Jump to content

Politics thread!


DrAlexanderTobacco

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

No chance of a Lab/Lib coalition without SNP support as well, probably - But yeah, polling's been all over the place this year. Yougov are giving their new model a trial-by-fire and it's suggesting Labour will do incredibly well - relative to their position at the start of the campaign - but most other polling organisations are still sticking with a strong Conservative majority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most likely result is a hung parliament, possibly with a loosely allied block of LD/SNP/Greens acting as a potential wild card.

 

In a perfect world, we'd see the Tories loosing the majority of their seats, but if the last two decades of British Politics has taught us anything, it's that the British Public are generally thick as a particularly fat plank which is also quite stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I side with Lib-Dems over everybody else, but labour are a close second.

 

Sadly where I live is a tory safe seat, so I'm torn between voting what I want (dems) and what I think will get the tory candidate 'out' (labour).

 

I agree with a good many of the Lib-Dem policies, and they appear logical to me, without any of the scare mongering that the tories and labour have resorted to.

 

I've not watched either of the debates though, am I missing much?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the thing when it comes to voting. At the minute there is an air of just vote 'y' party to get 'x' party out. I say vote for what you want, as let's be honest, every time a party gets in they do seem to change policy after seeing what is already in place or planned.

 

I don't like it when (which I admit some of my friends do) people force over an idea as to who they think people should vote for. Though I do like it when people say why they're voting. Having an informed conversation about the reason why a person is voting, is always worth a listen.

 

I'd like to see what the lib dems would do if they got in, the idea of a green, snp and lib dem Parliament would be interesting. Though I reckon it could be too many meetings not enough action (as in who would lead snp or lib demo)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem for Tory supporters is the backlash they can suffer from the left, resulting in many not answering polls or putting up signs and that can skew the polls, as it did with Brexit and unionists during the run up to the Scottish referendum.

I had some good news through the door though, it looks like the upcoming constituency border changes haven't come in yet so I can vote for Mark Lancaster again, one of the many Conservative MPs who stood up for airsofters against Labour's ill thought-out VCR bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an odd thing to say, as I saw as much unionist banners (more so actually) than independent banners during the Scottish referendum. When ever I went on twitter or Facebook, it was all stronger together comments.

 

Regarding voting tory and facing backlash, that does come with the terrorittory. I know of plenty of labour supporters who were attacked by the left over the invasion of Iraq. Then the lib dems supporters getting back lash and ridicule after the 2010 election.

 

I think sometimes who we vote for makes us a bit blind (be it green, lib dems, tory etc) to how much criticism is published regarding said vote. As long as it's voting for policy, rather than how a person looks, and God forbid please no-one eat a bacon butty, then it's a vote for a party you believe in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an odd thing to say, as I saw as much unionist banners (more so actually) than independent banners during the Scottish referendum. When ever I went on twitter or Facebook, it was all stronger together comments.

 

Regarding voting tory and facing backlash, that does come with the terrorittory. I know of plenty of labour supporters who were attacked by the left over the invasion of Iraq. Then the lib dems supporters getting back lash and ridicule after the 2010 election.

 

I think sometimes who we vote for makes us a bit blind (be it green, lib dems, tory etc) to how much criticism is published regarding said vote. As long as it's voting for policy, rather than how a person looks, and God forbid please no-one eat a bacon butty, then it's a vote for a party you believe in.

 

I have Scottish friends who were egged (them, not their house) and verbally abused for showing a union sign in their front window, and a pensioner I know had her window smashed for putting up a Conservative poster, and she doesn't live in a rough area. There are plenty of other cases I know of through other friends rather than first hand.

Just look at the disgusting scenes and behaviour by the left when Margaret Thatcher died, and the anti-democracy protests after the Brexit result. Thoroughly unpleasant people who view their opinion as more important than others so not only do they not respect other opinions, they feel they have the right to berate and attack those with differing opinions. We've just had Labour's Jess Phillips on BBC 2 proudly admit that she was brought up to hate Tories, not just have a differing political view, but actual hatred. These are the sort of people who perpetuate the lies that the Tories are the nasty party, that they want to privatise the NHS. So it's safer to keep your head down, not let anyone know you're voting conservative and avoid any trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem for Tory supporters is the backlash they can suffer from the left, resulting in many not answering polls or putting up signs and that can skew the polls, as it did with Brexit and unionists during the run up to the Scottish referendum.

I had some good news through the door though, it looks like the upcoming constituency border changes haven't come in yet so I can vote for Mark Lancaster again, one of the many Conservative MPs who stood up for airsofters against Labour's ill thought-out VCR bill.

