The War on Disabled People is an Invitation to Fight Back

[Crazy Diamond]

What we have is a weird situation where our government seems to be acting against our best interests. I don't actually believe that this is malicious, I think it's merely indifferent.

You are more forgiving than I am then. When they first came to power, I too thought they were merely inept. Over the last 2 1/2 years, I have changed my mind. There is malice aforethought, and plenty of it. There is a basic hatred of the poor, the under-privileged, anyone who's not a member of their wealthy club. Your Bertrand Russell on your signature is spot on. We only serve a purpose as long as we can serve them, and those who can't do so can die, the sooner the better as far as they're concerned.

 

The perfect storm IDS is creating doesn't happen by mistake. It's terrifying. I am on groups on Facebook where people have to stay in their bed all day with blankets and jumpers on because that's the only way they can stay warm. This disabled chap was saying yesterday that he couldn't put his thermostat higher than 10 C or it would eat up all he had left. TEN degrees Celsius, folks! I'm in talk with a lady who had to buy her husband a jumper from the charity shop so now can't afford to get herself one for herself.

 

I could give you thousands more examples that would make you gasp in horror that this is happening today, in one of the supposed best developed countries in the world. This government is telling you that there is no money and it's a LIE. We're all in this together? Bullsh*t. If we let them carry on and do this to the most vulnerable in our society, we are complicit in it, and what's more, if that's not sufficient, it measn you and i are next.

 

As a good friend of mine says, most of us are only ever 2 pay packets away from destitution.

 

Re: foreign aid, I am completely in agreement with Antone, don't think it's done out of charity or the goodness of our governmental heart, it's because it benefits us as a country. What we "give" in aid we get back in a thousands other ways, foreign charity is big business, don't be fooled.

[down'n'out]

................. foreign charity is big business, don't be fooled.

Big business yes, but for which corporations?

 

I agree with some others conclusions as to if Foreign aid really works, and that is a "conditional, cautious - yes".

[citizenB]

The thing that worries me is lack of jobs that pay more than NMW and lack of any real growth. There's too many NMW and part time jobs,. With the result we now have too many familes in work who require housing benefit to keep a roof over their head. While the large corporations make a hefty profit and shareholder dividends which they then move overseas.

 

Too many households now totally dependant on the government for some sort of tax credits to stay afloat in amongst rising living costs, whether in work or not. While landlords make a nice a profit for themselves. The divide between the have and ahve nots is rapidly widening. And the government now has too much power in many ways over dependant individual's.

 

And no one in any government party has the first idea of how to fix this, or if it will ever change. That's if they ever want it to. Why not just have a compliant dependant nation who do as they're told or face real hardship? So the best we can maybe look at is total stagnation and more of the same to come for possibly years to come. .

 

This was a brilliant Labour move.. the more we give the people, the more Labour voters we will have. Especially when election time comes round we can tell the electorate that the Tories will remove those benefits !!

[Crazy Diamond]

Big business yes, but for which corporations?

 

I agree with some others conclusions as to if Foreign aid really works, and that is a "conditional, cautious - yes".

 

Which corporations? Take your pick. Even "real" charities make big bucks, you should see the wages the top executives at Oxfam etc, make... They take the saying "charity begins at home" very seriously indeed.

[LaughingGirl]

I was absolutely staggered when I saw the pay for a top tier oxfam exec on a job advert in the guardian a couple of years ago. I know that you have to pay to get good people, but it made me reconsider donating to them.

[Surfer01]

This was a brilliant Labour move.. the more we give the people, the more Labour voters we will have. Especially when election time comes round we can tell the electorate that the Tories will remove those benefits !!

 

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

[Surfer01]

I was absolutely staggered when I saw the pay for a top tier oxfam exec on a job advert in the guardian a couple of years ago. I know that you have to pay to get good people, but it made me reconsider donating to them.

 

We stopped giving to Oxfam years ago. Prefer to help Red Cross or Salvation army.

[LaughingGirl]

Yeah, I donate to the red cross when i've got spare cash.

[Crazy Diamond]

This was a brilliant Labour move.. the more we give the people, the more Labour voters we will have. Especially when election time comes round we can tell the electorate that the Tories will remove those benefits !!

 

I have to say, this is the first time I have ever seen this most amazing attempt to lift millions of people out of poverty described in such a cynical manner. Next you'll be telling us that the minimum wage was also just a ploy to get themselves re-elected?

