Welfare Reform Again

Baroness Murphy

Lady Meacher

Lord Patel

Lord Norton has referred to the Welfare Reform Bill defeats in the Lords, which I’ve been giving some considerable thought to. I voted with the Government against the amendment by Baroness Meacher to continue ESA for young disabled people who have resources of their own to support them and have not contributed to what is essentially a contributory benefit. The House voted to continue giving benefits to young people even if they inherited a large capital sums or lived in wealthy households. Then I decided not to vote on the other amendments by Lord Patel. I dislike the singly out of cancer as if it is a special case; there are many physically and mentally ill people with chronic distressing conditions requiring long term treatment but that don’t have the shroud-waving potential of cancer. The other matter that people forget is that 90% of people with cancer are past retirement and are not eligible for any of these benefits; older people have to make do as best they can. These small amendments will benefit very few indeed but those few rather unfairly.

So one has to ask the question, “ Of all the major changes being introduced and the opposition to them expressed by the disability lobby and other groups representing those in receipt of benefits, why did the House choose these minor issues to revolt on?”  The answer is all to do with mood and general disquiet. The majority of peers agrees with the fundamental changes being introduced in this Bill, they want to see a more rigorous effective system introduced which incentivises work and acts as a deterrent to people remaining on a lifetime of benefits, including those who have had episodes of mental health problems who make up the majority of the huge increase in those on ‘sickness and disability benefits’ over this past decade. As a psychiatrist I have seen the catastrophic effect of the current regime on the lives of patients.

But peers also knows that the implementation of the changes, at a time of rising unemployment, where the system is imperfect and there is as yet insufficient assistance to individual and their families, is going to be difficult and will feel unfair to those who are culturally still stuck in the ‘I’m entitled’ box. It will take a decade at least, a generation probably, for the cultural changes to kick in. And the changes may not work as the Government intended. So with these anxieties about the outcome, the House wants to show its disquiet. That’s what it did….but when ping-pong arrives the House will accept a Commons reversal of these modest changes; they’ve made their protest and that’s enough. So I sat on my hands for two of these three votes, that was my personal small protest.

 

60 comments for “Welfare Reform Again

  1. Lord Blagger
    13/01/2012 at 11:59 am

    You’re still in denial.

    There is 7,000 bn of government debt when you include the bernie Maddoff off balance sheet items.

    Government tax revenues – 550 bn

    That debt figure doesn’t include paying any incapacity benefit to anyone.

    Go figure if the government is broke.

  2. 13/01/2012 at 3:14 pm

    “The other matter that people forget is that 90% of people with cancer are past retirement and are not eligible for any of these benefits”

    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Disabledpeople/DG_10012438

    —>Special rules – if you are terminally ill

    If you have a progressive disease and are not reasonably expected to live for more than another six months, there are special rules to help you get Attendance Allowance more quickly and easily. You can get the higher rate immediately, whatever your care needs are, without waiting until you have needed help for six months.<—

    How can disabled people have any faith in the Lords when the Lords don't know what they are talking about?!!!

  3. ladytizzy
    13/01/2012 at 4:05 pm

    Re the Welfare Bill, a bit of a kerfuffle on Amendment 45a: did Lord Freud ‘ambush’ the HoL?

  4. Baroness Murphy
    Baroness Murphy
    13/01/2012 at 4:30 pm

    And your point LB?

  5. Lord Blagger
    13/01/2012 at 5:25 pm

    The point is very simple.

    You want more money spent on welfare.

    However, far from there being money, there is a massive debt.

    As such you’re in cuckoo land when it comes to your wants. You might as well believe in leprechauns and a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

    The reality is that the government has run up massive debts and hidden them off the books.

    State pension, state second pension, PFI, civil service pensions, guarantees, … all off the books.

    So when people say pay me my state pension, or pay me out on ICB for the NI I’ve contributed, the government is reneging on the deal because even now it doesn’t have the money. The country as a whole doesn’t have the money.

    This is even after running a deficit the same as Greece’s, and printing lots of money via QE, and raising taxes, and borrowing oodles.

    So its going to default. Changes in the welfare system is just another default.

    So much for you monitoring and controlling what the Commons do. You haven’t.

    PS. If we are on the wish list, can I have an Aston Martin to replace my 25 year old car?

    Made in the UK, so good for the economy. You don’t mind borrowing lots of cash to pay for it, do you? Running costs on top please.

  6. mistynow
    13/01/2012 at 5:25 pm

    “”The other matter that people forget is that 90% of people with cancer are past retirement and are not eligible for any of these benefits;””

    Please could you provide references/links for this claim ?

  7. Ivor Williams
    13/01/2012 at 5:37 pm

    How dare you, decide that I will have to live in poverty for the rest of my life,If this hated bill goes though, and the change to DLA comes in I will most likely be denied it because sometimes I can do things for myself I will not pass the so called assessment. I will have to choose to either eat or keep warm I can’t claim expenses like some people, I my even lose my house because I will not be able too pay my rent

  8. Sharon Morgan
    13/01/2012 at 7:49 pm

    You can tell you have never had cancer Baroness. It’s the most debilitating experience anyone could suffer. If you manage to survive it you have to suffer long term side effects or trauma that is associated with a near death experience and also physical problems that don’t just get better within a year. Ask any cancer sufferer and they will tell you the same. If you die with it, it doesn’t matter how many pain killers you are on, you are still in a lot of pain and the last thing you want to worry about is where your next penny is coming from to pay travel expenses to go to treatment or after care let alone food and bills. People in that situation deserve the money way more than you need a second home just because you choose to live away from your job, or duck houses etc. What a cheek! What a bunch of mememe sod the rest our government have become.

    My auntie died in hospital of the same cancer I suffered with but wasn’t so lucky and at the end no one could touch her she was in so much pain. So don’t you dare play it down. Those sufferers do not deserve you to make out that it’s nothing. I’ve been through cancer, I know! I’m still suffering the physical after effects and the emotional trauma that goes with it. Flash backs, depression, anxiety, continence problems to name a few.
    I’m glad that some ministers care enough to fail these stupid, sadistic and downright immoral decisions in parliament and stand up to the bullies that is Cameron and his merry band of uncaring, blinkered followers.

    Get your priorities right for once. Forget the olympics, aid for foreign countries, high speed unwanted trains and money for greedy substandard companies like ATOS and help the ones who need it most.

    I see Grayling is determined to press onward regardless of defeats. Someone needs to put their foot out and trip him up before it’s to late.

    It’s not just the old who get cancer so you really should get your facts straight before spouting out twaddle.

    Sorry if I come across rude but I’m sick of all the deflamation that the disabled have to endure when people can’t be bothered to dig a little deeper and only see things at face value.

    Let me spell it out for you.

    The Work Capaibility Assessments are designed for the majority of people to fail, which is certainly not helping the most needy like the conservatives want everyone to believe. Who do you think is the most qualified person to decide whether or not they are fit for work? Not ATOS and not you lot in government. We’re the ones who have to suffer daily.

    Pull your fingers and work for US for a change and not against us.

