Is IDS a compensatory narcissist?

For those who can't view the text in the picture on their phone, it says:

Is the Tory Work & Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith a compensatory narcissist?

Here are some of the common behaviourly traits:

• Strives for recognition and prestige to compensate for the lack of a feeling of self-worth
• May "acquire a deprecatory attitude in which the achievements of others are ridiculed and degraded"
• Has persisten aspirations for glory and status
• Has a tendency to exaggerate and boast
• Entertains fantasies of greatness
• Covers up a sense of inadequacy and deficiency with pseudo-arrogance and pseudo-gradiosity
• Produces work not up to the level of his abilities because of an overwhelmingly strong need for immediate gratification of success
• Is touchy, quick to take ofeence at the slightest provocation, continually anticipating attacks, reacting with anger and fantasies or revenge when he feels himself frustrated in his need for constant admiration

DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS!

MP wants your story!

Michael Meacher MP wants your views and experiences of Atos / DWP. He is building a dossier to present to parliament in order to argue for radical changes to the current incompetent system. I emailed him mine yesterday. Below you will find part of his reply to me, describing exactly what he would like from people. So, please, if you have something you can share with him, do so. It may only be something trivial, but it will all count.

"Can I please ask you to confirm your address and postcode and if possible a short statement about your case which briefly sets out the order of events with ATOS together with the dates?

"If you are not one of my own constituents, I will not be able to take up your individual case with your local agencies I'm afraid, as this must be carried out by your own MP.  But it would be very useful to make use of your experiences when I make representations about the ATOS system as a whole.

"Can you kindly confirm that you would be happy for me to use your details in this way?  Also, would you be willing to be contacted in the event of any interest from the press or broadcast media?"

If you have something to offer, you can email him here: michael.meacher.mp@parliament.uk

Yesterday I told him that my view is that the DWP doesn't know their arse from their elbow, and that a computer systems company should not be performing health assessments that affect peoples lives in a crucial manner, let alone with a system that was thrown out by the country that designed it. Today, following his official request I gave him the following story. I hope it gives you an idea of what to say. I did tell him that he could cut the first paragraph out if it isn't helpful to him.

"I suffer with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, Fibromyalgia, Hypermobility, Hypothyroidism, displaced vertebrae and anxiety (PTSD). Between the conditions they cause debilitating pain in almost every part of my body, extreme unremitting exhaustion, too many difficulties to list briefly. I am unable to work, though I wish more than anything to do so. I am unable to live any sort of normal life; I can't have a social life. My GP is concerned for my mental well being. I have been on suicide watch for the last 8 months. The last thing people in my condition need is added stress. Having no income is extremely stressful.

"I used to work full time, and expected to do so my whole life. When I became ill I was totally unaware of how the benefit system worked. I was misled by Job Centre employees, being told to live on loans and that my house mates had to support me. When someone is extremely ill, they are not up to researching the complications of the benefit system, and assume that what they are told by officials is correct. It should be made clear to ill people that they can get help. In the last two years I have had severe problems with the DWP. I was placed on Income Related ESA when I should have been placed on Contributions Based ESA. Because of that error my claim was closed when I received some money; had I been on Contributions Based ESA, this would not have happened. The claim should not have been closed; the DWP should have continued to pay my National Insurance Contributions. I was not informed that it was closed. As such, now, when I have no money, I am unable to claim Contributions Based ESA because of mistakes the DWP made. I cannot claim Income Related ESA because my boyfriends earnings are over the threshold, despite the fact that his outgoings are nearly more than his incomings. I understand that Income Related ESA should be means tested, but I also believe it should be based on what is left after outgoings, rather than being based on what comes in. I recently applied for DLA, but it has been turned down based upon an ESA medical that was performed two years ago and overturned at the time. My DLA application form was totally ignored; this too should not happen, especially when using out of date evidence."

I am really glad to know that we have MPs on our side. I received an email today from my own MP saying that she is willing to write me a supporting letter for my DLA reconsideration, as she personally knows that what was written in their report is untrue (due to my previous communications with her on another matter). It feels like we're starting to round that corner, make a tiny bit of progress. I can almost see light at the end of the tunnel.

I do hope it doesn't turn out to be a train.

Letter to the potential PM

Sonia's most recent letter to Edward Miliband. It speaks for itself.

Rt. Hon. Ed Miliband MP
September 24, 2012

Dear Ed,

As the Labour Party conference approaches, I ask that you consider the following.