 

Well, you know what? Works for me. Sure, I'd rather see big bosses have to take a big pay cut and the small people get a living wage but sadly there isn't a party that has the balls to enforce this, so until that happens, yep, you're right, I'll keep on voting for the ones who gave me a chance to lift myself out of the poverty trap, the ones who ensure we wouldn't get £2 an hour for doing a backbreaking filthy job, the ones who try and make sure that the most disadvantaged in society don't have to wallow in misery for the rest of their lives.

 

What I can't understand is why anyone else who's not a member of their tiny elite club wouldn't????

[Simon7685]

I just love these kind of threads.......................

 

It sort of makes you realise (or should) that the world is full of differing opinions (mine included, on many ocassions). The one overriding thing for me is regardless of right or wrong people have these opinions. I think that this just goes to prove where a lot of the problems relating to Government come from. Whoever is in power has at least 325 or more seats so they are in charge, it is their turn, as declared by us the public (please don't split hairs re coalitions). Within that 325+ party there are 325+ individulas, who all have their own opinions and ideas on how things should be run, so just like on this thread, they cannot agree within themselves. Invariably at some point in the process the leader gets stabbed in the back and jumps before he's pushed. So we have another election and the other lot get in and blame it all on the last lot and the process begins again. Blue to Red to Blue to Red etc etc.

 

It just makes me realise that actually when it comes down to it, it can't be an easy job when nobody can agree and is there any wonder it all goes belly up at some point? Everyone knows this better than the others and that's fine but politicising everything won't change it, only common ground and everyone singing from the same hymn sheet can do that. I don't think it will ever work really no matter who is in, what they say they will do will be different to what they do, I think that is the only guarantee with politics.

 

The majority of people posting on this thread all agree that the welfare reforms that are coming now are unfair, in fact I think it will be 99%. We all understand how bad it is, how money is being cut, unfair assessments the lot but none of us can agree on the best way forward or how it started and who started it. They have the same problem running UK PLC why do we expect it to be different in their world............

 

Just a thought guys and girls

[Crazy Diamond]

I really don't think that talking about the coalition is "splitting hair" Simon, in fact, it's at the heart of the mess we're in now. If the LDs had held on to their principles instead of selling themselves for a crumb of power, NONE, not ONE of these devastating "reforms" would have come to pass.

 

And the reality is that no, the majority of us did NOT vote for those who are right now destroying the very social frame of this country. The majority were fed up with Labour (not so much because of the economy than because of the Iraq war as it goes), they also didn't really want the tories back in power, and they sure as hell weren't prepared to let the unknown quantity that were the LD have a go, so they kind of dithered, voted tactically, wasted their vote, not really wanting to commit one way or another. As Ian Hislop so beautifully put it at the time: "the country has SPOKEN... and it said 'meh'..."

[down'n'out]

Whoever is in power has at least 325 or more seats so they are in charge, it is their turn, as declared by us the public (please don't split hairs re coalitions). Within that 325+ party there are 325+ individulas, who all have their own opinions and ideas on how things should be run, so just like on this thread, they cannot agree within themselves.

 

So they are forced to vote as told via party whips.

[Surfer01]

I really don't think that talking about the coalition is "splitting hair" Simon, in fact, it's at the heart of the mess we're in now. If the LDs had held on to their principles instead of selling themselves for a crumb of power, NONE, not ONE of these devastating "reforms" would have come to pass.

 

And the reality is that no, the majority of us did NOT vote for those who are right now destroying the very social frame of this country. The majority were fed up with Labour (not so much because of the economy than because of the Iraq war as it goes), they also didn't really want the tories back in power, and they sure as hell weren't prepared to let the unknown quantity that were the LD have a go, so they kind of dithered, voted tactically, wasted their vote, not really wanting to commit one way or another. As Ian Hislop so beautifully put it at the time: "the country has SPOKEN... and it said 'meh'..."

 

The question of course and which we will never know the answer, would Labour have acted much differently as they woudl have known the coffers were depleted and we would need to borrow to make ends meet?

[citizenB]

I just love these kind of threads.......................

 

It sort of makes you realise (or should) that the world is full of differing opinions (mine included, on many ocassions). The one overriding thing for me is regardless of right or wrong people have these opinions. I think that this just goes to prove where a lot of the problems relating to Government come from. Whoever is in power has at least 325 or more seats so they are in charge, it is their turn, as declared by us the public (please don't split hairs re coalitions). Within that 325+ party there are 325+ individulas, who all have their own opinions and ideas on how things should be run, so just like on this thread, they cannot agree within themselves. Invariably at some point in the process the leader gets stabbed in the back and jumps before he's pushed. So we have another election and the other lot get in and blame it all on the last lot and the process begins again. Blue to Red to Blue to Red etc etc.