  9. MilesJSD
    14/01/2012 at 12:16 am

    Baroness, with due respect, but looking at the evidence, the Governance-Philosophy that you and all-and-sundry people really are locked into or under, is a Contortion of Fact and of Human-Mind-Functional Sanity, both vertically in the Workplace and laterally in the Lifeplace.

    Not only has governance and the Thinking-Profession worldwide lost the longestterm-future Human-Sustainworthiness Plot, it is still seriously deluded that Earth-Lifesupports themselves are an ever self-renewing & increasing Economic, Spiritual, and Health-Giving, God-Given-Freeby-Magic-Garden.

    Regardless of
    “which of Britain’s disabled youth can afford to ‘privately’ support themselves and thereby, in all fairness to the impecunious, and to the Need of the Common Purse, justly need to be cut-off from Human-Civilisational-Support”
    and regardless of any QQ* formulation
    (see Perspectives 1 and 2 below)
    already-operational or somewhere-in-some- backrooms-boffins’-pipeline,
    for the optimum range of the “Sufficient Human Living”
    (currently evident, this has been constitutionally Set-In-Law to be of the order of £150 per week),

    so how is the dominantly-runaway and gapping-up Pay, Rewards, Encouragement-Bonuses, High-Productivity-Earnings, Guaranteed-Extra-Expenses, Indispensable-Persons-Securing, and Individually-Private-Wealth-Protected, Money-Pyramid
    in any way both Supportive of Every-one’s existing Common-Basic-Health & Wellbeing-Building for the Future,
    and Conservational towards the Earth’s Renewable and Non-Renewable Resources ?

    Neither Government, nor the Individual-&-Corporate-Capitalist-Super-Wealthy-Block, nor Academia, nor thereunder any People, are both willing and able to live within Our means and that of the Earth Itself.
    —————

    ‘Welfare’ support is not a mere subsistence, nor a ‘charity’ nor ‘pocket-money’ Matter.

    Each human-being needs full support and nurturance of every part of their Being:
    i.e. their
    1. Environmentals-In-Common (Bio; Built; and People) & Common-Purse (Expenses) needs;
    Then their ‘lone’ Individual needs:
    2. Physiological;
    3. Emotional;
    4. Intelligence-Functional;
    5. Intellectual-functional;
    6. Spiritual;
    7. Instant-Sanctuary time-out need;
    and (lastly and separately from the above Lifeplace Needs) their
    8. Workplace and jobskills needs.
    ————–
    Wasn’t it the Arab Civilisation who first saw the Need for ‘nought’ to be constitutionallyt-established within Mathematics ?

    Isn’t it some Civilisation’s vocation now to begin establishing a ‘no-fault’ and ‘guaranteed-adequately-optimum-holistic-human-lifesupport’
    within both the Human Development Sector and the Sustainworthy-Economics & Governance Sectors ?
    ————–
    Now the “people’s” voice is simply trying to dialogue with You
    “How can so grossly-overkilling the Earth’s Lifesupports AND so obscenely over-rewarding not just fundamental & essential job-parameter Success (quite rightly as the sane Norm, but why over-reward it ?)

    but any level of Workplace Failure,
    not just High-Places failure including criminality and malfeasance At-The-Top as well ?”

    ———
    Perspective 1:
    If say £100 per week were the legislated “sufficient human living” for any or the normal-average individual to maintain theirself healthy, citizenlike, and environmentally-supportive,
    then any individual “having-to-have” £1000 per week (such as say The Prime Minister, or even just an ordinary-everyday-psychiatrist such as say Baroness Murphy)
    in truth believes that he/she is not just “one human being” but “ten people”‘

    Now, isn’t that in itself a ‘psychotic’ state, of mind and also of encultured-‘lawfulness’ ?

    Isn’t it even ‘criminally’ and/or ‘malfeasantly’
    culpable, also ?
    ————-
    Perspective 2:
    *QQ = Quantity(+ or x)Quality,
    of the Lifesupportive-Package and/or of any item within it:

    percentage-wise, the above minimum-sufficient-human-living person’s £100 per week leaves 0% left-over
    whereas the £1000 per week person (or hereby-this-argumentation allegedly-psychotic) has 900% left-over.
    —————-
    Look around the World, and what can be seen is Failure of the Established Civilisational Powers-That-Be to effect Peaceful-Revolutionary Movement;

    Perspective 3:
    (Therefore) the ‘psychiatrist’ is ten-times more guilty of causing hot-blood-spilling-revolutions & civil-wars than are the blood-spilling-victim-individuals-&-masses themselves.
    ================
    (Continuable, perhaps;
    but I would strongly suggest only as a peaceable-peoples Discussion;
    NOT as a standard-democratic HOT Debate).

    • Senex
      18/01/2012 at 10:05 am

      “Wasn’t it the Arab Civilisation who first saw the Need for ‘nought’ to be constitutionallyt-established within Mathematics ?”

      Actually Miles I think you will find that it was Sub Continent Indians preceded by the Maya. The Babylonians also used zero but not in any true mathematical sense. What’s that? Think nothing of it.

  10. pleasehelpus
    14/01/2012 at 3:45 am

    “Then I decided not to vote on the other amendments by Lord Patel. I dislike the singly out of cancer as if it is a special case”

    So why did you not speak up, and move an amendment to cover other disabilities, with the allowance for more disabilities to be added as evidence shows its required?

    Basically, your saying, just because someone wanted a protection for one area, as other areas are unprotected, NO area should have any protection?

    Come on, if you wanted fairness you could have grown a backbone and pushed for fairness across the board.

    “These small amendments will benefit very few indeed but those few rather unfairly.”
    So – make sure the others are treated fairly too, rather than nobody being treated fairly.

    I also noted the deathly silence from all the lords on the subject of Lord Freuds dishonesty regarding his previous statements on welfare reform.

  11. pleasehelpus
    14/01/2012 at 3:48 am

    “in this Bill, they want to see a more rigorous effective system introduced which incentivises work and acts as a deterrent to people remaining on a lifetime of benefits, including those who have had episodes of mental health problems who make up the majority of the huge increase in those on ‘sickness and disability benefits’ over this past decade. As a psychiatrist I have seen the catastrophic effect of the current regime on the lives of patients.”

    What do you mean who “have had”.

    Your making out like they had a problem once, and remain on benefits for ever.
    Then you say you want to put in place deterannts to remaining on benefits.

    Please wake up and smell the coffee, people are STILL ill when on benefits.

    Your actions will make them worse.
    Fact.
    Your actions will KILL some of those people that are forced of ESA before they are recovered to a safe level.

    But I doubt you will care, on your sabatical next year, if a few poor people kill themselves over the issue will you.

  12. pleasehelpus
    14/01/2012 at 3:53 am

    “So with these anxieties about the outcome, the House wants to show its disquiet.”

    No, im afraid it only thinks it did.

    What it really did, was veto some tiny aspects, whilst ignoring the big picture.

    Is it any wonder neither the government, nor the public take you lot seriously any more.

