| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Who would believe it? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 16 2014, 07:50 AM (725 Views) | |
| RJD | Dec 16 2014, 07:50 AM Post #1 |
Prudence and Thrift
  ![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
Public spending cuts help
So all the warnings from the viscous left have been found to be wrong, again. The private sector made unproductive by Public Sector wages set in London, has responded. Even during the Labour phoney boom years here in Wales even after massive EY grants, saw jobs go into decline and the necessity of young people leaving for England to find work. My goodness Wales is discovering Capitalism and it works. Carry on like this and one day, maybe, we can tell the English where to stuff her subsidies. |
 |
 
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| johnofgwent | Dec 20 2014, 12:46 PM Post #41 |
It .. It is GREEN !!
|
Thanks to bloody devolution, the (labour) tossers in Cardiff Bay have the excuse that the (tory) tossers do not give them enough money and the westminster tossers can - and do, I have a long list of such letters - wash their hands of criticism on the grounds "(whatever you are complainign about) is a devolved matter". The problem with this scenario is that the labour tossers in Cardiff Bay were making that excuse then TONY BLAIR AND GORDON BROWN were running the circus in Westminster, and the LABOUR MP for Newport east was making those same excuses that it wasnlt her problem. The truth is that devolution has been a monumental f*cking disaster from day one and should never have been allowed. As for the bollocks that fuels RJD's fantasy, here's the truth. The Welsh Assembly Government pretty much bribed developers of property to build office blocks in Objective One Funding areas and then bribed companies with offices in areas of relatively low unemployment to relocate out of those places into the unemployment blackspots. Logica (now CGI at Bridgend and the Sword Group later AgencyPort later something else) at Cwmbran are just two examples of organisations that have taken what amounts to a WAG bribe to cause new unemployment problem in an anrea of low unemployment inorder to give the said WAF the propaganda victory of bringing jobs to the welsh unemployment backspots that were created by thatcher's destruction of industry. This is the reality from one who has lived here and worked for one of the above which gave me ample opportunity ot see the scam in action. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 21 2014, 11:03 AM Post #42 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
You need to polish up your reading skills, weigh up exactly what has been said and stop making false interpretations. Focus, concentrate, think. |
|
|
|
| ACH1967 | Dec 22 2014, 12:53 PM Post #43 |
Senior Member
|
Dear Steve, I am not sure if your comments are aimed at my posts. I have used the word suffering but I have tried to give some example in relation to the points I was trying to make. I agree entirely that no illustrative examples have been given consequently I think your scepticism is justified. Telling you that you are blind whilst providing no examples has no credibility in my mind. That said I still believe that it is pretty clear that most of the cuts will fall disproportionately on those in our society who are less well off as they are more likely to make use of those services. As I have said the bedroom tax has had a material effect on a lot of peoples incomes without them having any realistic action they can take to avoid it. For others wages are stagnant yet food and energy has gone up by a fair degree. If these people were stretched initially (even if this were a mistake is there really any joy to be had in their plight) these situations will have just exacerbated the problem. Then there are the number of sanctions that are happening. The poorest in society are suffering more because they are least able to weather these problems. I don’t think that is right but unlike others I would be prepared to pay more tax to prevent this rather than demand that “rich bastards” pay more tax. Even we need to decide what we want and how much we are prepared to pay for it |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 22 2014, 01:29 PM Post #44 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Unfortunately ACH you provide no evidence to show the basis on which you formed your opinion. The DWP have claimed that from the reforms there are more winners than losers, they have claim that a few hundred thousand people have been encouraged to now look for work with many finding such, there are financial provisions made to Local Gov. budgets, to help those where there are changes in subsidies in housing. Yes some will fall through the net and as Steve said there will be situations where the Public Sector could have been more diligent. That said I see no evidence that these reforms are rejected by any political Party that has a chance of forming a Gov. It also appears that the vast majority of Joe Public welcome these reforms, do not believe they are ungenerous and do not wish to see them scrapped with the old system of entrapment re-introduced. Just beware of the Shroud-wavers. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 22 2014, 02:09 PM Post #45 |
|
Senior Member
|
