Bolitics The New Condem Government

[chrisp65]

I'm doing a bit of work for a church group* at the moment and this has involved having to do a presentation to the whole lot of them one evening. Whilst I was awaiting my turn to show them my pretty drawings and update them on planning progress they had their own discussion on where they stood on gay marriage.

 

As background, the average age must have been close to treble figures, by definition i presume they were all sort of religious, they were predominantly white and female. My stereotype radar tells me old white ladies in church in the posher end of a town are likely to be tory voters. Almost unanimously their attitude was 'whatever, when is the tea and biscuits tray arriving?'  When asked if they would be pro or anti gay marriage in their church, they were pro. I found that quite surprising.

 

I wonder if there is a sort of faux religionist type, that actually just likes 'tradition'. Just wants everything to go back to a mis remembered view of a slightly out of focus Victorian / Darling Buds of May / Our finest hour / 1950's land that never existed. Cultural luddites. You know, like the toff of the manor in Vicar of Dibley.

 

That's not to say there aren't very likely massive numbers of the religious that don't like the idea of gay marriage. But it's not absolute. Not by a long way from what I've seen. I think Theresa May is a practising Cof E'r and she's now very pro gay marriage (despite her previous voting patterns). This suggests it's little to do with what they interpret in the good book, more to do with how they perceive voting patterns and balance of power in their spheres of influence and advancement.

 

 

 

* I will also happily accept fee paying work from atheists, spaghetti monsterists, naturists, naturalists, hippies, horticulturalists and s&m clubs

[peterms]

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.)

I would never have expected Richard to say that.

[bickster]

Thats not true. You can become a member of the conservative party without being an MP.

Show us your membership card then. The words Party and Association are not synonyms in this instance. Its different for the other parties, anyone can be a member of those, but the Tories...

[colhint]

Thats not true. You can become a member of the conservative party without being an MP.

Show us your membership card then. The words Party and Association are not synonyms in this instance. Its different for the other parties, anyone can be a member of those, but the Tories...

I'm not a member, but here's the link if you want to sign up

 

https://www.conservatives.com/Get_involved/Join/Member.aspx

[mockingbird_franklin]

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

just pray you never get seriously ill or disabled, This lot of evil doing shitbags might as well just introduce compulsory euthenasia for anyone "lazy" enough to be born with illness and disability and hopeing to scrounge their way to a life of luxury on the 100 odd quid a week you can get

[Richard]

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?

i think you need to read what Jon is saying. He is labelling an entire party (and you can be members of the Conservative party and not be an MP) as nasty, bigoted, homophobic and intolerant just because some MPs voted that they were not in favour of gay marriage.

That is prejudiced and just plain wrong, as is the argument you put forward in defence of it.

[drat01]

I see that the Tory party are just about to do another quite embarrassing U Turn on Gove's education plans. They really are clueless in anything and everything they do.

 

Every day the public see a bit more of what an incompetent, intolerant, vindictive party the Tory lot (and their supporters) are.

 

 

EDIT: Had to snigger at the money that Ashcroft put for an award that was won by Owen Jones. He now plans to use the award to help fund Labour candidates etc :-)

Edited February 7, 2013 by drat01

[peterms]

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?

i think you need to read what Jon is saying. He is labelling an entire party (and you can be members of the Conservative party and not be an MP) as nasty, bigoted, homophobic and intolerant just because some MPs voted that they were not in favour of gay marriage.

That is prejudiced and just plain wrong, as is the argument you put forward in defence of it.

Are any generalisations possible about political parties, or any other group? Clearly they are.

Does that mean that saying a group is intolerant, or sensitive, or whatever, mean that you are saying that every individual member of that group, without exception, shares that characteristic? Clearly not.

Is this hard to understand? I wouldn't have thought so.

[drat01]

I appreciate she has effectively been thrown out of the Tory party but at the moment she still represents them as a MP, so it comes as no real surprise given what we are constantly seeing now from the Tory party to see Dorries tweet the following

 

 

Nadine Dorries MP
‏@NadineDorriesMP

Twitter is and has become dominated by the lower life on the left wing of politics. #fact

[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?

 

i think you need to read what Jon is saying. He is labelling an entire party (and you can be members of the Conservative party and not be an MP) as nasty, bigoted, homophobic and intolerant just because some MPs voted that they were not in favour of gay marriage.

That is prejudiced and just plain wrong, as is the argument you put forward in defence of it.

 

Are any generalisations possible about political parties, or any other group? Clearly they are.

