Nazi comparisons - please read

[Lilly_Monroe]

I'm 58 and I won't accept that I will never find work again, I might well be deluding myself but I have to keep thinking that I still have some potential otherwise it's the rocky road to becoming a vegetable.

 

Yes it does, and that's the main problem. Medical conditions aside, what's needed is someone to give an early opportunity of work for the long term sick but only if they feel that they can cope with it, no strings attached.

 

The longer people are away from even the notion of a job, the harder it becomes to get any kind of motivation.

 

I don't subscribe to the 'left to rot/written off' mantra, that's just government/WP justification for forcing claimants into inappropriate action.

 

I would actually be insulted if someone suggested I was over the hill. I have health issues and I'm claiming ESA WRAG, fortunately I have many interests that stop me from getting too maudlin about my current lot.

 

I won't give up until I'm in the box.

 

 

Meaningful work was what I meant, not standing in some charity shop or handing out leaflets.

Which is what seems to be on offer to the more mature person.

One of my advisers on the WP is 22 and speaks to me as if I am brain dead - well actually she does not speak to me, she speaks at me.

Yes I have lots of interests and manage very well to keep myself going despite my health and the day to day problem of fighting the system alone.

It all takes it toll in the end.

 

The reality is, there are University graduates who cannot find work, teachers the wrong side of 40, any number of fit and healthy people all chasing the same few jobs.

I do not delude myself.

I have plenty to keep me occupied within my health limitations; I just want to be left alone and stop being made to jump through hoops.

I do not subscribe to life is over if you have no expectations - that depends on the person and how they manage their day.

We all measure expectations differently.

 

Life might well be over if they keep on pushing and pushing for something I cannot deliver.

I am sure I am not alone in my thoughts and views.

[citizenB]

If someone on this forum speaks to you in this way, report the post and I'll crack the offender over the head with a wet kipper.

 

Seriously, it is not permitted on this forum to call claimants "scroungers" or any variant thereof. Unfortunately, I can't control what people say outside of CAG - I have not yet been appointed Supreme Overlord. I presume the letter got lost in the post.

 

 

Oops sorry, Antone.. I forgot to put a stamp on the envelope :**blush**

[jasta11]

Interesting thread!

 

'Nazi' will always be used - rightly or wrongly - to describe anyone severely authoritarian. I'm sure we've all encountered the classic 'Little Hitler' or two in our working lives and I'd like a pound for every time I've seen someone called a 'Grammar Nazi' because they corrected a person's spelling. The phrase is now firmly entrenched in our vocabulary and will most likely remain so for all time, such was the impact of WW2.

 

A lot of direct comparisons between 1945 and now aren't valid but it does cross my mind that the Nazis profitted from their victims; stolen gold from teeth, valuables, clothing - even the making of industrial soap from human bodies and using human hair to fill cushions. They used every method they could to make profit from their victims and in that sense - albeit it a far milder way not involving wholesale murder - the WP is doing that to the unemployed; profitting from the vulnerable.

 

I find that most young people who bandy the 'Nazi' word about don't actually know anything about it; it's just an insult for them to use. Quite a few haven't even heard of WW2 itself. I tell them it was quite a noisy affair and was in all the papers.

 

To lighten the mood, here's my favourite WW2 joke (without mentioning 'Nazis')...

 

Load of truck drivers sitting talking in a German motorway cafe.

One German trucker says 'German transport is the most efficient in the world; I can load up in Berlin, go over to London, drop off my load and be back home in only 2 days'.

 

A British trucker says 'That's slow; years ago my old uncle could load up in Lincoln, go over to Hamburg, drop off his load and be back home in 6 hours'.

 

'Impossible!' says the German. 'What transport was he using??'

 

'Lancaster Bomber', came the reply.

[obiter dictum]

Why are people trying to eradicate history just because some aspects of it were unsavory. With our education Minister Michael Gove trying to rewrite WW1 history and now people cannot even reference the term "Nazi"

 

"Those who ignore history are bound (or doomed) to repeat it"

George Santayana

 

If anyone is to blame, we only have to look at ourselves in the Mirror

[antone]

 

If anyone is to blame, we only have to look at ourselves in the Mirror

 

I prefer to look at myself in the Guardian.

[antone]

Oh, and just to be clear, this does not represent a blanket ban on the word "nazi" under any and all circumstances.

 

But if you must use it, please make sure you're referring to actual nazis, as opposed to Tory politicians engaged in welfare reform. I didn't really think this needed to be said, but oh well.

[rds60h]

I realise that the Site Team have a job to do and at times it must be very difficult, and mistakes will be perceived to be made by both the posters and the site team because it is impossible to please everyone.

