[Kizzy]

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

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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
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.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

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

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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

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.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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

Sadly true...

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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...

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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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

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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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

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

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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

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.

[DemolitionRed]

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.

[DemolitionRed]

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.

[bots]

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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

How does any of the reforms facilitate this?

[DemolitionRed]

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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

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.

Well said I 100% agree!

[Kizzy]

'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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'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

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'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

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.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by smudgie

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

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by smudgie

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.

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

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'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

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.