Around a million a year, it is a disgrace, because they seem to be aimed at mentally ill or, people with learning difficulties. http://www.mind.org.uk/news-campaigns/news/huge-rise-in-sanctions-for-people-with-disabilities/#.VJglxsDpABg Posted on 12/11/2014 The latest Government statistics show that people claiming the disability benefit Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) are having their financial support cut more and more frequently. The figures from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) show that there were more than three times as many sanctions in June 2014 compared to June 2013. These figures relate specifically to people in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) of ESA, who are expected to undertake certain activities in order to receive their benefits. The number of people in this group has actually fallen by more than 10,000. Tom Pollard, Policy and Campaigns Manager at Mind, the mental health charity, said: “We’re very concerned that an increasing number of people on ESA are having their benefits stopped, despite the fact that there are now fewer people in the WRAG. We know that around half of people in the WRAG need support because they have mental health problems, but over 60 per cent of sanctions are imposed on this group." “It is unjustifiable that people with mental health problems are being disproportionately affected by this increasingly punitive system. This confirms our fears that people are being pressured to undertake activities that are inappropriate for them and are not having their mental health properly taken into account." “As a result people often become more anxious and unwell and this makes a return to work less likely. We urgently need to see people with mental health problems placed on a scheme which recognises and helps them overcome the challenges they face in finding and keeping a job.” |
|
|
|
| ACH1967 | Dec 22 2014, 02:20 PM Post #46 |
|
Senior Member
|
RJD: Unfortunately ACH you provide no evidence to show the basis on which you formed your opinion. ACH: I have repeatedly but you choose to ignore it. RJD: The DWP have claimed that from the reforms there are more winners than losers, they have claim that a few hundred thousand people have been encouraged to now look for work with many finding such ACH: Would you expect them to do anything else? I would say that right now the verdict is still out and what conclusions can be drawn need to be nuanced. RJD: There are financial provisions made to Local Gov. Budgets, to help those where there are changes in subsidies in housing. ACH: I am of the belief that these are insufficient. Unless you have data proving they are sufficient then the best we can do is agree that neither of us can be sure. RJD: Yes some will fall through the net and as Steve said there will be situations where the Public Sector could have been more diligent. That said I see no evidence that these reforms are rejected by any political Party that has a chance of forming a Gov. ACH: This doesn’t necessarily mean that they are a good thing. It also depends about what reforms we are thinking about. To be fair most of my posts have referred to cuts in services. The only welfare reforms I have an opinion are the spare room subsidy and sanctions. Also as I have said before I do need to find out more about sanctions if I can. RJD: It also appears that the vast majority of Joe Public welcome these reforms, do not believe they are ungenerous and do not wish to see them scrapped with the old system of entrapment re-introduced. Just beware of the Shroud-wavers. ACH: Well I was one of Joe Public who thought they were a good idea. Entrapment is a nice sound bite but doesn’t necessarily get to the crux of the problem does it. At the end of day there are two solutions to entrapment…reduce benefits or increase wages. If you wish to reduce benefits then you are effectively saying that benefits were TOO generous. Proving this one way or another will be challenging. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 22 2014, 04:39 PM Post #47 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
RJD: Unfortunately ACH you provide no evidence to show the basis on which you formed your opinion. ACH: I have repeatedly but you choose to ignore it. Not true ACH. I have requested this and only get opinion. RJD: The DWP have claimed that from the reforms there are more winners than losers, they have claim that a few hundred thousand people have been encouraged to now look for work with many finding such ACH: Would you expect them to do anything else? I would say that right now the verdict is still out and what conclusions can be drawn need to be nuanced. Are you saying that the DWP distorts the truth? RJD: There are financial provisions made to Local Gov. Budgets, to help those where there are changes in subsidies in housing. ACH: I am of the belief that these are insufficient. Unless you have data proving they are sufficient then the best we can do is agree that neither of us can be sure. Could be, but again you need to supply the evidence on which you based your opinions. I do not know about 2014, but at the end of 2013 the provisions were not fully utilised. I posted a link at that time. RJD: Yes some will fall through the net and as Steve said there will be situations where the Public Sector could have been more diligent. That said I see no evidence that these reforms are rejected by any political Party that has a chance of forming a Gov. ACH: This doesn’t necessarily mean that they are a good thing. It also depends about what reforms we are thinking about. To be fair most of my posts have referred to cuts in services. The only welfare reforms I have an opinion are the spare room subsidy and sanctions. Also as I have said before I do need to find out