I also realise that referals and comparisons to Nazi Germany can be construed to be offensive to some but in the context it has been used I would say that was debatable having read the following :: http://www.accessmagazine.co.uk/sue-marsh-stand-turning-point/

[ScarletPimpernel]

Some cracking conspiracy theories here; I hope you have your tinfoil hats ready!

 

Meanwhile, I see that rather than debate the issues, those who subscribe to conspiracy theories and anti-government constructs simply seek to stifle criticism.

[sadone]

Really......

[antone]

Really......

 

Useful, thanks. I'm so glad I left this thread open.

[estellyn]

Useful, thanks. I'm so glad I left this thread open.

 

 

Ok, so to try to move to a more productive discussion.

 

 

If the Tory government were to retain power next year, what does everyone realistically (and I mean realistically) see as being the next services, benefits, rights to be reduced, amended, removed. Or do you think it will stay the same. Or to the right wingers, what (sensible) changes would you like to see the Tories make to welfare. And what (realistic) path do these changes lead us down. Are we looking at the eroding away of welfare to bare bones, and the upsurge of income insurance policies for those who can afford it?

 

 

Or for instance are we looking at more stringent measures for the unemployed, like the eventuality of everyone who is jobseeking having to do it from jobseeking centres, which they are required to attend 9-5, with 'passes' to go to interviews.

Edited March 4, 2014 by estellyn
errant comma

[Lilly_Monroe]

Ok, so to try to move to a more productive discussion.

 

 

If the Tory government were to retain power next year, what does everyone realistically (and I mean realistically) see as being the next services, benefits, rights to be reduced, amended, removed. Or do you think it will stay the same. Or to the right wingers, what (sensible) changes would you like to see the Tories make to welfare. And what (realistic) path do these changes lead us down. Are we looking at the eroding away of welfare to bare bones, and the upsurge of income insurance policies for those who can afford it?

 

 

Or for instance are we looking at more stringent measures for the unemployed, like the eventuality of everyone who is jobseeking having to do it from jobseeking centres, which they are required to attend 9-5, with 'passes' to go to interviews.

 

 

If the Tories get in again I see more measures aimed at those claiming benefits.

I think people on JSA will be made to attend centres far more often - more compulsory pushing of re-training an even further widening of jobs you are prepared to do, as well as travel to (they could even link the money to the hours you attend) within the JSA payment level.

So if you do not attend for x amount of hours you lose that money each time.

Not sanctions as at the moment more a weekly cut.

Even I struggle to find what more they could aim at people - though I am sure there must be more.

 

People on ESA well we are already looking at payment for appeals, which I think they will bring in.

Longer waiting times (No better way to cripple a person financially and mentally then make them wait with NO money coming in.

Less time in between medicals, those in the WRAG group made to do more in search of work (maybe attend medical centres on a more frequent basis) for a 'check in' prognosis.

Change the appeal process or rather who hears the appeal as that seems to be where they are falling down at the moment with well over 40% of claimants passing the ordeal.

 

Deeper cuts into the NHS making us pay for some services.

If you smoke, drink or are fat then some services removed unless you sign up to kick the habit.

Basically they could sink as low and as mean as they want - we are sitting targets when done and said all.

[obiter dictum]

An interesting point you make Lilly and confirmed from Chris Grayling dept about charging peope to appeal their ESA claims etc as 40% are upheld on appeal to HM Court and Tribunal Service. A fundemental common law right in this country is equal access to justice. Any individual who is unable to afford court fees, and a Tribunal is a court (Lord Devln) is entitiled to have those fees paid by the state. Being on a state benefit will take you below the threshold. So how can Grayling hope to implement this policy when it is contrary to constitutional rights.

[rebel11]

IDS has already stated that he can make more cuts if Cameron wants him to, in fact he's volunteering to do that.

 

Ok, so to try to move to a more productive discussion.

 

 

If the Tory government were to retain power next year, what does everyone realistically (and I mean realistically) see as being the next services, benefits, rights to be reduced, amended, removed. Or do you think it will stay the same. Or to the right wingers, what (sensible) changes would you like to see the Tories make to welfare. And what (realistic) path do these changes lead us down. Are we looking at the eroding away of welfare to bare bones, and the upsurge of income insurance policies for those who can afford it?

 

 

Or for instance are we looking at more stringent measures for the unemployed, like the eventuality of everyone who is jobseeking having to do it from jobseeking centres, which they are required to attend 9-5, with 'passes' to go to interviews.

[sadone]

Useful, thanks. I'm so glad I left this thread open.

 

Hang on did you not see all those links I put up in response to 'scarlets' comments a page or so back. None of which has been addressed.

 

Seems even when I do respond properly and fully some posters just walk away.

