No Rob, He has a fair point, especially when he says that they are not the real problem. We probably disagree more on how to tackle it. There is extensive exploitation of benefits but probably more by private landlords than by claimants. I just thought that a well meaning Social Democratic party like New Labour had more chance of making progress than a Corbyn led left leaning Labour party that is going to be slaughtered by the vested interest media. I suspect Corbyn will lead a civil disobedience campaign and there will be riots on the streets.Interesting.
I don't disagree with that - he's spot on and I was going to say as much. But the reference to our argument at 8:06 put me off. I'm just bored of the stirring.
Ffs Rob why do you think everything on this forum has to revolve around you?? I assure you my reference was absolutely nothing to do with you whatsoever, more the little rant Thurnby had at me a few weeks back when he disagreed with something I said on this very thread and then went off on one, labelling me "sanctimonious" amongst other things. From this and plenty of other things you come out with your apparent sense of self-importance really is quite something, however I can promise you you really aren't as significant in my general day-to-day thought process as I'm sure you would like to think you are
4 days ago: Benefits shakeup aims to force more disabled people into jobs Government wants radical reform to push 1m more people into work, but disability campaigners fear they are being targeted http://www.theguardian.com/society/...-aims-to-force-more-disabled-people-into-jobs Today, statistics released saying: 2,380 people died between December 2011 and February 2014 shortly after a work capability assessment (WCA) found they were able to work. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/mortality-statistics-esa-ib-and-sda-claimants Doesn't necessarily = correlation/causation, but still. Food for thought. EDIT: thinking about it, surely it wouldn't be that difficult for the government/civil service to get the DWP figures, the death records of everyone who has died during that period, and run the two together? If the government/civil service haven't done this, it's a bit of a poor effort. If the government have done this then they are being willfully obtuse in not revealing it.
There are approx. 450,000 deaths in the UK per annum of which I would imagine statistically they would be skewed towards a higher percentage of the sick and the elderly so those on DLA are (probably) at greater risk that the overall population.. I'd see the "2380 deaths" headline as a bit more meaningful if it actually compared the sample of those dying after being assessed fit for work with that of all people on DLA and the population as a whole or even to try to analyse the deaths for a causal relationship otherwise its just a cheap headline grabbing shot from some journo looking to make a point. To imply that being assessed fit for work is somehow lethal seems to be giving in to hyperbole somewhat. It's a bit like saying 75,000 people a year die on Fridays therefore Fridays are fatal. Bluntly correct but meaningless.
Like I said though, why not publish cause of death figures alongside to remove any doubt? It wouldn't be hard. I could knock it up today if I was given the cause of death datasets.
https://www.change.org/p/hm-courts-...o&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email Click on the link at the bottom for the figures! Pretty damning I'd say!
Dave, I've read the link and even the blog author says that you can't imply a causal relationship. The figures are what they are. Sick people die. Old people die. People on benefits die people at work die. There is nothing in that article showing that a higher proportion of people died as a result of the assessment than in the population claiming DLA as a whole. It stands to reason that people claiming DLA have a more significant chance of dying than the general population as they are, bluntly, less well than the population as a whole. Again there is no analysis of cause of death. the author seems to try to imply that by assessing people as fit to work this is causing a spike in the death rate in that sub-group. The author doesn't even say how many of that sample actually went to work or how many simply had their benefits cut and were unemployed or if that is a factor. There is no reason for the supposed spike offered other than the assessment. By the same logic anyone going from work to benefit must be at a more significant risk of death as their income has been cut. I totally understand that people find the cuts in DLA distasteful and see it as hurting the most vulnerable in society but just because something is distasteful doesn't mean it is causing deaths. It may be that this is the case but you cannot draw conclusions based on opinions stated as fact when that stats are not presented fully.
O.K., let me answer your first statement - yes you are wrong! The arseholes that I refer to are the ones who are claiming benefits when they should not, because they are totally fit and able to work. Instead they scrounge off the state and that means that you , me and every other honest taxpayer effectively pays them, that TMC in my view is indefensible, but as ever, you do not appear bothered by them, oh no, you have to go back and winge about the people who have wads of money and privelages. The two are in no way related but you seem to want to make this point at every opportuntiy and it is pretty tiresome. For the record, I do not particularly care for those people either but provided they have earned their money honestly and paid their fair dues then I have no concern with them, I am not in the politics of envy where you tend to reside. if you also bother to read my entire piece from earlier then I make it clear that it is the shortfall of politicians and civil servants to devise the system that weeds out the scroungers, but I guess if you jumped to the wrong conclusions before this diatribe isn;t going to solve anything is it. Finally, you made an assertion in our last argument that I probably read the Sun or Daily Mail, something, unsurprisingly, which I took huge exception to. I am therefore surprised that you were so in favour of the tabloid picture posted by Canary Dave as to be consistent, should have appalled you. I actually have not seen that picture in my paper unless it is in there this Sunday, we take The Observer!
Thurnby, If I may put in my two pennorth. I can see points in both your arguments. The wealthy IMO manipulate the system using their money to make the lot of the poor far,far worse. They buy up property with their spare wealth and then charge exhorbitantly high rents to those who cannot afford them. Incidentally many of these are the same people who employ people at minumum wage rates and seek to have more immigrants, not for any kind of humanitarian reason but simply because they will form a pool of cheap labour. Then many of those become alienated and think "Why should we work?" and drop out onto benefits. In a way I understand that because they perceive the impossibility of getting on in such a society . Then we have an admittedly relatively small number of large families producing offspring to push up their benefits. These are fodder for the Mail and suchlike to persuade the rabble to vote for Dave.
