Bolitics The New Condem Government

[snowychap]

yeah, my memory (I'm not doing any research) is that Labour had shifted people of unemployment to massage those figures, then declared people were taking the piss on disability

I think the Tories may have kicked it off in the 80s. The problem is that the people who suffer for the shiftiness of government(s) are, unsurprisingly, the poor **** plebs.

[TrentVilla]

Forgive my potential ignorance on this particular subject because disability benefit isn't something I know much about and I didn't see the program so I stand to be corrected, however here goes...

 

There is an Atos office on the same street as one of our offices, each week disabled people are protesting outside the building but this has only happened under the current government it didn't happen during Labours time.

 

Now as I understand it Freud produced an 'independent' report in 2007 which was commissioned by John Hutton rather than Blair directly, although I've no idea what if any, Blair's direction was in this. He then worked as an advisor to Hutton not Blair between 2008 and 2009 which is a fair while after Blair left power.

 

Now granted to you did say "I think" in reference to Blair but I think that part of what you posted is incorrect, I also don't agree that the stance of New Labour under Blair or for that matter Brown were the same as Cameron's Tory party on the subject of disability benefits, I don't even think they are remotely close.

 

As I say there weren't protests outside Atos under the last government yet I believe Labour had began to shift in terms of their view on disability benefits and to make changes.

 

But I think Labour's change of stance and the action they took was to stop abuse of the system and to stop payments to those not truly worthy of them, on the face of it that granted is what the current government are doing but the reality is it would seem very very different. The Tories aren't looking to stop a few obese people claiming they are systematically trying to stop or significantly reduce benefit payments via a 3rd party, who are earning a fortune in the process, to some of societies most needy people.

 

Personally I find that repulsive, cold and reprehensible especially considering their lack of action in certain other areas concerning their more wealthy backers such as non dom tax exiles and the bankers.

 

As I said, I'm no expert on this topic but based on what I do know I think your suggestion, to paraphrase, that the government is simply carrying on Blair/New Labour's work to be without foundation and well just wrong.

 

It is akin to saying that the current government have simply continued where the last left off in terms of academies in the education sector which is again incorrect. They might share common themes or origins but the practical application, aims and ambitions are in my view almost entirely different.

[chrisp65]

yes, miners were 'encouraged' to have a whole range of ailments that reduced unemployment figures in places like Aberdare and Merthyr

 

Labour carried on the process, then decided people had to do 'something' and pushed people into Remploy. Then began the winding down of Remploy, something the current lot picked up and ran with....

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I don't like where this gradual erosion of the safety net is leading us.

 

Whatever happened to the thinkers? The intellectuals? What happened to politicians with genuine ideas and thoughts about society? They've all been replaced by automatons acting out in the best interest of the City. Money, money, money. **** your safety net, get out and work yourself to death because we can't be bothered supporting you when the money is better pumped into the private sector. Free healthcare? Bah, you get what you deserve, we won't pay for it, so sod off and let us put the money elsewhere. Oh, sure, some of it will vanish into off-shore accounts, but they create wealth (the most important thing ever) so they can do what they want.

 

Can we vote for people who have ideas, please? Or have we gone too far down the road and are stuck with PPE crowd?

[peterms]

Forgive my potential ignorance on this particular subject because disability benefit isn't something I know much about and I didn't see the program so I stand to be corrected, however here goes...

 

There is an Atos office on the same street as one of our offices, each week disabled people are protesting outside the building but this has only happened under the current government it didn't happen during Labours time.

 

Now as I understand it Freud produced an 'independent' report in 2007 which was commissioned by John Hutton rather than Blair directly, although I've no idea what if any, Blair's direction was in this. He then worked as an advisor to Hutton not Blair between 2008 and 2009 which is a fair while after Blair left power.

 

Now granted to you did say "I think" in reference to Blair but I think that part of what you posted is incorrect, I also don't agree that the stance of New Labour under Blair or for that matter Brown were the same as Cameron's Tory party on the subject of disability benefits, I don't even think they are remotely close.

 

As I say there weren't protests outside Atos under the last government yet I believe Labour had began to shift in terms of their view on disability benefits and to make changes.

 

But I think Labour's change of stance and the action they took was to stop abuse of the system and to stop payments to those not truly worthy of them, on the face of it that granted is what the current government are doing but the reality is it would seem very very different. The Tories aren't looking to stop a few obese people claiming they are systematically trying to stop or significantly reduce benefit payments via a 3rd party, who are earning a fortune in the process, to some of societies most needy people.

 

Personally I find that repulsive, cold and reprehensible especially considering their lack of action in certain other areas concerning their more wealthy backers such as non dom tax exiles and the bankers.

 

As I said, I'm no expert on this topic but based on what I do know I think your suggestion, to paraphrase, that the government is simply carrying on Blair/New Labour's work to be without foundation and well just wrong.

 

It is akin to saying that the current government have simply continued where the last left off in terms of academies in the education sector which is again incorrect. They might share common themes or origins but the practical application, aims and ambitions are in my view almost entirely different.