 

If the tories get in (which I suspect they will sadly) short answer is more dark days for the working poor of this country. Resulting in more people driven into poverty and more suicides.

 

Deeper cuts into the NHS making us pay for some services.

If you smoke, drink or are fat then some services removed unless you sign up to kick the habit.

Basically they could sink as low and as mean as they want - we are sitting targets when done and said all.

 

Sadly this.

[citizenB]

sadone, I think you will see that SP did respond to your post in post # 35 I think.

[sadone]

No I posted a list of links after that in reply to their comments about media bias which were never acknowledged. Funny that.

[Annie71]

There are lots of things that can be done and fairly but we have to look at an economic perspective as opposed to a political one. Cost benefit analysis.

Trying to fix things with a blunt instrument will not work.

some ideas

Reduce fraud and adjust benefits to suit

Reduce tax avoidance by both corporate bodies and individuals

Ration the availability of high cost treatments e.g transplants .

Increase tax rates for 50k incomes

Reduce childcare help for average earners. Childcare is a choice not a right.

Cancel winter fuel payments and add it to pension credit so only the needy get it.

 

Just some ideas and I do not pretend to agree or disagree or even know what the costs or savings would be.

[unclebulgaria67]

If the tories get in (which I suspect they will sadly) short answer is more dark days for the working poor of this country. Resulting in more people driven into poverty and more suicides.

 

At the moment it is highly unlikely the Tories will stay in government in May 2015. For the Tories to win a majority, they need to be about 6% ahead of Labour, but at the moment in the polls they are about 6% behind. The Tories are simply not very well represented in many areas of the country, particularly north of England. Labour will benefit by Tories losing votes in marginals to UKIP. Labour will gain votes from Lib Dems.

 

If you look at the electoral calculus site, there is currently a 73% probability of a Labour majority. People should not be encouraged by Labour taking over government, because they are also committed to reforms of the benefits system. The simple fact is that due to an increasing human population*, UK government cannot pay for all the current services, as they spend more than they earn. Even if they increased taxes, it would not be enough to remove the budget deficit. So Labour will also be trying to save by implementing some welfare reforms. The difference is that Labour should ensure that the most vulnerable are protected, which does not appear to be happening at the moment.

 

* bigger human population, more people in work, but real earnings have not risen for along time. More part time working, zero hours contracts, self employment 'opportunities'. Therefore household incomes have reduced in real terms, but cost of living has increased, as has cost of running state services.

 

If people are earning less, then the tax take from government will not keep up with the increase in spending. You therefore end up with people and government in debt. It is not rocket science. The only way you can make it slightly better is increase higher rate taxes, tax wealth and ensure businesses/wealthy do not avoid tax. You can then through redistribution, reduce tax on people on average/low incomes, so they have a chance of being able to afford the basic cost of living. This helps society and the country in general, as the people on average/low incomes spend more of their incomes, keeping retail spending at a healthy level and therefore sustaining jobs, therefore not needing welfare.

[rebel11]

This is going back sometime, but still goes on now.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/oct/21/executivesalaries.executivepay

[citizenB]

There are lots of things that can be done and fairly but we have to look at an economic perspective as opposed to a political one. Cost benefit analysis.

Trying to fix things with a blunt instrument will not work.

some ideas

 

Reduce fraud and adjust benefits to suit - Yes

 

Reduce tax avoidance by both corporate bodies and individuals - Definitely

 

Ration the availability of high cost treatments e.g transplants . - This one is emotive - you hear stories of premature babies who would previously have simply died before medicine became so advanced having millions of £'s spent on them - on life support machines and who maybe, if they survive will require 24/7 assistance and health care for whatever life span they have ? Think of the savings that could be made there !!

 

Increase tax rates for 50k incomes - this I think is too low - £100K incomes perhaps.

 

Reduce childcare help for average earners. Childcare is a choice not a right. - I agree with this - I fail to see the point in having children then leaving them in someone else's care and the tax payer footing the bill !

 

 

Cancel winter fuel payments and add it to pension credit so only the needy get it - Yep, unfortunately you are then looking at "means tested benefits" and a lot of people, will simply not apply - although if these payments are made via the tax office, then they should know the income level of people who do not actually require this payment. Family allowance is another one. Why given to those who have very high earnings !

 

Just some ideas and I do not pretend to agree or disagree or even know what the costs or savings would be.

 

Some more ideas, although I suspect the savings would be minimal.

 

Reduce the number of MPs in Parliament

Why are MPs being given assistance with 2nd homes ? They choose to go into politics. If they need to keep their family home (because they might not get in next time round) then perhaps the government should invest in property that MPs can use.

 

Reduce the number of administrators in the NHS - have more frontline staff.

