I know, don't build nuclear subs, build houses.

lly shouldn’t be writing a column this week. I’ve come down with a one-two punch of stomach flu and food poisoning and have spent the past 48 hours trying to keep my insides on the inside while the room spins suspiciously around me.

I’m obviously in no state to work. But the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) would disagree. Between December 2011 and February 2014, 2,380 people died of a chronic or terminal illness shortly after being found “fit for work”. I doubt that it would make an exception for me and my norovirus. This is Tory Britain. You work until you collapse and then you work some more and you’d better be grateful. I’m just trying to move with the times.

The Conservatives speak of delivering a smaller state but they are more than happy to use the mechanisms of state to grind all the fight out of the poor. This is the state weaponised against the vulnerable, to make them believe that they are less than human. This is the welfare state twisted into a tool to separate human beings from their social conscience. Simply getting rid of the welfare state would have been easier and cheaper, but this way the Tories can persuade the most vulnerable in society to accept their fate and the rest of us to believe that they deserve it. That is why the benefits system is a moral hazard to us all, whether or not we are sick. The UN is right to investigate and the government and the public should listen before it’s too late.

Fantastic article :clap1:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...e-harms-us-all

This was largely ignored by the media.

Now okay while it wouldn't be fair to say the deaths were caused only by being made to work in some way.
The one running element and therefore 'a' contributing factor to all the deaths was apparently that all had over the last year or so been declared fit for work and got work from the re-assessments done by the DWP.

Whatever else it is, it shows the cruel re-assessments are wrong because clearly these people ought not have been declared fully fit for work.
From whoever declared them to be so.

The VERY SAME THING was happening FOR YEARS under a LABOUR GOVERNMENT.

That's because there was a very fine line between the politics of our old Labour party and the present Conservative party.

I'm baffled as to why this debate has become just another hate campaign towards left wing politics. Are we suggesting that all of those in the protests had to be left wing? if so, how bizarrely ridiculous! Where the protesters not there because they feel they are being treated unfairly by PIP?. If so, they could be left right or middle, its irrelevant.

PIP is run on a for profits basis by shareholders and stakeholders in the Maximus empire. It was privatized by Neo-liberalist thinkers, which means it could of been privatized by the old Labour or the conservatives. Same meat different gravy.

Sad is the day when vocal protests are condemned in this country. When people can no longer voice their frustrations (loudly and stubbornly), then democracy has reached its end.

Maximus, part of the G1 multi billion dollar fortress are an American for-profit corporation that receives government contracts to provide "business process services" to government health and human services agencies.

Why was our welfare system sold down the river to this huge corporate giant? A company that don't have a good track record when it comes to delivering services efficiently and appropriately and who are known to of hurt many vulnerable families across America.

If we have to out-source then why not out-source to the Brits?
It would be interesting to research what ministers have shares in this company.

Where are the reports to back that up, I think you will find not as many in any way were reported in such a short period as this period,were declared fit for work.

However Labour were wrong to bring in ATOS testing of the sick and disabled but the way that was extended,made more degrading and then targeted by the coalition Govt and still now this one, is a disgrace.

I don't think you will find from sources like welfare groups and the CAB anything like deaths on the scale in tis reporting of the issue.

Also just because it maybe happened too under Labour,that in no way exonerates the heartlessness and increased severity of the re-assessments brought in by this lot over the last 5+ years.

This is one thing I have to say I admired about UKIP in the election last year as they called for this extreme ATOS re-assessing of the sick and disabled to be scrapped altogether.
It should be in my view.

I agree that the tories are coming across as lacking compassion. Its something they were accused of in their first term so they had every opportunity to put it right, if they so wished. They chose not to.

I dislike IDS intensely, and I think it was a major mistake to keep him in his role - no one to blame but Cameron for that. I think the basic principle of removing scroungers from the benefit bill is a good one, but not at the expense or to the detriment of the sick. However, I still do believe in the democratic process. If you don't like it make your views heard in local government and bi-elections

Good post

I agree to use the democratic process should be first and foremost,however results of by elections are dismissed usually because of low turnouts, the same with Council elections,a small turnout is considered unrepresentative of the voters at times too.
IDS is the most inaccessible of Ministers,I have seen lists of grievances and problems with facts,sent to him personally, which never get a response from him and usually have the conveying of something like,'those things shouldn't happen',
However they do happen and he lifts not a finger to stop them happening either and is always dismissive of the issues when raised.

I said after May's result last year, when Cameron was talking about being fair ad even compassion, the one sign of if he was serious about that, was if he moved or sacked IDS,I agree with you totally on that.
Once he left him in place I knew for the vast majority of genuine sick and disabled, more really bad times were coming.
Which they have.

So for someone like IDS who treats all with contempt he sees as beneath him, I can well understand the fury and anger directed at this truly awful politician, who for me should not be an MP at all, never mind a Minister with power over the most vulnerable in society.

Civil liberties include ‘freedom of expression’ but the rights to freedom of expression have been quietly eroded into something unrecognizable compared to what it was in the late 90’s.
.