more about sanctions if I can. Best look at the big picture. Prior to reforms the system was grossly unfair to many and complex, now it is simpler and seemingly fairer in structure. You check it out. As for Services these will have to be cut no matter who is in power as they are no longer affordable, not that they ever were. Anyway it is BS that services are being cut to the bone only back to 2007/08 levels in absolute terms. Don't let the percentages BS blind you. RJD: It also appears that the vast majority of Joe Public welcome these reforms, do not believe they are ungenerous and do not wish to see them scrapped with the old system of entrapment re-introduced. Just beware of the Shroud-wavers. ACH: Well I was one of Joe Public who thought they were a good idea. Entrapment is a nice sound bite but doesn’t necessarily get to the crux of the problem does it. At the end of day there are two solutions to entrapment…reduce benefits or increase wages. If you wish to reduce benefits then you are effectively saying that benefits were TOO generous. Proving this one way or another will be challenging. The reforms are much deeper than you infer. Look at the changes. As the DWP said there are more winners than losers, so it is really not about cutting is it. Check the facts and ignore the BS blown in from the left who do not want to change the reforms or be seen to support them, they are whistling through both sides of their mouths and their anuses all at the same time. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 22 2014, 05:11 PM Post #48 |
|
Senior Member
|
It is Iain Duncan Smith who is doing that. How someone can get away with so many provable lies and stay in office is quite frankly a puzzle. David Cameron must really want to lose the general election. |
|
|
|
| Affa | Dec 22 2014, 07:38 PM Post #49 |
|
Senior Member
|
Not Me! I've been away, and felt the need to remind, that there was nothing of real merit in either the article or its poster here, and further more, as the question itself does imply, nobody with any sense would believe that Wales (or anywhere else in the UK) is doing better than prosperous London as is claimed. Edited by Affa, Dec 22 2014, 07:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
| ACH1967 | Dec 23 2014, 08:52 AM Post #50 |
|
Senior Member
|
RJD: Not true ACH. I have requested this and only get opinion. ACH: OK this is pointless but I may get a chance to try and find an impartial bunch of facts after Christmas RJD: Are you saying that the DWP distorts the truth? ACH: It would be niaive to assume otherwise RJD: Could be, but again you need to supply the evidence on which you based your opinions. I do not know about 2014, but at the end of 2013 the provisions were not fully utilised. I posted a link at that time. ACH I will have a look RJD: Best look at the big picture. Prior to reforms the system was grossly unfair to many and complex, now it is simpler and seemingly fairer in structure. You check it out. As for Services these will have to be cut no matter who is in power as they are no longer affordable, not that they ever were. Anyway it is BS that services are being cut to the bone only back to 2007/08 levels in absolute terms. Don't let the percentages BS blind you. ACH: I did not say anything was being cut to the bone. I have been very measured. RJD: The reforms are much deeper than you infer. Look at the changes. As the DWP said there are more winners than losers, so it is really not about cutting is it. Check the facts and ignore the BS blown in from the left who do not want to change the reforms or be seen to support them, they are whistling through both sides of their mouths and their anuses all at the same time. ACH OK if you could point me to where you are getting your information I will take a look. |
|
|
|
| jaguar | Dec 23 2014, 12:15 PM Post #51 |
Regular Member
|
This is what I don't understand. Everyone at the last election knew how bad things would get, yet now that seems to have slipped peoples minds how the Labour party spent all of the money while the sun was shining. Now here we are listening to the 2 Eds and other shadow cabinet members, who actually oversaw that event, telling us about the "Tory's cost of living crisis". Don't forget it was the Energy Sec (Ed someone - whatever became of him?) who imposed huge amounts of environmental costs onto fuel bills and allowed the mega-mergers between the suppliers, did this not affect the poor and vulnerable. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 23 2014, 03:36 PM Post #52 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Nothing much to do with the Tories, except for VAT I do not see how they could be blamed for increasing costs. It is true that for some VAT increases were to a degree offset by tax threshold increases. What we have seen in terms of price increases has largely been imported and to that extent so has the recent falls in energy prices. Clearly Labour will castigate the Gov. for any increase, but not praise any reductions. Wages have been depressed because there is a massive oversupply of willing labour and that is a matter that this Gov. has failed to get a grip on. However, the last lot as well as being extremely comfortable with vulgar amounts of individual wealth were also happy to see immigrant numbers climb. Didn't Blair put out a Welcome Mat? |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 23 2014, 03:38 PM Post #53 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