 

Mark Lancaster also voted to repeal the Human Rights act of 1998, voted against allowing terminally ill people being given assistance to end their lives, voted against plans to save the steel industry, voted consistently against allowing EU nationals living in the UK prior to the Brexit vote the right to stay, voted consistently (15 times!) for the 'Bedroom tax', voted against raising welfare benefits in line with prices, voted consistently (50 times!) against disability benefits, voted for increasing VAT, voted for higher taxes on alcoholic drinks and plane tickets, voted against increasing the tax rate for earners getting over £150,000, voted against banker's bonus taxes, voted against the mansion tax, voted for more restrictions on trade unions, voted for the £9,000 Uni fees, voted consistently for academy schools, voted for ending financial support to 16-19 year olds in vocational training programmes, voted against transferring more powers to the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments, voted for the snooper's charter, voted against measures to prevent climate change, voted to sell English state-owned forests, and voted for the privatisation of Royal Mail.

 

Now, if you're ok with all of that, plus supporting the Conservative party on their ideological crusade to murder the poor and sick, then go ahead and vote for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to throw in that I, as a left minded person, really don't like being pushed in the same camp as aggressive, dumb people.

 

We're mistly discussing personalities when we're putting stamps on people's forehead. Calling them left or right based on their behaviour is idio... not right.

 

Another point: we luve in the age of extremes. It's either right of left in people's mind. And it seems not understood that I have sympathy for both camps. I'm proud of certain things of my country, makes me a nationalist. I like everybody to have a good life and want to share so that the less fortunate ( not less dutiful) so that makes me a socialist. I'd like more respect for the working class and equal effort for all people, makes me a communist. I'd like people to be able to enjoy the riches of their fair labour, makes me a capitalist. I'm proud of the history of Flanders and how we used to be, that makes me seperatist and I don't like change because of change, which makes me a conservatist.

 

I belong nowhere and lots of people 'spit' on be for being an idealist and having an own idea ( not 100% agreeing with their preferred party programme)

 

Idiots everywhere, people, no matter the political preferences.

 

 

 

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, if you're ok with all of that, plus supporting the Conservative party on their ideological crusade to murder the poor and sick, then go ahead and vote for him.

 

And here we go with the idiotic lies. "Ideological crusade to murder the poor and sick" why do you feel you have to lie? Seriously. I can debate Labour's policies and their flaws without having to resort to lies. For instance I can point out the endemic anti-Semitism within the Labour party which Corbyn has failed to tackle, with his team of just 6 people to deal with the thousands of complaints, and when members are found in breach of Labour constitutional rule 2.1.8 they are merely suspended, even if they've breached the rule several times in the past. Now if you're OK with anti-Semitism in your government, then go ahead and vote for Labour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here we go with the idiotic lies. "Ideological crusade to murder the poor and sick" why do you feel you have to lie? Seriously. I can debate Labour's policies and their flaws without having to resort to lies. For instance I can point out the endemic anti-Semitism within the Labour party which Corbyn has failed to tackle, with his team of just 6 people to deal with the thousands of complaints, and when members are found in breach of Labour constitutional rule 2.1.8 they are merely suspended, even if they've breached the rule several times in the past. Now if you're OK with anti-Semitism in your government, then go ahead and vote for Labour.

 

I'm not lying.

 

NHS privatisation:

https://www.ft.com/content/297e7714-089f-11e7-97d1-5e720a26771b

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/virgin-care-contract-approved-social-care-nhs-privatisation-a7411386.html

morag_zpslus16sej.png

 

 

Deaths caused by benefit cuts:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-died-after-fit-for-work-assessment-dwp-figures

 

Again, the DWPs' OWN STATISTICS report that nearly 90 people a month are dying after being declared fit for work.

 

Man declared fit for work suffers his third heart attack 3 hours into his new job:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cardiac-patient-declared-fit-work-10522261

 

DWP declares man fit for work despite his GP disagreeing as he needs a double hip replacement:

http://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/man-declared-fit-work-despite-82799

 

Tory installed WCA system declared unlawful for the discrimination against people with mental health issues, but Tories still won't remove it:

http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/dwp-declares-business-as-usual-despite-appeal-court-ruling/

 

Appeals against WCA rulings costing £50million a year, paid for by taxpayer:

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/1015/1015vw57.htm

 

National Audit Office admits that cost to taxpayer of administration fees from private corporations which run the disability assessment schemes is at least £1.6 BILLION (even though the savings made by these 'cuts' are less than £1 billion):

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/contracted-out-health-and-disability-assessments/

 

420,000 disabled people hit with 'Bedroom Tax', despite the spare bedrooms being used for live-in medical staff or carers to sleep in:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-420000-disabled-people-1721706

 

Tory 'Back-to-work' Scheme only finds work for 8% of disabled applicants:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/just-8-sick-disabled-people-6462994

 

UN investigates treatment of disabled people in the UK, rules that UK Govt. committing "Grave and Systematic Violations" of disabled people's human rights:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37899305/

 

309 Tory MPs (and NO ONE ELSE) voted to cut Employment and Support Allowance for disabled people by £1,500 a year:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/esa-wrag-disability-benefit-cut-disabled-mps-vote-tories-iain-duncan-smith-a6918556.html

 

