Forum menu
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.
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 - MemberYou 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.
So what you're saying there is it's OK to live in dangerous or crap conditions so long as it's cheap?
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 - MemberI 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 ?
It's called a FIAT economy such as the one the Bank of England has run, and as pointed out above, the mechanism is quantitative easing.
We've always "spent more than we take" and since world war 2 the defecit was far far higher than under the Blair Brown era,where we finally paid off our war debt to America - which Ninfan AGAIN forgets ended under a GLOBAL crash, but I do agree with him and was very vocal at the time it was foolish to massage that economic growth on an artificial bubble fueled by property speculation
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?