    The government want to just over-rule you, and the public, those not just spoon fed by the mass media and more interested in eastenders, know you just let the majority steam roller through.

    No sign of the lords pointing out that none of the promises from the likes of Freud, or even the DWP can be trusted, just look at all the promises from previous debates – which turned out to be lies – as evidence by the farcical state of ESA.

    Sit on your hands, pretend you made a difference.

    Personally, I think you would have done more if you all just refused to turn up to the debate at all, saying the whole thing is a affront to human decency.

    But you wont will you, because you agree, dont you, with the reforms and past actions, that have led to peoples suicides, and will lead to more.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but remember your actions speak louder than words.

  13. maude elwes
    14/01/2012 at 10:06 am

    This whole affair is a shameful disgrace to a once civilized country. And allowing the likes of men, the ilk of, Ian Duncan Smith, to come up with a solution that allows the rich to get away with robbing the tax system, at the same time as sending ‘our’ money in aid to countries who abuse it, or, even if they don’t, which we all know they do, in order that their people may fare better, whilst you throw our own to the wall, is treason. And you know it.

    You all have no idea how to handle this situation you have brought on our heads. So you want to make it impossible for our most vulnerable to survive, whilst you deny them any way out of the dilemma you are imposing on them. Add to that the ‘new’ euthanasia laws you are so desperately trying to promote and look at it in the round. What is it telling us all?

    You are legally trying to kill this nations people, whilst at the same time, you import others, at a pace akin to destruction of this race and culture, claiming you have no alternative because our people won’t work… Don’t want to work on slave wages is what you mean. Whereas those you impost are content with 16 to a room and no time with family or quality of life.

    I don’t see any of you going without. Quite the reverse, you are systematically raising your emoluments one way and another. Stealthily, I’ll give you that, but, nonetheless with a rotteness that we have not seen here in many many years. Even under Thatcher.

    Riots! I’d say we have the gentlest people in the world here in this little island. How very fortunate you are that we trust you so much.

  14. 14/01/2012 at 10:42 am

    Again–> “The other matter that people forget is that 90% of people with cancer are past retirement and are not eligible for any of these benefits”

    ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE!!!! Have you been deciding what to vote for without having knowledge of what you are talking about?

  15. Twm O'r Nant
    14/01/2012 at 11:08 am

    “You can tell you have never had cancer Baroness.”

    You have got to have it first before you may comment on it, or diagnose it! (So there!)

    “And your point LB?”

    I’m enjoying this!

    I voted with the Government against the amendment by Baroness Meacher to continue ESA for young disabled people who have resources of their own to support them and have not contributed to what is essentially a contributory benefit. The House voted to continue giving benefits to young people even if they inherited a large capital sums or lived in wealthy households.

    The point about this seems to be that some families live rather well on Benefits+Charitable donations, the latter which can be quite substantial.

    It is not wealth or “own resources”; it is also Charity of a certain high street shop kind.

    I did hear of one family who were almost doubling their income and living comfortably
    on the wages of keeping the severely handicapped sufferer alive, which she certainly would not have done otherwise. Such an arrangement can continue for quite a few years. Assisted dying?

    The Catholic point of view is taken to extremes when a severely handicapped child is brought in to the world, and the parents rejoice for the gift of life….and their good wages.

    That may seem a callous remark, but people should really make their own decisions and judgements and not be ruled by Gods, foreign or otherwise, in such deliberations.

  16. Baroness Murphy
    Baroness Murphy
    14/01/2012 at 12:32 pm

    Lord Blagger, No I don’t want to spend more on benefits, I want to spend less, pay attention!
    Clive Arnold, No I was correct. Attendance Allowance is a different benefit and subject to different rules. My original statement was accurate that retired older people are not eligible for specific disability benefits or extra help with mobility.
    Mistynow: the mean age of cancer diagnosis is 68, the mean age of death is 73. There is no special targeted assistance for older people with cancer.
    Ivor Williams, have you had an assessment yet?
    Sharon Morgan, You may be surprised to know how closely I have lived with cancer. Of course the range of cancers and their outlook is very variable, and no longer has an invariably bad outcome. Surely it is very important to take account of the changing nature of cancers, their response to treatment and individual responses? I do not agree that the Work Capability Assessment is designed for the majority of people to fail. It isn’t just the Conservatives who want to make the new system work, so do the Lib Dems and so do the Labour party. I know you won’t accept this but working for YOU does not mean doing what you want…it means making a judgement about what is likely in the end to be in most people’s best interests. You could say it nicely if you wanted to. In politics, when you do something that you consider right but which isn’t popular you naturally get more hate mail than joining the populist brigade so please don’t worry about being rude; I’ve come to expect it. I never said it was just the old that get cancer, of course some children and some middle aged people do but the majority are older people.

  17. Twm O'r Nant
    14/01/2012 at 1:45 pm

    “You can tell you have never had cancer Baroness.”

    Does Sharon Morgan own the disease? It sounds as though she does, and is keen to sell it on to others! And while she does, is keen to make a good profit from the suffering.

    • Sharon Morgan
      18/01/2012 at 4:11 pm

      @Twm O’r Nant.

      Grow up. You know nothing about me. I have had cancer and I suffer the after effects so I think I am in the best position to tell politicians what they’re doing is wrong.

      They are rushing through with changes even after people are saying to them it is the wrong thing to do, in it’s present form. Your comment was out of order and I’m surprised it was allowed to be posted. It had nothing to do with the debate whatsoever.

      • Twm O'r Nant
        20/01/2012 at 8:15 am

        I have had cancer and I suffer the after effects so I think I am in the best position to tell politicians what they’re doing is wrong.

        Unfortunately Sharon such is not the case.
        You should never fight for your own political cause; always campaign for somebody else’s, if campaign you must.

        You cannot know whether your own cause is the best one, due to its subjectivity, whereas you may be able to choose the best possible cause by campaigning for others.

  18. Lord Blagger
    14/01/2012 at 1:50 pm

    You still don’t get it.

    Let me ask you a direct question. You’re arguing about spending.

    What about debt.

    How much does the government owe?

    1. Gilts
    2. Civil service pension
    3. State pension
    4. State second pension
    5. PFI
    6. Guarantees.

    Top 6 should make it simple.

    You can’t come to any decision about what you can or can’t do unless you have a statement of where the government is now.

    Money to charity if you manage to answer it. I’ll give you a week.

  19. atosvictimsgroup
    14/01/2012 at 2:07 pm

    Baroness Murphy should make a formal apology for using such terms as

    “shroud-waving potential of cancer”

    An utter disgrace.

    Maybe the Baroness would care to give up the cossetted world of perks and extras she get’s for having such a cushy job?

    Baroness Murphy thinks where all peasants, we are not worthy, she’s made that quite clear.

    I doubt if Baroness Murphy knows what a Atos assessment entails for the claimant, she lives in a world of privalidge, she gets untold expenses that the majority of disabled people could only dream of to live on.

    Its the old story, the haves don’t want the have nots not have anything, they wish to keep what’s available for themselves.

