Southport MP Damien Moore is one of 84 Tory politicians whose majority in their constituency is significantly smaller than the number of people being moved over to the failing Universal Credit system it's been revealed.



Well over 2,000 households in the town have already been transferred to the discredited system since it was introduced last year, causing huge distress for some. The next phase of its rollout is expected to affect over three times as many residents though and bring more severe problems.



Despite widespread warnings of the suffering Universal Credit causes from organisations such as The Trussell Trust, the UK's largest foodbank network, Damien Moore warmly welcomed it to the town. The Tory MP, whose majority is less than 3,000, has been a staunch defender of the heavily criticised operation, claiming:



" The Government have purposefully managed a careful and controlled Universal Credit roll-out... Universal Credit is simple and fair and will be effective for the whole country. "



Across the country, however, lengthy delays in payment and significant financial losses are being reported with many claiming that the system is simply unfit for purpose and is unfairly penalising those already struggling.



Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Esther McVey recently announced at the Conservative Party Conference that reports of benefit cuts were "fake news" but it was then quickly revealed that struggling homeowners, families and the disabled could lose up to £2,400 a year on Universal Credit.



The Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed, IPSE, has warned that those working for themselves face losing as much as £3,000 a year.



By the time the next phase of implementation is complete, it's estimated that around 9,500 Southport households will have been moved over to the new scheme, potentially posing a serious threat to the small majority held by the town's Tory MP.



Liz Savage, Labour's Parliamentary Candidate for Southport, thinks he should be worried:



“It’s no surprise that this government has been thrown into disarray over Universal Credit. The Conservatives can’t cause this much suffering and not expect a backlash.



“ Damien Moore completely backed this deeply flawed system despite all the warnings and has completely failed to look after those constituents caught up in this. Once again he's proved he's a Tory "yes" man rather than an MP who will stand up for local residents. "



" We are getting desperate calls from local people terrified that they are going to lose their home and people who are already ill or disabled being worried sick as they face losing a significant part of their income.



" It's not just Universal Credit, the PIP assessment process is a scandal too. We used to look after people but under the Tories, we now simply bully them into submission. Altogether it is little more than yet another hostile environment created by the Conservatives. "



Moving nearly three million people from the ‘old-style’ benefits and onto Universal Credit is widely predicted to result in large numbers of low-income and vulnerable households temporarily or even permanently losing much of their income.



The transfer to the new system so far has been followed by a 52% rise in demand for food banks. Across the North West, the Tories have already hit 76,445 young people with Universal Credit sanctions, with 65% of them landing on people under 30.



Lia Savage says that the scheme must be halted:



" The Tories must listen to us; the Trussell Trust and the many, many thousands of people suffering as a result of the Conservatives putting their ideology before the circumstances of individuals. The Tories must halt their failed implementation of this scheme. "



" Damien Moore may well come to rue the day he simply said "yes" once again and didn't stop to listen to the warnings or to think about those in the town affected by this cruel system. "

Originally Posted by roving-eye

“ Damien Moore completely backed this deeply flawed system despite all the warnings and has completely failed to look after those constituents caught up in this. Once again he's proved he's a Tory "yes" man rather than an MP who will stand up for local residents. "

I don't like Universal Credit system.

Off topic slightly, but I'd like to know how Liz Savage voted in the EU Referendum and if she voted to Remain, would she then still stand up for the rights of Southport electorate who voted to leave, if she voted to Leave, would she be a "Yes" women and follow what the Labour Party tell her?

Originally Posted by Tentill4

I don't like Universal Credit system.

Off topic slightly, but I'd like to know how Liz Savage voted in the EU Referendum and if she voted to Remain, would she then still stand up for the rights of Southport electorate who voted to leave, if she voted to Leave, would she be a "Yes" women and follow what the Labour Party tell her?

Sefton voted to remain. No separate figures for Southport were recorded nor released.
Also Labour policy is that we are leaving the EU.

How can anyone who lives Hand to Mouth be expected to live from one Month to the next. The wording on benefits award letters are the "minimum amount you are expected to live on". If something goes wrong in your life {& it will} you are then expected to wait until the end of the Month before getting more money, getting paid weekly allows a benefit claimant to sort out their problems as fast as possible. Only someone who gets paid a lot more than a benefit claimant would think that being paid monthly is a good idea. MPs are insulated from real life with their expense accounts, subsidised food and bills, free cars etc

"Sefton voted to remain. No separate figures for Southport were recorded nor released. "

And yet I remember a Liverpool Echo article wanting us kicked out of Merseyside because Southport had vote to Leave....

Originally Posted by Tentill4

And yet I remember a Liverpool Echo article wanting us kicked out of Merseyside because Southport had vote to Leave....

Well I can't seem to find any such article although I can find one that condemns the town for electing a Tory MP. But then the Echo does tend to cobble articles together from the comments of it's readership and not to be taken seriously.

What a totally biased piece of journalism. There is no doubt that it's implementation has been badly handled probably with pressure from the Treasury to keep costs down. Nobody should be expected to wait weeks on end with no payments forthcoming especially as those most affected are the ones less able to build any kind of savings or buffer fund to survive those weeks. However most agree that in principle the idea is sound and should not be totally abandoned.

