Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Jon]

400 for, 175 against.

 

Cue a sudden rush to Homebase and Tesco for all those CoE Tories to stock up on wood-panels and non-persihables as the end is clearly coming.

 

Edit: Turns out 139 Tories voted against, 132 for.

Fantastic, and shows that party up for what it is.

 

Nasty, bigoted, homophobic, intolerant.

 

The fact that more Tory MPs voted against gay marriage than for, speaks volumes.

 

I actually doff my cap to Dave. He didn't need to do this, and it's shown 'his' party up for what it is, but he has pushed it through, presumably becuase he feels it is the right thing to do.

I'm not surprised that so many Torys would be against equality.

Me neither, but excellent point.

[mjmooney]

yeah, that makes more sense.

That'll teach me to drive, talk on the handsfree and keep the radio on low.

 

 

One question that was raised a couple of days ago, if the concept of marriage can now be between any two people, why is it limited to two? What reason is there for two being the magic number? It's not to make a perfect nuclear family, it's not to keep it traditional or comply with the Old Testament. So why don't we allow a three way marriage?

Absolutely this.

 

As far as I'm concerned, marriage should be:

 

( a ) Entirely optional

( b ) An agreement between two or more people which MAY involve mutual legal rights - that's up to them, and if required should be stated in a legal contract specific to THAT marriage

( c ) Not necessarily having any relevance to sexual behaviour at all

 

I don't see why any individual shouldn't marry his/her friend(s) - or even relatives - if they wish to do so. The state should keep its nose out.

Edited February 6, 2013 by mjmooney

[tonyh29]

400 for, 175 against.

 

Cue a sudden rush to Homebase and Tesco for all those CoE Tories to stock up on wood-panels and non-persihables as the end is clearly coming.

 

Edit: Turns out 139 Tories voted against, 132 for.

Fantastic, and shows that party up for what it is.

 

Nasty, bigoted, homophobic, intolerant.

 

The fact that more Tory MPs voted against gay marriage than for, speaks volumes.

you've used the homophobic line twice now , but does it show that ?

 

this wasn't a vote about should we ban homosexuality  , more a vote on should homosexuals be allowed to marry

 

two different things IMO

Edited February 6, 2013 by tonyh29

[mjmooney]

Church and sex. A pruriently puerile obsession with sexuality combined with supersitious mumbo-jumbo.

 

And to think we let these people run the country (not to say the world).

[bickster]

 

400 for, 175 against.

 

Cue a sudden rush to Homebase and Tesco for all those CoE Tories to stock up on wood-panels and non-persihables as the end is clearly coming.

 

Edit: Turns out 139 Tories voted against, 132 for.

Fantastic, and shows that party up for what it is.

 

Nasty, bigoted, homophobic, intolerant.

 

The fact that more Tory MPs voted against gay marriage than for, speaks volumes.

you've used the homophobic line twice now , but does it show that ?

 

this wasn't a vote about should we ban homosexuality  , more a vote on should homosexuals be allowed to marry

 

two different things IMO

 

Not at all, your opinion is wrong and illogical. If homosexuals are to be treated as equals in society then they must have the same rights as heterosexuals. To deny them that right is in itself homophobic. Homophobia is lierally a fear of homosexuals and those that have voted no are quite clearly in fear of our gay friends, we've all seen the crap they've come out with during this debate.  You're either equal or you aren't, if they have equal rights thats fine, no homophobia there, if they don't there has to be as something must be feared to deny them that opportunity. Why else would that be denied them other than homophobia?

 

Still can't see why people want to get married as no matter how you do it but that is a different issue

 

Now to start the campaign for Heterosexual couples to be allowed to have a Civil Partnership.

[mjmooney]

Now to start the campaign for Heterosexual couples to be allowed to have a Civil Partnership.

 

 

"Like".

[snowychap]

A longish read but indicative of how welfare reforms are not just the snappy populist headline claims:

Clause 99, Catch 22 – The ESA Mandatory Second Revision and Appeals

Section 102 and Schedule 11 of the Welfare Reform Act, (Clause 99) – Power to require revision before appeal.

If there is anyone left in doubt that this Government’s policies are grossly unfair, and are punishing the most vulnerable of our citizens, whilst the Tories are claiming that they are benevolent and paternalistic, by utilising Orwellian Newspeak/Doublespeak methodology, you need look no further than Clause 99 for evidence to verify my conjecture. Currently, claimants who are found fit for work can continue to receive Employment Support Allowance (ESA) at the basic rate by immediately lodging an appeal if they think the decision is wrong. ESA will then remain in payment until the appeal is decided.

