Looks like there will be even less to spend on the country's infrastructure in years to come, less for social services, less in benefits, pensions, if the Government follows through on raising defence spending to 5% of GDP in the years to come. But yeah, go ahead and stuff the pockets of companies that manufacture armaments. The UK is incapable of building a train that uses its tracks!!
Big if that for the 5% of GDP, there's plenty of commitments and promises at the these summit not many kept.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...news/sick-pervert-live-streamed-teen-31939042 Our justice system is in serious need of reform.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq6my6v81z4o This is now the third government U-turn in a month - a major blow to the prime minister's authority. It follows on from Sir Keir reversing cuts to winter fuel payments and ordering a grooming gangs inquiry he initially resisted. Asked whether there was a pattern to Sir Keir's leadership in which he caves in if "enough people kick up a fuss", a Downing Street spokesman said: "I don't accept that. This is a government that listens." Perhaps they should listen before they make the announcements. Rather than trying to make out U turns are a positive feature of a listening government, it actually makes them look weak and indecisive. Maybe when the Don sends his boys into Iran to make the regime change, they could stop off here and change ours too.
The talk is not really of a new party itself but more a case of a grouping of different independents and others. Of course is mostly left wing Labour with Corbyn either being the focus or they are utilising his "brand" and the name "The collective" is often mentioned. Indeed I think I mentioned it a few weeks / couple of months ago in this thread! we're talking a lot of those free from the main political parties like the Palestinian independents, Corbyn and his 4 pals? And a growing number of the current Labour Left MPs as well as a few of the left ones that lost out last time going up in different constituencies against Labour "centrists." However a caveat..........Often when whispers are spread or things are leaked, they are done so on purpose with an intention! So leaking / rumouring (at least from the sitting Labour Left MPs might just be to might just be to move the direction of th leadership.......or weaken hi hold so they can get their choice in instead with no actual intention of standing independent to join a loose "grouping"
We saw '28 years later last night. I Iike thr director although I tend to avoid horror and zombie films. Not sure if any others would concur that this film was effectively about Brexit and a brutal skewering of English NationalIsm. The film felt like there would be a sequel to this third film. I felt it was very political .
I’m no poster, as you know but political “responsibility seems” to have gone down the drain (imo). I’m in shock at what we the general accept which I assume is the UN “allow” to be accepted.
With the welfare bill being presented in the HoC tomorrow, I would really like to know about how the government plans to get more people with disability into the workplace and off of benefits. For years now the phrase “we need to help more disabled people into the workplace” has been bandied around yet I have never seen an MP explain in detail how they are going to do it, other than by threatening to cut benefits. Deciding that people who cannot carry out personal hygiene, such as washing/showering or needing help with toilet use and/or cleaning their own backside, should lose a portion of their benefits will not help people get a job. I don’t think any employer will give a job to a person that will have hygiene issues and even if they did, how would the other employees react to being in close proximity to someone who would potentially smell. How would an employer deal with that? Dismiss the disabled employee or keep him/her on and risk alienating and losing key staff members? I agree that the welfare system needs reform but I still believe that the people who should decide if a disabled person needs PIP is the specialist doctor responsible for that person’s care and not some random person who is neither medically qualified nor been in a situation where they or someone they love has been dependent on this benefit. Of course some people might be pulling the wool over the eyes of their doctor but that will always be a fact of life and the numbers are probably a spit in the ocean. I read this tale, this morning and having witnessed the long term effects on the body, of someone who has undergone cancer treatment, this lad’s experience is similar to what I saw. A TEENAGER in remission from cancer says he is unnerved by the ongoing rows over welfare reforms. Daniel Evans, 19, who was diagnosed with stage four lymphoma at 17, is having his personal independence payments reassessed. He should be assessed under the old system after the latest concessions but said he fears for those in the future if they do not qualify for PIP. Daniel said: “Anyone can get an illness. It doesn’t matter how healthy you are. For those who will unfortunately get ill, this difficulty is not going to help. Financial problems are the last thing you should worry about during diagnosis or treatment.” tightening Daniel can no longer do things he enjoys, such as playing football. He explained: “It’s mainly my breathing, my heart, and tiredness. I’m like a shadow of my former self. “You have to come to terms with it.” PIP helps him pay for transport, such as taxis, or fuel for his mum to take him to and from appointments. Asked about the potential tightening of PIP eligibility rules, he said: “It’s a bit unnerving, because what I say is, for anyone who has had treatment and gone through it and are technically better, say in remission, just because someone is in remission it doesn’t mean they’re instantly able to do a lot of things, like go to work. They still have to get support. “It’s not like things get better and you can just go to work five days a week. Things are still difficult.”