In May 2015 Cameron told us all, “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society” and he’s right, we have been passively tolerant as our governments have eroded more and more of our rights to freedom of expression. The new gagging bills implemented by the coalition government took away our privilege to group and form peaceful protest, without jumping through various hoops of fire first and even then they may turn us down and tell us we simply can’t protest. If we go ahead regardless and take to the street in peaceful protest we can be assaulted by police water cannons, and Cameron will give his blessing.

I can come on here and moan all I like but if me and a couple of friends made placards about our civil rights being infringed and walked together through the streets of Surrey, we are breaking the law and will likely be arrested.

Our right to protest is vital if we want our democracy to function properly. The more we behave and accept these rapid moving new polices that take away our civil liberties, the more sheep like we become.

How does any of the reforms facilitate this?

I wouldn't mind seeing the evidence to back up this claim.

Well said I 100% agree!

Well feel free to Google then, you're good at that. The Truth Is Out There.

I'm not sure it was quite as bad under Labour actually, but I am happy to be proven wrong with figures and such? It is true though that Labour brought in the dreadful ATOS in the first place. However over the past few years it has gotten harsher and harsher...the stupid tickbox sheets and such that they work from have been endlessly tweaked in an effort to get people not to bother claiming what they are entitled to. Its just sick really. And what? For 1% of fraud? Pull the other one. The few that do manage to claim when they are not ill must have figured out how to get round the current system, while the genuinely deserving are crapped on from a great height.

Even so, it doesn't exclude the current government from blame when people are still dying days after their fit for work assessments today. Labour cannot do anything about it right now..I don't know if they would if they could...but Labour is rather irrelevant to what is going on TODAY, if the people in power had a conscience, they wouldn't be blaming the sick and disabled for the economical mess. Hell, they were even on about chopping carers allowance. What could be the possible need for that besides just wanting to be ****ing cruel? Carers save our country a hell of a lot of money and work much harder and a lot more hours than some people in paid employment.

Sadly true...

I am and it is, what you suggest isn't however as I highly doubt it is the truth in all fairness, not worth wasting my time.

Fantastic post Vicky, fair and balanced and also in my view spot on too.

I would also question the deaths element under Labour too,I cannot find any detailed reliable info as to that at all other than criticisms for Labour bringing in the ATOS company.

:cheer2:

'The Court of Appeal has ruled that the so-called bedroom tax discriminates against a domestic violence victim and the family of a disabled teenager.
The ruling followed legal challenges by a woman who has a panic room in her home, and the grandparents of a 15-year-old who requires overnight care.
The removal in 2013 of what the government calls the spare room subsidy cuts benefits for social housing tenants with a "spare" room.
Ministers have said they will appeal.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) argued that it had given councils money to make discretionary payments to people facing hardship because of the policy change.
The case is now due to be decided in the Supreme Court.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the government would "look very carefully" at the judgement. "But our fundamental position is, it is unfair to subsidise spare rooms in the social sector if we don't subsidise them in the private sector."
One of the cases - brought by a woman identified as "A" - concerned the effect of the policy on women living in properties adapted because of risks to their lives. Her home was equipped with a panic room.
The second case - brought by Pembrokeshire couple Paul and Susan Rutherford and their 15-year-old grandson Warren - focused on the impact of the policy on disabled children needing overnight care.
The BBC's legal correspondent Clive Coleman said the ruling would affect only people within these two specific groups - severely disabled children needing overnight care and victims of domestic violence living in specially adapted accommodation.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35418488?SThisFB

Yes I heard the interview about it this morning, the government are apoealing the decision :umm2:

I am surprised that the grandparents managed to make a case.
The fact that it is based on their fear that they may have to pay the bedroom tax in future IF the council start actually charging them instead of it coming out of the extra funding they get for cases like this.
Good luck to them though.

The problem is the payments are "discretionary' so could be discontinued at any time

Yes, I understand their fear, I am just surprised that a case could be made on the basis though.
Not too sure about a panic room either, some nutter could set the house on fire or knock the doors down if they were serious about causing harm.


I have no problem with bedroom tax, just as long as every single tenant is offered a smaller property, until then it is totally unfair.

It is their right to do so as to appealing this 'judgement' from the Court today.
However how disgraceful it looks after seeing the interview with the Grandfather as to the child with very special needs,that a powerful govt is taking on such people in the Courts.
Over what, this financial penalty that no other Party in Parliament supports and all the warnings and criticisms of it from all quarters as to those having to deal with the stress and devastation brought to many of those affected by it.

The govt should do what is the only honourable thing to with this bedroom charge,scrap it.
I really hope the Court upholds this judgement again and says so in the strongest terms too.

To put that particular family and many others, numbered in the thousands like them, as was said on the Daily Politics, today, is absolutely beyond any decent defending of this shameful govt.

It should not however be also ever forgotten that the way this policy was formed and presented, that it was then only able to be enacted with the full support and votes of the vast majority of Liberal Democrats too.

