[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Is the Times considered the gutter press? That's the issue I'd expect this rubbish from the sun or the mail... seems Rupert has all his media trained on the same target.

Anyone seen any coverage of the protests in parliament square this week... no? Didn't think so.

What protests?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Is the Times considered the gutter press? That's the issue I'd expect this rubbish from the sun or the mail... seems Rupert has all his media trained on the same target.

Anyone seen any coverage of the protests in parliament square this week... no? Didn't think so.

i am glad i did not see it as it sounds very boring

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

What protests?

Youtube video

[Livia]

There's a protest in Parliament Square every other day.

[arista]

[arista]

From Ch4News Twitter

[Kizzy]

Oh dear....

'The United Nations has launched an investigation into whether Iain Duncan Smith's disability benefit changes have led to "grave or systemic violations" of disabled people's human rights.

The UN's Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which is carrying out the unprecedented inquiry, has the power to launch a formal probe if it receives "reliable information" that human rights violations have occurred in a country signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

This comes after a report last month by the Just Fair coalition suggested that the UK had descended from being an international leader in disability rights to being in danger of becoming a "systematic violator of these same rights".

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014...n_5727580.html

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Oh dear....

'The United Nations has launched an investigation into whether Iain Duncan Smith's disability benefit changes have led to "grave or systemic violations" of disabled people's human rights.

The UN's Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which is carrying out the unprecedented inquiry, has the power to launch a formal probe if it receives "reliable information" that human rights violations have occurred in a country signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

This comes after a report last month by the Just Fair coalition suggested that the UK had descended from being an international leader in disability rights to being in danger of becoming a "systematic violator of these same rights".

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014...n_5727580.html

I have been advocating this is the case for the last 2 years now,the really intrusive and hardline testing of the disabled,even with 'known' incurable and even terminal conditions is appalling.

I have attended myself,with one of their family there too, with 6 sick/disabled individuals to these 're-assessments' 2 of whom have dementia,they were bombarded with questions and asked to do the most stupid of things.when it was clear the moment they went in the room that they were totally incapable of any work.
I and the family member were treated very hostile too anytime we interjected with very valid and worrying points.

This govt; also has not made sure that disability benefits have kept up with the cost of living rises as it says it has, it has done a little but not fully.

I also firmly believe looked at elsewhere, that the bedroom tax which does hit disabled people a great deal too, must be an infringement to rights.
It cannot be right to say,in my view, and tell someone sick/disabled they are entitled to say,for example,Ł150 a week and that is the min. the govt; says they must have to live on.
Then to add to that,that if they have no other income or savings of note, they are entitled to full housing benefit in addition to it.
Only to then come along at a future date to say, even if they have long term tenancy agreeements, that if they have bedroom/s they are not currently using, they will lose some of that housing benefit,and even if they say they will move to a smaller property but there are none available, they still have to pay the bedroom tax/charge.
The bedroom tax/charge then however,having to be paid out of the 'entiitlement' they were told they had to have in 'law' to live on, thereby making them lose out on what a govt; says they have to have as a minimum.

I am pleased some organisation is looking into this now,charities have been saying this for ages.the fact some international organisation is looking a it at all is a real blight on the UK's govts; treatment of its long term/permanent. sick, disabled and therefore most vulnerable.

I also think it was wrong of this govt; to bring in an American company after ATOS to do any future re-assessments at this time too as they have recently.
setting in place yet another very expensive contract to outside sources should have been the decision, as to have one or not and who it was to be,for the next govt; elected in May.
Not this govt; who had such a failure and a costly failure too, with ATOS as to the issue.

I have little faith, that this new company will make things any better or even understand the complexities of some of the sick ad disabled of the UK, just as ATOS failed to do too.

For me it is time to start listening and trusting the Doctors, the GPs and the Consultants, who know these patients inside out and know their capabalities or incapabilities of work of any duration,short term or long term.
To stop ignoring the Doctors who deal with these patients and dismissing their reports of same.
One of the re-assessments I attended, the person's GP gave extensive notes for the family to take along to it.
The so called health professional who did the re-assessment, never even looked at it or kept it,they just left it on the desk,then gave it back to us as we left the room.

When the family raised that with Ian Duncan Smiths dept; they got a letter back,obviously not from him, saying they were not aware of those things happening and thankfully the reforms to benefits testing were now working to 'support' more people into work.
No addressing of the real issue at all,no apology for the distress caused either.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Oh dear....