    Populist brigade, Oh poor Baroness Murphy, Ah…

    • Lord Blagger
      16/01/2012 at 12:46 pm

      Yep. It’s the name of the game. One rule for them, another rule for the plebs.

      However, why single out cancer as a special case?

  20. Tracy Edwards
    14/01/2012 at 3:34 pm

    Baroness Murphy just because you do not believe that the assessments are designed to be failed does not make them so. You believe what you want to believe. ATOS are corrupt. They are being paid £100 million pounds a yr to fail people. If that was not the directive then ATOS should be charged with deliberately lying on claimants assessments. There are thousands of genuine disabled people having their money stopped unjustly & nothing is being done about it. Look at ATOS before you push through these reforms.

  21. 14/01/2012 at 10:28 pm

    how can mp look at welfare reform when they got away with expences scandal they should lose all expences and take a pay cut because everthing they touch they make thing worse no need for mps when youve got mep in brussels get rid of labour conservitives lib dems and bring in ukip if people are mentally ill or disabled they should have surport and left alone if youve voted against why is the govement still going a head with it are they trying to make everybody life a misery as for the defict its the bankers that got use in to this so they can get us out of it not the goverments do mps sit round table thinking stupid things up they must act like children who have thrown there dummy out ive seen the way they act on tv all trying to score points but after all its only the poor that suffer am alright jack and sod the rest so to all mps resign now the country would be better for it am sick to back teeth with them all and as for the euro it like flogging a dead horse germany are going to be sorry proping it up getting even deeper in to debt

  22. Jane Clout
    15/01/2012 at 12:22 pm

    I used to believe that Great Britain was a tolerant, caring society. Now it seems divide and rule is the key, and society is being rearranged with the devil taking the hindmost.

    If the benefits assessments as run by ATOS are not designed to fail people who need our support, how come (depending on the benefit decision being appealed, and whether people have representation at the tribunal) up to 70% of decisions, based on ATOS assessments, are overturned? And at what additional cost does this incompetence come?

    Sickness and ill-health can hit anyone at any time. Do we really want a society where terminally ill people are living on the streets? Will hospitals refuse admission, as disabled people’s conditions worsen, due to lack of food, housing, warmth, medication?

    Information given on this subject by HMG has been found to be inaccurate http://tinyurl.com/86h82gb PIP could increase costs to the state, when disabled people no longer have the funds to pay for the things that make working or just living possible.

  23. 15/01/2012 at 1:46 pm

    “My original statement was accurate that retired older people are not eligible for specific disability benefits or extra help with mobility”

    No you were inaccurate as AA IS a “specific disability benefit”

    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Disabledpeople/DG_10018710

    —>Attendance Allowance is a tax-free benefit. You may get Attendance Allowance if you’re aged 65 or over and need help with personal care because you’re physically or mentally disabled<—

    How can disabled people and their carers trust you when you won't admit you are wrong even when given the evidence?

    I asked this on a previous blog of yours which you decided to stop replying in, so I ask again- To scrap DLA and bring in PIP will cost lives, disabled people will die/commit suicide. How many deaths/suicides of disabled people will it take for you personally to admit the change is wrong?

  24. 15/01/2012 at 1:53 pm

    http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/disability-statistics-and-research/disability-facts-and-figures.php#ho

    “A substantially higher proportion of individuals who live in families with disabled members live in poverty, compared to individuals who live in families where no one is disabled”

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The Welfare Reform Bill (read Welfare Benefit Cuts) will cause further poverty, the change from DLA to PIP will cause more disabled people to live in poverty. The government know this and tried to deceive everyone over how popular PIP would be (sly and devious) Hopefully PIP transplant goes tits-up!

    I have to say what a patronising woman you are, “I know you won’t accept this but working for YOU does not mean doing what you want…it means making a judgement about what is likely in the end to be in most people’s best interests”. So how many of the electorate voted for you to ‘do what is best for them’? What mandate do you have to cause poverty and homelessness?

    As for sitting on your hands? You might want to check for the blood of disabled people that you will have on them in the very near future, you don’t want to stain your dress because of lack of principles or morals now do you?

  25. Twm O'r Nant
    16/01/2012 at 3:11 pm

    The argument that MPs’ are bent, everybody is bent, the system is bent,we are all bent is surely quite a familiar one by now, and does nothing to un-bend anybody.

    Now take Lord Blagger for example of moral rectitude without parallel.

  26. Lord Blagger
    16/01/2012 at 6:20 pm

    Well, the conclusion that many are making is if you can’t beat them, join them.

    Look at Greece – the black economy is now the majority.

    People will decide that if the government can’t supply service, cut the government out of the loop.

  27. 17/01/2012 at 12:40 am

    Baroness Murphy has done a great deal to recognise and represent the needs of our older age population. In siding with government she shows signs of dismissing the equally important needs of the working age and younger population. It is with no disrespect to our retired population that we cannot ignore how the elderly account for nearly 42 percent of the entire benefit spend. In many ways we’ve become the victims of our own success as improvements in health treatments now mean that many people live to a much greater age. The welfare reforms and many of the Tories pre-election promises were all about giving our ‘next generation’ a chance. Regrettably, it is today’s youth and less protected mid-generation which appears to have become an easy to finger scapegoat when casting blame for the dire economical state we find ourselves in today.

    The ethos in protecting the incapacitated in youth was to afford those suffering severe disability some degree of protection. It is in part why the now extinct Severe Disablement Allowance was introduced in 1984. Does it not make sense to ensure that severely disabled youths should be better provided for as they make their way through their turbulent lives? Disabled youths will be at a distinct disadvantage in the labour market for the years ahead. The amendment for Employment & Support Allowance for youths was to support those who have years of struggling ahead of them. Baroness Murphy misses the point entirely by drawing attention to how these youth won’t have paid into the system; -by her failure to recognise how they simply would not have had the chance to by virtue of their profound disability. Her support of government in this particular amendment also makes a point that disabled youths should use up any capital or turn to their parents for financial support before relying on the state. Is the Baroness suggesting that disabled youths should not be able to retain a safety net for the future? Furthermore, in suggesting youths turn to their parents; is the Baroness denying them any prospect of being able to find their own financial independence?

    I am baffled why Baroness Murphy picks a fight with cancer, she is after all an ardent disability campaigner herself; – supporting the case for Alzheimer sufferers, surely she should have pointed out the shortcomings in the bill by insisting the amendments be extended to protect all types of severe disability? Or is the Baroness only prepared to come out fighting for her own generation; – is that not somewhat selfish?

    On a more general note, why is it that those voting for welfare reform appear to have paid little regard to the strict qualifying conditions for disability benefits which have been in place for many years. The regulations have always implied strict criteria; – why is so little said over the DWP’s failure to police those left out in the welfare wilderness? Why also is so little attention paid to the fact that qualified doctors signed their patients off sick? – are these reformers casting doubt upon the credibility of the medical profession?