The obvious thing we can do to get people back into work is let them keep their benefits no matter how much they work. We disincentivise working when we take away the money after a certain point. Even if that meant their taxes only paid for their own benefits, that would still reduce the load on the nation. The idea of a national Universal Credit, where everyone gets a basic set of benefits whether they work or not, was the concept behind Universal Credit - and why the name has universal in it! With this system there is no incentive whatsoever to stay home. Luckily I am not an economist so don’t have to pretend to know how much that would cost and how much it would boost the economy…
I 100% agree with this, but it is always the few that will abuse the system that let it down. In the ideal world this is exactly how it should be - if you need them, benefits for disabilities shouldn't be means tested and going to work shouldn't cost you. The issue is that this will get abused, so the only way of implementing it is to reduce or remove benefits if you can work. This though causes anomalies so that you are better off not working, so you don't. It's a tricky one
Covid inquiry module 6 investigating the pandemic’s disproportionate impact on the adult social care sector across the UK is starting today running to 31st July. Live here https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c74ww988gx1t and here https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/ which has links to reports on previous modules. On Wednesday 2nd July former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Matt Hancock will be called as a witness for a full day of questioning. His appearance is described as a “seminal moment of the Covid Inquiry that many of our clients have been waiting for”. “While Mr Hancock has given evidence to the inquiry before, this is the first time that he has been called early in a module, meaning he won’t be able to simply respond to others’ evidence” The Independent was told. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ine-abrahams-ppe-downing-street-b2777365.html “I only hope that he tells the truth about what he knew about the decision to discharge Covid-infected patients into care homes, which was the biggest scandal of the whole pandemic. Only then will our clients be able to get some form of closure.” "At a Downing Street press conference on May 15 2020, Mr Hancock said: “Right from the start, we’ve tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes. Bereaved families have previously branded this phrase a “sickening lie” and a “joke”. The criminally incompetent arsehole and others responsible for the mismanagement of the pandemic should be held to account.
Hw much is it going to cost the economy to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP let alone 5%? Social programs need to be prioritsied ahead of any spending on Defence!!
The media seem to be in a frenzy regarding the performances of Bob Vylan and Kneecap at Glastonbury. I am shocked that the govt appears to be taking legal action with against both parties as well as Trump revoking the former's visa. I wo6ld have thought both governments would have had more pressing issues to deal with. Fair play to Kneecap. They probably deserve 25 years for their music but must be applauded for their politics.
"I still believe that the people who should decide if a disabled person needs PIP is the specialist doctor responsible for that person’s care" The fact that they are not the ones deciding is because governments don't want an outcome based on compassion and safeguarding. While one side of the coin is that claimants would too easily persuade their Dr they were unable to work, you can't help but feel we now have the flipside where assessors look at why someone shouldn't receive benefits rather than why they should. BUT This comes up quite a lot online although I can't attribute it to a department or person, I'm assuming it's the DWP. "The focus of PIP assessments is to determine the level of support a claimant needs based on their functional limitations, not to push them into employment." And to back that up, from the DWP PIP assessment guide 1.1.3 "PIP can be paid to those who are in full or part-time work as well as those out of work". But I do wonder when determining the level, how many get their support increased after an assessment. It's an issue that can pull people in either direction. The general public would, I believe, want the unwell and disabled to be looked after by the state. But on the other hand there's not much that gets them (the public) more worked up than benefit scroungers. That's quite understandable because most honest people (of which I believe are the majority) see the benefits system as a sort of state insurance that helps when you desperately need it and not something to cheat.