'The United Nations has launched an investigation into whether Iain Duncan Smith's disability benefit changes have led to "grave or systemic violations" of disabled people's human rights.

The UN's Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which is carrying out the unprecedented inquiry, has the power to launch a formal probe if it receives "reliable information" that human rights violations have occurred in a country signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

This comes after a report last month by the Just Fair coalition suggested that the UK had descended from being an international leader in disability rights to being in danger of becoming a "systematic violator of these same rights".

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014...n_5727580.html

Only surprise about this is that its taken so long. IDS should be held accountable for every person his policies have basically killed. The way disabled people are treat these days is ****ing disgusting. Yeah its all under the reasoning of 'preventing fraud' but it doesnt ****ing work...I would rather the 0.1% of fraudsters or whatever it is remained claiming disability benefits than people in comas being sent 'get back to work' letters tbh.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Only surprise about this is that its taken so long. IDS should be held accountable for every person his policies have basically killed. The way disabled people are treat these days is ****ing disgusting. Yeah its all under the reasoning of 'preventing fraud' but it doesnt ****ing work...I would rather the 0.1% of fraudsters or whatever it is remained claiming disability benefits than people in comas being sent 'get back to work' letters tbh.

I have to agree I would rather there was no fraud detection than unfairly targeting a genuinely deserving disabled person who ends up not getting the help they need.

Its all about perspective. The government - and this applies to conservative and labour - always seem to target the little fish rather than dealing with the big boys who really screw the system.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Only surprise about this is that its taken so long. IDS should be held accountable for every person his policies have basically killed. The way disabled people are treat these days is ****ing disgusting. Yeah its all under the reasoning of 'preventing fraud' but it doesnt ****ing work...I would rather the 0.1% of fraudsters or whatever it is remained claiming disability benefits than people in comas being sent 'get back to work' letters tbh.

Me too, I have felt for ages this man has many questions to answer as to his near victimisation of the most vulnerable, sick and disabled,which will be even worse in the next 5 years with over 10 billion pounds worth of cuts he needs to do as to the welfare budget.

No govt;not even Margaret Thatcher's, has discriminated post war so heartlessly and in my view unjustifiably aginst the weakest in society the way this govt; has done under Ian Duncan Smith policies, fully supported by this Prime Minister too.

I really remain mystified how this man is in the cabinet, let alone having any power over peoples lives and incomes.

[arista]

Kym Marsh on the panel of LooseWomenHD today
confirms she does Not Vote

[Kizzy]

Because nobody cares enough to stop him, that's what it boils down to. Everyone knows it happens but they turn a blind eye as it doesn't affect them.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Because nobody cares enough to stop him, that's what it boils down to. Everyone knows it happens but they turn a blind eye as it doesn't affect them.

Spot on again Kizzy, very true.

[Kizzy]

Yes and there are those who work in public services who have demonstrated, yes there's a media block but even when it is made public there's a blasé response.. the rolling of eyes, snide comments about holidays or the fact people work for less for for longer or other some such rubbish.
It's as if they're totally taken for granted that they'll always be there, but they won't and that concept just can't be comprehended, because if you try to imagine this country without them you'll see it collapse in on itself like a house of cards.
Nothing that is privatised and/or deregulated ever functions effectively and the onus is always on profit at the expense of workers health/rights/ pay and the service users.

[arista]

Utter Bliss

[joeysteele]

Just before anyone gets too excited, this poll is seen as an outlier, even by the Guardian who printed it, it is the ICM monthly poll and has a very surprising and unusually low rating for UKIP,which I think personally is probably way out.
I doubt anyone seriously thinks UKIP is actually only on 7% and behind the Lib Dems too.

Now there are already 2 other polls out in addition to this one tonight,not done over the last month but over the last few days.
Populus and Lord Ashcrofts,both show Labour and the Conservatives almost unchanged on 33% each in both of them and UKIP with its usual level of support,15% and 13% respectively, that they have had recently.
Another poll,(the 4th tonight), by yougov for the SUN, has the Conservatives on 33% and labour on 34%,with UKIP on their usual polling there too.

Taking one poll in isolation is not the best way to determine what is happening,all polling needs to be looked at.
The ICM poll, because it has UKIP so low,and is at odds,at present, with all other polling,even has the Guardian editorial,(who printed it), describing as to it,that it is 'dubious'.

