[MTVN]

So, what do people think of the spending cuts announced today?

Personally, I do feel they are neccesary. After the huge deficit and debt interest that Labour left us with, I don't think that it would be sustainable to continue government spending, and cuts seem a more effective way of eliminating the deficit than rising taxes. And hopefully a flourishing private sector will be incentivised to create more, useful jobs, to replace those that will be lost by the cuts made today.

It may hit a lot of people hard, but I do think that it will stablise the country, and be beneficial in the long run.

[joeysteele]

What amazes me is that these cuts will hit all over the place and people, but we can still afford to elect 650 MPs to westminster, there are a far greater number of councillors now elected in the UK than ever before, there is the devolved power and new MPs in the Scotland and Wales own government and also there is the MPs we elect to EUROPE too,.

Never has there been so mnay people needed as to the political interests of the UK as there is elected now,all on massive saalsries to boot.
Not forgetting the elected Mayors as well.

No cuts necessary there though.I wonder why?

[NettoSuperstar!]

Cuts have to be made but not so quickly and not so harshly and need to be made fairer so banks and tax dodgers/avoiders (of which Geroge Osbourne is one) are paying their share

this about sums it up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk9FeK0lTts

Youtube video

http://www.thecutswontwork.co.uk/


Heres something you can do to help make sure tax avoidance which costs us billions every year is dealt with

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/spe...ilure#speakout

[MissKittyFantastico]

Unfortunately yes I think they are, however the way they are talking about tackling the welfare budget is all wrong. Granted something needs to be done to fix this problem of people being better off on benefits than they are in work, and catching out the cheats but people with genuine problems are going to suffer terribly.

I was just reading there that they are going to limit the length of time that the long term sick can claim incapacity benefit to six months to a year and they will then be forced onto either Jobseekers or ESA (which as far as I was aware was designed for people who are able to go back into work at some point in the future. The levels of payment will be a lot lower on ESA, and why the hell should genuine, long term and even terminally ill people receive less money? Bearing in mind you don't even get your prescriptions paid for if you are on incapacity, which is just ludicrous.

Also these new medical assessments for incapacity and ESA are meant to have even less mental health related criteria, with questions like 'can you count backwards from 100' and if you can walk 200 metres unaided then you are deemed fit for work. This means that people with genuine mental health problems are going to be deemed fit for work and shunted onto Jobseekers Allowance when they are actually in no fit state to even be looking for work. 40% of claimants with mental health issues win their appeal against decisions made to stop their benefits, doesn't that tell you how woefully ignorant the DWA are on this subject? And it's only going to get worse.

I agree that cuts do need to be made, but it seems to me that once again it's the poorest and more vulnerable that will be made to suffer, rather than the fat cat bankers that got us into this mess in the first place.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally Posted by MissKittyFantastico

Unfortunately yes I think they are, however the way they are talking about tackling the welfare budget is all wrong. Granted something needs to be done to fix this problem of people being better off on benefits than they are in work, and catching out the cheats but people with genuine problems are going to suffer terribly.

I was just reading there that they are going to limit the length of time that the long term sick can claim incapacity benefit to six months to a year and they will then be forced onto either Jobseekers or ESA (which as far as I was aware was designed for people who are able to go back into work at some point in the future. The levels of payment will be a lot lower on ESA, and why the hell should genuine, long term and even terminally ill people receive less money? Bearing in mind you don't even get your prescriptions paid for if you are on incapacity, which is just ludicrous.

Also these new medical assessments for incapacity and ESA are meant to have even less mental health related criteria, with questions like 'can you count backwards from 100' and if you can walk 200 metres unaided then you are deemed fit for work. This means that people with genuine mental health problems are going to be deemed fit for work and shunted onto Jobseekers Allowance when they are actually in no fit state to even be looking for work. 40% of claimants with mental health issues win their appeal against decisions made to stop their benefits, doesn't that tell you how woefully ignorant the DWA are on this subject? And it's only going to get worse.

I agree that cuts do need to be made, but it seems to me that once again it's the poorest and more vulnerable that will be made to suffer, rather than the fat cat bankers that got us into this mess in the first place.

Agreed, the most vulnerable in society are in for a rough time, it really saddens me...thats what you get when we're not all in it together, we're getting robbed and creamed off by the fat cats who have created their own society and couldnt give a **** about the rest of us aslong as we work for them

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...arder-says-ifs

[BB_Eye]

I don't disagree that there should be cuts, but they need to be smaller with important areas such as the NHS and education ringfenced. Also the government should look for revenue from elsewhere, such as income tax for the super rich. Osborne has given no good explanation for why he refuses to do this, because he would prefer to wage his ideological war on the public sector.

[MissKittyFantastico]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

I don't disagree that there should be cuts, but they need to be smaller with important areas such as the NHS and education ringfenced. Also the government should look for revenue from elsewhere, such as income tax for the super rich. Osborne has given no good explanation for why he refuses to do this, because he would prefer to wage his ideological war on the public sector.