I have now sent to you three letters via e-mail. I have appealed on behalf of thousands of sick and disabled people – and their loved ones – in our country.

You have responded to one letter but not the following two. This is troubling and, not least, because the last e-mail contained information that alarmed me. It was a reader's comment sent care of the Daily Mail website.

To the many who have now seen this comment, there was no doubt that here was a clear intention to commit suicide. And for the author, a mother, to kill her autistic child at the same time. Her desperation shrieked from the page. Many were left devastated by reading it - and, primarily, because we know this is far from an isolated case.

I understand that you are extremely busy, as indeed am I, but how does that not warrant a response from a future potential PM? I can't fathom that, I'm sorry.

I would more likely understand you not responding if I contacted you purely in my role as a journalist. But I am not. I am also appealing to you on behalf of over 6,000 people who counter-signed the original letter – as well as the millions in need of your help around our country.

I appreciate that you have suggested a meet with Minister for Disabled People, Anne McGuire – and I have contacted Anne's office about this and will do so again having not heard anything back – but how much can she really do if the Leader of the Labour Party is not fully in support of our most vulnerable citizens?

This is not an attack on you, Ed. This is an appeal for you to do what needs to be done and that is oppose, and very strongly, the Coalition's treatment of those who require our support.

The message is clear. The Working Capability Assessment (WCA) - administered by ATOS and sanctioned by the DWP - is a dangerous and costly exercise. I have a great deal of source material to back up these assertions and I will gladly share it all with you.

As it stands, I am in no doubt that the situation is now untenable regarding the well-being of sick and disabled people – and their carers – and must be addressed and rectified without further delay.

It's that serious, Ed. Some people don't have the luxury of time or money to ponder it. I can't say it more plainly than that.

Best wishes

Sonia Poulton
JOURNALIST/ BROADCASTER

Letter from Chris Grayling

My MP has forwarded to me the response he received from Chris Grayling, after he sent to him my own letter. I am really upset by this. I actually sat and cried after reading it.

It's a three page letter, very well written, covering a lot of ground. However, it does NOT cover even half the issues I mentioned in my letter, and it does cover a lot of things I did not even mention. Evidently therefore we have been sent a standardised letter. I find that disgusting. He has not only wasted my time, but wasted my MPs time. What is the point in pretending to be interested in what the public has to offer if he's not even going to read the letters sent to him?

Dear Ms Voljeti

I have now received a reply to my letter from the Department of Work & Pensions regarding the Work Capability Assessment.

I am enclosing the Minister's reply which, as you will see, sets out the current situation with regard to this issue.

My thanks, again, for having raised this important matter with me and I do hope this information is of help to you.

Yours sincerely

Your MP

---------------------------------------

Thank you for your letter of 27 July on behalf of Ms Olana Voljeti regarding the Work Capability Assessment (WCA).

Entitlement to Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) is based on an individual's functional ability rather than the condition itself. Anyone claiming ESA  will undergo the WCA which is based on the premise that eligibility should not be based on a person's condition, but rather on the way that condition limits their functional capability.

The assessment gives people with fluctuating conditions the opportunity to explain how their condition varies over time. The questionnaire that customers are sent has been re-designed so that people are directly asked if their mental or physical functions vary, and to give more details of how this affects them as an individual.

The health care professionals who carry out the WCA are trained to ask about and take account of fluctuation. The assessment is not a snap-shot - if a person cannot carry out a function repeatedly and reliably they will be treated as unable to carry out that function at all.

The activities and descriptors used in the assessment were developed in consultation with medical expert and representative groups in order to ensure that they are appropriate for all conditions. The consultation involved considerable discussion about the variability of some conditions. We are now making some changes to the WCA, including ensuring that it more fully accounts for the effects of exhaustion.

Turning now to the issue of healthcare professionals' integrity, I can confirm that the Medical Services Agreement between Atos Healthcare and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) does not include any provisions either from the Department or from Atos Healthcare to incentivise healthcare professionals to find claimants undergoing the WCA fit for work, and nor would we wish to do so.

It should be noted however that all decisions on benefit entitlement are made by DWP decision makers and not by Atos Healthcare professionals. Entitlement is determined by the Department's decision makers and is based on all available evidence, including that provided by the claimant. Decision makers are rightly impartial and also not incentivised to find claimants under going the WCA fit for work.

We recognise that attending any medical assessment can be a stressful experience, and these will not be carried out if there is enough existing evidence on the claimant's  current condition to decide entitlement to the particular benefit in question. The healthcare professionals who carry out the examinations are trained in assessing vulnerable customers, and when people are asked to come for an assessment they are encouraged to bring a friend or relative with them.