    And on a point of correction, those over the age of 65 would be able to claim Attendance Allowance for conditions such as cancer. It is also fair to point out that the personal allowance for a person of working age is considerably less than it is for a person in retirement. Indeed such is the impact of a higher mortality rate on our benefits, that it has been recognised that the biggest growth figures in disability benefits can be related to a 285% growth rate in those age 80+, 146% for those aged 75 – 79 and 79% for those between 70 and 74.
    Read more: http://mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?b….2#ixzz1jfZj1Wh5

    Baroness Murphy seems misinformed as to how the bill will work in practice, she would do well to read and understand the detail before passing her own misinformed judgement upon it. She would also do rather well to read a good report prepared by an academic of the London School of Economics, the report ‘ The Evolution of Disability Benefits in the UK: – Re-weighting the basket’ prepared in 1999 provides an invaluable insight into how the welfare state evolved between 1974 and 1997. I would suggest any peer voting on welfare reform has a read of it before they side with government and blame all of welfare’s problems on what happened over the last decade. They can read the report here:
    http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper26.pdf

    Baroness Murphy’s blog can be read here:
    http://lordsoftheblog.net/2012/01/13/welfare-reform-again/

    The Baroness’s blog is entitled ‘Welfare Reform Again’ – it’s a title which almost trivialises the immense impact this bill will impose upon thousands of genuinely disabled people if it passes into legislation. More worrying is Baroness Murphy’s reference to batting the bill between the House of Lord’s and the House of Commons in what she calls a game of ‘ping pong’ – I doubt whether those who stand to be affected by the bill see it as the game she does.

    Our eminent peers owe a duty of care to those affected to get their facts right before deciding on how to vote in these most perilous reforms; – I sincerely hope they do.

    Read more: http://mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=frontline&thread=556&page=1#ixzz1jfgmSbk5

  28. Jane Clout
    17/01/2012 at 9:57 am

    Today the ‘reforms’ to Disability Living Allowance are to be debated in the House. We disabled people do not have an easy life, and DLA was never an easy benefit to get, but the proposed change to PIP looks to us like a train wreck waiting to happen.

    I have had personal experience of the mess that is the assessment process for Employment and Support Allowance (am I the only one that finds these new benefit names redolent of George Orwell’s Newspeak?) and I am aware of how very random that process actually is. People who are terminally ill are refused benefit, people who are housebound are expected to sign on for JSA and search for paid work. The appeal process is groaning under the caseload.

    My fear is that the PIP process, as laid out in the Welfare Reform Bill will be a similar failure. The costs of assessments and appeals will soak up any potential savings, while people who need and deserve the benefit will have to go without. The result of this will be sick people getting more sick, as the wherewithal to obtain help and aids are removed from them, resulting in inevitable increases of need for NHS and Social Care services.

    The disabled organisations that responded to the PIP consultation process were ignored, or worse misrepresented by the government. Here is a link to the report Responsible Reform, that exposes the consultation sham. http://tinyurl.com/78erjru

    The disabled have come together on the internet over this threat to our lives and homes. We ask that you support Clause 80, Amendment 50E today:

    Clause 80 – Amendment 50E

    BARONESS GREY-THOMPSON
    BARONESS WILKINS
    LORD LOW OF DALSTON
    BARONESS CAMPBELL OF SURBITON

    Page 58, line 26, at end insert—
    “( ) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an independent review of the plans for implementation of the assessments under section 79 before the provisions are brought into effect, and such plans must in particular provide for—
    (a) a trial period before any assessment process is implemented fully for new applicants and those transferring from DLA;
    b) disabled persons organisations to be involved in formulating the assessment process.

    Please, please, think this through. We are asking that we are not plunged into another chaotic reform that will not fulfil anyone’s purposes. We are asking that the time is taken to get reform right this time. Please vote for Amendment 50E.

    • maude elwes
      17/01/2012 at 12:59 pm

      No one on this thread seems to understand why government wants to cut DLA and other benefits set up to help disabled people live. The reasons are many. There are many young mutilated and disabled coming back from the war zones, where they used them to fight for their political ideals. These young men are costly and this DLA payment they are entitled to is stretching the coffers to the extreme. Especially when they are wanting to pay for rubbish, like the Olympics, there for the friends in high places to make money out of the tax payers on the old redeveloping areas of squalor lark. Then there is the unnecessary train routes going to cover the parts of the UK which are already well serviced, but, they see this as a money maker for friends in the railway business. Of course we mustn’t forget, there is a new yacht for the Queen, a must have as all the palaces are a bit on the static side. Bet her family are at the back of this, as she and the hubby are more than a little too old for sailing. Andy and his array of nubile girls need a place off shore don’t they? Cronyism has to be paid for and the disabled are an easy touch.

      Next, we are told we are all going to live longer, however, on the other hand we are told our young and the society as a whole is suffering from extreme obesity as well as diabetes, caused by poor diet habits, mostly via the fast food chain, so these young people are needing treatment and as a result cannot work. Therefore, a lot of them are going to apply for DLA. Add the massive influx of sick immigrants and their elderly relatives and now you are beginning to see an explosion of ill and disabled people looking for solace from our hard working nation who are fed up with the constant lien on them for higher taxes, whilst those at the top of the pile pretend they live elsewhere, easy to follow the sun isn’t it, in order to avoid the standard British tax man.

      Now, if you put all this together, you will see just why this government and any other, is willing to sell its people down the river this way. And in so doing are making it impossible for them to speak out against it as they have pegged all the needy as fraudsters and so to defend them means you are applauding the unwilling in society.

      Does the Royal family really need a hundred million pound boat to play on, more than a sick man/woman needs to eat? I don’t think so.

      But its a good way to get us all centered on what is right for those with money, don’t you think? They are, after all, so needy. Mustn’t forget their sacrifice now, remember, all these wealthy people give us our jobs and set up the businesses we need to thrive, don’t they?

      This is a choice they make and the choice is not for those who are in need, they don’t see them as worthwhile. And that is why we have this situation. It began with Thatcher, and took hold firmly with the criminal Blair. Now this bunch we have in, are so without any previous experience of life and work, they are completely out of touch with reality. Unfortunately, they are supported by many in the House of Lords, who also don’t know what to do. Or, if they do know what to do, they certainly are not doing it. But, they have made a start, haven’t they? They refused to be bullied only a few days ago.

      Will they be able to hold fast I wonder?

  29. Twm O'r Nant
    17/01/2012 at 12:13 pm

    People who are terminally ill are refused benefit

    What!!? Not even cardboard coffins for the climate aware! No!

    Tammi is doing the business! Well done Tammi!Breaking the tape again!

    The coop has been informed.

  30. MilesJSD
    17/01/2012 at 9:34 pm

    Maude is so right, in her above ‘Reply’,

    yet she too must be hoisted, by her own petard,
    for
    “not understanding why the government wants to cut the Disability Living Allowance”
    and Other Lifesupportive Allowances
    (spin-doctored long-ago as “Benefits”, akin to “Bonuses”, or subliminally to “National-Lottery-Winnings”).