Apparently the NHS are immune from the cuts and they are putting an extra £2billion into social care. They're also ploughing more money into education including a new £2.5 billion pupil premium for pupils from poorer backgrounds.

I agree with taxing the super rich more, and also stopping the banks paying such ridiculous bonuses. Why should hard working middle class and working class people suffer when it's not their fault we're in this mess. This whole waffle about us 'all being into together' is a load of rubbish.

[joeysteele]

From the economics section of my Uni, their reading is that from what the Chancellor said if someone has disabilities and are unable to work and are on disability benefit as well, they are exempt from losing the main benefits, the limit of ESA will be up to a year if you are deemed as able to work now or in the forthcoming future, the genuinely sick and disabled will be exempt from that if its deemed they are unlikely to be able to work again.
Everyone though is going to be re-assessed though, obviously.

My advice though to anyone who has to go to the new re-asessment tests whatever is take someone with you and in the room to be examined/interviewed too, Don't trust them to do the right thing,they will have quotas of people they must sign off and list to be signed off in the near future too, if anyone is genuinely ill with a long term illness/disablilty, take someone with you,so you have a witness to what is said and done...

[MissKittyFantastico]

Oh and another thing, it's all fine and dandy kicking people off of certain benefits and onto Jobseekers but where exactly are people meant to find work? It's hard enough now, let alone with all the cuts that are being made, meaning more job losses, and even more people ending up on some form of benefit.

It suited the government a few years ago to shunt people unable to work onto incapacity from JA, now it's being reversed, it seems to me that no government has any real clue how to sort out the mess that is the welfare system.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by MissKittyFantastico

I was just reading there that they are going to limit the length of time that the long term sick can claim incapacity benefit to six months to a year and they will then be forced onto either Jobseekers or ESA (which as far as I was aware was designed for people who are able to go back into work at some point in the future. The levels of payment will be a lot lower on ESA, and why the hell should genuine, long term and even terminally ill people receive less money? Bearing in mind you don't even get your prescriptions paid for if you are on incapacity, which is just ludicrous.

Also these new medical assessments for incapacity and ESA are meant to have even less mental health related criteria, with questions like 'can you count backwards from 100' and if you can walk 200 metres unaided then you are deemed fit for work. This means that people with genuine mental health problems are going to be deemed fit for work and shunted onto Jobseekers Allowance when they are actually in no fit state to even be looking for work. 40% of claimants with mental health issues win their appeal against decisions made to stop their benefits, doesn't that tell you how woefully ignorant the DWA are on this subject? And it's only going to get worse.

I agree that cuts do need to be made, but it seems to me that once again it's the poorest and more vulnerable that will be made to suffer, rather than the fat cat bankers that got us into this mess in the first place.

If that is true, then that is ****ing ridiculous. I havent read anything about these cuts yet...so just going on what is said here. I dont particularly want to read anything either, because it will wind me up too much, Basically more rich people getting richer and poorer people getting hit hard from the sounds of it :/

I know many people laugh off mental health problems...and say that people who are mentally ill rather than physically ill should be working, but until you have been in that situation yourself, you can say nothing. And the above proposal, is just stupid. Employers will think that also, when they have to take on applicants who, for example suffer really bad anxiety. They will find that they have more sick days than anything else...and the person who has been forced into work will be fired more times than enough.

I have actually never read anything as ridiculous as this in my life. Pathetic. Are the people who make these kind of **** decisions actually qualified? Doesnt seem that way. They obviously have no common sense :/

[InOne]

Always seems they push people with Mental Health issues aside, it's something that is almost never discussed in Politics.

[Crimson Dynamo]

yes

the weak need to be squeezed dry

[Tom]

The cuts are necessary but not on the scale they've happened.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Tom

The cuts are necessary but not on the scale they've happened.

Yes Necessary
as the New Dead Labour 'Credit Card' (the massive Debt they left)
must be paid off fast
as it would go Up and Up
and no one wants another Greece.




Miss AsdaWalmartNetto Superstar
will be OK
it ain't going to Kill her.



Bring It On.

[arista]

Originally Posted by InOne

Always seems they push people with Mental Health issues aside, it's something that is almost never discussed in Politics.

They are on the Parliament Ch. Live
Free to watch online.
Or on Sky, Virgin, Freesat or Freeview.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by InOne

Always seems they push people with Mental Health issues aside, it's something that is almost never discussed in Politics.

I agree, it is still like a taboo subject.

[arista]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I agree, it is still like a taboo subject.

But on the Parliament Ch. (in the House of Commons)
they talk Live for hours on it.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

From the economics section of my Uni, their reading is that from what the Chancellor said if someone has disabilities and are unable to work and are on disability benefit as well, they are exempt from losing the main benefits, the limit of ESA will be up to a year if you are deemed as able to work now or in the forthcoming future, the genuinely sick and disabled will be exempt from that if its deemed they are unlikely to be able to work again.
Everyone though is going to be re-assessed though, obviously.

