Jeremy Corbyn

Me, I shoot, I score. I mean like everytime. It's uncanny

So, after all the "unelected Prime Minister" waffle, now that she's called an election she's anti-democratic?

Ah...I see. She expects to win. So that's anti-democratic. Right.

Be a better opposition. Try and win.

"May held a Parliamentary vote on calling a General Election"

...and she's a remainer implementing Brexit when the the Referendum went against her. That's quite different democratic. Some would say a little too democratic given the narrowness of the vote.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] ?oh=945febe57dd7c86764a648586957f2be&oe=59BECA8E[/img]

outofbreath - Member
What's the alternative? Benign dictatorships are thin on the ground.

Vote Spanner, for a brighter tomorrow.

🙂

Looks good for 67 - which benefit was stopped and why?

Photo of some of the letter here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mother-told-she-was-too-healthy-for-sick-benefits-on-the-day-she-died-a6800921.html

Attendance allowance: HTTPS://www.gov.uk/attendance-allowance/overview

"Me.
I was born benign.
And apart from brown saddles and bar tape, I see no reason not to remain so."

I was born benign, but put me in charge of a country and I'd have a hareem of slave women and exclusive access the the nations ale output withing about 6 weeks.

...and I'd gradually start to refer to my Civil Servants as 'henchmen'.

[b][i]its far worse than that. Pretty much our entire countries press is owned by foreign tax-avoiders who hold an unhealthy grip over those in power, or in the case of the Tory Right very much share their self-interested agenda. As this cartel have what is almost a monopoly, and independent news organisations like the BBC have effectively been neutered, what they're publishing at the moment is little short of propaganda.[/i]
[i]
The fact that the present Labour leadership, or the pathetic, spineless PLP seems to have singularly failed to grasp this, while they squabble with each other, is a gross dereliction of duty that will lead their descent into irrelevance at the exact point when they've never been needed more [/i][/b]

Interesting you write the above Binners. You've spent the past year choosing to attack Corbyn instead of opposing the Tories. As I see it, you are one of the people the Tories love since you have helped them attack the opposition.

When the Tories are re-elected you have been a part of helping them make that happen.

FWIW - I do not overly support Corbyn but I would never, ever, choose to attack him over the Tories. I'd rather Corbyn in power than the Tories.

I have to say, I know of at least 4,873,749 people who were going to vote Labour until they read some of the things Binners posted. Completely changed their mind.

@captainflasheart..Cheers. You confirm my point exactly (but not in the way, I'm going to guess, that you think I mean). 😀

Yeah c'mon Binners, haven't you read the script.

My position is simple.
I've voted Labour for 32yrs, I could never bring myself to vote for a Tory govt - especially one this insane.
However, Corbyn & Labour support the utter insanity of Brexit.
No matter what other policies Labour propose, they all pale before the single greatest political disaster of our times.
Which is why I cannot vote for my current MP as she voted for article 50, so that leaves me with the only political party that opposes the madness.

Labour deserve their coming oblivion.

I feel the same, but I'm in a swing seat and our current MP (Alison McGowen) had the guts to vote against triggering A50 so she'll get my vote

Muddy - vote tactically for the party most likely to beat a tory

Unfortunately my area, Sussex, is 97% likely to vote in the Tories, again, so we're stuffed. I'm almost certain to vote Lib Dem, though.

It's going to be an interesting election night.

Hold my nose & vote for a Brexiteer?
Tories stand next to no chance here, yet a LibDem candidate may just take the seat.
I'll vote with my principles.

Labour deserve their coming oblivion

You mean you'll be voting to send a message to those at the top regardless of the undesirable consequences?

Sounds familiar.

The thousands of younger new members, the people we were begging to get involved in politics for years don't deserve that Si.
Brexit wasn't their fault.

And neither do those who are going to suffer most from an increased Tory majority.
Don't take your understandable anger out on those who don't deserve it.

I had a bit of a 'bollocks to it all' phase, disgusted by my party and those who fell for the lies.

But what are you going to do, give up or fight?

Look at Rochdale.
How many vulnerable people do you see on the streets?
The only places that are full are the medical centres and the charity shops.

As a historian, your spider senses must be tingling at the mo?
We're descending into a shitstorm of victim blaming and division.

We're ****ed and its down to Obi Wan Corbyn to save us from Darth May.