What is it about rate of change that you do not understand? The article did not state that absolutes were higher. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 23 2014, 03:39 PM Post #54 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
What proven lies? When did he lie to the HofC? Not interested in opinion only proof. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 23 2014, 03:47 PM Post #55 |
|
Senior Member
|
What proven lies? When did he lie to the HofC? Not interested in opinion only proof. [/quote]RJD you don't read my references so what is the point, I suggest you just Google Iain Duncan Smith lies, and take your pick. Or click on any of the references here:- http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2014/01/the-cost-of-ids-100-ways-iain-duncan.html |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 23 2014, 03:50 PM Post #56 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
RJD you don't read my references so what is the point, I suggest you just Google Iain Duncan Smith lies, and take your pick. Or click on any of the references here:- http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2014/01/the-cost-of-ids-100-ways-iain-duncan.html[/quote]Why not just answer the question? Not interested in any of your baloney, so put up your proof in clear text in your words. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 23 2014, 03:57 PM Post #57 |
|
Senior Member
|
It isn't "baloney" RJD, IDS is a serial liar, not one of his claims about the "success" of welfare reforms stands up close scrutiny. From just a few days ago:- http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/reports---correspondence/correspondence/index.html http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/reports---correspondence/correspondence/letter-from-sir-andrew-dilnot-to-jonathan-portes-171214.pdf |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 23 2014, 04:10 PM Post #58 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
I do not see your words. I do not see your proof. I only see links which I will not use as they are put up as being credible by you and you have, as far as I am concerned, what they call form. Explain the proof in your own words and if this sounds creditable then I might investigate. |
|
|
|
| Pro Veritas | Dec 23 2014, 04:18 PM Post #59 |
|
Upstanding Member
|
Really? How disingenuous. You know the links support Papa's claim that IDS lies, in fact only a retard could not know that because there have been many news stories covering IDS's claims and how the integrity of those claims have been questions by ONS/NAO etc. The truth is you don't want to look at those links because you don't want to know the truth. All The Best |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Dec 23 2014, 04:19 PM Post #60 |
|
Senior Member
|
Bit of a struggle for you was it? File under biddy blather. |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Dec 23 2014, 04:22 PM Post #61 |
|
Senior Member
|
Seriously? Who do you think you are kidding with that pig ignorant reply?  File under the nasty man has a point! |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 23 2014, 04:30 PM Post #62 |
|
Senior Member
|
I came to that conclusion a long time ago. This is not going to go away either, no matter how much IDS is trying to avoid the truth:- (Live reference links in the article on the DNS website.) http://disabilitynewsservice.com/2014/12/ministers-look-loophole-hide-truth-benefit-related-deaths/ 19 Dec 2014 Ministers look to loophole to hide truth on benefit-related deaths By john pring Ministers have admitted they are considering using a legal loophole to avoid publishing the results of secret reviews into 60 benefit-related deaths. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) admitted to Disability News Service (DNS) last month that it had carried out 60 secret reviews into benefit-related deaths since February 2012. http://disabilitynewsservice.com/2014/11/dwp-admits-investigating-60-benefit-related-deaths-since-2012/ DNS subsequently put in a new request, also under the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA), to ask for the summaries, conclusions or recommendations of those 60 reviews, minus any information that would identify each claimant. DNS also asked to be told whether DWP had implemented each of the recommendations from these reviews. But this week, DWP’s freedom of information team told DNS that it needed a further month to consider the request, under section 36 of FoIA. Section 36 is designed to protect information when its disclosure would be likely to prejudice “the maintenance of the convention of the collective responsibility” of ministers; inhibit the “free and frank provision of advice”, or the exchange of views, for the purposes of deliberation; or would be likely to prejudice the “effective conduct of public affairs”. The team said the extra time was needed to “make a determination as to the public interest” of releasing the information. Coalition ministers have consistently denied any connection between their welfare reforms and cuts and the deaths of benefit claimants. But there have been numerous reports of disabled people whose deaths have been linked by relatives and friends to the employment and support allowance (ESA) claim process, the refusal or removal of ESA and other benefits, and the DWP’s use of sanctions to temporarily remove benefits from a claimant. Among them are the deaths of David Clapson and Mark Wood. Clapson, who had diabetes, had his benefits stopped because he missed two DWP appointments. He died through an acute lack of insulin. His electricity had been cut off, so the fridge