That is all set to change, however, under Clause 99 of the Welfare Reform Bill, intended to be effective from April 2013. Under the new rules, claimants who wish to challenge a benefits decision – including ESA and DLA decisions – will no longer be allowed to lodge an appeal immediately. Instead, there will be a mandatory revision or review stage, during which a different Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) decision maker will reconsider the evidence and, if necessary, send for more information, before deciding whether to change the original decision. There will be no time limit on how long this process can take. The requirement for a mandatory review/revision before proceeding with appeal applies to all DWP linked benefits. The ludicrous claim from Government is that this “simplifies” the appeal process, and ”the changes will improve customer service by encouraging people to submit additional evidence earlier in the process to help improve decision making. Resolving any disputes without the need for an appeal will also help ensure that people receive the right decision earlier in the process.” Call me a cynic, but I don’t believe this is the genuine reasoning behind clause 99 at all.

You will also have to appeal directly to HM Courts and Tribunal Services, this is known as “direct lodgement,” as DWP will no longer lodge the appeal on your behalf. DWP has agreed with the Tribunal Procedure Committee to introduce time limits to stipulate how long DWP has to respond to an individual appeal. DWP is currently discussing what these time limits might be with the Tribunal Procedure Committee. That is assuming, of course, that people manage to circumnavigate the other consequences of this legislation.

From 1 April 2013 you will not be able to get legal aid for First-tier Tribunal hearings. Legal aid will still be available for appeals to the Upper Tribunal and higher courts. See appealing to the upper tribunal against a first tier tribunal decision here: www.disabilityrightsuk.org/legalaidact.htm for more information.

There are some serious implications and concerns about these changes. Firstly, there is no set time limit for DWP to undertake and complete the second revision. Secondly, claimants are left with no income at all whilst they await the review, and until appeal. The only choice available seems to be an application for Job Seekers Allowance. (JSA). However, we know that people in situations where they have been refused ESA have also been refused JSA, incredibly, on the grounds that they are unavailable for work, (and so do not meet the conditions that signing on entails) or they are unfit for work, because they are simply too ill to meet the conditions. We know of people who have had their application for JSA refused because they attend hospital for treatment once a week and so they are “not available for work” at this time.

Furthermore, there is some anecdotal evidence of people being told by DWP that in order to claim JSA, they must first close their original claim for ESA, since it isn’t possible to have two claims for two different benefits open at the same time. DWP are also telling people that this means withdrawing their ESA appeal.

Another grave concern is that although most people on income related ESA are automatically passported to maximum housing and council tax benefit, from the time that the claim ends, (and for whatever reason), eligibility to housing benefit and council tax also ends. However, I would urge people in this situation to contact the Housing Benefit office promptly to explain the situation – the DWP automatically contact the Council to tell them when someone’s eligibility for ESA has ended. It is always assumed that the person claiming has found work.

You can still claim for housing benefit and council tax benefit because you have a low income, but you will need bank statements to demonstrate this is true, and also, any other evidence you may have, such as your notification letter from DWP, evidence of your tenancy and ID . I am informed that when an appeal is pending, providing the housing benefit is informed of this, there should be some support towards rent and council tax. However, this is going to place further strain and difficulty on people who are ill and disabled.

I can confirm that there was no risk analysis or risk register in respect of clause 99 of the Welfare Reform Bill. I sent an FOI to DWP that asked about these issues, together with questioning that Clause 99 contains no reference to a time limit on ESA reconsiderations, although it makes them mandatory. I asked :-

1) When is the intended implementation date?

2) As yet no decisions have been made regarding ESA payment levels

during the reconsideration period which could be indefinite. Can you

give an assurance that this will be announced BEFORE

implementation?

3) What data will you collect so that the effects of this

legislation can be accurately analysed subsequently?

4) Where are the risk assessment, impact analysis and risk register

that show the effect this will have on claimants whose benefit

payments could be affected indefinitely?

The response informed that the planned implementation date is April 2013, and “the DWP will conduct a formal public consultation in line with the Government’s code of practice on consultation. This does not include publishing a risk register or conducting a risk analysis. This is because all aspects of the proposed changes are considered during the consultation process and in the impact assessment and equality impact assessments related to the changes”. There are no plans to introduce a time limit, or to retain payments of basic rate ESA throughout the second revision and leading up to appeal.