Also, those figures could still leave the Conservatives just short of an overall majority too or at best only a very tiny one,even it was in any way right.

A poll late last week had Labour on 37% and the Conservatives 31%,I took no notice of that one either, also seeing it as an outlier.

[AnnieK]

The polls I saw today had labour and tory on 33%. These polls are hard to second guess. No way to call it accurately I guess until the votes are finally counted

[Crimson Dynamo]

well looking back in history - everytime a labour govt leaves power it leave the country in a total state

so not sure who is going to vote for them?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

well looking back in history - everytime a labour govt leaves power it leave the country in a total state

so not sure who is going to vote for them?

That's what will happen again LT,watch this space.the only thing it seems they can run is this country to the ground.

[bots]

I never believe polls. I always think back to the Neil Kinnock election where every exit poll predicted Labour would win. The cameras were in his house showing his reaction to the results as they happened, expecting to be interviewing the new Prime Minister elect. They lost. It was uncomfortable viewing.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

well looking back in history - everytime a labour govt leaves power it leave the country in a total state

so not sure who is going to vote for them?

That actually is incorrect, in 1951, Winston Churchill took over a pretty good economy from Clement Attlee's Labour,that had been dealt with pretty good after the war.

Equally too, the Conservatives left a really good economy in the main when they left office in 1964.

In 1970, despite the devaluation problem in 1967, Labour left a fair surplus and only 500,000 unemployed when they lost office.

By 1971,The Conservatives presided over the first 1,000,000 to be unemployed since the war.
Then in Feb 1974, the Conservatives left power with the UK in the grip of a crippling miners strike and the Nation on a 3 day week,which it had been for over 2 months to the election.

Beween 1974 and 1979, the Labour party did have to call the IMF in around 1977 but in a working programme with the Liberals up to 1978, they got that sorted and were doing pretty much okay until the Unions,(who are supposed to get everything they want from Labour govts; but clearly don't),called strikes that again held the nation to ransom.

The economy was still not that bad but industrial relations were since that Labour govt; refused to give in to the Unions just as Edward Heath's Conservative govt; refused to do with the miners in 1973/4 too.

Margaret Thatcher then very rightly came in and got to work curbing Union powers and getting rid of the ridiculous secondary picketing.
Full credit to her for doing that too.
However, during those 18 years of govt; we had 2 recessions and the ERM fiasco in the early 90s that cost the UK heavily.

Labour did take over a pretty good economy by 1997 after John Major's govt; but had a totally wrecked NHS in 1997.
Then for 11 years had in a row,an unprecedented period of economic stability between 1997 and 2007,both years inclusive,the UK had growth every year and no recessions.

The global financial/banking crisis that hit many countries in 2008 would have come no matter what govt; had been in power.

However, even then, after the deepest recession post war, caused by that crisis in the main, by 2009 we were out of recession and in 2010, had growth of 1% and no recession looming.
That was then when this coalition took power.

So it is mixed bag as to who leaves a mess and who doesn't really and in fairness too..

This govt; only appears to be doing better because it has downgraded all of its targets set in 2010, firstly in the budget of 2011 and then the autumn statement of that year,the same again as to both in 2012 and the same again as to both in 2013.
From 2014 ,as was said on the daily politics today, they have only got better looking figures becasue of the heavily reduced new targets they brought in from the years of failure.
If this govt; was being judged on its targets set actually by itself in 2010, it would have failed to achieve a single one,except for unemployment falling.

You can be selective in what you perceive as to be the case but the one thing that cannot be done is to re-write history.
Both parties in govt; at times, have left good economical situations to take over by the other.
Vice versa too, both parties have left bad situations to take over by the other too.

There is also a lot more to governing than just economics, there are many sections and issues of society that need good govt; too,rather than just being in any way economically competent.

Even as to the NHS,neither party in govt' left great problems there really right up to the start of the 80s.
Until however the govt between 1983 and 1997,in 1997,it was in utter chaos.
By 2010, despite still many problems here and there, it was far better.

Now in 2015,it is in chaos again.
Until this last 25 years or so, no party really failed the NHS too,until the last 2 Conservative govts:

Governing is not easy by any means but the history of what govts; really leave is clear, by looking at the facts of history.

