as more people find out about it, as has happened recently
February 14, 2025 at 10:01 AM
Sure, the imperative to cut costs is bad. But looking at the figures, it’s clear that the system was never really designed to support those with greatest need, just those who were best at articulating their needs. It becomes unviable as soon as more people find out about it, as has happened recently
Exactly, there is no sense. It’s a mall fry at the moment because such a tiny proportion off people get it. If even 10% of disabled workers got it you’d be looking at several billions. We don’t even know if it’s that effective: DWP have always said it’s too difficult to evaluate
February 14, 2025 at 8:08 AM
Exactly, there is no sense. It’s a mall fry at the moment because such a tiny proportion off people get it. If even 10% of disabled workers got it you’d be looking at several billions. We don’t even know if it’s that effective: DWP have always said it’s too difficult to evaluate
It’s not bananas. The scheme only ever worked because most people didn’t know about it. Now the number of claimants has doubled in a few years and they’re still only 1% of disabled workers. We need a system that helps more people, and is not just first come, first serve.
February 14, 2025 at 7:58 AM
It’s not bananas. The scheme only ever worked because most people didn’t know about it. Now the number of claimants has doubled in a few years and they’re still only 1% of disabled workers. We need a system that helps more people, and is not just first come, first serve.
Makes sense, the original proposal was unworkable anyway
February 11, 2025 at 9:39 AM
Makes sense, the original proposal was unworkable anyway