Tory's replace Disability Living Allowance with Personal Independence Payments, then cut the payments by 33% to 'incentivise' disabled people. Instead, it results in disabled people being unable to afford to eat:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/03/cut-to-disability-benefits-may-make-return-to-work-harder-claim-mps

 

65% of PIP assessments going to appeal are overturned, but the private corporation that runs the assessment program had it's contract extended for two years without a bidding process:

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/3555-28-september-2016-update

https://www.ft.com/content/fa80d526-1b7a-11e7-a266-12672483791a

 

Tory DWP confiscated over 51,000 mobility vehicles as a result of PIP cuts:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39575293

 

Tories cut Mental Health funding despite manifesto pledge to not do so:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37657954

 

Tory DWP tells disability benefits assessors to discriminate against people with mental health conditions:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dwp-mental-health-discrimination-pip-cuts-mobility-mind-a7629866.html

 

I do love, by the way, how you're complaining about the 'Thoroughly unpleasant people' who have a burning hatred for the Tories, yet when all I do is point out the voting record of your local constituent and point out the Tory party's abysmal record on human rights, you jump straight to the vitriol and assume I'm a Labour supporter.

 

For the record: I voted Lib Dem in the last two general elections, and policy wise I'm Fiscally Center-Right and Socially Center-Left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Separate post because massive block of text:

 

Regarding the allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour party, yes, it is something to take seriously, but given that:

 

1) The whole thing was sparked by Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone making anti-Semitic comments (2 members out of 517,000)

2) Corbyn set up an inquiry to look into the problem

 

I don't think it's fair to say that anti-Semitism is 'endemic' in the Labour party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the day I used to say "don't vote, you'll only encourage them", possibly naive, but certainly a youthful response to politics.

 

But now I have to vote for a government that wont murder my sister, drive the companies that I want to work for out of the country, exile the last boss I had as well as two of my best friends, push half of the people I know one step closer to homelessness and, of course how could I forget, remove my internationally recognised and agreed on human rights. 

 

 

 

 

I've done my research, I have researched BOTH sides, (actually I've researched all sides, but as others have mentioned this is descending into a 2 party fight :/) I don't fully line up with any party, so I'll vote for the one that comes closest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Separate post because massive block of text:

 

Regarding the allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour party, yes, it is something to take seriously, but given that:

 

1) The whole thing was sparked by Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone making anti-Semitic comments (2 members out of 517,000)

2) Corbyn set up an inquiry to look into the problem

 

I don't think it's fair to say that anti-Semitism is 'endemic' in the Labour party.

 

It isn't just two members, there have been thousands of complaints about members. Ah yes, his inquiry, which resulted in only 6 people to deal with the complaints and a few slapped wrists. Heck he even stood by as one member spewed anti-Semitic comments at a Jewish member.

 

I'm not lying.

 

 

I do love, by the way, how you're complaining about the 'Thoroughly unpleasant people' who have a burning hatred for the Tories, yet when all I do is point out the voting record of your local constituent and point out the Tory party's abysmal record on human rights, you jump straight to the vitriol and assume I'm a Labour supporter.

 

For the record: I voted Lib Dem in the last two general elections, and policy wise I'm Fiscally Center-Right and Socially Center-Left.

 

Yes you are, there is no ideological crusade to murder the poor and sick. None of those links back up what you've claimed.

Virgin Care were brought in by the Bath and North East Somerset NHS clinical commissioning group. I called the number listed on the letter and straight away got through to a lovely lady called Elizabeth who was most helpful. So much for the "you can't speak to Virgin Care" claim.

There is no evidence to show causality between being declared able to work and dying. Approx 42,000 adults die each month in the UK, and you're trying to blame 90 of them on the Tories? Get real.

The results show that 60% of appeals against being declared able to work are lost, showing the assessors have made the correct determination. There are plenty of people out there working having suffered multiple heart attacks, they don't decide to do jobs which involve heavy lifting and stress such as a delivery driver.

You are able to work even if you require new hips. My father in law needs both his done but has decided against it for the moment. He's 70 and walks the dog, manages to wander around towns shopping etc. He could work if he wanted to, he just wouldn't apply for a job that involved running around or standing for long periods of time. The assessment to be able to work is just that; you can work. It doesn't dictate what sort of work you should do.

The WCA appeal article even explains why no immediate changes were made, did you not read further than the headline? The case was referred back to the tribunal to decide if the changes the claimants have requested are reasonable.

It looks like you didn't read more than the headlines as the BBC article on mental health cuts by CCGs, not the government, which the article acknowledges has increased NHS funds for mental health by 8.4%.

The DWP hasn't told the assessors to discriminate against those with mental health issues, it's clarified that the disability mobility part is for those with a physical requirement such as a paraplegic, not for someone with agoraphobia.

Nor has the DWP confiscated any cars, obviously, see how those lies keep creeping in? It's re-assessed those receiving disability payments and some are determined to no longer warrant the higher payment entitling them to a car on disability. Such as my MS suffering ex, who could quite easily afford to buy and run a car on her income, but was able to get one free from Motability.