My advice though to anyone who has to go to the new re-asessment tests whatever is take someone with you and in the room to be examined/interviewed too, Don't trust them to do the right thing,they will have quotas of people they must sign off and list to be signed off in the near future too, if anyone is genuinely ill with a long term illness/disablilty, take someone with you,so you have a witness to what is said and done...

I would just add to this that everyone has the right of appeal to an independent adjudicator, at the hearing of which the entire transcript of the assessment will be available to be dissected and cross examined.

[joeysteele]

I think it need to be discussed in a more open sense on a lot more Channels,not just with politicians either so that people can really become more lerned in the effects of Mental health issues and also the support and encouragement they need, I would think a very small number of viewers watch the Parliament Channel.

This needs to be really opened up for discussion by all people connected with Mental Health issues so that instead of a load of hot air circulating around the House of Commons, even the politicians are made to listen to people who really know the issues on Mental health and are also challenged on their lack of response and compassion to it as well.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by angus58

I would just add to this that everyone has the right of appeal to an independent adjudicator, at the hearing of which the entire transcript of the assessment will be available to be dissected and cross examined.

Absolutely and from research apparantly more revised by these assessors. cases are restored again on appeal.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Tom

The cuts are necessary but not on the scale they've happened.

The incoming government was always going to take the heat for the "medicine" that is necessary to "cure" the economic sickness inherited by the incompetent, reckless and totally ammoral outgoing Labour government.

And Alan Johnson's (shadow chancellor) solution if Labour get back in power? Yes, you guessed it, to put up taxes and keep on borrowing - they just never learn do they? I hope to goodness Labour never get the chance to screw up the economy again.

The bottom line is that savage cuts are necessary, and unfortunately some are going to have to suffer more than others. It's deja vu all over again - every time Labour are kicked out of office, the new government has the unenviable task of cleaning up their mess.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by angus58

The incoming government was always going to take the heat for the "medicine" that is necessary to "cure" the economic sickness inherited by the incompetent, reckless and totally ammoral outgoing Labour government.

And Alan Johnson's (shadow chancellor) solution if Labour get back in power? Yes, you guessed it, to put up taxes and keep on borrowing - they just never learn do they? I hope to goodness Labour never get the chance to screw up the economy again.

The bottom line is that savage cuts are necessary, and unfortunately some are going to have to suffer more than others. It's deja vu all over again - every time Labour are kicked out of office, the new government has the unenviable task of cleaning up their mess.

The cuts do need to happen, I'm not refuting that for one second, but for example to lose 700-1000 police officers in the space of 3 years is quite alarming. The cuts should be a bit more gradual, that would inevitably mean even further cuts down the line but at least theres an adjustment period. Removing £83bn in one go is unnecessary, they should have tried for around £40-50bn.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Tom

The cuts do need to happen, I'm not refuting that for one second, but for example to lose 700-1000 police officers in the space of 3 years is quite alarming. The cuts should be a bit more gradual, that would inevitably mean even further cuts down the line but at least theres an adjustment period. Removing £83bn in one go is unnecessary, they should have tried for around £40-50bn.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is much leeway as regards a longer timescale, because the deficit is so huge and the consequences of NOT taking drastic action swiftly would be even more damaging to the economy and jobs. If there were an option to stagger the cuts, I'm sure the coalition would have gone down that route rather than face the inevitable antagonism and criticism.

[NettoSuperstar!]

"Britain is embarking on a highly risky experiment. More likely than not, it will add one more data point to the well- established result that austerity in the midst of a downturn lowers GDP and increases unemployment, and excessive austerity can have long-lasting effects.

If Britain were wealthier, or if the prospects of success were greater, it might be a risk worth taking. But it is a gamble with almost no potential upside. Austerity is a gamble which Britain can ill afford"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...terity-britain


http://www.neweconomics.org/press-re...w-nef-response

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/node/432

"Even if, as the chancellor promised, the wealthier will lose more, in absolute or proportional terms, those losses will not cause the same degree of suffering as the job losses, housing insecurity and benefit freezes that fall on narrower shoulders. And should we really all be "in this together", when so many have been damaged by so few? We do not yet know how tough the coalition will prove to be in its levy on the banks, and on tax evasion and fraud."

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/node/433

We need growth and jobs, Im very worried for the future

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally Posted by angus58

I would just add to this that everyone has the right of appeal to an independent adjudicator, at the hearing of which the entire transcript of the assessment will be available to be dissected and cross examined.

Sometimes without a trained mental health professional Im afraid, I've been to a few. Its even worse for people with learning disabilities that have very little insight into their limitations, plus the lack of hostels for people that really have trouble looking after themselves means a lot of people with mental health problems are going to end up homeless or living in squalor unless the assessment procedures are improved...back to the old days

http://www.mind.org.uk/news/3166_new...and_disability