Whether Labour or the Conservatives had been in power in 2008,when the almost worldwide financial/banking crisis hit and the inevitable recession that came with that,no matter what party was in then would have left a great mess, either as to major financial problems or major mass unemployment problems for the other to deal with.

[bots]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

That actually is incorrect, in 1951, Winston Churchill took over a pretty good economy from Clement Attlee's Labour,that had been dealt with pretty good after the war.

Equally too, the Conservatives left a really good economy in the main when they left office in 1964.

In 1970, despite the devaluation problem in 1967, Labour left a fair surplus and only 500,000 unemployed when they lost office.

By 1971,The Conservatives presided over the first 1,000,000 to be unemployed since the war.
Then in Feb 1974, the Conservatives left power with the UK in the grip of a crippling miners strike and the Nation on a 3 day week,which it had been for over 2 months to the election.

Beween 1974 and 1979, the Labour party did have to call the IMF in around 1977 but in a working programme with the Liberals up to 1978, they got that sorted and were doing pretty much okay until the Unions,(who are supposed to get everything they want from Labour govts; but clearly don't),called strikes that again held the nation to ransom.

The economy was still not that bad but industrial relations were since that Labour govt; refused to give in to the Unions just as Edward Heath's Conservative govt; refused to do with the miners in 1973/4 too.

Margaret Thatcher then very rightly came in and got to work curbing Union powers and getting rid of the ridiculous secondary picketing.
Full credit to her for doing that too.
However, during those 18 years of govt; we had 2 recessions and the ERM fiasco in the early 90s that cost the UK heavily.

Labour did take over a pretty good economy by 1997 after John Major's govt; but had a totally wrecked NHS in 1997.
Then for 11 years had in a row,an unprecedented period of economic stability between 1997 and 2007,both years inclusive,the UK had growth every year and no recessions.

The global financial/banking crisis that hit many countries in 2008 would have come no matter what govt; had been in power.

However, even then, after the deepest recession post war, caused by that crisis in the main, by 2009 we were out of recession and in 2010, had growth of 1% and no recession looming.
That was then when this coalition took power.

So it is mixed bag as to who leaves a mess and who doesn't really and in fairness too..

This govt; only appears to be doing better because it has downgraded all of its targets set in 2010, firstly in the budget of 2011 and then the autumn statement of that year,the same again as to both in 2012 and the same again as to both in 2013.
From 2014 ,as was said on the daily politics today, they have only got better looking figures becasue of the heavily reduced new targets they brought in from the years of failure.
If this govt; was being judged on its targets set actually by itself in 2010, it would have failed to achieve a single one,except for unemployment falling.

You can be selective in what you perceive as to be the case but the one thing that cannot be done is to re-write history.
Both parties in govt; at times, have left good economical situations to take over by the other.
Vice versa too, both parties have left bad situations to take over by the other too.

There is also a lot more to governing than just economics, there are many sections and issues of society that need good govt; too,rather than just being in any way economically competent.

Even as to the NHS,neither party in govt' left great problems there really right up to the start of the 80s.
Until however the govt between 1983 and 1997,in 1997,it was in utter chaos.
By 2010, despite still many problems here and there, it was far better.

Now in 2015,it is in chaos again.
Until this last 25 years or so, no party really failed the NHS too,until the last 2 Conservative govts:

Governing is not easy by any means but the history of what govts; really leave is clear, by looking at the facts of history.

Whether Labour or the Conservatives had been in power in 2008,when the almost worldwide financial/banking crisis hit and the inevitable recession that came with that,no matter what party was in then would have left a great mess, either as to major financial problems or major mass unemployment problems for the other to deal with.

Very selective summary is all I'm going to say about this

[JoshBB]

arista, in that poll UKIP are also on 7%. They normally poll around 13%-15% so my bet is that this is an outlier and the vote has gone there

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Very selective summary is all I'm going to say about this

Well at least it is all historically accurate and far more balanced than all your one sided attitude.
I have balanced that post the best way I could,from historical facts as to both main parties of govt;

Enlighten us however as to what parts are not historically correct, history itself deals with facts, credit has to be given and criticism has to be given to most PMs and govts; that have been in power post war.
That is what I did.

Setting a different balance however from facts, rather than your opinion that always condemns one party is with respect,in my view, a far better way to proceed.

So with even fuller respect,laugh all you like in your pettiness,at least it is better to give someone a laugh anyday.