Pete, you don't need to be a historian to see what may be coming down the tracks!
My MP is Heywood & Middleton, despite living a mile from the Town Hall, Danczuk is a terrible MP & Rochdale a trad Liberal seat anyway.
I simply cannot vote for a Party that will not stand up against the crazy farce that is Brexit, it is THE single defining issue of our age. Let it go through & it doesn't matter WHAT Labour promise, as we won't be able to afford any of it.

When the Tories decided to become the electable face of UKIP Labour had a chance to become the voice of the 48%, most of the PLP are anti Brexit anyway yet the leadership pushed a 3-line whip & the PLP supinely rolled over.
Those aren't the people I want representing me.
Corbyn is a Brexit supporter, ergo he is not a man i want in Downing St.

Yeah, i wouldnt vote for Dirty Danczuk either, to be fair, at least here David Crausby is kind of reasonable

No matter what other policies Labour propose, they all pale before the single greatest political disaster of our times.

And in Today's mainstream press, more reports of corporate manslaughter via WCA and disability benefits sanctions.

How much longer can Freud, Duncan Smith, McVey, Patel, Crabb and Green avoid prosecution.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/disabled-dad-died-after-being-10322668#ICID=sharebar_facebook

Great anecdotal link there about something that happened 4 years ago. My understanding of a complex issue is so much better informed now.

How much longer can Freud, Duncan Smith, McVey, Patel, Crabb and Green avoid prosecution.

The answer is they never will be. I can't see how death of a person refused a particular type of benefit can ever be criminaly linked to the minister in charge the department. Whatever anyone thinks of the rights or wrongs its just not going to happen, so why keep going on about it.

My point is, from the 2012 welfare reform act that has been the direct and sometimes indirect causes of up to 8000 similar deaths, up until very recently to find reports of these deaths, you had to be a member of Black Triangle, DPAC or follow independent blogs.
Now the red tops deem it fit for reporting.

As for why have I posted this report in this thread, this is the reason for me turning my back on my party membership in this general election and ill be voting for an MP that could possibly put Jeremy Corbyn in to number 10 despite my misgivings about some more right wing elements of the Labour Party.

Taxi, IDS was confronted many many times by disability rights pressure groups about the unintended consequences of his policies. On one particular occasion I remember him turning up for a parliamentary consultation meeting with a group of disabled activists under armed Police guard.
Priti Patel once referred to a group of wheelchair users protesting outside a Job centre as "Terrorists"
Ministers know full well and choose to ignore the consequences of thier edicts to branch management at DWP departments.
Does this not make them culpable?

And I'll keep going on about this issue until Tory voters realise, either through design or crass ignorance, have enabled these deaths.

That might all be very true ulysse. I've had first hand experience of the assessment process people with disabilities have to go through and it's sh@t.
But the idea of ministers being prosecuted for manslaughter is fantasy. Put your energy into campaigning for the changes needed, and actually having a hands on approach to helping people who need it. Perhaps you already are and thats a good thing.

Great anecdotal link there about something that happened 4 years ago. My understanding of a complex issue is so much better informed now.

Be all facetious about it if you want but this government's treatment of disabled and vulnerable people has been nothing short of disgraceful. If you support it or don't care then that says a lot about you. And if you think this some sort of tribal political issue:

[b]The Government’s welfare reforms and austerity policies have led to “grave and systematic violations” of disabled people’s rights, an inquiry by the United Nations found.[/b]

The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities dispatched investigators to London, Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast in October last year.

They found that a string of legislation introduced since 2010 as part of welfare reforms and austerity policies had had a negative impact, including the Welfare Reform Act 2012, Care Act 2014, and Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/un-report-disability-disabled-rights-violating-austerity-welfare-reform-esa-pip-a7404956.html

We are still one of the richest countries in the world - we can do better than this.

I think he has a point

the reality is the stringent DwP changes enforced on many of our most vulnerable citizens resulted in deaths

Whether one wants to be tough on benefit claimers or not [ and even if one accepts this was an unintended consequence*] then we should all be rightly embarrassed that a country this rich did this to some of its most vulnerable disabled and seriously ill citizens

The worst case i heard was a man waiting for a triple bypass having to have an ambulance called during his Jobcentre interview - he was in w wheelchair and on oxygen - and being sanctioned as he did not sign on that day . this man taken from the JC by emergency medical crews was "fit for work"

* not even i think IDS wanted folk to die but he sure did not care if they suffered extreme hardship in his quest to be a complete bastard to the vulnerable

were we to have more stories like ulysse poster up there and much less of the benefit scrounger meme then I think the public would actualy GAS

Hands up, who's OK, with this?
https://beastrabban.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/ids-and-armed-bodyguards-no-one-trusts-the-man-who-trusts-no-one/

And for the record, i was just a vocal (and typey) when New Labour with Frank Field and David Freud engineered the beginnings of what we see today with Sanctions and the WCA (dont get me started on LHA, that's initially what sent me down the activist route )

Simon, you have some very good points.
I'm afraid I can't argue against any of them with any genuine conviction.

