Off Topic Political Debate

A truly despicable indictment of a truly despicable government. And I've no doubt that the cynical assessment was created by an unthinking, uncaring lard-on at the top.

 

On my way back from the baker this morning I was thinking about how on earth the two women are both saying they are the best to bring the country together. With cases like this, and half the country far from happy, what are their chances of getting England to be at peace with itself? Clearly EU law has not prevented a sovereign government from choosing to treat the vulnerable is such a way, mores the pity. Both of the ladies are saying they will negotiate the best possible terms for the UK with it's need to access the single market. Didn't Cameron also say he would get the best possible terms before his negotiation? What makes anyone believe that suddenly the EU is going to change it's rules? What will happen when after talks sometime in the future they return and find quite possibly that their best is not good enough? I suspect that if you are genuinely disadvantaged because of health problems things will hardly improve.

 

No - that is nothing to do with the government - there have to be rules - it is a jobsworth fool who has no compassion and cannot interpret the rules correctly. You cannot just heap blame on a government for every stupid thing done by officials

 

Real life is often the same too. My son recently lost out on a promotion - he will compete again and maybe next time he will "win". As Yorkie says you need both in balance and I think 90+% of people do have and use both. I do not accept the idea that only collaborative species succeed - there are tons of examples of both competition leading to winners and also of collaborative species.
It is this "one way is right, the other way is wrong" which causes friction. We should look for balance and harmony.

Should work be the only way of becoming wealthy? - no - for a start it is not - there is inheritance, luck, innate talent often in sport or the arts. The real question is how wealthy compared to others do we accept a person - or family being. For any reason I may have half of what my nieghbour possesses - good luck to them - but what if they have 100 times what I have - does society simply accept that - or try a little redistribution.

 

I disagree - in the type of case in question, the jobsworth fool has adhered precisely to the government's stated policy. If he hadn't, the government would have loudly objected and made sure changes were effected. That they didn't places the blame fairly and squarely on their shoulders.

 

Sorry I just do not believe that. Did anyone get out a tape measure. Did anyone argue that the 21 metres assessment has to be in one go - or with several stops - no there are lots of grey areas and some onthis board refuse to acknowledge the grey as it is convenient to remain on stereotype to blame the ones they dislike.
My daughter's father in law is an ex GP and carries out lots of assessments - and appeals against them - he has regaled us with both horror stories of jobsworth officials who fail to take account of all the facts but also of others who look to interpret the rules compassionately.

 

That may well be so, but it simply does not detract from the fact that the rules, however well or poorly implemented, were created to serve a government policy. And with instances such as these, said government were clearly more than delighted with the outcomes they achieved - nothing whatsoever to do with compassion for the people, but everything to do with 'saving' by slashing spending on the easy targets.

 

Sad but true eh... and the tightening up is as a direct result of government policy.... awful

 

I have been watching springwatch this year and seen so many fledgling birds get eaten by bigger birds which all need to feed their young.... and yet even the ones at the top of the chain only managing to raise enough young to keep the population in balance.

There is some sort of ecological sings and roundabouts which facilitates only enough growth.... too much and the population will fall due to lack of resources etc.

Species which adapt intelligently survive.. for example. ground feeding birds which have developed adaptations to their claws which enable them to hang on to bird feeders.....

I think we can learn so much from nature

etc etc

 

It is easy to criticise the government for tackling a difficult issue. It is the government's responsibility to ensure there is no abuse of the system. Since they have tightened up the rules many so called disabled have miraculously become fit for work.

My father in law many years ago decided it was financially beneficial to be on incapacity benefit rather than the dole or job seekers allowance whatever it is called. He simply told his doctor he was stressed and was signed off.

 

Anyone for Leadsom?

 

We will not agree. All benefits have to have rules. You only have to look at the number of blue badge holders nowadays and the behaviour of many of the occupants of the cars they are in to realise that there is massive abuse. Beneifts money comes from all of us - I want to pay for those who are genuine in their needs and I want to not spend my money on someone who is swinging the lead. Somebody has to have the job of differentiating. It is no good just giving the old argument that all Tories are nasty evil people - fine if that is what you believe but I do not subscribe to that view.