The DWP published consultation document “Mandatory consideration of revision before appeal” that could be accessed via the DWP web site under the heading “Consultations”. The consultation concerned issues relevant to the implementation and operation of the appeals reform provisions in the Welfare Reform Bill and invited comments on the draft regulations. I worked on raising awareness regarding the issues that the Government’s draft raised, as well as prompting and garnering responses to the consultation. I can also confirm that the Government response to the consultation did NOT take into account any of the concerns we raised collectively, in particular, regarding the lack of a time limit on the DWP to produce the mandatory review, and the withdrawal of basic rate ESA to those awaiting the review outcome .

So, the consultation was evidently a sham, nothing more than paying lip service to an increasingly perfunctory democratic process. Given that basic rate ESA is exactly the same amount per week as JSA, we need to ask ourselves why the Government have withdrawn the ESA safety net for those wanting to appeal DWP decisions that they are fit to work. Why introduce another layer of DWP bureaucracy to the appeal process, and why is it the case that there is need for a second revision, if the first response is based on robust procedure and decision making, and yields accurate and fair outcomes?

Of course we know that the outcomes are neither fair, accurate, or based on robust decision making. We know that some 40% of appeals for ESA were successful in 2011 and that this percentage rose to around 80% when claimants had representation at appeal. That is pretty damning evidence against this Governments’ claims that the system is working, and that many disabled people “can work”.

It’s horrific and true that Clause 99 has been introduced to make appealing wrongful decisions that we are fit for work almost impossible. Sick and disabled people are effectively being silenced by this Government, and the evidence of a brutal, de-humanising, undignified and grossly unfair system of “assessment” is being hidden. More than 10,600 people have died because of the current system, and it is terrifying that our Government have failed to address this. Instead, they have made the system even more brutal, de-humanising and unfair. Clause 99 is simply an introduction of obstructive and Kafkaesque bureaucracy to obscure the evidence of this. This Government is oppressive, repressive and certainly bears all of the hallmark characteristics of authoritarianism.

We need to be pressuring for the introduction of a time limit (on both legal and humanitarian grounds) as currently there is none. I did enquire to see if DWP had any internal rules or guidelines yet regarding a time limit but so far they have not. We also need to be pressuring for basic rate ESA to continue. That was a major part of the consultation response, too. Meanwhile, legal challenges to this unfair and totally unacceptable addition to the Welfare Reform Bill will be going ahead.

...even more on link

Edited February 6, 2013 by snowychap

[Richard]

400 for, 175 against.

 

Cue a sudden rush to Homebase and Tesco for all those CoE Tories to stock up on wood-panels and non-persihables as the end is clearly coming.

 

Edit: Turns out 139 Tories voted against, 132 for.

Fantastic, and shows that party up for what it is.

 

Nasty, bigoted, homophobic, intolerant.

 

The fact that more Tory MPs voted against gay marriage than for, speaks volumes.

 

I actually doff my cap to Dave. He didn't need to do this, and it's shown 'his' party up for what it is, but he has pushed it through, presumably becuase he feels it is the right thing to do.

>I'm not surprised that so many Torys would be against equality.

Me neither, but excellent point.

 

Jon,  isnt that a prejudicial remark about the Conservative Party, and therefore exactly what you are accusing the Conservative party of being?

 

Tarring one side of society ie Conservative Party Members,  with the same brush is being prejudiced is it not.  And not factually correct.

[tonyh29]

 

 

400 for, 175 against.

 

Cue a sudden rush to Homebase and Tesco for all those CoE Tories to stock up on wood-panels and non-persihables as the end is clearly coming.

 

Edit: Turns out 139 Tories voted against, 132 for.

Fantastic, and shows that party up for what it is.

 

Nasty, bigoted, homophobic, intolerant.

 

The fact that more Tory MPs voted against gay marriage than for, speaks volumes.

you've used the homophobic line twice now , but does it show that ?

 

this wasn't a vote about should we ban homosexuality  , more a vote on should homosexuals be allowed to marry

 

two different things IMO

 

 and those that have voted no are quite clearly in fear of our gay friends,

so mind reading is another of your skills to go along with imaging content on websites :winkold:

[peterms]

[bickster]

Jon,  isnt that a prejudicial remark about the Conservative Party, and therefore exactly what you are accusing the Conservative party of being?

 

Tarring one side of society ie Conservative Party Members,  with the same brush is being prejudiced is it not.  And not factually correct.