Ulysse, thank you for your contributions.

No one involved in the consequences of this has a voice.
It is utterly ****ing shameful.

It's been brought up on here countless times, by people genuinely affected and those who have the choice to work in this sector.

I cannot remember one genuine instance of defense or justification from our right wing forum friends.
Not one of those who so eloquently pleads for equality appears to care about those most in need.
Utter silence, every time.

Shameful that people vote for the Tories whilst being fully aware of the damage these policies do.

If the right wing can use the the media to lie, the least we can do is use them to tell the truth.

Shameful that people vote for the Tories whilst being fully aware of the damage these policies do.

Are they aware though? Are me and thousands of others perceived as shouty ill informed fringe lunatics with an anti tory tub to thump?

If so... Try opening your mind, take a look about. These are not just anecdotal, they're real - The DWP have admitted 61 deaths were directly caused by benefit cuts. The other seven thousand and odd are a bit harder to prove, hypothermia, starvation related organ failures, stress induced suicides, but all can be pointed to a source and cited.

However, if you ARE fully aware of these deaths, and still continue to cheerlead Tory policy and enable them by voting, donating or any other conservative party activism, then the blood is on your hands as much as any Minister, DWP Line manager or decision maker.

And as for no voice, while these victims may feel alone and voiceless in their desperation, Debbie Abrahams has done sterling work alongside Micheal Meacher (rip) Carolyne Lucas Mhairi Black and many other right minded MP's

Dpac and Black Triangle. Shelter, Manchester Angels

The blogs of
Scriptonite
Johnnyvoid
Vox Political
Skawkbox
Beastrabban
SpeyeJoe
Glynnis Milward
Jane Linney and many other,s have been shouting from the rooftops since the implications of these policies became clear.

No one is alone

Shameful that people vote for the Tories whilst being fully aware of the damage these policies do.

A £90bn deficit per anum was unsustainable. The real damage was not adjusting spending earlier. Labour where relieved of Government due to a lack of credibility in running the country's finances.

Rubbish, pure unadulterated rubbish

A £90bn deficit per anum was unsustainable.

People were talking about lives. And here you go again talking about money.

What was the annual deficit running at when Atlee created the NHS and Welfare provision, remind me again?

You have to bear in mind ulysse, as far as jambalaya is concerned, unless you're a "net contributor", you're just a sponge on everybody else's money. Every human is measured in terms of his or her financial contribution. So the deaths on the DWP watch are neither here nor there; simply ollateral damage in a capitalist boom bust economy.

Also conveniently forgets that the entire reason for the shit state we're in isn't labours management of public money but rather the financial sector taking a dump on the entire global economy, can't for a minute think why that would be.

labour. as much as i despise them oversaw sustained economic growth from '97 till '08 too, its convenient to forget. And by 2010 Darling was well on track to a recovery

deadlydarcy - Member

You have to bear in mind ulysse, as far as jambalaya is concerned, unless you're a "net contributor", you're just a sponge on everybody else's money. Every human is measured in terms of his or her financial contribution.

And not only that, but only in the direct taxation they pay, not on the labour they provide.

[img] [/img]

Can any on the Right on here defend this?

I find it hard to fault this policy
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39767961

Labour has promised a "consumer rights revolution" for renters in England if it wins the general election, with the introduction of new legal standards for rented homes.
Landlords who fail to meet the "tougher" minimum standards would face fines of up to £100,000, Labour said.
The proposals include requirements for safe wiring and appliances, freedom from damp and general good repair.
But the Conservatives said the plan could increase people's rent.

Can any on the Right on here defend this?

Guessing it will go along the lines of the fact they haven't tried hard enough in their life to get to a better position. They haven't managed their money, they have no financial discipline.

No circumstances or fortune have anything to do with it, it is simply all their own fault so they need to deal with that and shouldn't expect anything from all the overpaid people in the country.

labour. as much as i despise them oversaw sustained economic growth from '97 till '08 too, its convenient to forget. And by 2010 Darling was well on track to a recovery

Thats right, they ended boom and bust, everyone remembers that, surely?