I remember a conversation I was part of with a single mum of two young kids complaining that she wouldn't be given a three bedroom house. At the time my wife (then girlfriend) and I were renting, saving what we could for a deposit on a house, unable to afford to have children ourselves, and there was this loose legged bint who'd never done a days work in her life complaining that she couldn't get as big a house as she believed she was entitled to.

Now I've lived on a council estate, I've survived on JSA and housing benefit between jobs, so I've seen the scammers and shirkers who have no intention of getting a job. Why should they be given larger that required properties? Why should someone on £150K be allowed to stay in a council house rather than move out and let someone in actual need have it? Why should someone who isn't working but can, be given more than those who are working? Welfare is there not to provide a living, but to provide a minimum while you get back on your feet and look after yourself.

 

As for Mark, how on earth is voting to replace the HRA with a new properly thought out and worded Bill of Rights a bad thing?

Likewise with someone voting to not support assisted suicide when there hasn't been enough thought put into the checks and safeguards required.

I don't hear Merkel, Barnier, Tusk, or any of the others in the EU guaranteeing the rights of the 1.2million Brits currently living in the EU, so why should EU citizens be given more rights than not just any other foreign group but our own citizens abroad?

You do remember the note left by Liam Byrne don't you? "Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid there is no money. Kind regards – and good luck! Liam"

Tax receipts had dropped by over £40bn that year. The 50% tax rate had brought in less money than the previous lower rate as those above it were able to shift their finances around, hence why it made sense to drop it back to 45%. Raising VAT to 20% was a quick and painless way to increase tax income. Now if only we didn't have to send a large chunk of that VAT income to the EU...

Taxation on items such as cigarettes and alcohol have been shown to reduce their consumption, which when you consider how much smoking and alcohol costs the NHS isn't a bad thing to reduce. Likewise with making flights more expensive it reduces the numbers which has a positive environmental impact, not only on emissions but also noise for those living near airports. Are you really saying that reducing the number of flights, the number of smokers and the number of drink related incidents is a bad thing?

As for vocational training, why should the taxpayer foot the bill when business benefits? We have many apprentices in various roles at work, they get more than the EMA, and the business pays for their course. Again, how is that a bad thing?

A Mansion tax is a tax to placate the envious. Just because someone lives in a property worth more than £2million doesn't mean they have money. Similarly when we are trying to attract those with lots of money to invest in the UK saying "Hey, we're going to hammer you left right and centre" isn't much of a welcome.

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is a good balance between providing the authorities useful information, maintaining privacy, and judicial safeguards.

Voted to sell a tiny part of English state owned forest, there you go with the fibbing. 2.7% of English woodlands which they decided against anyway.

Royal Mail, which was sold for much less than it was worth, and who was pushing for the sale? Oh that's right, Vince Cable. I don't recall Vince being a Tory, let me think, what party is he a member of? Oh yes, the Liberal Democrats! Well who've thunk it?

Yes the LibDems, home of Baroness Tonge, who believed that the IDF were harvesting organs from victims in Haiti resulting in Nick Clegg doing absolutely bugger all about her. Of course no such inaction would happen under Chares Kennedy, no, he sacked her when she admitted she wouldn't be adverse to blowing up a few Israeli civilians as a suicide bomber. Of course he put her forward for a life peerage when she retired. Perhaps David Ward will similarly be rewarded and have a seat next to her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I was working all weekend and found this in my inbox this afternoon, so let's trawl through the lack of line breaks and get to it:

It isn't just two members, there have been thousands of complaints about members. Ah yes, his inquiry, which resulted in only 6 people to deal with the complaints and a few slapped wrists. Heck he even stood by as one member spewed anti-Semitic comments at a Jewish member.

 

Fair enough, the inquiry into the problem was limp-wristed, to put it politely. I'll admit I've not been involved with the Labour party for any length of time (as, again, I'm not a member and have never been one) so I can't argue either for or against claims of historical anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.

Virgin Care were brought in by the Bath and North East Somerset NHS clinical commissioning group. I called the number listed on the letter and straight away got through to a lovely lady called Elizabeth who was most helpful. So much for the "you can't speak to Virgin Care" claim.

 

Virgin Care (Again, a privately owned corporation) was brought into that particular contract by NHS Whiltshite CCG, actually, which was formed as a result of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which was put into effect based largely on the policies introduced by the then Secretary of State for Health, Baron Lansley, Tory MP for South Cambridgeshire.

 

Let's ignore that the complaint about not being able to speak to someone on the phone is hard to verify as that screenshot was from more than a year ago and was in fact right as the services were being handed over to VirginCare, which might have had something to do with the whole 'phones being busy' thing.

 

Really, the point that you are refusing to acknowledge here is that you said:

These are the sort of people who perpetuate the lies that the Tories are the nasty party, that they want to privatise the NHS.