How can it be prejudicial when its a recorded public fact.

The only people that are members of THE Conservative Party are MPs. A greater number of Conservative Party members therefore voted through he bigoted lobby, it is then very safe to assume that a democratic organisation that has over 50% of its members favour the bigoted and prejudicial No way can only be tarred with that brush. That democracy is it not?

[bickster]

so mind reading is another of your skills to go along with imaging content on websites :winkold:

And I see you still practice that most malevolent of skills, the not reading the substantive argument but selectively quoting out of context.

[Chindie]

yeah, that makes more sense.

That'll teach me to drive, talk on the handsfree and keep the radio on low.

 

 

One question that was raised a couple of days ago, if the concept of marriage can now be between any two people, why is it limited to two? What reason is there for two being the magic number? It's not to make a perfect nuclear family, it's not to keep it traditional or comply with the Old Testament. So why don't we allow a three way marriage?

Absolutely this.

 

As far as I'm concerned, marriage should be:

 

( a ) Entirely optional

( b ) An agreement between two or more people which MAY involve mutual legal rights - that's up to them, and if required should be stated in a legal contract specific to THAT marriage

( c ) Not necessarily having any relevance to sexual behaviour at all

 

I don't see why any individual shouldn't marry his/her friend(s) - or even relatives - if they wish to do so. The state should keep its nose out.

We've agreed on this point before, but worth reiterating - THIS.

[robojoel]

Stanhope hits the spot on this

 

[colhint]

Jon,  isnt that a prejudicial remark about the Conservative Party, and therefore exactly what you are accusing the Conservative party of being?

 

Tarring one side of society ie Conservative Party Members,  with the same brush is being prejudiced is it not.  And not factually correct.

How can it be prejudicial when its a recorded public fact.

The only people that are members of THE Conservative Party are MPs. A greater number of Conservative Party members therefore voted through he bigoted lobby, it is then very safe to assume that a democratic organisation that has over 50% of its members favour the bigoted and prejudicial No way can only be tarred with that brush. That democracy is it not?

Thats not true. You can become a member of the conservative party without being an MP., and where does this fear bit come in. Just because you vote against some thing doesn't mean you fear it

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I don't think they fear it. I think it disgusts them. You only have to hear someone utter the word 'faggot' to hear the disgust in their voices. They've been brought up to find homosexuality abhorrent, no thanks to religion.

 

Only through exposure and normalisation does this disgust gradually go away.

Edited February 6, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[chrisp65]

Not so sure about the marrying relatives bit there Mr Mooney, but the rest of looks ok.

I'd Imagine that if we restricted the gene pool to that extent we could all end up being jug eared wittering chinless buffoons that don't even notice they have a ginger son.

[will87]

Jon,  isnt that a prejudicial remark about the Conservative Party, and therefore exactly what you are accusing the Conservative party of being?

 

Tarring one side of society ie Conservative Party Members,  with the same brush is being prejudiced is it not.  And not factually correct.

How can it be prejudicial when its a recorded public fact.

The only people that are members of THE Conservative Party are MPs. A greater number of Conservative Party members therefore voted through he bigoted lobby, it is then very safe to assume that a democratic organisation that has over 50% of its members favour the bigoted and prejudicial No way can only be tarred with that brush. That democracy is it not?

 

Didn't 40 Tory MPs either not vote or abstain? So it was less than 50% of the party that voted against gay marriage.

[peterms]

Not so sure about the marrying relatives bit there Mr Mooney, but the rest of looks ok.

I'd Imagine that if we restricted the gene pool to that extent we could all end up being jug eared wittering chinless buffoons that don't even notice they have a ginger son.

[blandy]

Not all Conservative party members are bigots or prejuduced or whatever. That's clear.

However, a significant lump are. I believe that to be indisputable. The clue, to an extent is in the name.

Then there's the ​monday club  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Monday_Club

And there's the vote yesterday, where more of their MPs, many reflecting the views of their voters, rather than the wider public.

They're not as bonkers as the Tea Potty in America, but there's a definite religionist, Christian, White, anti minority, anti non Christian, anti foreigner, little Englander nub. They're not the nasty party without reason.

There are some rounded, balanced, fair and just tories, for sure. But the thing is, you can never be quite sure until or unless you know them, that you can trust the feckers not to suddenly reveal the lizard under the surface.

(in the interests of fairness, there's some right loons in other parties, too.)