    Many do understand the malfeasant and privately-protected Individual- and Establishmentarian-Cartel Capitalistic Greed and Inhumanity of those she lists such as the Royal Family, and its Yacht-Britannia being touted around as a ‘national taxpayers asset’

    in which despite the Queen herself being one of the richest women on Earth with around £5 bill1on of private-capital
    (as it were “stashed under Buckingham Palace doing nothing except providing a small army of lesser individual-capitalist professionals with downwards-pyramidal multiple-human-livings, each, for keeping it all ‘Safe’ “) …
    ——————
    The whole Private-Individual-Capitalistic Money-Pyramid is insidiously entrenched,
    in a forked, devilishly-deluded Phantasmagoria,
    believing and enforcing both ‘temporally and spiritually’, on the one hand that the Human Race’s Needs-&-Hows are reducible to the simple Pay-&-Perks equation
    “Academic- + Property- + Military- Powers =
    Human-Developmental-Prowess”.
    ———-

    I ask you, in the name of at least the suppressed-life-leaders* I am trying to follow, and trying also to mutually so do:

    What all-overriding justification is there for the Deluded Civilisational Global-Governance and Consumerist-“Community”, sketched above ?
    ——————-
    * =
    “Gaia Atlas of Planet Management” (ed Myers);
    “How To Win Every Argument” (Pirie);
    “Edward de Bonlo’s Thinking Course”;
    “Awareness Through Movement”W (Feldenkrais);
    “Wisdom of the Body Moving” (Hartley)

    and especially
    “Mindset” (Dweck)
    and
    Self-Perceptual Control Theory (Powers et al).

    • maude ewes
      18/01/2012 at 11:19 am

      @Miles:

      Yes, you are quite right in your contribution here Miles. It is as I wrote above, a disgrace of the most horrendous proportions. And how they are rushing it through before the public has had a chance to really gauge what is taking place.

      Today I made some inquiries about the 51 year old man, who, having worked all his life from a teenager, then running his own business, which meant paying taxes until he literally dropped, to find when he became seriously mentally ill, in his 50th year with schizophrenia, was told he didn’t qualify once he left hospital for financial support from the state.

      Of course, he was advised by his helpers to return and re-apply. He had to do this 4 times. Remember, at this time he was losing his home, mortgage foreclosed, which meant homelessness, where, because of his illness found a placement in a mental health hostel. At that point, these medical adjudicators, decided he could have something to pay this unit but he had to apply for some kind of work related programme. And every week he has received another assessment appointment, even though it was promised when he went with his, so called, key worker, on the last occasion, this would not happen to him again, as he not only collapsed but began to vomit.

      They lied, for two weeks later yet another assessment and a long form to appeal the decision to cut him off. These people must be making a fortune out of our tax payers money with this re-assessment lark. It’s like the painting of the bridge over the Clyde, as it ends, so it begins.

      Anyway, the key workers are writing to who knows who, to complain, but they have told the man they don’t hold up much hope as the mentally sick are being placed on the street rather than hospitalized, in the claim they are not ill at all, simply faking it. Just as they did under Thatcher. Remember that?

      Now wait for this, additionally, this man is on the waiting list for permanent housing, and he has been top of the eligible list since last November. But, when he made a ‘bid’ on a suitable place, he was told a cock and bull story about how ‘sorry’ the housing department were, but this unit had not been ready for advertising as the person in situ was still there. Anyone who has worked in this area of the Town Hall knows full well that is not possible. The real story being, this flat was in a very posh village and they wanted it for one of their favoured relatives or friends and he was bumped off it to make way for them. Nothing suitable has come up since.

      And now he has, once again, to try and fill out these appeal forms regarding the denial of his rights, even though this poor man is far from able to cope with all this most vicious contempt. Which of course it is designed to do.

      He should be able to appeal to the European Court on Human Rights grounds and I wonder why he isn’t being helped by a lawyer to do this? This is torture of a severely sick man. How do they get people to do this to another human being? I always wondered about this when I read of Hitler’s treatment of the Jews. How did they get people to do this most inhumane activity? Perhaps they will be hunted down when the truth comes out some years from now. Just as those who worked for the Nazi’s are today.

      Meanwhile, another interview has been set up, with which the key worker from his hostel unit has to attend, and so the merry go round begins again. This man has been suffering this since he left hospital a year ago and before. His psychiatrist and GP have written on his behalf, the hospital where he is in some kind of support group have written, but these nasty little Uriah Heap people simply want to torment this poor soul. No doubt in the hope he will finish himself off.

      This betrayal of civilization is cosing more than the amount to be paid out. And yet they continue with it regardless.

      And still, yesterday, the Lords voted against delay of this bill. I hope they remember what they did when they are accused of inhumane judgment.

      • Lord Blagger
        18/01/2012 at 12:47 pm

        And whilst they are doing this, the civil servants are enjoying their high pay, gold plated pensions, …

        Look at the balance. Civil servants have to have their 40K a year jobs plus benefits plus pension administering the schemes, but the people who need the money get stuffed.

        That’s government for you.

        As for paying NI for services, they have spent all the NI on other things. They didn’t run an insurance scheme, they ran a Ponzi fraud.

        Not that the Lords will do anything about it. Most of them were in on the fraud when they were MP in the commons, voting for it.

        • maude elwes
          19/01/2012 at 12:42 pm

          @Miles:

          Just to make it clear, I did follow the gist of being hoisted by my own petard. But, felt it really wasn’t quite accurate in this example, as the post was simply facetious. Hence no reference to it.

          However, as it it so very apt:

          There’s letters seal’d, and my two schoolfellows, whom I will trust as I will adders fang’d
          They bear the mandate, they must sweep my way
          And marshal me, to knavery.
          Let it work, For ’tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his own petard, an’t shall go hard
          But I will delve one yard below their mines
          And blow them at the moon

          Hamlet Act 3, scene 4,
          W. Shakespeare

  31. Sharon Morgan
    18/01/2012 at 9:53 am

    Something to ponder on when allowing this welfare reform to be rushed through in it’s current state.

    Corporate psychopath and cult leaders. They generally demonstrate the same methods: they never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They dominate and humiliate their victims trying to convert them to slaves. Surprising percentage of corporate psychopaths are women, They does not see others around her/him as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims and, in corporate environment, slaves.

  32. MilesJSD
    18/01/2012 at 1:42 pm

    Forewarning:
    Use of capitals here is for accentuation, not ‘shouting’.
    ——-
    Yes, Maude, I too have direct experiences of suchlike Politically-Scientific cum Medically-Correct IATROGENIC malfeasances and People-Approved insults to both God and Man.
    ——

    One human being
    NEEDS
    one human living;

    There has to be a BRACKET for this
    (say £200 minimum £400 maximum);

    Where any human-being is kept short of such lowest-income-amount-end, of that lifesupports-package (or of any other)

    then his/her “RIGHT” to that lifesupport has been overridden, by the State/Powers-That-Be
    an his/her life has no only been “threatened” but is already being insidiously-eroded-away (by the Powers-That-Be).

    (Therefore)
    s/he NEEDS to be citizenlike-cooperative and conformative,
    namely to put an end to their one-human-being life

    s/he has both a NEED and a RIGHT
    to do and even to be assisted in doing a legal-suicide/own-curtailed-life-termination.