 

Sadly some politicians appear to have little compassion for people in need I think all the latest brouhaha about the abolition of the Disability Living Allowance and related support for people with disabilities supports this view. Also the bedroom tax.....
o
Another part of the problem is that the civil servant administering these funds have such little latitude that whereas it would have been possible to apply common sense now it is tick box practice.

My mum had to go through a gruelling set of form filling and then interviews to get her blue badge renewed.. and we needed to be very careful about how she answered the questions as she was wanting to say she could do things she clearly couldn't and she would not have got her blue badge....On the other hand we need to ensure vigilance against benefits for those who manipulate the system....

 

I am sure you are right that some politicians have little compassion - but \I suspect the vast majority do. Unfortunately when the economy gets wrecked somebody has to put it right and that involves hardship - not all beneifts can be paid for by the evil bankers binuses - that money has been spent several times already.
Part of the problem is that whenever you want to reform the system and merge beneifts etc there will be a few people who end up worse off even if the majority are not - the media focus on those who miss out but without reform some stupid rules and benefits go on. Under Brown some ridiculously expensive beneifts were put in place whichwere not sustainable. By calling it the bedroom tax you nail your colours to the mast and so show youwillnot be open minded. It makes perfect sense not to allow people to claim for houses that are bigger than their needs. It is not a tax - it is denial of excessive benefits. As it happens it was ill thought out and ill implemented and failed to take proper account of real peoples' needs - but that does not stop it from being correct in principle. There are some people who simply are supporters of every hard luck story theyread - whether or not justified and some would habd money to peopletoo easily. That is MY money and I wanty a government to make sure that people taking mymoney actually deserve it. If theydo fine but it isnot good enough to have notests and tohave people living in accommodation paid for others larger than they require.
Do not think I do not understand about froms and rules. Mrs L had a blue badge in Wales but refused to apply for one here as the forms were so prescriptive she decided she was not entitled- she could walk further than they stated. As a result we cannot go shopping in Chichester as she is unable to get to and fro from the car parks. I am sure the forms were accurate in their requiremnts but they fail to be able to take account of differeing circumstances

 

No not true really... I have no truck in people getting subsidised housing more than they need..

But.... when disabled people and people with special needs have to move house or
elderly people who have lived in their house for 20 years or more have to move to a small flat

I am concerned, particularly as a house is a home..... and no political decision can lessen the implications of making someone move.

IMO more affordable housing is needed. Here in north Leeds they have just built 100+ houses across the valley from us all at £499-699k which is top end housing in Leeds. More mixed developments are needed and more rental property.

 

I am in favour of an unconditional income for every citizen. This would replace all benefits and would be payable to everyone, whether working or not. My theory is that this would actually increase the incentive to work - because the basics of rent etc. had already been covered and they would be really working for themselves as opposed to working the first 25-30 hours per week to cover the essentials. Some economists have calculated that the increase in spending power which would occur would more than cover the costs of such a scheme. Some countries in Europe are contemplating such an idea for the future, notably Switzerland, Germany and a couple of Scandinavian countries - it has even been suggested in Scotland.

 

OK - but when people use the political slogan of one party I see them as voicing those views. It is not a bedroom tax - and not a tax at all so to debate it fairly we ought to give it the proper name rather than a perjorative term.
I agree with you though on disabled, special needs and elderly people. If a person is living in a rented house - then they are always liable to have to move. An elderly person, perhaps on their own in a 3 bedroom house "blocking" it from a young family is hard to justify.

 

I could not disagree more. Work or starve - or have good reason why everybody else should pay for you. SOunds like one of the Green's ideas to me. Can't abide their economic views.

 

They had a referendum vote on this recently in Switzerland. It brought out a lot of people to vote, and was thrown out by a huge margin.

 

Leo, the point is that everybody gets it, including those who are working. There can be no talk of starving in a western industrial nation.......the bottom line being that if people have no income whatsoever then you can easily end up with major epidemics. This is not a 'Green' idea particularly. Such a system would replace all other benefits, including pensions, which would involve far less bureaucracy, and, as stated previously would both increase the incentive to work, and increase spending power.