I turn now to the issue regarding the overturning of decisions at appeal. An appeal tribunal hears all evidence afresh, including any new evidence that was not available to the original Jobcentre Plus decision maker, in order to decide whether the original decision on benefit entitlement was correct. Thus when an appeal panel reaches a different decision this does not necessarily mean that the original decision lacked validity.

To try and improve the accuracy of initial decision-making and reduce the number of cases which proceed to appeal, a number of innovations have been trialled within Jobcentre Plus. These include encouraging benefit applicants to submit all the available evidence at the beginning of their claim rather than only producing it for the appeal hearing; and strengthening the reconsideration process so that more decisions are reconsidered, with additional information if available, by decision makers and healthcare professionals, before proceeding to appeal.

Both of these processes have produced very encouraging results. In addition, there are processes in place for the result of appeals to be sent to both decision makers and healthcare professionals in order to improve the accuracy of decision-making, and the Department continues to monitor the outcomes of appeals to continue to improve the assessment.

We are committed to continually improving the WCA to ensure that it is as fair and accurate as possible.

As part of this, we have a statutory commitment to independently review the WCA annually for the first five years of its operation. Professor Malcolm Harrington, a highly respected occupational physician, carried out the first review, reporting in November 1020. We fully endorsed his review and have implemented the vast majority of its recommendations, and are working hard to implement the remainder as soon as possible.

In addition, a department-led review reported in March 2010. We have now implemented its recommendations which include taking better account of the effects of exhaustion and making greater provision for people awaiting or in between courses of chemotherapy. The improvements as a result of this review came in to force on 28 March.

We have now appointed Professor Harrington to conduct a second independent review of the WCA and provide further recommendations as appropriate. He has already started work on the programme of work he has identified, to look in detail at the descriptors for mental health and other fluctuating conditions. Also as part of his review, on 14 July the Government published a call for evidence as part of Professor Harrington's second independent review of the WCA.

The call for evidence is particularly interested in views and evidence about:
- the implementation of Professor Harrington's Year 1 recommendations and the impact they are having;
- what, if any, further work is required in future reviews; and
- the face-to-face assessment.

The call for evidence runs until 16 September. May I encourage Ms Voljeti, to contribute to this process.

I hope this is helpful.

With best wishes,

Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP
Minister for Employment

Second letter from my MP

The reply to the letter I sent to my MP; you can find here:

Dear Olana,

Thank you very much for your letter, and enclosures, regarding your situation as a CFS/ME sufferer which I read with interest and concern.

You have made a number of very interesting points with regard to how the assessments for ESA are carried out and I have now referred this to the Minister concerned at the Department of Work & Pensions.

As I mentioned in my previous letter, the Minister will not be able to comment on your own, personal situation, but I have requested his comments on the concerns you have raised.

I shall, of course, contact you as soon as I receive a reply to my letter.

My thanks, again, for taking the time to write.

Your sincerely,

Your MP.

Draft reply to MP

I'm hoping to have more, or better content to put in this letter. I have posted my MPs offer on several M.E. groups. I was expecting to have billions of suggestions, after all everyone keeps complaining about how the system works. Not a whisper! People are so quick to complain, but never actually want to do anything about it. So, here's my reply so far. If I don't have any suggestions by the time I get back from G's (coz I'll not have internet access for the week) I'll be sending it like this:

Dear MP,

Thank you for your swift reply. I do appreciate that your records do not go back to 2003. Thank you for taking the time to look into it anyway. As it happens, since I wrote to you I have received a letter from the DWP stating that they have overturned their decision regarding the outcome of my assessment. They have now placed me in the Work Related Activity Group for Employment & Support Allowance. I still feel this decision is totally wrong, but I dare not rock the boat in case they decide to revoke any ESA at all.

