Shameless labour

nickmason

abaxas wrote: »

Please dont take your sources to be politicians.

I was only using politicians as sources because we were talking about how Tories see things. Not clear as to whether we were talking about Tory politicians or voters, I addressed the politicians first and then the voters second. Seems reasonable.

Do you have any friends who live like that? Only then can you understand the mindset.

Not any friends. Family, yes.

I'm happy to judge them on being dole theiving scum. But also they are my friends, they respect me and I respect them, despite a 'career' choice I do not approve of.

To be totally honest, although I have known many, I don't respect those that make that career choice - and so I struggle to be friends with them. Those who struggle to get out of that state I will do whatever I can for.

The mad thing is, they tend to agree and know that we are mates because we get along.

I don't think I can deal with that - something slightly selfish in me doesn't like working for their lifestyle.

lemonjelly

ILW wrote: »

I heard that when the government sent out the forms to people on disabilty benefits regarding getting tested for criteria, apprx 30% of current claiments decided the did not have a disability anymore. Weed out the large number of those that are not truly disabled and there will be more for those that truly deserve help.

Actually, it was Employment Support Allowance - the benefit replacing Incapacity Benefit. & what actually happened is that 39% elected not to pursue the claim.

Intriguingly, exactly the same %age were deemed fit for work.

More details & the press release here:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2011/jan-2011/dwp008-11.shtml


Now I believe that there are a lot of fraudulent claims out there. At the same time, I don't think it is the fraudsters being targetted. The ATOS group who do the assessments are a joke, & unfair on some who are in genuine need.

abaxas wrote: »

What a great idea, actually help those who need help.

But with a caveat, dont help anybody who ever tries to use the word 'rights'.

If they mention 'rights' they get nowt.

Pfffft. People have rights - deal with it.

The problem is, too many people forget that rights bring responsibilities. Too many nowadays do not fulfil or accept their responsibilities.

makes me laugh when I hear people say "I'm a good parent". Big whoop. That is what you are supposed to do when you have a child. That is your responsibility.

As a society, we need to accept & take responsibility for stuff. Cos at the moment, something goes wrong, too many do little other than look to blame.

nickmason

shortchanged wrote: »

Isn't this what the tories are doing with some of their plans?

Wasn't it Cameron that was saying difficult decisions have to be made and that he was the man to stay strong on the tough decisions.
Yet they have already backed down on certain proposals when the going has got tough.

To an extent, yes. I noted in an earlier post how even some back-benchers are struggling with it. Politics isn't black and white. This is really painful - and the going will be tough - and sometimes they won't achieve what they hoped. My point was that I think Labour would have found it much more difficult (even though they knew it was necessary).

abaxas

TheMoneySpider wrote: »

I don't read the Guardian thank you very much, I am sure there are outliers there always are. There are benefit scroungers and there are non-dom tax avoiders.

You don't just slash country-wide systems people genuinely rely on because you saw an extreme case on Jeremy Kyle. That is how the Tories are behaving....unless a celebrity generates negative publicity in which they slam into reverse.

Jeremy Kyle is nothing to the scum that is out there.

All I want it accountability. Ie with the right to be helped comes responsibility.

If we offer to help and have the 'p122' taken out of us, the help will not continue.

IronWolf

Even the LibDems are prepared to make the cuts, and being more left wing than Labour, you can see how politics completely clouds a parties true views. I wouldn't be surprised is most of the Labour party agreed with the majority of the cuts happening, they just dont publicly admit it, they prefer to win cheap popularity by condemning them.

nickmason

Wheezy wrote: »

nickmason, kudos for your posts on the big society idea.
I have to admit I'm quite skeptical about the concept and its application in this materialistic "what's in it for me" society, but your posts are very informative.
Maybe you should take Coulson's place.

ROFLMA. I don't even know the pin code on my own mobile phone.

I think - above all - that the point of the Big Society is that it's not about "now", but about how we try and evolve. So at the moment lots of it will jar. There's no better example of this than a wonderful piece on the radio the other day with a journalist asking Francis Maude where the offices for the Big Society were, and what the objectives were, and what are the KPIs. It was all couched in today's way of thinking - "must have big offices; must have wonderufl strategic objectives; must have measurement". And he kept calmly explaining that it was different, and that he wouldn't be using those approaches. And to be fair, he's a bright cookie and knows a bit about running big organic organisations.

Instead, one tiny example, is that the Conservative party is using a twitter tag (I've almost certainly got my technical details wrong here) of "social action" - to showcase examples of how local communities groups (such as the job club movement which helps people prepare to get back into work, and which is very close to my heart and to the other debate on this thread) are doing "good things" - all without state involvement.

StevieJ

nickmason wrote: »

To an extent, yes. I noted in an earlier post how even some back-benchers are struggling with it. Politics isn't black and white. This is really painful - and the going will be tough - and sometimes they won't achieve what they hoped. My point was that I think Labour would have found it much more difficult (even though they knew it was necessary).

I must say my favourite period was when Labour administered a Tory budget a sort of coalition (1997-2000) and all seemed well with the world

ILW

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Where did you hear that then? Was it from an official at the DWP?

Supplied courtesy of lemonjelly

Actually, it was Employment Support Allowance - the benefit replacing Incapacity Benefit. & what actually happened is that 39% elected not to pursue the claim.

Intriguingly, exactly the same %age were deemed fit for work.

More details & the press release here:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2011/jan-2011/dwp008-11.shtml

TheMoneySpider

abaxas wrote: »

Jeremy Kyle is nothing to the scum that is out there.

All I want it accountability. Ie with the right to be helped comes responsibility.

If we offer to help and have the 'p122' taken out of us, the help will not continue.

It's odd how the media manage to whip this country into a frenzy over a few chavs whenever the going gets tough. Anything to deflect attention away from tax dodging non-dom millionaires and blue-chip companies employing every trick in the book to avoid paying their fair share.

We're all in this together?

Flyboy152

abaxas wrote: »

Jeremy Kyle is nothing to the scum that is out there.

All I want it accountability. Ie with the right to be helped comes responsibility.

If we offer to help and have the 'p122' taken out of us, the help will not continue.

So, you are happy to allow everyone to suffer because of the behaviour of a small minority? You didn't vote for Thatcher as well I suppose?