General politics discussion thread

[Kiffy]

Also, there was a young dude who said something...well, quite worrying, really, at the conference the other day:

 

I owe my entire well-being and that of my family to the welfare state.

 

For real? And that's...good is it?

 

It's awful, when families fall on hard times, as his did, it's vital that they get sent out on to the streets with nothing. Any other approach is simply encouraging the cunts, and we can't have that.

[Tommy Atkins]

It's worded as if his family has been reliant on the welfare state all of his life.

 

I don't think anyone is planning to get rid of the welfare state entirely. Just to crack down on some of the people taking the piss.

 

Him being a scouser probably doesn't help matters either.

[Kiffy]

When over 40% of decisions against disability living allowance are overturned on appeal, and dr's are starting to speak out that people they know are unable to work are being found fit to do so. It's not just cutting down on people taking the piss, it's hammering the most vulnerable people in society to save money.

In addition to which, they are areas with very high unemployment where there simply aren't the jobs available, more so as we go further into recession. Ensuring those families have the welfare they need isn't taking the piss, it's basic humanity.

 

Besides which you're taking his quote out of context, when his family lost everything it was the welfare which allowed them to keep going, without it they would have been fucked. So he owes everything to the welfare, not everything they've ever had has come from welfare.

 

 

[Ronnie]

Besides which you're taking his quote out of context, when his family lost everything it was the welfare which allowed them to keep going, without it they would have been fucked. So he owes everything to the welfare, not everything they've ever had has come from welfare.

Exactly. He explained it himself. I can't see how people can view it otherwise, unless they're being willfully obtuse. That's exactly how I want the welfare state to function; to act as insurance, a buffer, for when people fall on hard times and need a bit of help getting on their feet.

[Tommy Atkins]

Daily Mail say he's reallly the son of a millionaire property developer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...fe-poverty.html

 

Do they think in 2011 that people won't find this stuff out?

[ReturnOfTheMack]

Doesnt the article actually back him up? He is the son of a FORMER millionaire who lost his business, houses and declared bankruptcy.

[Kiffy]

So the original problem tommy has was the suggestion that the kids family got everything from benefits, which he never said, now he's got a problem with him because when the family wasn't claiming benefits his dad was a hard working businessman.

It does rather sound like you're keen to argue just for the sake of it tommy old boy. Bit o right wing bias perchance?

[Kiffy]

Daily Mail say he's reallly the son of a millionaire property developer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...fe-poverty.html

 

Do they think in 2011 that people won't find this stuff out?

 

I dunno, one could ask how people in 2011 can't read and understand a reasonably uncomplicated article? You'd assume they could, but you're right there suggesting it's still a bit of a stretch.

[WildSybianRider]

And, does anyone really want Ed M in charge of the country, and Ed B in charge ofthe economy?

 

 

Just a thought.

[Loki]

Besides which you're taking his quote out of context, when his family lost everything it was the welfare which allowed them to keep going, without it they would have been fucked. So he owes everything to the welfare, not everything they've ever had has come from welfare.

Exactly. He explained it himself. I can't see how people can view it otherwise, unless they're being willfully obtuse. That's exactly how I want the welfare state to function; to act as insurance, a buffer, for when people fall on hard times and need a bit of help getting on their feet.

 

For sure. The problem is, it also still acts somewhat was a poverty trap. I know a chap who's got 3 kids, and was working for a low wage, supported by various benefits. He got a pay rise at work which took him over some invisible margin, and lost a load of benefits, and ended up about 60 quid a week worse off.

 

Whoever is in government, they need to work out a scaled approach to benefits that allows people to move progressively out of reliance on the state and back into full-time employ. At the moment it's too complicated, too expensive to regulate, and too inflexible.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Loki

[Kiffy]

For sure. The problem is, it also still acts somewhat was a poverty trap. I know a chap who's got 3 kids, and was working for a low wage, supported by various benefits. He got a pay rise at work which took him over some invisible margin, and lost a load of benefits, and ended up about 60 quid a week worse off.

 

Whoever is in government, they need to work out a scaled approach to benefits that allows people to move progressively out of reliance on the state and back into full-time employ. At the moment it's too complicated, too expensive to regulate, and too inflexible.

 

But how can those two things be acheivable? How can you regulate and ensure people are always going to be better off by working/doing better at work while making it simpler?

The case in point being referred to here has no bearing to your point (the bloke's dad went bankrupt, desperately needed welfare, and may or may not be off it now, we don't know) but to answer your point. Yes it's ridiculous that working can leave you worse off than not working in some cases, but without further amendments to the system, and further regulation, you can't address that. And if you scrap it and start it again, you still have to factor in help for those who need it twinned against the necessity that people always do better when working. And that will be complicated and require large amounts of regulation.

[Ronnie]

For sure. The problem is, it also still acts somewhat was a poverty trap. I know a chap who's got 3 kids, and was working for a low wage, supported by various benefits. He got a pay rise at work which took him over some invisible margin, and lost a load of benefits, and ended up about 60 quid a week worse off.

 

Whoever is in government, they need to work out a scaled approach to benefits that allows people to move progressively out of reliance on the state and back into full-time employ. At the moment it's too complicated, too expensive to regulate, and too inflexible.

Totally agree; it's a shambles, absolutely unfit for purpose.