I have included for you a copy of the medical assessors notes from the medical assessment I attended for ESA. It is 28 pages long, so obviously I do not expect you to read all of it. I have given you this for a few reasons. My first reason is personal. I did some reading before attending the medical assessment. I kept seeing reports from people who said that the assessor had lied in their assessment, but I did not believe it. I assumed people were exaggerating. They were not. The person who assessed me has not only completely fabricated ‘evidence’, but twisted things I said, jumped to conclusions, contradicted herself, and worst of all blanked the existence of my back problem all together. When I first read through her notes, I had a severe panic attack, completely losing awareness for twenty minutes or more. I have added annotations to the notes to show how misleading they are. I have tried to remain passive, but it is not easy to do so.  I applied for DLA soon after applying for ESA, not because I want the money, but because I really need a blue badge. DLA was declined me based upon the medical assessors report, which I was in the process of appealing. I was under the impression that DLA could not use the ESA medical assessment for evidence, as they are not assessed by the same criteria. I am disappointed, but too exhausted to appeal another decision. I understand from your letter that you cannot raise my own case with the appropriate government minister; I merely wish for you to see my own case, and understand how misleading the assessment is, and the ramifications it can have elsewhere (i.e. DLA application and my subsequent health).

My second reason is that I am a little confused over how these assessments work. I was not particularly surprised to find, when talking with other people who have CFS / M.E., that our assessments were coming out similarly. However, when speaking to someone with a completely different condition, in a different area of the country, I was alarmed to find that our medical reports are nearly word for word identical. How can that possibly be, unless medical assessors are actually told what to write on reports before they meet clients? I would be happy to gather evidence of how similar these reports are for you, if you would be interested.

Having read the guidelines on how medical assessors are taught to assess CFS, I am very disturbed. Assessors are given the choice of deciding whether CFS is a physical condition, a mental condition, or a combination of both. They are not told what it is! It is classified by the World Health Organisation as a neurological condition; that would make it a physical condition. If assessors aren’t actually told what it is, how are they supposed to assess accurately the condition?

A huge problem with these assessments is that they simply are not designed to assess fluctuating conditions. They should not even be trying to do so. CFS is a relapse remission condition. That means by definition that tick boxes cannot assess it. Obviously, in order to be able to attend a medical assessment in the first place patients have to rest, and prepare; they are only seen at their best. For myself, I can tell you that I tried to rest for two days before the assessment, but actually got no sleep the night before due to anxiety. I was so stressed by the assessment that it caused me to be bed-bound again for two weeks; which meant that I was still in a very bad condition caused by the assessment when I was phoned to tell me that I had failed the assessment. Fluctuating conditions can’t be assessed in a 30 or 40 minute interview; they would require at the very least a day with the person at the assessment centre. The problem then though is that many people with CFS cannot cope with light, or sound, or motion, so they would need a special room in which to spend that day. For this reason it surprises me that home assessments are not permitted, and that letters from the doctors who know their patients best are disregarded.

Another problem with the assessments is that if you do not attend you automatically fail. Yet you are not given a means of contacting the assessment centre to inform them that you cannot attend if you are too unwell to do so. I had this problem a few years ago.

As an aside, I think it is somewhat irresponsible of ATOS Healthcare to have the medical assessors names on the medical assessments that are sent out to patients. People hold the assessors personally responsible for the stress caused, with good reason in most cases. On one of the forums I am a member of I have seen people start to name their assessors. A simple Google search turns most of them up on Facebook or NHS websites. By including their names on the assessments these people are possibly being placed in danger. Perhaps using a reference number for the assessors would be a safer and more sensible option.

The statistics I am reading show that something like 69% of people are failing at the medical assessments. However, if I remember correctly over 40% of those are then reinstated at tribunal. There is a number somewhere in between that have the decision overturned before it reaches tribunal, like myself. And the rest are being placed on Job Seekers Allowance, where the majority of those I’ve spoken to are treated very kindly by advisors who recognise that they are too ill to work anyway. I don’t see how any of this is saving the government money. People either end up with the same amount of money (ESA start rate and JSA are the same amount), or with more money (the rates paid after a successful medical assessment is higher). If the original assessment was more accurate, then a lot less people would need to appeal; every appeal process will be costing the government money. Presumably the tribunals, having three people on the panel, rather than the one medical assessor, are a lot more expensive. The really annoying part of this, is that the only figures that find their way to the headlines are those stating that 69% of people claiming sickness and disability benefits are failing the medicals; suggesting to the general public that 70% of us are fakers. All this seems to be achieving is an unpleasant prejudice towards people whose lives are already very difficult, if not unbearable. I am not sure whether it has occurred to the government that causing people with illness more stress, will make them more ill, and therefore less likely to return to work. To go through this nightmarish process we have to put our lives on hold for months, sometimes over a year; that means putting any recovery on hold, and more often than not taking huge backwards steps because of the stress. I would like to point out that before I became ill, I was earning £15,000 per annum. At the time Incapacity Benefit was approximately £42 a week; would it really be worth my while faking an illness in order to reduce my income by £12,000?