    ===========

  33. Christopher Columbus
    18/01/2012 at 7:58 pm

    Medically-Correct IATROGENIC malfeasances

    Milesjsd has come to the right place to worry about that, but does he examine the details of a single bill as they are presented to us by the learnéd prof from ‘Ull for example?

    Or go through the mental health acts as they
    are presented, every couple of years or three, in order to ascertain what they… or he.. got wrong?

  34. MilesJSD
    19/01/2012 at 8:50 am

    Christopher C. needs hoisting by his own petard:
    has he not himself been mind-mapping all the real-life experienced intelligence made public ?

    and does he not seek out the many inputs and submissions, from real-life-experiencers, which the Governance, Health, Education, Private, and Community sectors all ignore or bury-under-disinformation ?

    Has he never realised that the National HEALTH Service has never become a health-supporting & building service, only an Illness Treatment, Hospitalisations and Medications Sector ?

    Or spotted before on Lords of the Blog contributions concerning the essentiality of Enablement of people before they can become both fit-for-purpose and appropriately empowered ?

    as CC wants it, such that every-one of our democratic 63 million People and Public both may and can be all the time “examining all the details of each of the Bills as they are presented to ‘us’ by “LN-from-‘Ull” ?
    and CC’s further conflation of need, duty and enablement “or does he milesjsd go through the mental health acts as they are presented every couple of years or three…to ascertain what they, or he, got wrong ?” ?
    ——————-
    When will British Governance start becoming participatorily-democratic
    i.e. ‘government By the people (those precious few of us who must or who choose to live healthily, citizenlike, and environmentally-supportively off just one-human-living ?
    in stark contrast to the mind-dysfunctional morasses of professionals, politicians and privilegocrats who ‘must be given and must draw from the Common Purse’ not just two human livings, each, but hugely-multiple numbers of human-livings and who thus are literally destroying Life on this Earth and cutting the human-race off from ever emigrating to a second “Earth” ?
    ———-
    Before seeing CC’s more holey-than-righteous comment, I had during the night submitted a further comment to NLN’s reasonably ‘democratiuc reach-out’ above called “More than a chamber”; which might be further apposite to CC’s apparent problem.

  35. Twm O'r Nant
    20/01/2012 at 8:20 am

    In the case of the sickness ‘charities’ :

    The road to illness and disease is littered with good intentions; the road to healing and cure is a boulevard of the best.

  36. MilesJSD
    20/01/2012 at 11:03 am

    Maude please (et al)

    for one moment please look at Psychiatrist Baroness Murphy’s
    “it is going to be difficult and is going to feel unfair to those who are still stuck in the ‘I’m entitled’ box”

    The most-entitled are ?

    (well, leaving aside the current super-riches-entitled tabloid- apparent “Sir” (FG perhaps ?) whose Establishmentarian-title may be removed from him)

    we have millions upon millions of “multiple-human-livings entitled” upper and middle classes consumers,
    and some of the ‘working’ class draw a lesser number but still more than one-each human-living, from the Common Purse;

    they are a much worse burden and danger than the mere few hundred-thousand of disabled, impaired and disadvantaged people boxed-into “I need one-human-living, please” by the very same Establishment and Governmental-Workplace that the baroness belongs to;

    and it is all those who think they are each “many more than one-human-being and therefore entitled to more than one human-living from the Common Purse”
    (a collectivised psychiatric-delusion if ever there was one)
    who are “stillstuck in “I’m entitled” boxes – and plump plush Palaces !

  37. Nik Morris
    20/01/2012 at 1:36 pm

    So you sat on your hands. Is that anything like sitting on the fence? What a poor excuse you’ve given us for your inability to accept that what’s going on with the benefit system. People are suffering. Many more will. Psychologically people are unable to function without government interference. This is all BAD!

  38. Sharon Morgan
    20/01/2012 at 1:42 pm

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2087784/Welfare-Reform-Bill-Where-national-conscience.html

    This says it all. This is coming from the Daily Mail that usually posts all the stories of benefit scroungers and cheats. Suddenly the truth comes out. Please read it Baroness.

    • maude elwes
      21/01/2012 at 9:34 am

      @Sharon Morgan:

      This is the only article I have seen on the horrendous decision this government is making against those in our society who are unable, for whatever reason, to look after themselves. And what a dreadful indictment of a once merciful people this fact is.

      In this matter, The Daily Mail, has shown enlightenment and the journalist, Sonia Poulton, deserving. This would have to be a woman writing, for the men, in this instance, have shown to be more than deaf, dumb and blind. Perhaps that is because the ‘ladies’ are the ‘carers’ in most cases. Which means women will be the main sufferers as a result of these planned unforgivable changes.

      And now, it appears, the Lords are giving way to this aggressive and detestable bunch of rampant Capitalists who, for the time being, rule over us.

      The Lib Dems should be on their knees with shame. Surely there has to come a time when their conscience rises through their ambition to put the vulnerable first. And Labour, well, they promoted and still herald, the Blair creature. What kind of thinking is that in a once great political movement.

      The ludicrous part in all of this is, the ‘Lords’ are old enough to remember how the sick and disabled people of this country had to suffer prior to our awakening. For them to turn a blind eye in this situation is deplorable. How can they not see that?

      And David Cameron, above all, should be the first to hang his head in shame. For he has first hand knowledge of the lifetime of desolation such a predicament ensures. He knows all too well the misery involved in a life so brutally unfair.

      • Sharon Morgan
        21/01/2012 at 12:48 pm

        I agree with all that you say and as usual when the going gets tough, the tough leave the blog their last word and run away.

        They may as well run around in circles with their fingers in their ears shouting lalalala because as far as I am concerned everything we say and plea for is falling upon deaf ears and it’s a frustrating place to be in.

  39. Baroness Murphy
    Baroness Murphy
    20/01/2012 at 4:50 pm

    Last comment from me here on this thread. The House of Lords votes are a fairly good assessment of the overall feeling that the House has about he rightness of the changes. In spite of about 250 e-mails and many more letters, in the end the House was more convinced that the Minister was right than those opposed to the changes. We would all agree that the changes from DLA to PIP need monitoring carefully but overall the change maybe beneficial to many people with severe disabilities. We still have some votes to go…these may have a different outcome.

  40. pleasehelpus
    21/01/2012 at 3:45 am

    It seems baroness murphy was the Commissioner for the Commission on Assisted Dying 2010.

    Makes sense, although Baroness, please hurry up and get a euthanasia pack available on the DWP for us so we can apply for it when forced onto JSA.

  41. 22/01/2012 at 2:09 pm

    “in the end the House was more convinced that the Minister was right than those opposed to the changes”

    Then they should be ashamed of themselves as should you. And as for not replying any more? This shows cowardice and ignorance in equal measures. You have helped screw disabled people and their carers but it doesn’t matter to you, you’ll just stick your fingers in your ears and hum a happy tune while people are made homeless and/or kill themselves? Thank God the Lords know what we common people go through eh?