You have to bear in mind ulysse, as far as jambalaya is concerned, unless you're a "net contributor", you're just a sponge on everybody else's money

Total bollix. More Pantomine Villan stuff.

We live in one of the most generous and liberal democracies in the world. What people do need to understand and appreciate is the point at which we become "break even". Far too many people say "we may our taxes" and assume that covers everything from the police to the nhs. It's consistent with the view that "someone else" can pay more tax to pay for increased spending. The tax burden on the top 1% has increased to just under 30% of total personal tax revenues. This IMO is dangerous and unsustainable. Dangerous as if a relatively few people stop paying taxes fhd impact is significant.

Can any on the Right on here defend this?

There are 9 million people living in poverty in France. France has high taxes and some of the most generous state payouts. The issues we face in the UK are not unique.

Icreasingly sadistic elite

What a pile of sh.te from Boyle. Well Frankie have a look at the results on the morining of June 9th and you'll see people do not agree with you.

Well Frankie have a look at the results on the morining of June 9th and you'll see people do not agree with you.

That doesn't make him wrong, though, does it?

The tax burden on the top 1% has increased to just under 30% of total personal tax revenues. This IMO is dangerous and unsustainable.

So will you be advocating increasing tax across the board to pay for public services? Or the usual "devil take the hindmost" approach? Let me guess.

So will you be advocating increasing tax across the board to pay for public services?

And are you advocating the idea that tax intake should fully cover the cost of delivering public services? A balanced budget?

Casually justifying “grave and systematic violations” of disabled people’s rights on the basis of not wanting to pay any more taxes because...... well.... paying little Johnny's school fees could jeopardize that third yachting trip this year, and we might have to make do with last year's model of Range Rover.

Definitely not an increasingly 'sadistic elite' though.

Agree the axe shouldn't have fallen on the disabled. But it had to fall somewhere. We spend more than we take. Once you ring fence education and health, as others have said, it falls all the harder in other areas. It was always going to be difficult, and it was always going to be hardest on those at the bottom of the ladder as they've got less to spare and receive more state spending. Any party in power has to face this dilemma; you can argue for more tax-side austerity as Corbyn does, you can tweak stuff here and there, but the reality is that there's no magic bullet imo. Demonising and othering the people who make the decisions just polarises the argument.

"increasing tax across the board"

If it were that easy wouldn't it already have happened? - Governments of all colours have collected roughly the same levels of tax revenue for decades.

"Casually justifying “grave and systematic violations” of disabled people’s rights on the basis of not wanting to pay any more taxes because...... well.... paying little Johnny's school fees could jeopardize that third yachting trip this year, and we might have to make do with last year's model of Range Rover."

Been discussed elsewhere, but I suspect you can tax these people ^ at 100%, ignoring behavioural effects, and you still won't fill the gap. And you can't ignore behavioural effects!

"Once you ring fence education and health, as others have said, it falls all the harder in other areas."

This.

"Demonising and othering the people who make the decisions just polarises the argument."

...and this. Demonizing one party over the health service is the reason that party had to divert more resources to the health service than all the other parties - and the disabled pick up the cheque.

The SNP didn't need to ring fence health which allowed them to make much better decisions over all.

and the disabled pick up the cheque.

The point is that they were deliberately targeted, when they did not need to be, because people like you don't appear to have any compassion and don't seem bothered about other people's suffering.

They feel they can get away with it because those affected don't appear on most people's radar.

The Tories have gambled that the majority of people don't care.
I think they are right.

The tax burden on the top 1% has increased to just under 30% of total personal tax revenues

And it should be higher than that. They are paying 30% because they are taking a massively unequal amount of money from the pot (which has a finite amount of money in it) They take more, everyone else has to get less.

[quote=kerley said]
And it should be higher than that. They are paying 30% because they are taking a massively unequal amount of money from the pot (which has a finite amount of money in it) They take more, everyone else has to get less.

This magic money pot, where does that come from ?

The top one percent aren't your global mega-capitalists/asset strippers/whatever, that's the top 0.01%. 1% is £162k pa and upwards, the 1% are more likely successful professionals, senior consultants, engineers, financiers etc. And just the 1% won't be enough....

The weird thing about throwing around "magic money pot" so dismissively, is that this is a big part of how we run our economy today. It's just that we call it "quantitative easing" so it sounds more mysterious and professional.

