Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To not understand how people can justify it

667 replies

ijustdontunderstand · 14/03/2016 18:16

Okay, not a bun fight I just want to understand how those who vote Tory can think the cuts to disability benefits are OK.

This is NOT saying if you vote Tory you're a bad person, at all, I just want to understand. Will you vote them in again knowing?

OP posts:
shovetheholly · 15/03/2016 13:25

"I learnt plenty about society growing up on a council estate that was rough as a badger's arse, thank you shove. I got out by winning a scholarship to a private prep school (Tory policy) then winning a place at a grammar (Tory policy) then getting a grant to go to university (abolished under Labour)."

Jesus Christ, you have absolutely no idea how privileged you are.

Well, I learnt plenty about society growing up on a council estate that was rough as a badger's arse. I got out by going to the local comprehensive (which didn't even cater for post-GCSE education, so unlikely was it that it would be needed in the area), then attending another comprehensive across town for A-levels. I then became homeless when I ran away from care. Thankfully, by a stroke of luck, a lovely female teacher followed me home one night, found out that I had been living in a tent for months, and took me into her house. That single act of kindness enabled me to get some of the highest grades in the country in my exams, and to get to a RG university. I went on to get the highest degree ever awarded by that institution, and won several scholarships for all my PG education.

So don't you dare call me a doe-eyed member of the middle class. Had it not been for that woman, however, I would probably be dead of a drug overdose. It was her kindness - and the sheer luck of her following me that evening - that made the difference. Yes, I worked hard. Yes, I was bright. But here's the thing - LOADS of kids from poor backgrounds are just as bright as you and me. We got where we are by luck and with help and with enough stability at the right time to make it feel like it was worth investing in our own futures. Lots and lots of kids don't have that.

And don't even - DON'T EVEN - get me started on how your grammar school education and student grant were taxpayer funded. Or even how your grammar school education actually disadvantaged kids who didn't make it into the higher tiers of the selective system. You haven't got where you got off your own hard work. You got it through luck and a bit of application. Same as me.

glowfrog · 15/03/2016 13:26

The idea that Labour can't be trusted with the economy is a load of crap.

The 2008 crash and subsequent ballooning deficit was not because Labpir overspent. It's because Labour made the mistake of following the Tory idea of light regulation of the city, coupled with American banks doing even worse with shitty sub-prime mortgages. Deficit went up because we had to bail out the banks.

The only economic policy Osborne can think of involves tax cuts for the rich and cutting spending. What else has he done to stimulate the economy f-all.

And don't get me started on all the previous busts brought on by the Tories over the last 70 years.

BreconBeBuggered · 15/03/2016 13:26

Pausing I also read a sympathetically-angled news report that blithely stated that claimants who were still sick after 12 months in the WRAG were moved into the Support Group. It doesn't help when even those who don't think that sick people would probably be okay if they adopted the right kind of attitude are spreading inaccurate information.

CauliflowerBalti · 15/03/2016 13:26

We all need to go and live in Norway, Denmark or Sweden. Everyone on this thread would be happy.

www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel

PageStillNotFound404 · 15/03/2016 13:29

I don't believe that the DWP has the first fucking idea about the proportion of people cheating the system.

Oh, how convenient Hmm "The figures don't show what I think they should show, so I'm going to ignore them."

I take all government statistics with a rather large pinch of salt, like most sensible people.

Apart from the ones being used to justify the cuts, presumably?

shovetheholly bloody well said.

coffeeisnectar · 15/03/2016 13:33

pausingflatly

The Red Cross hire mobility scooters on short and long term leases. I had to hire a wheelchair at the tail end of last year and it was quite reasonable rates. I'd certainly investigate that.

YoungGirlGrowingOld · 15/03/2016 13:37

Nice MN lynch mob here as usual!

shove I am not getting into a whinge-off about who was the most disadvantaged. The point I was making is that Tory policies have helped the poor/disadvantaged (just as Labour policies have done the ). It's not as simple as saying Labour good, Tories selfish arseholes.

I know I am bloody lucky - I survived cancer for one thing, so I do have something of a clue about illness and its impact on life and career. It's unfortunate that admitting to being right-leaning and in favour of austerity is akin to admitting a puppy-boiling habit in the wacky world of MN.

YoungGirlGrowingOld · 15/03/2016 13:38

Done the opposite - sorry, typing ineptly on phone.

Voteforpedr0 · 15/03/2016 13:43

It's no less of an issue than the cuts that essentially closed down many childrens centres of which, i fear, the knock on effects will be felt for years to come.