 

And it turns out that not only is the NHS being privatised (again, in the two previous links that I posted above the screenshot you seem to take issue with) but it is a direct result of the Tory/LD coalition Government of 2010-15, and in particular, the Baron Lansley and David Cameron.

 

The latter of which championed the bill as part of his 'Big Society' agenda, backed up by Mark Britnell, head of the Swiss/Dutch auditing corporation who had, in 2010, said

 

"In future, the NHS will be a state insurance provider not a state deliverer...The NHS will be shown no mercy and the best time to take advantage of this will be in the next couple of years."

 

Source:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/may/14/david-cameron-adviser-health-reform

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-humanitarian-crisis-private-health-insurance-cuts-privatisation-a7523941.html

 

Even better, why not look at the publicly available list of NHS properties being sold to the private sector?

 

These properties include:

  • Woodlands Nursing Home, Lambeth (advertised).
  • Honeylands Children’s Centre, Exeter (advertised).
  • Priory Day Centre, Barnsley (advertised).
  • Garforth Clinic, Leeds (advertised).
  • Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital HQ, Southwark (contracts exchanged).
  • Essex County Hospital, Colchester (contracts exchanged).

Furthermore, the sites earmarked for sale were overwhelmingly part of Mental Health and Learning Disability Trusts.

 

Yet in the election campaign, the Tories have taken great pains to promise support for those with mental health issues. Of the 345 sites deemed as surplus, 178 of them belonged to these service specialities.

 

32 sites owned by Ambulance Trusts were also pegged for sale. As were the following:

  • 23 Acute teaching trust sites.
  • 7 Acute specialist trust sites.
  • 19 Acute small trust sites.
  • 3 Acute multi-service trust sites.
  • 17 Acute medium trust sites.
  • 61 Acute large trust sites.
  • 5 Community trust sites.

Sources:

content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB20907/nhs-surplus-land-data-2016.xls

http://www.property.nhs.uk/what-we-do/disposals/

There is no evidence to show causality between being declared able to work and dying. Approx 42,000 adults die each month in the UK, and you're trying to blame 90 of them on the Tories? Get real.

 

What there is, and what I was providing, was proof that the assessment system set up by Iain Duncan Smith (again, a Tory) during his massive reforms of the DWP, do not work.

 

If you had read the article, the report from the DWP concerns people who have died after their ESA being cut because they've been assessed as 'fit for work' (and presumably, then, not likely to be so unwell as to drop dead shortly after).

The results show that 60% of appeals against being declared able to work are lost, showing the assessors have made the correct determination. There are plenty of people out there working having suffered multiple heart attacks, they don't decide to do jobs which involve heavy lifting and stress such as a delivery driver.

 

What you are referring to is presumably this quote:

 

"Of the 43,500 people in Scotland who underwent a WCA between October 2008 and May 2010, 74% were deemed fit to work. However, 40% of these people had the decision overturned successfully on appeal. It is reasonable to suggest that this figure would be even higher were it not for the fact that a large number of those deemed fit for work do not appeal as they do not wish to go through the stress the whole process entails. It goes without saying that it is not acceptable to reduce the numbers of those on Employment and Support Allowance, and its predecessor benefits, simply by making the testing process as difficult and strenuous as possible for those involved."

 

From: https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/1015/1015vw57.htm

 

(I've helpfully put, in bold, the bit that you decided to ignore to alter the context.)

You are able to work even if you require new hips. My father in law needs both his done but has decided against it for the moment. He's 70 and walks the dog, manages to wander around towns shopping etc. He could work if he wanted to, he just wouldn't apply for a job that involved running around or standing for long periods of time. The assessment to be able to work is just that; you can work. It doesn't dictate what sort of work you should do.

 

I'm glad that your Dad is doing so well, and is in a financial position where he doesn't have to work in order to survive.

 

However, your dad isn't necessarily the average British 70 year old, nor does his ability to walk the dog and wander around town have any bearing on the fact that William McCallum's GP, a medical expert who has a deep understanding of William McCallum's medical history, said that he was not fit for work, but the DWP (which, last I checked, is not staffed with medical experts) disagreed.

The WCA appeal article even explains why no immediate changes were made, did you not read further than the headline? The case was referred back to the tribunal to decide if the changes the claimants have requested are reasonable.

 

Which article are you referring to? I linked to 18 different sources.

It looks like you didn't read more than the headlines as the BBC article on mental health cuts by CCGs, not the government, which the article acknowledges has increased NHS funds for mental health by 8.4%.

 

The same CCGs which were set up as a result of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, IE: The Tory Secretary of Health, Baron Lansley.

 

Additionally, the article actually states:

 

"Mental health spending overall was up 8.4% in 2015/16 compared to the previous year, the NHS said."

 

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37657954

 

That does not say that the government has increased NHS funds for mental health. It says that the NHS is spending more on mental health.

The DWP hasn't told the assessors to discriminate against those with mental health issues, it's clarified that the disability mobility part is for those with a physical requirement such as a paraplegic, not for someone with agoraphobia.