 

Foreigners who are not entitled to free health care - if they dont pay, then perhaps their embassies should be made to ?

 

One of the biggest wastes in the NHS is apparently prescription drugs - over half those who have prescription drugs either dont use them all or dont take them, especially those people who have repeat prescriptions.

 

Stop giving bonuses to Civil Servants - they are paid a salary.

[Lilly_Monroe]

I am hoping they do not get back in power.

Not that I have any better belief in Labour, but I think they will at least back off the welfare aspect - whereas the Cons will push and push until they completely break its back.

A return into power they will see as a mandate to carry on.

[citizenB]

I am hoping they do not get back in power.

Not that I have any better belief in Labour, but I think they will at least back off the welfare aspect - whereas the Cons will push and push until they completely break its back.

A return into power they will see as a mandate to carry on.

 

Lily, you cant simply vote someone in because they will back off a situation that NEEDS addressing and urgently.

 

Labour spent billions involving themselves in a war that two men wanted - no one else did.

 

And what has it achieved ? The minute troops are fully withdrawn, that country will be back where it started !

 

On top of which, they have been reducing our forces personnel because they can no longer afford to keep the numbers !

[sadone]

Why are MPs being given assistance with 2nd homes ? They choose to go into politics. If they need to keep their family home (because they might not get in next time round) then perhaps the government should invest in property that MPs can use.

 

Dear god this! And so who's the biggest benefit 'scroungers' then? Methinks It's our (on the whole) useless and greedy MP's.

 

Who to vote for? Imo god only knows when all the main political parties seem the same. The system now reminds me of the last chapter of the book Animal Farm where in the end you couldn't tell the difference between pig nor man.

[worried33]

Dear Scarlet

 

If you only going to rely on clinical evidence from so called experts to sway your opinion then I cant help you there, my opinions are based on real life experiences.

 

Examples?

 

My Mother for decades her health problems were based on obesity, yet doctors didnt click she was slim when her health problems started, her obesity was a side effect of her health problems, funny enough as soon as she moved away from my city, the GP's in her new area have correctly diagnosed her, sadly 20 or so years too late as now she cant be operated on and has lost much of her younger life due to the lack of treatment when younger. eg. she was falling asleep in the day (even minutes after waking up) and doctors were initially not even bothering to do anything at all. Eventually my elder sister went with her to a appointment, said some strong words and we found the problem, short oxygen supply. Now she wears a oxygen mask to bed and no longer falls asleep in the day. It took about 7 years for this to get diagnosed. She was also wrongfully diagnosed with asthma for about 40 years. She also has had walking problems for decades, in the past it wasnt severe so she led a fairly normal life, was able to work etc. however she was regurly pulling her back and having occasional issues which sidelined her temporarily, up until about 4-5 years ago she suddenly had to quit all her cleaning jobs and effectivaly became disabled overnight. gain after some pushing we found she has numerous issues with her back that require surgery but because of her age the surgery cannot go ahead. This had been failed to be diagnosed for many years.

 

Myself. I had to self refer to a couple of places, I have had to shout at doctors to get other refferals. My area is rife with locum doctors who lets face it will not be of the same standards as a permanent doctor who knows if he doesnt get it right you will be back to see him again. The specialists I have been seeing have all commented why I am not seeing this and that other specialist for problems they see with their own eyes. Apparently to you getting misdiagnosed or not diagnosed is uncommon, yet me after 10 years still have no proper diagnosis for a problem that stopped me working.

 

My younger sister was having blackouts, fainting etc. for several years from when she was early 20s onwards, doctor said its in her mind headaches are normal. One day she collapsed at work, wasnt able to speak properly turns out she has had some mini strokes and now has some permanent nerve damage. Only took them about 7 years to diagnose.

 

Something I seen in the paper (so obviously its possible it may have been misreported) a young working lady was reporting frequent vomiting, coughing up blood, chest pains. Doctors blamed it on indigestion, wow. She kept going back asking again and again as symptons were getting worse, no follow ups, no refferals, apparently young people cant get severe illness. Eventually it got so bad she was taken to hospital, after many years finally had a chest xray done, and they found well developed lung cancer which of course if only caught earlier might have had a chance. You can guess the ending. (she didnt smoke)

 

NHS quality is a postcode lottery, some areas its very hard to even get a permenent GP, never mind the rest. I think you have a bit of a rose tinted view of the state of things in this country.

 

Of course with the media there is 1 or 2 left wing papers, but they are very outnumbered by right wing papers, and the bbc is sort of center right biased in fact I find they tend to be always leaning to the existing government's views as they want their tv licence renewed, but generally right wing people see anything that isnt extreme right wing as left wing.