Does that mean that saying a group is intolerant, or sensitive, or whatever, mean that you are saying that every individual member of that group, without exception, shares that characteristic? Clearly not.

Is this hard to understand? I wouldn't have thought so.

Not sure I agree with you Peter, not often I say that. I think you can generalise about policies but not individuals. What one may see as right or wrong, another will hold a different view. That doesn't mean that either is intolerant, insensitve or whatever. 

[Jon]

Fact: More Tory MP's voted against Gay Marriage than For it.

 

Fact: Some, a small minority, obstained.

 

I would like to add that my comments were deliberately provocative. This is a Villa discussion forum after all, and so I'm within my right to take a view to a more extreme position. For the record, I do not think that All of the Tory party is bigoted, intolerant, homophobic or 'nasty'.

 

Just a hell of a lot of 'em. And many of their supporters.

 

and, if nothing else, this vote highlights that, in a very embarrasing way.

 

As i've said before, Dave has driven a knife into the stomach of his party, for reasons I'm not entiely sure of. Is he a huge advocate of Gay Rights? Was this a move of political/social conviction.

[Jon]

I might also add that I too share one of these Tory traits:

 

Intolerance.

 

I simply cannot tolerate homophobia.

[mjmooney]

My stereotype radar tells me old white ladies in church in the posher end of a town are likely to be tory voters. Almost unanimously their attitude was 'whatever, when is the tea and biscuits tray arriving?'  When asked if they would be pro or anti gay marriage in their church, they were pro. I found that quite surprising.

 

Sweeping generalisation, but... I'd say women are generally less homophobic than men.

 

It may be because people see the "threat" from the the gay members of their own sex. We all know that straight men love lesbians, and straight women love gay men (for somewhat different reasons, I suspect). Gay men tend to be higher profile in society, and we all know Queen Victoria refused to believe that lesbians existed.

 

Basically, straight men fear gay men, straight women don't. And straight women don't have much of an opinion about lesbians at all. And even if they did, lesbians almost never get accused of bad stuff like grooming children.

 

Ergo, less homophobia among women - even Tory ones.

[chrisp65]

yeah that works

 

I just kinda presumed that people with purple hair and tweed that aren't actually art school punks tend to be not my sort of person.

Never judge until you've seen what's inside, a lesson I should've learnt straight after purchasing Lorraine Pascals Big Book of Muffins.

[villaajax]

So the education reforms have been partly scrapped? It's U turn after U turn after U turn, these torys don't know whether they're coming or going!

[blandy]

Yes. they mess everything up. They're incompetent.

The coalition is really 4 different groups - Lib Dems, Cameronites, Tory Back bench hounds and ambitionists like Gove and Fox and that lot, with their madcap ideological schemes. A few of them are in two of the groups. Disfunctional doesn't begin to cover it

[tonyh29]

I've not followed the news today that closely but wasn't the u-turn bought about because the libs refused to back the reform ?

[tonyh29]

Fact: More Tory MP's voted against Gay Marriage than For it.

Fact: Some, a small minority, obstained.

I would like to add that my comments were deliberately provocative. This is a Villa discussion forum after all, and so I'm within my right to take a view to a more extreme position. For the record, I do not think that All of the Tory party is bigoted, intolerant, homophobic or 'nasty'.

Just a hell of a lot of 'em. And many of their supporters.

and, if nothing else, this vote highlights that, in a very embarrasing way.

As i've said before, Dave has driven a knife into the stomach of his party, for reasons I'm not entiely sure of. Is he a huge advocate of Gay Rights? Was this a move of political/social conviction.

Yeah it's a wierd one when you try and bracket groups , I mean I'm sure that not every labour supporter has BNP tendencies they just tend to lean that way out of ideological reasons as has been proven by voting patterns during the BNP's brief flirt at getting elected

[peterms]

I'd be interested to see what the son (who does also seem to be a bit of a prick, jusging by the texts) thinks of the Mother. There's no other words for her actions than spiteful and vindictive. She's prepared to but herself in trouble with the law simply to get back at her ex husband. Revenge is seemingly a dish best served very cold.

 

There's a lack of class all round in this. It's lack an episode of Jezza Kyle for a 'higher' strata of society

Tomorrow's papers full of personal stuff about Huhne and his relationship. Looks like a very bitter end to a relationship is going to be played out in the papers for a few days yet. Messy.

[villaajax]

I've not followed the news today that closely but wasn't the u-turn bought about because the libs refused to back the reform ?

 

Well at least some people in that hopeless coalition have some sense then. That planned refrom was an absolutely ridiculous one thought up by an equally ridiculous person.