John Major calls this the current governments "Poll Tax" moment. Let's just hope it is not abandoned in the same way he gave up on the Poll Tax rather than attempt to reconfigure and adjust it to remove some of the perceived injustices. If a local tax that ALL citizens contributed too existed today I'm convinced central government of all colours would not of been able to reduce their contributions in the way they have resulting in the current mammoth Council Tax bills householders are now facing.

Originally Posted by salus.populi

Sefton voted to remain.

Nobody asked the question "should Sefton leave the EU?", so that statement is totally irrelevant.

Originally Posted by ainsdale local

What a totally biased piece of journalism.

It's not journalism. It's a Labour press release pretending to be journalism. Probably submitted by Labourite lickspittle Whizzy as he always turns up to say how marvellous the opinion is a few posts into these tedious Labour adverts.

Originally Posted by salus.populi

Well I can't seem to find any such article although I can find one that condemns the town for electing a Tory MP. But then the Echo does tend to cobble articles together from the comments of it's readership and not to be taken seriously.

Neither can I after a lot of searching, but I do remember it and the comments from people south of Southport.

"Nobody asked the question "should Sefton leave the EU?", so that statement is totally irrelevant. "

I asked a question about whether Liz (if she ever gets in) would back her constituents or follow the party line, so it was relevant to me....

Originally Posted by Tentill4

I asked a question about whether Liz (if she ever gets in) would back her constituents or follow the party line, so it was relevant to me....

But some of her constituents would have voted leave, some would have voted remain, others wouldn't have voted at all. Nobody knows how many of each because records solely for Southport weren't kept. She can't represent the exact wishes of everyone, and nor can Damien Moore,so perhaps they both should do what they think would be best for the country and their constituency (that is supposed to be the point of being an MP) rather than toeing party lines.

Originally Posted by MargeSimpson

Nobody asked the question "should Sefton leave the EU?", so that statement is totally irrelevant.

I was referring to another poster's suggestion that Southport voted leave, which is also totally irrelevant.

The concept of simplifying the benefits system is sound in principle, but the implementation and management of the system is atrocious, apart from the Tory sting in the tail where there are built in cuts, everyone moving to UC has to submit a new claim.

Existing details can't be transferred, applicants have to go through the entire process from the start, this is where the long delays come from, plus of course in true Tory style, admin staff numbers have been cut.

IDS's vaunted new computer system does not allow staff to check claimant's existing details, which would obviously speed up the process.

The benefit and welfare system was unfair and penalised people if they were working. Unemployed parents who had not gained any educational diplomas/certificates but had several children, were being allocated more money than many professional people could earn. Many of those on benefit payments can afford to own pets and pay out for pet food - many of those in work cannot.
The Universal Credit Scheme does attempt to balance out these anomalies - but benefit payments are only a temporary respite - people are expected to find work and earn their way - apart from the disabled and infirm. The disabled are not supposed to lose any money from the new scheme, their payments are said to be the same. There is also a transitional period during which previous benefit will be paid until the recipient receives money under the new scheme. Previously, under Tax Credits, people were not allowed to work more than sixteen hours - now they are allowed to work more hours. Young people will be expected to show that they are prepared to work by having the necessary training, if not they will be given training courses. As with all new schemes, there will be some problems and I sympathise with those who may experience real hardship due to administration errors or waiting times - but many people, particularly new claimants - will protest because they are being forced to face reality, where it is necessary to live within their own means without the latest luxuries.

Originally Posted by said

The benefit and welfare system was unfair and penalised people if they were working. Unemployed parents who had not gained any educational diplomas/certificates but had several children, were being allocated more money than many professional people could earn. Many of those on benefit payments can afford to own pets and pay out for pet food - many of those in work cannot.
The Universal Credit Scheme does attempt to balance out these anomalies - but benefit payments are only a temporary respite - people are expected to find work and earn their way - apart from the disabled and infirm. The disabled are not supposed to lose any money from the new scheme, their payments are said to be the same. There is also a transitional period during which previous benefit will be paid until the recipient receives money under the new scheme. Previously, under Tax Credits, people were not allowed to work more than sixteen hours - now they are allowed to work more hours. Young people will be expected to show that they are prepared to work by having the necessary training, if not they will be given training courses. As with all new schemes, there will be some problems and I sympathise with those who may experience real hardship due to administration errors or waiting times - but many people, particularly new claimants - will protest because they are being forced to face reality, where it is necessary to live within their own means without the latest luxuries.

Sounds good, unfortunately that isn't the way it works, people with disabilities are losing funding, people working are being penalised, don't dare or try to earn a better income because the benefit will be cut and it can take weeks to get it sorted again, considering the alleged aim is to encourage people back into work seems a rather illogical way.


The admin "errors" you speak of aren't errors, that is how the system works, the target at the moment is to get the time scale for the new benefit to 5 weeks and this is for existing claimants.

There aren't a few problems, there are lots of problems, real case scenario and this applies to all, existing claimants have to submit a new application, existing benefits cease then wait for 5 weeks before payments resume, in theory anyone suffering hardship can apply for distress payments to bridge the gap, as ever that isn't immediate.

If the system had been set up correctly in the first place surely an obvious one would have been for DWP staff to be able to cross reference existing claimants details with the new claim, but the computer system does not permit this, I am well aware of the reasons for this, but it gives an automatic delay in payments.


Yes there are some who appear to thrive on benefits, I am no more in sympathy with those people than you, but this UC is hurting a lot of people, particularly people in work but on low pay or short hours, surely that shouldn't be the aim.