Oxford University would disagree: http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-02-20-30000-excess-deaths-2015-linked-cuts-health-and-social-care
He’s already said that it doesn’t meet their ‘6 tests’ (which no deal was ever going to meet imo) therefore his instruction will be to vote it down. There’ll be rebels who go against that but not enough to counter the Tory rebels plus the DUP, plus the SNP and........the green He was always going to try and use this to gain a GE, which won’t happen anyway, so it’s disappointing that they’re taking this tack imo. Albeit it’s now estimated well over 70% of Labour voters favour a people’s vote.
Unless something changes, I can’t see anything else other than May’s deal being rejected by parliament. Surely, no Gvt in its right mind can sit back and oversee a no deal exit. The consequences have been well documented and the people will blame those in power for their reduced circumstances. I think there either has to be some kind of deal - although not May’s one - or it could very easily be thrown back to the people for a decision.
Marcus Fysh getting stuck in over May's deal. Seems they are determined to kick it out and go full out for a no deal, stating in so many words we are succumbing to remainers. Hence why i'm surprised some remainers are against it. It just seems we are both trying to force one another into a corner and this is never going to get resolved.
Did you see the report on BBC News last night? They only gave it about 5 minutes sandwiched between Brexit and some guff about Prince Harry or whatever, but it was absolutely shameful stuff, and the UN guy was appalled by what he found. He laid a lot of blame on the way Universal Credit has been rammed through at any cost, making it clear that it was government policy to make life as difficult as possible for all benefit claimants. It was shocking, frankly.
It doesn’t, as far as I know. I’m a long time resident here. I pay taxes here. It should therefore be unaffected, I can’t be 100% sure, but if I have to pay, so be it.
I think the Spanish government have promised to protect ex pats, but does that depend on the British Government contributing towards it. However, if you are paying taxes surely you would be covered anyway?
I have a problem with reports like this tbh preciseley because they come over as almost political. The implementation of UC has been a shambles ( was in trouble from the day 1 after IDS insisted on it starting on a set day though told more time was needed to set it up) however i take issue with the idea it was to make life more difficult for claimants as ,if it worked correctly, it would actually make things easier. The problems imo stem ,to a large part , from failed implementation plus added to by the reduction in funding done by Osborne when he failed to get his tax credits cuts through. The political aspect i think shows in some of the in effect small aspects of UC which they fail to deal with i.e. the switch from fortnightly to 4 wkly payment .
Just seen an LBC interview with May, someone in Alicante asked the question she has responded, ex pats will be protected in her deal (May deal) and in a no deal scenario she has promised to protect Spanish citizens here and would expect the same respect in return.
The idea of UC was very good, but having lived through decades of Tory welfare ‘reforms’ I always treat them with suspicion as there’s invariably an ulterior motive, and this one was no exception. You only have to look at who originally came up with it - IDS.....the underlying driver was to cut cost, and Osborne absolutely hammered the budget. Cuts that still haven’t been reversed even after the additional cash promised at the budget. The issue with the roll out has been well publicised but I think many have looked the other way. It’s left some of our most vulnerable, many of whom are working, with no benefits for 6 weeks. People have been forced into using ****ing food banks, borrowing from family (where possible) and falling behind with rent payments. All of that is completely avoidable by merely paying a transition payment at the same level they were already receiving, until their UC claim is complete. How is that even complicated? It’s a system that isn’t flexible enough, leaves no room for discretion and fails to acknowledge specific circumstances. It’s brought stress, hunger, homelessness and suicide with it. Yet they’ve continued to roll it out unabated despite the many obvious issues. They’re continuing the roll out in some areas right up until Christmas ffs.
Firstly i loath IDS however he didn't come up with UC the idea around that had been doing the rounds for years and it wasn't about cutting costs originally (though if it had worked well the assumption was it would cut administrative costs i assume) but actually improving the benefit system but with the IDS/Tory obsession with work always helps your life (a damaging assumption iro of certain "disabled" claimants) as an added extra hence the 4 wkly payment. In defence of IDS he actually put up a lot of opposition to Osborne deciding not to force his Tax Credit cuts thru and just instead swopped it to UC when it fully rolled out. As an aside it always raises a wry smile when people go on about people getting benefits when so often they themselves are receiving benefits but apparently their benefits are different.
Forgot to mention that they don't want flexibility in benefits due to the possibility of bias by the staff. Then they outsource it to people who don't give a **** as long as they get their commission