  42. maude elwes
    23/01/2012 at 12:31 pm

    I listened to Ian Duncan Smith this morning and then crossed over to watch yesterdays Andrew Marr show who endured the creep, DPM Clegg.

    What astonishes me is this, why do these interviewers allow these people to get away with their simpleton answers without asking them outright why they blatantly lie to the public when running for office and betray them the minute they are in the place they wanted to be. These men must have known when they were spilling their crock to the customer, us, that they were selling an empty sack, whilst pretending it was full of good things.

    Deputy Prime Minister Clegg is a Liberal Democrat who ran on a socialist, in the main, policy. And there he was spouting a highly right wing emphasis, saying he agreed with the entire concept and solution proposed by those who wish to remove a safety blanket from the poorest in society. None of which he told the electorate when offering to stand for their wishes in parliament.

    As well, none of these interviewers asked these cheats directly what fine they expect to pay or punishment they expect to receive when they are proved blatantly fraudulent. Take Clegg first, he agrees with Duncan Smith on his changes to Welfare as well as Lansley’s changes to the NHS. Both of them extolling their ‘rightness’ and that all the dreadful ‘homelessness’ and ‘starvation’ predicted is wrong and seriously biased.

    Oh, yes! And when it turns out people suffer the most dreadful circumstances as a result of their ‘rightness’ will these people made to pay the cost for their errors in judgment? Jail for example for fraud, as they know full well they are misleading the public when they make these statements. Cannot pretend otherwise, as they are articulate, well educated and very clever people.

    Look at the Labour leaders who took this country into the horrendous situation we find ourselves in today. What has happened to them as a result of their blatant lying and playing with the changes in the NHS, the law and the immigration practice. First they deny that the predictions in the outcomes of there changes are happening at all. They deny thousands of elderly people are being ‘left to die’ on a daily basis in hospital, by being starved and forced to go without water. What punishment are the last propagators of ‘malfeasance’ we allowed in those top positions facing as a result of their mismanagement, failure and dishonesty, when they made those changes they claimed were for the public good?

    So, what is going to happen to those pushing the same bag of excrement at us today when there are thousands of homeless on the streets? Children living in such dire poverty not seen in this country in a hundred years, and the sick poor left to literally expire on the street, akin to the sub continent of India or the streets of the USA?

    Who’s is going to pay for this incompetence and ‘hate’ crime? Can anyone tell me that?

    Are, Blair, Straw, Harman, Darling, and the rest of them paying now for what they did?

    And this is why they all stick together like brown stuff to a blanket. Each and everyone of them has too much to lose. So the Baroness, who will not be addressing this reform issue again, is in good company. Isn’t she? That is her survival tactic. Close the eyes and ignore the horror, it will simply disappear once the morticians step in.

  43. 25/01/2012 at 2:25 pm

    “Who’s is going to pay for this incompetence and ‘hate’ crime?”

    maude, the answer is the poor and vulnerable, they brought it on themselves for not being millionaires or ‘Lords and Ladies’. They get o pay for everything that is wrong with our ‘society’ while some of the titled (out of touch) gentry sit on their hands

    • maude elwes
      26/01/2012 at 10:54 am

      Yes, Clive Arnold, that is surely true.

  44. Lord Blagger
    25/01/2012 at 7:14 pm

    why they blatantly lie to the public when running for office and betray them the minute they are in the place they wanted to be.

    You can’t expect the BBC to push. They are in the fold of the left.

    As well, none of these interviewers asked these cheats directly what fine they expect to pay or punishment they expect to receive when they are proved blatantly fraudulent

    They look after themselves. So many were committing fraud, that there was a stitch up.

    Take the Lords, it was the Black and Asian peers who get done. All the others get the Clerk of Parliament to make it a state secret what they did. On the grounds it would bring the Lords in to disrepute.

    They deny thousands of elderly people are being ‘left to die’ on a daily basis in hospital, by being starved and forced to go without water.

    Happened in Sidcup at Queen Mary’s.

    Now what about all those hospitals who killed people because they couldn’t keep the place clean? Examples at the weekend of people being killed by incompetence.

    Who’s is going to pay for this incompetence and ‘hate’ crime? Can anyone tell me that?

    Well, they may well loose. It is going tits up. As such they may well end up in hiding.

  45. Senex
    26/01/2012 at 8:58 pm

    For those feeling particularly drained by the Welfare Reform Bill and in need of a boost, the latest National Trust Magazine (Spring 2012) is celebrating the centenary of one of its founders Octavia Hill. Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde is the one to get in touch with as she writes a short note on her life; failing this contact Baroness Neuberger.

    Demos is also working with the National Trust to publish a collection of essays that will mark the centenary of Octavia’s death, raise her profile and examine the relevance of her work today.

    Perhaps the Speakers office or Hansard might commission a lecture (by Baroness Neuberger?) on her life and how it helped drive welfare reform in Parliament?

    Ref: The Legacy of Octavia Hill; Social Reformer and Humanitarian
    http://www.demos.co.uk/projects/thelegacyofoctaviahill

  46. Sharon Morgan
    27/01/2012 at 1:53 pm

    Are those in government truly happy about the lies and exagerations that are being printed in the press? Because it looks really bad at the moment. It has me wondering if perhaps some of the articles in the press are being encouraged and if I’m thinking it then lots of others are to.

    This latest story in The Sun http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/01/rod-liddle-disabled-the-sun/ is absolutely appauling and just shows how all the hype Cameron and his cronies have been giving out is having a really bad effect on people who don’t deserve it. This has got to stop before it gets out of hand and I fear it already has.

    Is this really what you want our society to become?

    • Senex
      27/01/2012 at 4:42 pm

      Sharon, would you report someone to the Social if you felt they were swinging the lead on disability benefits? I suggest like me you would not because they are not breaking any criminal law. It is entirely a civil matter between the individual and the Social or at least, that is the perception.

      Yet lots of people do know of someone who is taking liberties at the taxpayer’s expense. Would you have them snitch these people up; is this really what you want our society to become?

      Reality Check:

      We are over a Trillion (1,000,000,000,000,000,000) pounds in debt and it will take 60 years or more to pay this debt down. Of course it may not be that bad if the figure is really an American Trillion (1,000,000,000,000). Either way it’s a lot of zeros for anyone.

      • Lord Blagger
        28/01/2012 at 11:24 am

        Just say that the 1 trillion debt isn’t reality, its fantasy.

        There is no civil service pension debt, not a penny for state pensions, PFI, …

        Total debt is around the 7 trillion mark.

        Government tax take 550 bn.

        THe increase in the debt this year waas 150 bn on borrowing, 350 bn on the off the books, Bernie Maddoff debt.

        500 bn total increase.

        The problem is soon going to become that you can’t get any social help.

        Look at Greece. It is showing the way.

  47. 28/01/2012 at 11:37 am

    “Yet lots of people do know of someone who is taking liberties at the taxpayer’s expense.”

    No, they ‘think’ they know someone who is taking liberties. For example, tell me how you would see my wife’s epilepsy? (when she isn’t fitting)

Comments are closed.