 

Sigh. Again, from the article:

 

"Assessors have been told that people whose mobility is limited due to mental health conditions should not be entitled to receive the mobility component of PIP even if their mobility is limited to the same extent as someone with a physical impairment.

 

The new guidance issued by the Department says that mobility impairments caused by psychological issues are “not relevant”."

 

Again, I have put the bits that actually give context (which, again, you have ignored) in bold.

 

Nor has the DWP confiscated any cars, obviously, see how those lies keep creeping in? It's re-assessed those receiving disability payments and some are determined to no longer warrant the higher payment entitling them to a car on disability. Such as my MS suffering ex, who could quite easily afford to buy and run a car on her income, but was able to get one free from Motability.

 

Yes, they have, because if you fail the PIP assessments and you previously have leased a car provided by Motability, then you lose the lease to that car, as a direct result of the DWP changing the system used to determine disability.

 

Again, I'm glad that your ex is in a financial situation in which she is 'easily' able to afford to buy and run a car on her income. There are many who have lifelong disabilities who can't.

 

In the very same article the DWP admits that 65% of it's PIP assessments are overturned at tribunal in the claimants favour.

I remember a conversation I was part of with a single mum of two young kids complaining that she wouldn't be given a three bedroom house. At the time my wife (then girlfriend) and I were renting, saving what we could for a deposit on a house, unable to afford to have children ourselves, and there was this loose legged bint who'd never done a days work in her life complaining that she couldn't get as big a house as she believed she was entitled to.

 

So that one conversation with one person is incontrovertible evidence that all benefit claimants are

frauds who want to milk the system dry? Because I too, have encountered people who are claiming benefits fraudulently, but the vast majority of claimants I have come across were honest and in real need of financial support.

 

Fact time:

 

DWP figures place Benefit Fraud in the UK in 2016/17 as costing £3.5 billion

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-financial-year-201617-preliminary-estimates

 

Government commissioned UK Annual Fraud Indicator for 2016/17 puts total public sector fraud as costing £193 billion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36379546

 

So benefit fraud accounts for only 1.8% of public sector fraud. Good thing we're spending all this time and money and human misery stamping that out and not the £144 billion (75% of the total) worth of business fraud or the £15.4 billion (8%) worth of tax fraud.

 

Because then it might be rich people who get in trouble and go to goal.

Now I've lived on a council estate, I've survived on JSA and housing benefit between jobs, so I've seen the scammers and shirkers who have no intention of getting a job. Why should they be given larger that required properties? Why should someone on £150K be allowed to stay in a council house rather than move out and let someone in actual need have it? Why should someone who isn't working but can, be given more than those who are working? Welfare is there not to provide a living, but to provide a minimum while you get back on your feet and look after yourself.

 

I have had to survive on Universal Credit, JSA's replacement. And do you know what I got?

 

Absolutely *fruitcage* all. Not a single penny. For a period of 4 months I had to live on what I could make selling my possessions and digging myself deeper and deeper into debt.

 

I got sanctioned (As in, no benefits at all for 6 weeks) for 'not accepting a job placement' when the job placement they wanted me to accept was

 

1) In Glasgow (as in, 50 miles away from where I live, requiring a bus and a train and taking an hour and a half each way)

 

2) Paid less than the minimum wage (as in, illegal wages, £6 an hour)

 

3) Would not provide travel allowance (as in, would cost me £20 a DAY just to get to and from work)

 

4) Was part time and only gave me 5 hours of work a day (So, £30 a day)

 

5) Wouldn't provide a lunch break or money for food (So that's another £3.50 I have to pay for myself)

 

6) Was completely outside of my sector (I am a fully qualified SEN teacher, this job was 'admin assistant')

 

So after I politely explained to the DWP worker that it wasn't viable, for all the reasons above and the fact that I would be earning only £6.50 a day, I was told that I had turned down a job placement without good reason and that I was being sanctioned for 6 weeks.

 

And I am a relatively young person in good health with no dependents and the ability to jump through the hoops and work a computer. Can you imagine how difficult this system is for people who aren't as lucky?

 

Well, if you can't, let me illustrate a few things.

 

1) To apply for Universal Credit I had to fill in a 80 page booklet of forms. I am not joking. This is the basic application, not including the additional disability section.

 

2) The additional disability section is 25 pages long.

 

Here's the breakdown of benefit costs in 2015:

 

Jobseekers Allowance £3bn

Disability benefit £14bn

Corporate tax benefit £93bn

 

Sources:

http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SPERI-Paper-24-The-British-Corporate-Welfare-State.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/07/corporate-welfare-a-93bn-handshake

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/28/corbyn-business-corporate-welfare-taxpayers

 

Amazon, for example, did not pay taxes that year, because they got more from the UK government in tax benefits than they had to pay. Dell, Plusnet, Tesco, Starbucks, Disney, our friends ATOS and Maximus, who run the DWP's WCA system, all of them get tax relief.