Yeah I didn't really get the panic room either, what a way to live

Personally,I see absolutely no point a all in building houses/flats with only one bedroom, it leaves no room for growth of a family at all.
There are now very few dwellings for those affected by the bedroom tax to move to,yet they still have to pay the thing, even if they are willing to move but the local Authority has no smaller dwelling to move to.

It should have only ever applied, had I ever thought it something that needed doing, to only 3 bedroomed houses,with the 3rd bedroom if not used paid for but it should never have applied to only 2 bedroomed houses/flats.


However it must be costing loads to implement it, for the local authorities to have to keep chasing rent arrears,for the cases taken to court to get eviction orders, which are then suspended by the Court and small repayments ordered off the arrears on arrears.
Then having to put in the discretionary payments too to subsidise some people affected by the tax.

What an administrative nightmare it must have turned out to be and it cannot be saving much, if anything at all.
Far better to cut the losses now and get rid of it, just get more dwellings built and get on with that quicker too.
A bonkers policy,badly planned and badly implemented.

I agree 100%
This policy brought in by the Labour party now needs removing.

:laugh: Naughty Johnny.

Totally agree with this.

Downsizing affects people who regularly have a grandchild over for the night and what happens if a late teenager leaves home for a year but then finds they can't manage and want to move back in with their parents?

I agree that not enough were built, especially if we now penalize people who have a second bedroom they don't use. I also think, so long as someone with a spare room has applied to downsize, the bedroom tax for them should be stopped.

I know someone who has been waiting for over a year to downsize but there's nothing available. When some friends on the same estate who are on the waiting list for a bigger flat suggested they swap, the council wouldn't allow it. :shrug: The one with the two bed flat has got into rent arrears and threatened with eviction even though she's trying her best to downsize.

I'm not sure why you believe it was brought in by the Labour party Johnny. It was brought in by David Cameron and Nick Clegg's. Labour wants to ban it.

The bedroom tax and policies like it are the reason i would never in my life vote Tory.It's a pity the Labour party are so far out of touch with reality aswell and the Lib Dems don't know what they stand for.

What's really unfair is, those on benefits who rent from the private sector don't get penalized for having a spare room and private sector rentals are usually higher than social housing. Why is this only applicable to social housing ?

You can harp on about that till the cows come home if you want and we have discussed this at length before but since you ignore all my points as to it I see no point in humouring you any more as to it.
It was a Labour plan that is 'fact',, and in no way planned to be in any way,(even had they decided to go along with it), to the severity and extent the policy became and was only then implemented by the Conservative led coalition govt,that is fact too.

Continually ignore those facts if you must.

They want all social housing sold off and families in the ones they have, shunting those over housed and on benefits into private rented accommodation. They don't have the right to dictate how many private landlords have in their property, as long as the rent is less than the benefit cap then it's fine, the council don't have to fund repairs for private rented accommodation either so won't give a rats ass.

Yep, that explains things.

It was brought in to reduce the housing benefit bill and only applied to those over housed in private rented accomodation.

Which makes sense, place them in a smaller private rented home or social housing within the cap...sorted.

As it stands the reverse is happening, people are being turfed out of social housing into more expensive private rented accommodation, with as many if not more bedrooms than they had previously!

How does that make sense?

To those who have campaigned against the so-called ‘bedroom tax’ from the beginning, Wednesday’s decision by the appeal court to rule the policy discriminatory and unlawful will come as no surprise. To those who continue to defend the policy, this ruling should act as a stark reminder of its remarkable failure.

When it was first introduced by the coalition government in 2013, the bedroom tax aimed to cut the welfare bill and free up in-demand housing. The policy works by cutting the benefits tenants receive by 14% if they have one spare bedroom and a staggering 25 per cent if they have two or more.

At first, it may seem reasonable to some to cut people’s benefits if they are living in a house with one or more spare bedrooms. The idea is that this significant reduction in income will encourage the occupant to move to a house where all the rooms are used, therefore freeing up the larger property for those who require more than one room.

However, when you begin to look at the implications of the policy, as well as the failure to achieve one of its main goals, it becomes clear that the bedroom tax has been a disaster from the off.

According to the government’s own research published in 2014, almost 60 per cent of those affected by the bedroom tax were in rent arrears as a result of the policy. Furthermore, according to a survey carried out by the National Housing Federation in the same year, around one in seven families had received eviction letters and faced the prospect of losing their homes.

Even more worryingly, research carried out by the government’s Department for Work & Pensions found that three-quarters of those affected by the policy have had to cut back on food, while 46% had to cut back on heating and 33 per cent on travel. Clearly, the bedroom tax is having an extreme impact on those who are already struggling, forcing them to scale back on the essentials. Such a situation is simply unacceptable and confirms the fears many raised when the policy was first introduced.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a6838596.html

Everyone knows that the Labour party introduced the bedroom tax way back in 2008. Facts are simply that Kirk...Facts!

Nobody is disputing that fact :/

Watch Parliament TV: Urgent Question on under-occupancy. It’s a very heated debate and worth watching or listening to.
http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index...65?in=10:35:34