 

It just makes me realise that actually when it comes down to it, it can't be an easy job when nobody can agree and is there any wonder it all goes belly up at some point? Everyone knows this better than the others and that's fine but politicising everything won't change it, only common ground and everyone singing from the same hymn sheet can do that. I don't think it will ever work really no matter who is in, what they say they will do will be different to what they do, I think that is the only guarantee with politics.

 

The majority of people posting on this thread all agree that the welfare reforms that are coming now are unfair, in fact I think it will be 99%. We all understand how bad it is, how money is being cut, unfair assessments the lot but none of us can agree on the best way forward or how it started and who started it. They have the same problem running UK PLC why do we expect it to be different in their world............

 

Just a thought guys and girls

 

Very well said indeed

 

The question of course and which we will never know the answer, would Labour have acted much differently as they woudl have known the coffers were depleted and we would need to borrow to make ends meet?

 

As they deliberately went on a spending spree in the 12 months before the election.. they either thought they had managed to buy the electorate or .... made no real attempt to win, knowing damn fool well they could try and lay the blame on the "Global Economic turndown".

[osdset]

The question of course and which we will never know the answer, would Labour have acted much differently as they woudl have known the coffers were depleted and we would need to borrow to make ends meet?

 

The short answer is no, it matters not who holds the reigns because the real power lies with the banks. They are holding a loaded gun and have threatened to pull the trigger, it's ironic as they are responsible for the financial disaster this country finds itself in. Faced with the banking system's threat to call in debt across the board which would create unprecedented bank runs and total destabilisation of the economy the government has had to look elsewhere.

 

Big business and wealthy individuals are in reality immune from savage cuts, they regulary trot out the old canard of " we will shift our business/wealth overseas" add to that the prospect of losing party contributions, invitations for ex high ranking ministers to join the board and get on the gravy train, no the government won't cut off the hand that feeds it.

 

What about the 'strivers' then? Of course one could tax the upper middle class and small businesses to death, and royally p1ss them off in the process, this is a no go because they would lose valuable votes.

 

That just leaves pensioners (untouchable, too politically contentious), and those on NMW/unemployed/sick/disabled, so it's the latter that are getting walloped because as far as the government are concerned these are the only groups that have no political clout, are disenfranchised and marginalised, the only easy target the government has.

[Lady Lou]

This is why I think that we, as a country, need to change our politics - radical change in approach, not swapping from one side to the other.

The question is, how do we do it?

[down'n'out]

As they deliberately went on a spending spree in the 12 months before the election.. they either thought they had managed to buy the electorate or .... made no real attempt to win, knowing damn fool well they could try and lay the blame on the Global Economic turndown.

 

There is also the possibility that they decided (after the banking crisis) to pump money into the economy in an attempt to keep it growing, rather than the possibility that making cuts could cause a double or triple dip recession.

[Crazy Diamond]

Hellooooooooooooooooooooo???? Is anyone actually reading anything linked here?

 

the coffers were NOT depleted. There was NO "spending spree". And while we're at it, there was NO note saying "there is no money left" left behind when the tories got in, come on people use your brains here!

 

The deficit is a myth. The "need" for austerity is a myth, and ideological, not based on facts nor proper economics.

 

Come on, who do you believe, the Daily Mail or:

 

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

+ The International Monetary Fund

+ The Office for Budget Responsibility

+ Her Majesty's Treasury

+ The Office for National Statistics

... oh, and the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, finally trapped in his own lies?

 

I post the link again:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html

 

Please read it if you haven't yet. If that doesn't open your eyes, nothing will, but repeating the old lies won't make it true, not now, not ever.

[Crazy Diamond]

That just leaves pensioners (untouchable, too politically contentious), and those on NMW/unemployed/sick/disabled, so it's the latter that are getting walloped because as far as the government are concerned these are the only groups that have no political clout, are disenfranchised and marginalised, the only easy target the government has.

 

Well said.

 

I am not that naive, I am well aware that Labour are now targeting the "crips vote" to ride back to power in the same way the Tories have always relied on the "grey vote" to shore them up. That's fine by me. We know that the Tories, with or without the Libdems, will carry on with this class pogrom, so even if Labour are using us, as long as we get some results out of it, I do not see any other alternative, frankly.