As for Mark, how on earth is voting to replace the HRA with a new properly thought out and worded Bill of Rights a bad thing?

 

What exactly do you not like about the Human Rights Act?

  • The right to life: protects your life, by law. The State is required to investigate suspicious deaths and deaths in custody.
  • The prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment: you should never be tortured or treated in an inhuman or degrading way, no matter what the situation.
  • Protection against slavery and forced labour: you should not be treated like a slave or subjected to forced labour.
  • The right to liberty and freedom: you have the right to be free and the State can only imprison you with very good reason – for example, if you are convicted of a crime.
  • The right to a fair trial and no punishment without law: you are innocent until proven guilty. If accused of a crime, you have the right to hear the evidence against you in a court of law.
  • Respect for privacy and family life and the right to marry: protects against unnecessary surveillance or intrusion into your life. You have the right to marry and enjoy family relationships.
  • Freedom of thought, religion and belief: you can believe what you like and practise your religion or beliefs.
  • Free speech and peaceful protest: you have a right to speak freely and join with others peacefully, to express your views.
  • No discrimination: everyone’s rights are equal. You should not be treated unfairly – because, for example, of your gender, race, sexuality, religion or age.
  • Protection of property: protects against state interference with your possessions.
  • The right to an education: means that no child can be denied an education.
  • The right to free elections: elections must be free and fair.

Which of those do you have problems with? Is it because the HRA 1998 holds us to the European Convention on Human Rights?

 

You know, that convention which is totally separate from the EU, which we helped establish in the early 50s, along with the European Court of Human Rights?

 

That convention which protects you and your families from tyrannical governments? Or are you happy that Theresa May's response to terrorism is to promise that she's going to tear up human rights laws because this will somehow prevent terrorists forever?

Likewise with someone voting to not support assisted suicide when there hasn't been enough thought put into the checks and safeguards required.

 

Fair point.

I don't hear Merkel, Barnier, Tusk, or any of the others in the EU guaranteeing the rights of the 1.2million Brits currently living in the EU, so why should EU citizens be given more rights than not just any other foreign group but our own citizens abroad?

 

Interesting you should point out the 'rights of our own citizens abroad' - How many UK nationals overseas were denied a vote in the Brexit referendum, despite their rights and families being put at risk?

 

Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/expats-living-abroad-denied-vote-in-european-referendum-by-high-court_uk_5721dff5e4b0a1e971cb1532

https://www.ft.com/content/f56df4d6-0d22-11e6-ad80-67655613c2d6

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/21/britons-abroad-denied-uk-general-election-vote-tories

You do remember the note left by Liam Byrne don't you? "Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid there is no money. Kind regards – and good luck! Liam"

Tax receipts had dropped by over £40bn that year. The 50% tax rate had brought in less money than the previous lower rate as those above it were able to shift their finances around, hence why it made sense to drop it back to 45%. Raising VAT to 20% was a quick and painless way to increase tax income. Now if only we didn't have to send a large chunk of that VAT income to the EU...

 

The deficit in 2015 was 53% up from that of the deficit in 2010. But apparently the Tories are brilliant at money things, right?

 

Source:

 

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-and-conservative-records-national-debt/

 

Total tax expenditure on the EU in 2015: £12.9 Billion

 

Again, corporate tax relief (as in, taxpayer money that we paid to businesses to help them with their tax bills) in the UK in 2015: £93 Billion

Taxation on items such as cigarettes and alcohol have been shown to reduce their consumption, which when you consider how much smoking and alcohol costs the NHS isn't a bad thing to reduce. Likewise with making flights more expensive it reduces the numbers which has a positive environmental impact, not only on emissions but also noise for those living near airports. Are you really saying that reducing the number of flights, the number of smokers and the number of drink related incidents is a bad thing?

 

Again, fair point.

As for vocational training, why should the taxpayer foot the bill when business benefits? We have many apprentices in various roles at work, they get more than the EMA, and the business pays for their course. Again, how is that a bad thing?

 

Because those trainees become workers who then pay taxes on their income, taxes on the things they spend that income on, contribute to the economy, contribute to industry and contribute to the community.

 

If the business you work for pays for their courses, that's great, but not all businesses do.

A Mansion tax is a tax to placate the envious. Just because someone lives in a property worth more than £2million doesn't mean they have money. Similarly when we are trying to attract those with lots of money to invest in the UK saying "Hey, we're going to hammer you left right and centre" isn't much of a welcome.

 

I'm sorry, but you do know that the average house price in the UK is only £218,255?

 

Yes, it is theoretically possible that you could somehow own a property worth 10 times the national average and somehow still be so poor you can't afford to pay anything (in which case, my suggestion would be to sell the house and buy 5 average houses, rent 4 of them out, get a steady stream of rental income and pocket the million pound difference) but I think it's fair to say that is a vanishingly tiny possibility.

 

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-house-price-index-hpi-for-january-2017

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is a good balance between providing the authorities useful information, maintaining privacy, and judicial safeguards.