 

The whole agenda is about removing money from the poor and passing it to the rich.  The example of ATOS is just one more way in which it is happening - cut benefits, pay public money as fees for a contract, net result the wealthy have got richer and the poor have got poorer.

 

Most of the government's activity is a variant on this core purpose.

 

But in terms of the attacks on benefits, including disabled claimants, yes, the Blairites started down a road which the current government is continuing, ramped up to a more brutal level.

 

It was shameful in tonight's dispatches programme that the wholly false assertion was made several times that "we've got to cut the benefits bill", as though the only issue is which section of the undeserving poor gets shafted.  This is directly due to the shameful and cowardly failure of the Labour Party to do what they are there for, to oppose Tory policies and defend the poor.  Utterly disgraceful.

[peterms]

... Oh, sure, some of it will vanish into off-shore accounts, but they create wealth (the most important thing ever) so they can do what they want...

 

They don't create wealth, usually.  They appropriate wealth which someone else has created.

 

The use of the term "wealth creators" to refer to the rich is a constant propaganda device intended to create some subliminal justification for their wealth, by smuggling in (but never demonstrating) the idea that they have created it, and so it's rightfully theirs.  In fact, they mostly make their money from rent-seeking and speculation, not from work or creating value.

 

It's bollocks.  Don't be falling for it.

[TrentVilla]

Only Stephen Timms, shadow welfare minister said in January that benefits should rise with inflation. An easy thing to say at this stage of the governments term but something that could come back to haunt them in future. Realistically though Labour can do nothing to stop the government or their current course of action.

[peterms]

Only Stephen Timms, shadow welfare minister said in January that benefits should rise with inflation. An easy thing to say at this stage of the governments term but something that could come back to haunt them in future. Realistically though Labour can do nothing to stop the government or their current course of action.

 

To say that benefits should not rise at least with inflation is to say that we should take some demand out of the economy, and allow people to buy less next year than last year.

 

In the middle of a depression largely caused by falling demand, that would be barking mad.

[snowychap]

As I said, I'm no expert on this topic but based on what I do know I think your suggestion, to paraphrase, that the government is simply carrying on Blair/New Labour's work to be without foundation and well just wrong.

I don't think that I said that they were 'simply carrying on' the previous government's work, did I?

I said that the reforms are being 'continued further' (suggesting an increase in the 'reform(s)') under Freud after his conversion to the Tories.

You're rather nitpicking at the 'Blair' comment and I think you're missing the point. The point was that it was part of a 'reform' that began whilst Blair was in the chair (it took a back seat for a while between Freud's original report and, if I remember rightly, when Purnell revisited Freud's suggestions and decided to go along the Atos/Unum line).

It does people no service to try and suggest that the previous government would not have mostly gone down the same line as this government has in terms of incapacity benefit changes and the contracting out to a 3rd party private sector organization who do health assessments based on 30 minute tick box judgements.

You may say that you're no expert and are going on what you know but I will say that I was raising this point before the election when labour supporters on VT (Ricardomeister the most vociferous) were claiming that the Tories were intending to bring this kind of thing in and I had to point out that these reforms were already well under way (Welfare Reform Act 2009, again I think).

But I think Labour's change of stance and the action they took was to stop abuse of the system and to stop payments to those not truly worthy of them, on the face of it that granted is what the current government are doing but the reality is it would seem very very different. The Tories aren't looking to stop a few obese people claiming they are systematically trying to stop or significantly reduce benefit payments via a 3rd party, who are earning a fortune in the process, to some of societies most needy people.

Why do you think that?

When did Atos become the private contractor in charge of 'assessments' of people's health?

When did A4E begin to ride the gravy train of welfare contracts?

Edit: I'm sorry, Ash, but your post smacked of a defence of Labour when, actually, this is about welfare reform and the Overton window.

Edit 2: Looking back it seems the aforementioned Ricardomeister was actually supporting the Lib Dems.

Edited February 26, 2013 by snowychap

[TheDon]

Only Stephen Timms, shadow welfare minister said in January that benefits should rise with inflation.

That's common sense though isn't it?

Benefits are currently set at "the amount the law says you need to live on". If the cost of living goes up, then by definition benefits have to rise at the same rate. What you need to live hasn't changed, yet the cost of it has rose.

[chrisp65]

Only Stephen Timms, shadow welfare minister said in January that benefits should rise with inflation. An easy thing to say at this stage of the governments term but something that could come back to haunt them in future. Realistically though Labour can do nothing to stop the government or their current course of action.

 

Whilst I want to agree with the principle of benefits rising with inflation there is a basic flaw. Salaries / wages are not rising with inflation, therefore at some point it becomes economically sensible to not be working.

 

I know the way around that is to crank up the minimum wage etc., but that level of joined up state thinking just appears to be impossible.

[TrentVilla]

I didn't say you did, I said quite clearly that I was paraphrasing and not quoting you.

 

And no I wasn't nitpicking on the Blair point, I corrected something that was incorrect and/or added correct information in terms of the correct timescales of things. I'm not missing your point, I just don't agree with it.