 

Do I trust either party? No. Am I happy with Labour as they are? No. But they are not all the same, and voting the Tories back in would be the biggest mistakes any of us could make in our lifetime, or our children's lifetime for that matter. The way I see it, we have at last a chance to put pressure on Labour to get things done the way we'd like (or at least in the right direction), it's up to us to make sure that we get some concessions for our continued support rather than the current "well, I'll have to vote for them anyway as they're the least worse of all". Quite simple, really.

[Simon7685]

The defecit is a myth????????

That has to be the strangest thing I have ever read. So CD are you saying that as a country UKPLC has no deficit either historically or current? I am a bit confused as to exactly what you mean?

 

There is a deficit historically to which all parties agree and there is a current deficit because the amount of income the country has is less then its overall spending.

 

Sorry if I have misunderstood but that statement just seems a bit bizarre and not the sort of thing I would have expected you to say, have you been on the waccy baccy:wink:?

[Simon7685]

I really don't think that talking about the coalition is "splitting hair" Simon, in fact, it's at the heart of the mess we're in now. If the LDs had held on to their principles instead of selling themselves for a crumb of power, NONE, not ONE of these devastating "reforms" would have come to pass.

 

The reason I mentioned splitting hairs was because my comment was a generalisation of what happens in politics and elections. People get sick of what they have got for whatever reason, so they get voted out and a new lot put in. That was what I meant, so coalitions didn't really matter but under the democratic constitution if one party does not have an overall majority and parlaiment is 'hung' then we either get a coalition or the biggest party forming a minority govt. So if that happened in 2010 the Govt would still have been Cameron and Co, so the reforms would have still probably come to pass one way or another........

[Simon7685]

It is never going to be perfect no matter who is in power, as they all look after themselves and their buddies first and foremost. It has always been that way and always will.

 

If there was an election tomorrow, I expect Red Ed would get in with ease but I for one am quite happy to put on record that none of the current cuts would be changed, they would still go ahead and they would blame the tories and say they can't reverse them. I also believe that if Ed and Co got in tomorrow, they would spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow and we would be back to the 70's inside 2 years and going back to the IMF for a handout. That however is only my opinion but different opinions is what keeps the world interesting, there will never be a Utopia and everyone singing from the same hymn sheet.

[antone]

The defecit is a myth????????

That has to be the strangest thing I have ever read. So CD are you saying that as a country UKPLC has no deficit either historically or current? I am a bit confused as to exactly what you mean?

 

There is a deficit historically to which all parties agree and there is a current deficit because the amount of income the country has is less then its overall spending.

 

Sorry if I have misunderstood but that statement just seems a bit bizarre and not the sort of thing I would have expected you to say, have you been on the waccy baccy:wink:?

 

I can't speak for CD, but of course the deficit isn't a myth. The myth is that the current deficit is a huge, overarching crisis that must be tackled right now and at all costs. Historically it has been bigger and the sky has resolutely refused to fall.

 

What's happening is that the government is using panic-mongering about the deficit as a smokescreen to do what the Tories have always wanted to do - cut benefits, public sector staff, and public spending in general. Now that's OK, reasonable people can disagree on the appropriate levels of taxes, spending and so on. But the government is passing off what is in fact a political desire as an economic necessity.

[Crazy Diamond]

Thank you, Antone, that is of course what I meant, sorry I thought it was obvious from the links!

 

Taken out of context and as a standalone sentence, it would seem an odd thing to say, I agree... Maybe reading the whole post would help in the first place.

[Crazy Diamond]

The reason I mentioned splitting hairs was because my comment was a generalisation of what happens in politics and elections. People get sick of what they have got for whatever reason, so they get voted out and a new lot put in. That was what I meant, so coalitions didn't really matter but under the democratic constitution if one party does not have an overall majority and parlaiment is 'hung' then we either get a coalition or the biggest party forming a minority govt. So if that happened in 2010 the Govt would still have been Cameron and Co, so the reforms would have still probably come to pass one way or another........

 

Well no, that's the point. The tories have only been able to pass these devastating new laws because they had the LDs voting on these with them. If they had ruled as a minority party, none of it would have passed. Would this country be worse off for it? Absolutely not.

 

Well, I'm off to cheer up a friend who's just lost the motability car she uses for her Down's, autistic and Tourette's, violent 16 years old because DLA hasn't sorted his claim out, and as a consequence, her Income Support has stopped too and now the council is also telling her she should be paying £61 a week rent... Nothing she can do until Monday of course, she is devastated right now, so I'm off to make her tea and feed her cake and telling her dirty jokes, that's all I can do for now.

 

Have a great week-end all!