 

I'm about to take a colleague out for a drink for her last day. She's a single mother who works 18.5 hours a week and has the rest built up by some tax credit or other. A couple of years ago we had work coming out of our ears and couldn't have coped without her working full time for us. I don't think she ever saw the benefit of bailing us out, though; she couldn't be paid for her extra work because the drop in her credits would have left her out of pocket. We just spoke of giving her time off further down the line to make up the difference, though I don't think she ever had the opportunity to use it. It's bollocks, isn't it?

 

I seem to recall that you fell afoul of the system too once; wasn't it the case that you were expected to burn through your savings before you received help when you were out of work? It's a shambles. I suspect I'm more hardline than many others ("If you continually turn down work then you also forgo the State's funding you, even if life becomes uncomfortable" would be one of my approaches) but I think that it's ridiculous to say that the social insurance system won't be accessible to people who have continually paid into it and who have acted prudently in putting money to one side for the future.

[The King Of Swing]

So the original problem tommy has was the suggestion that the kids family got everything from benefits, which he never said, now he's got a problem with him because when the family wasn't claiming benefits his dad was a hard working businessman.

It does rather sound like you're keen to argue just for the sake of it tommy old boy. Bit o right wing bias perchance?

 

Some people just can't make their minds up can they

 

 

[patiirc]

When over 40% of decisions against disability living allowance are overturned on appeal, and dr's are starting to speak out that people they know are unable to work are being found fit to do so. It's not just cutting down on people taking the piss, it's hammering the most vulnerable people in society to save money.

 

Links please.

 

From first hand experience of this in the last few weeks, the DWP isnt doing their job properly anyway. My DLA application was apparently considered on my application form and a letter from my GP, but the decision and the explanation given as to why it was refused after previously being successful, bore no relation to a condition that hasnt changed from the last application and potentially got worse with the addition of depression and continual problems of broken toe which has set me back months. It looks like for all intents and purposes that they havent read or completely ignored the form. One of the reasons given for the rejection is that Iam not at risk of falling. Now it was made plane in the form that I broke my toe by falling down the stairs because of my condition that leaves me unsteady on my feet and affects my balance, this is backed up by what I've said to two different hospitals and my GP and as far as Iam aware the various medicals Ive had, but it was completely disregarded or not even considered in the first instance

 

Usually it takes 8-11 weeks to assess, mine took over 14 and no specialists were contacted, they didnt look at the ESA medical or ESA advice who have declared me unfit to work on grounds of disability and clearly they havent read the form at all when making their decision. A phone reconsideration (when its clear the advisor I was talking to wasnt actually listening to what I said) will take another 8-11 weeks despite them having all the contact information and medical stuff at hand ( I even included copies of my specialist letters confirming diagnosis and what I can and cant do) and if that fails it can take up to 1 year to appeal ( which will be done at a public tribunal if it gets that far) Farce doesnt cover it.

 

I said earlier in this thread that I didnt expect to get it, but the delays, the complete lack of anything and the ignorance shown is beyond a joke. So at present Im living on c 300 pounds a month because, they cant be bothered to do their jobs properly and not afaik due to any changes in the system and the way in which things are handled.

[Kiffy]

When over 40% of decisions against disability living allowance are overturned on appeal, and dr's are starting to speak out that people they know are unable to work are being found fit to do so. It's not just cutting down on people taking the piss, it's hammering the most vulnerable people in society to save money.

 

Links please.

 

From first hand experience of this in the last few weeks, the DWP isnt doing their job properly anyway. My DLA application was apparently considered on my application form and a letter from my GP, but the decision and the explanation given as to why it was refused after previously being successful, bore no relation to a condition that hasnt changed from the last application and potentially got worse with the addition of depression and continual problems of broken toe which has set me back months. It looks like for all intents and purposes that they havent read or completely ignored the form. One of the reasons given for the rejection is that Iam not at risk of falling. Now it was made plane in the form that I broke my toe by falling down the stairs because of my condition that leaves me unsteady on my feet and affects my balance, this is backed up by what I've said to two different hospitals and my GP and as far as Iam aware the various medicals Ive had, but it was completely disregarded or not even considered in the first instance

 

Usually it takes 8-11 weeks to assess, mine took over 14 and no specialists were contacted, they didnt look at the ESA medical or ESA advice who have declared me unfit to work on grounds of disability and clearly they havent read the form at all when making their decision. A phone reconsideration (when its clear the advisor I was talking to wasnt actually listening to what I said) will take another 8-11 weeks despite them having all the contact information and medical stuff at hand ( I even included copies of my specialist letters confirming diagnosis and what I can and cant do) and if that fails it can take up to 1 year to appeal ( which will be done at a public tribunal if it gets that far) Farce doesnt cover it.

 

I said earlier in this thread that I didnt expect to get it, but the delays, the complete lack of anything and the ignorance shown is beyond a joke. So at present Im living on c 300 pounds a month because, they cant be bothered to do their jobs properly and not afaik due to any changes in the system and the way in which things are handled.

 

If you agree with the point I'm making why do you need links?

You're a perfect example of someone being shit on by the system who is clearly being refused benefits for no good reason! You are one of my links!

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d599.extract

There's another one.

The attack on the benefits of people who are clearly unfit to work is possibly the most foul thing being perpetrated by our current government, I have a feeling you misread my point!