Most people who have written letters such as these to their MPs have received a short letter in return claiming that ATOS are a responsible organisation doing a good job. I’m sorry, but as someone on the receiving end I can’t take that answer. I would like to suggest that if the government is not already doing so, they implement something similar to a Mystery Shopper, to test ATOS. Obviously it would need to be done by people who are genuinely incapacitated. I do not think it would cost the government money, as there are plenty of people who would be more than willing to volunteer.

I think, since I am on my third page to you, that will be enough to be going on with. I am not sure these are the sort of things you had in mind. Just to summarise for you:

-    Medical assessors appear to be fabricating medical assessments, which is a very worrying problem.
-    I think the guidelines on how M.E. / CFS is assessed need to be reviewed.
-    A completely different assessment design is required to assess fluctuating relapse / remission conditions.
-    People asked to attend medical assessments need to be able to contact the medical centres on the day if they are unable to attend the assessment.
-    Medical assessors names should not be on the notes sent to claimants, for their own safety.
-    The statistics are being handled irresponsibly.
-    The process is making people more ill, and causing widespread prejudice within the general public.
-    A Mystery Shopper style test of ATOS would be appreciated.

On a slightly different note, I am wondering whether you may be interested to learn about M.E & CFS yourself. If you have a couple of hours spare next time you are within the Lichfield area, I would very much like to talk with you about the condition. There is so much misunderstanding and confusion regarding it, that it would be particularly useful to have a member of parliament with an understanding.

Kind regards,

Olana Voljeti

Letter from my MP

Dear Olana Voljeti,

Thank you for your recent letter and I was sorry to learn that you are still suffering with M.E.

Unfortunately, I do not keep full paper files dating back to 2003. I only have a short record saying that we looked into benefit entitlements on your behalf. I assume, however, that you will have kept any correspondence relating to this.

Obviously, if you have not already done so, you should contact your GP to confirm your diagnosis of ME - he is the best person to help.

I would be happy to write to the appropriate Government Minister on your behalf, but you should bear in mind that he will not be able to comment or look into your specific case. If you would like to write to me with general points you wish to make on welfare reform, I will certainly pass these onto him.

I hope this helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Your local MP.

You know what, I have absolutely no idea where any of my paperwork is, coz Ian put it all somewhere when he chucked my desk out. So I really don't know where my letters from my MP, from 2003 would actually be. This obviously is not my MPs fault though.

I'm not quite sure why he thinks I need to contact my GP to confirm my diagnosis. My GP has been writing me regular sick notes with it written on it. Am I missing the point here?

As far as I'm concerned, that letter is still going in my pile of evidence as it is at the very least confirmation that I contacted him in reference to benefits in 2003. Thank you Mr MP :)

Asking my MP for help.

Dear MP,

I am hoping you can help me.

I moved to Staffordshire in 2002. I was and still am ill with M.E.. I am not sure whether it was 2002 or 2003, but I wrote to you for help regarding the problems with benefits, at the time, and you helped me then. I am hoping you will have it on record somewhere. The short version of my request is that I’m hoping you can write a letter stating that you helped me then, and knew that I had M.E. then.

The slightly longer version is as follows:

I’ve had ups and downs with M.E.. At the beginning of last year for example, I was seeking work. In June I got a bug, I crashed severely, becoming bedbound until mid December. In November my husband decided he wanted a divorce. Early January he decided to stop supporting me, so in February I started claiming ESA. I was called for the medical assessment in April, and failed. I therefore find myself with the daunting task of preparing for a tribunal when I am struggling to walk, let alone feed myself, or prepare for a life on my own. I cannot find a representative for the tribunal, so I am seeking references such as the one I am requesting from yourself.

Upon receiving the medical assessors notes last week I am disgusted to find that the nurse who assessed me has not only lied throughout the form, but has twisted things I said, completely failed to take my back problem into account at all, made assumptions (which I now realise are based upon the training they receive for assessing people with M.E. / CFS), and contradicted herself. This woman should not be assessing people. She has hinted that I am faking my condition, and awarded me zero points on every criteria. She has stated that I was working until five years ago, which is why I am seeking the reference from yourself saying that I was seeking your help well before then.

I could go on, but I will not for now. I am merely seeking such a letter from you, but later on I would be happy to share the assessment and my notes with you if you are at all interested in the welfare reform. Needless to say I am absolutely beside myself over all of this.

Kind regards,

Olana Voljeti.