where he kept his insulin was not working. An autopsy found his stomach was empty at the time of his death. He had just £3.44 in his bank account and there was almost no food left in the flat. Wood starved to death after being found fit for work and having his ESA and housing benefit removed. Disabled activists who believe that the government’s cuts and welfare reforms have led to the deaths of benefit claimants were appalled by the DWP response. Bob Ellard, a member of the steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts, said: “It doesn’t get more serious than this. “If the publication of information about the deaths of 60 claimants, possibly as a direct result of welfare reform, is not in the public interest, then what is? “It must be in the public interest to know whether our government is implementing welfare policies, in the knowledge that these ‘reforms’ are killing disabled people. “The DWP cannot be allowed to continue stonewalling on this. We urgently need an independent inquiry into what the DWP knows about the deaths of benefit claimants, otherwise the body count will continue to increase. “How many more deaths will it take before something is done?” John McArdle, co-founder of Black Triangle, said: “We are not in the least bit surprised that the DWP is seeking any means at its disposal to cover-up any findings of its investigations into benefit-related deaths. “These deaths would have been preventable had there been a reporting mechanism built into the system for GPs and other professionals to flag up a substantial risk of harm to a claimant if they were to be found fit for work.” Representatives of Black Triangle and the sisters of Wood and Clapson will meet leaders of both the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council – a meeting organised by Labour MP John McDonnell – next month to urge them to set up a way for all 55,000 GPs in the UK to report such concerns. Ian Jones, of the WOWcampaign, said the government appears to “be willing to stop at nothing to keep the consequences of their ‘flagship’ welfare reforms out of the public domain. “Presumably this is because the British public would lose faith in their government if a causal link was demonstrated between their policies and the premature deaths of countless disabled people.” And Samuel Miller, a disabled campaigner from Canada, who has played a key role in raising awareness at the UN’s human rights office of the impact of welfare reform in the UK, said he was “not at all surprised that the DWP is doing everything in their power to prevent even a redacted release of the 60 internal reviews”. He said: “They obviously fear that doing so will invite greater scrutiny of benefit-related deaths, in the form of increased public and media attention.” He added: “The DWP is resorting to petty obstructionism – even a full-fledged cover-up – because the mortality of the sick and disabled has become too politicized for the Tories to cope with.” 18 December 2014 |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 23 2014, 04:36 PM Post #63 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Maybe my standards for proof are of a higher order than that to which you refer. If this information is so clear cut they I do not understand the reluctance to cite such in clear text? Just do it. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 23 2014, 04:41 PM Post #64 |
|
Senior Member
|
RJD even when I reference and quote on the forum the Statistics Authority calling IDS a liar in writing that is a matter of public record you ignore it. |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 23 2014, 04:44 PM Post #65 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
Mr Smurf you claimed that IDS was a liar, the onus is now on you to show when and where he did such. You personalised the issue, so stop your obfuscation, stick to your claim and prove it to be true. What you listed here is not such proof and does not stand scrutiny and I can find counter claims of the same ilk elsewhere. Stick to your guns "when and where did IDS deliberately lie"? |
|
|
|
| RJD | Dec 23 2014, 04:45 PM Post #66 |
|
Prudence and Thrift
|
I do not expect you to require scientific proof of anything. |
|
|
|
| papasmurf | Dec 23 2014, 05:16 PM Post #67 |
|
Senior Member
|
IDS has stated several times before the Work and Pensions Committee:- "There are no targets for benefit sanctions." Really RJD? :-  |
|
|
|
| Tigger | Dec 23 2014, 05:22 PM Post #68 |
|
Senior Member
|
At least I can read links that others put up to support their claims. You asked for that one. 
|
|
|
|
| C-too | Dec 23 2014, 05:32 PM Post #69 |
Honourable Member
|
But were told that normality was available under the Tories in as little as five years. ?? It seems to have slipped your your mind that relative poverty had climbed under the Tories (while the rich got richer), and that schools and the NHS had run into serious problems that took years to sort out. "oversaw" Is that your way of implying that all the blame for the meltdown problems are down to Labour MPs? And that Tory hands are clean on the issue? (It was NL that reduced VAT on electricity down to 5%.) As for green levies that is a major debate on its own. I was unaware of the "mega-mergers" being caused/enabled by NL, I would appreciate a source of that information. I am aware that Thatcher's Free Market approach to privatisation allowed foreigners to take control of much of our electricity, gas, water and oil. And you want to denigrate NL/Labour. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
12:34 AM Jul 14