 

No, it isn't. MI5 reported in 2015 that they were getting too much data to trawl through and more wide-reaching, invasive powers would not help.

 

Also, didn't we have two separate terrorist attacks recently where the terrorists were reported multiple times to the police and MI5? How could that have happened if spying on literally everyone was the best thing ever?

 

Also: Read Section 56 of the IPA 2016:

  • 56 (1) In British courtrooms and Inquiries it is now forbidden to make disclosures that would
  • (a) reveal that evidence was obtained by electronic spying (snooping).
    ( B) suggest that electronic spying (snooping) has ever been going on, may have been going on, or may go on in the future.
  • 56 (2) Details all of the actions that are defined as electronic spying ("Interception-related content")
  • 56 (3) A list of people who people who are able to act as electronic spies (snoopers), which includes police chiefs, spy chiefs, the head of HMRC, the head of the defence staff, the heads of non-British agencies with whom the British government is sharing information, any person holding office under the crown, anyone working for the police, anyone working for HMRC, anyone working for a postal service, anyone working for a telecommunications provider, anyone working as a subcontractor for a postal service or telecommunications company.
  • 56 (4) Retroactive clauses to prevent the prosecution of people who were doing this kind of electronic spying unlawfully before the Snoopers' Charter became law in November 2016.

If you're not aware as to why this is a bad thing:

 

Section 56 of the Snoopers' Charter creates a legal obligation on prosecutors to lie in court about how their surveillance-related evidence was obtained, and it also prevents defence lawyers from presenting proof that evidence was obtained by spying, or even suggesting that the evidence might have been obtained by spying.

 

You could suggest that this legislation weakens the prosecution position by creating doubts over whether they are telling the truth or not, but any defence lawyer who ever tried to even point out the section 56 legislation that obligates the prosecution to lie in court about the sources of their evidence would be in breech of section 56 (1) ( B) for suggesting that spying could have been going on.

 

Aside from the Snoopers' Charter creating legal obligations for witnesses to lie in court, and gagging defence lawyers, section 56 is also deeply concerning because of the retroactive clauses.

 

The Edward Snowden leaks made it absolutely clear that the UK surveillance state was behaving in a criminal manner by ignoring the law and acting without any parliamentary oversight. Section 56 (4) absolves the secret services of their criminal activity by backdating the Snoopers' Charter to decades before it was actually brought into law.

 

Sources:

https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/mi5-too-much-data-preston-milkwhite-analysis/

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/investigatorypowers/documents.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/06/parallel_construction_lies_in_english_courts/

Voted to sell a tiny part of English state owned forest, there you go with the fibbing. 2.7% of English woodlands which they decided against anyway.

 

Erm, no. The proposal was to sell the entirety of the Scottish and English state owned forest (the Forestry Commissions holdings), which was 860,000 hectares, as part of the Public Bodies Act 2011.

 

To put that into perspective: that's 27.2% of the total woodland in the UK.

 

In the end, after the massive public backlash, they only sold or leased 15% of the Forestry Commission's holdings.

 

Sources:

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110202/debtext/110202-0003.htm#11020248002433

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/publicbodieshl.html

https://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-7aqknx

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-direction-for-england-s-public-forest-estate

 

Royal Mail, which was sold for much less than it was worth, and who was pushing for the sale? Oh that's right, Vince Cable. I don't recall Vince being a Tory, let me think, what party is he a member of? Oh yes, the Liberal Democrats! Well who've thunk it?

 

Yes, that's true, Vince Cable was the Business Secretary at the time and was the driving force behind the sale of Royal Mail. The point I was making was that your MP, who you want to vote for again, voted in favour of it.

 

Yes the LibDems, home of Baroness Tonge, who believed that the IDF were harvesting organs from victims in Haiti resulting in Nick Clegg doing absolutely bugger all about her. Of course no such inaction would happen under Chares Kennedy, no, he sacked her when she admitted she wouldn't be adverse to blowing up a few Israeli civilians as a suicide bomber. Of course he put her forward for a life peerage when she retired. Perhaps David Ward will similarly be rewarded and have a seat next to her.

 

Maria Gatland, nee McGuire, Tory Councillor for Croydon, who was an active member of the Provisional IRA, and even wrote a book on it detailing how she wanted to kill as many British Soldiers as possible.

 

Oh, and Liam Fox, who had that odd thing with Adam Werritty, his friend who just happened to live with him rent-free and was constantly being taken by Fox to meet foreign dignitaries and attend MOD meetings both in the UK and abroad whilst claiming to be an 'advisor' to the MOD, despite having no government post or clearance.

 

Sources:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/maria-gatland-from-terrorist-to-tory-28457193.html

http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/4045346.IRA_Councillor_welcomed_back_to_Tory_bosom

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8820097/Liam-Fox-Adam-Werritty-inquiry-to-include-business-links-of-close-friend.html

 

Apologies for the multiple posts but apparently there is a quote box limit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.