[drat01]

For a political party that is "famed" for it's nasty party tag, this lot have embraced that and taken it to a new low. How any Tory supporter can even think about justifying what is happening is beyond me and no doubt the argument will be trotted out that other parties have done similar but that counts for nothing. These bastards are in power, with no mandate from the country other than the good will of a few cuckold loving bastards in the LibDems.

 

You then see the Tory party in it's true colours in media outlets like the Express and Mail who are trying to deflect any scrutiny of the mess this Gv,t are making by issuing quite appalling headlines re benefit claimants and immigrants.

[TrentVilla]

Only Stephen Timms, shadow welfare minister said in January that benefits should rise with inflation.

That's common sense though isn't it?

Benefits are currently set at "the amount the law says you need to live on". If the cost of living goes up, then by definition benefits have to rise at the same rate. What you need to live hasn't changed, yet the cost of it has rose.

Tell that to the current government not me, all I was doing was showing that Labour have spoken to oppose the actions of the government.

[snowychap]

I didn't say you did, I said quite clearly that I was paraphrasing and not quoting you.

In order to paraphrase (especially 'my suggestion') then you've got to get the gist - 'paraphrasing' by saying something that I didn't is simply putting words in my mouth.

And no I wasn't nitpicking on the Blair point, I corrected something that was incorrect and/or added correct information in terms of the correct timescales of things. I'm not missing your point, I just don't agree with it.

 

Yet you picked on something which I wasn't sure about (I said 'I think') and have missed everything else, Ash?

Edited February 26, 2013 by TrentVilla

[peterms]

Only Stephen Timms, shadow welfare minister said in January that benefits should rise with inflation. An easy thing to say at this stage of the governments term but something that could come back to haunt them in future. Realistically though Labour can do nothing to stop the government or their current course of action.

 

Whilst I want to agree with the principle of benefits rising with inflation there is a basic flaw. Salaries / wages are not rising with inflation, therefore at some point it becomes economically sensible to not be working.

 

I know the way around that is to crank up the minimum wage etc., but that level of joined up state thinking just appears to be impossible.

 

Part of the purpose of cutting benefits is to reduce wages at the lower end, by making it harder for people to avoid taking shitty jobs on shit pay.  The outcome is that employment is nominally rising (disguising a big underemployment problem among those working), but productivity is falling, pay is falling, people are taking jobs with no pension provision, storing up more problems a few years down the line, making themselves unable to save in a context where 8m people in this country already have no savings...

 

We are becoming a low wage, low productivity economy, with the wealthiest making money from unproductive and parasitic activities.  Cocktails in the VIP lounge as the ship begins to sink.

[peterms]

 

Only Stephen Timms, shadow welfare minister said in January that benefits should rise with inflation.

That's common sense though isn't it?

Benefits are currently set at "the amount the law says you need to live on". If the cost of living goes up, then by definition benefits have to rise at the same rate. What you need to live hasn't changed, yet the cost of it has rose.

Tell that to the current government not me, all I was doing was showing that Labour have spoken to oppose the actions of the government.

 

The problem is that the Labour Party don't oppose the basic approach of the government.  They have completely failed to articulate an alternative.  All their statements are about fine differences of degree and timing.  It's wholly inadequate, and shockingly inept.  That they are ahead in the polls must be down to how stunningly crap this lot are, not how good the opposition has been.

[snowychap]

Whilst I want to agree with the principle of benefits rising with inflation there is a basic flaw. Salaries / wages are not rising with inflation, therefore at some point it becomes economically sensible to not be working.

If the choice is average earnings or inflation then choose one. To vacillate between the two based on the cost and political fallout is beyond disgraceful.

It weren't a dig at you - you don't strike me as the vacillating sort.

Edited February 25, 2013 by snowychap

[TrentVilla]

I didn't say you did, I said quite clearly that I was paraphrasing and not quoting you.

In order to paraphrase (especially 'my suggestion') then you've got to get the gist - 'paraphrasing' by saying something that I didn't is simply putting words in my mouth.

>>>And no I wasn't nitpicking on the Blair point, I corrected something that was incorrect and/or added correct information in terms of the correct timescales of things. I'm not missing your point, I just don't agree with it.

Edit: Probably very inappropriate.

Yet you picked on something which I wasn't sure about (I said 'I think') and have missed everything else, Ash?

 

 

I wasn't picking on anything, I simply corrected something you said you weren't sure about and had in fact got wrong and I believe I mentioned the fact you had put 'I think'. I'm struggling to understand why you consider it nit picking when you so frequently correct factual errors in other peoples posts.

 

It wasn't some sort of personal attack which is how you appear to consider it.

 

As I said previously, I've not missed or failed to understand anything I just didn't agree with your original post in terms of your opinion as I'm entitled to do and some of it I considered factually incorrect. If I incorrectly paraphrased your point perhaps that is because of the way you made it.

 

I certainly wasn't attempting to put words in your mouth.

[OutByEaster?]

people are taking jobs with no pension provision

 

There won't be any jobs with no pension provision in the next couple of years. Not sure which government, (this one, the last one or the European one) brought that in, but it's here.