"The point is that they were deliberately targeted, when they did not need to be, because people like you don't appear to have any compassion and don't seem bothered about other people's suffering."

I would substitute "deliberately targeted " with "not protected ". I agree, however, that they should have been, especially given the relatively small sums involved.

Thank you for the reply.

Just a quick example.

I have a friend, single, in his early 40's, no immediate family.
Has a serious inherited condition and mobility issues, not expected to live much more than 5 years.
Ex social worker, outdoor instructor etc.

He lives on the 5th floor of a block of flats in the middle of Rochdale.
He has huge cysts which due to his condition cannot be touched until they burst.
Without PIP, he had to wait until the cyst ruptured, clean it up himself, then walk over a mile to the medical centre for treatment, because he couldn't afford a taxi.

His friends help, but some live a long way away and we all work.

A friend and his wife (a carer and social worker) helped him fight for his PIP, and it has made a massive difference.
Not an easy process, especially if you're on your own and taking medication which can make concentration almost impossible at times.

Some friends took him camping a few weeks ago.
He's saved up and bought his own cheap tent.

Dignity is priceless.

airtragic - Member

I would substitute "deliberately targeted " with "not protected ".

Well, not protected from the government, is the issue.

The insidiously shitty part is that it's a system that's basically designed to fail disabled people. 65% of PIP rejections are overturned at the tribunal stage. (I've never seen a stat for how many are overturned at the first reassesment but any process where 65% of appeals are succesful, after the internal reassessment, is catastrophically ****ed.).

So obviously all the tribunals etc run up costs, and in the meantime the person's life is turned upside down, for no good reason. And what's being done to change that? The only substansive change I've seen is the motability car change that just came in, which itself is an admission of failure in the asessment process

This magic money pot, where does that come from ?

I would substitute "deliberately targeted " with "not protected ". I agree, however, that they should have been, especially given the relatively small sums involved.

No. Deliberately targeted. In around 2013 as each of the welfare policies started hitting home, people in pressure groups often repeated" surely this time people will be on the streets and finally take notice" bedroom tax, LHA, under 25' not eligible for benefits, tax credits, WCA, Esa, Pip, firemen being shafted, probation being shafted, junior doctors being shafted, creeping privatisation in the NHS, Selling royal mail at a nock down price to the then Chancellor weddings best man, shafting the police, shafting Essels mates, legal aid and so forth... Each time, "surely people must take notice"
No, because each group effected were marginalized , apart from NHS and fire, and who of my class has good experience of Police Probation lawyers and Prisons?

The harsh reality is that the modern NHS costs way more to run than it used to.

Personally I think the higher earnings income tax should be increased to 45 or 50%. I would happily pay it.

Northwind
Well, not protected from the government, is the issue.
The insidiously shitty part is that it's a system that's basically designed to fail disabled people.

Unum, who designed the system were successfully prosecuted in the USA for the same tick box model of sickness medical insurance denial.
Yet Duncan Smith thought it prudent to pay ATOS then Maximus to administer this test as a work capability assessment. That man's megalomania has cost this country Billions that Jamba & nin masturbate over and cost the lives and potential of thousands

and who of my class has good experience of Police Probation lawyers and Prisons?

I do agree with the principle that people on disability benefits should be assessed. They change, technology changes a move to job seekers status with appropriate support can be beneficial to some claimants and society in general.
But the assessment process at least untill recently is #$@!&$ !!!
My company has an account with the tribunals service that deals with appeals. The state on some the people who've been declared fit for work is shocking 🙁 they might have been asked "could you lift that box" they said "perhaps once on a good day" now their fit to work in a warehouse, "how do you spend your spare time" say you like to sit in your garden and that means you can "do" your garden and are fit for manual work, answer your phone and you can work in a call centre. This sort of stuff goes on and on. 85% of appeals are successful, that alone tells you the process is broken. A woman I know is some sort of Dr and works doing these assessments, she's the most arrogant hateful person I know. All the claimants she meets, in her eyes are scroungers and scum, she tells me this whilst I'm driving her to the next cruise holiday she's going on, off which she has about 5 a year.
Thing is I'm politicaly neutral and certainly don't hate the Tories, but this is one policy that needs to be scrapped and replaced with some thing fit for purpose.

this is one policy that needs to be scrapped and replaced with some thing fit for purpose.

Is it not the case that the policy may be fine, but the implementation isn't fit for purpose?