CauliflowerBalti · 15/03/2016 13:46

I just found this. It is a very interesting - and I believe, balanced - take on the deficit under Labour, borrowing during a boom and the resulting austerity:

^At the start of 2007, there were few economists expressing concern at government borrowing running at 36% of GDP. By post-war standards, UK government debt was low and the government appeared to be meeting its own reasonable fiscal targets.

Given the period of strong economic growth, it is unsurprising that Labour wished to increase spending on health care and education. If the financial crisis hadn’t materialised, we may have looked back on the great moderation with kinder eyes.

However, a critic would point out that we did have a financial crisis and running a budget deficit during an unsustainable economic boom was irresponsible. In retrospect, Labour would have been better reducing the public sector debt further. This would have given the government even more room for manoeuvre during the crisis of 2008-12. Also, with growth strong, this was the best time to reduce the budget deficit. The mantra of Keynesians during the crisis has been – a recession is the wrong time to reduce a budget deficit. Given high growth in the 2000s, it would have been better to be stricter with public spending. Even counter cyclical fiscal policy measures such as higher income tax, higher stamp duty may have reduced the housing and financial bubble and made the subsequent crash less dramatic.

This is a fair point. It was a mistake to be running budget deficits of 3% of GDP towards the end of the boom. However, the mistake is relatively minor. The boom was in finance and housing; inflation was running low (unlike saw the 1980s boom) Most of the economic profession never saw the extent of the forthcoming recession. From a macro perspective it didn’t look like a classic boom and bust (high growth and inflation)

Of course, it is easier to be wise after the event. If we were more aware of the dangers inherent in the financial system, we should have exercised much more caution. But, when looking at the causes of the great recession – government spending levels and budget deficits of the preceding years bare little, if any cause.

It is also worth noting that when the recession hit, the government did initially pursue expansionary fiscal policy – there was no panic in the bond market. Bond yields have fallen throughout the crisis. Although debt increased rapidly, there was no danger of a fiscal cliff, like say Greece.

The switch towards austerity post 2010 was largely a self-created panic. Part of the motive for austerity was the desire to paint a grim picture of public finances. The problem is that economic pessimism can become self-fulfilling. A more balanced view of the overall state of public finances in 2010 would have led to less rash policy.^

From: www.economicshelp.org/blog/7568/debt/government-debt-under-labour-1997-2010/

PausingFlatly · 15/03/2016 13:48

Oh that's helpful, coffee, thank you. I currently hire on hourly rates from Shopmobility, and must ask them if they do longer hires, as well.

It's one of those projects for the future though. I wouldn't get enough use out of it to justify it yet. But I've been carefully arranging the garden to make sure there'll be parking space when the time comes.

Worcswoman · 15/03/2016 13:52

YoungGirlGrowingOld
"I take all government statistics with a rather large pinch of salt, like most sensible people. "
So what do you base your views on? The Daily hate?

You say "Welfare spending at current levels is economically unsustainable". Why? As I asked previously what proportion of spending is welfare and what is the breakdown of welfare spending - do you know? Oh yes, you're 'sensible' so you ignore government statistics.

Ok what is the current spending as a % of GDP and what was it after WW2? Were we poorer after WW2 and did we spend more or less? How did growth happen then? If we spent more then why not now?

I'm not a lefty. But if you are forming opinions, especially with a PhD then these are some of the questions you should be asking and seeking answers to. People's lives are too important not to.

CFSKate · 15/03/2016 13:54

hose other people's money at their pet projects

Are you including sufficient support for the disabled under "pet projects"?

coffeeisnectar · 15/03/2016 14:01

nationalmobilityhire.com/?gclid=COu3_v3swssCFY9uGwod5A4A6w

There's also this place pausing

PageStillNotFound404 · 15/03/2016 14:08

It's unfortunate that admitting to being right-leaning and in favour of austerity is akin to admitting a puppy-boiling habit in the wacky world of MN.

If people (as opposed to puppies) weren't dying before their time as a direct result of this current "austerity", you might find more people inclined to give you a pat on the back.

That's not hyperbole btw. It might be an inconvenient truth, but it's the truth nonetheless.

cleaty · 15/03/2016 14:11

Scholarships to private schools were never open to the very poorest. My parents could not have afforded the bus fare or uniform for us. We got free school meals and money was very tight.

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 15/03/2016 14:12

It's easy to be in favour of austerity if it is affecting others and especially easy if you decide to view them all as feckless.

PausingFlatly · 15/03/2016 14:14

Are you familiar with the concept of the "disaster opportunitism", Cauliflower?

Naomi Klein articulates it in The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

In one of his most influential essays, [Milton] Friedman articulated contemporary capitalism's core tactical nostrum, what I have come to understand as "the shock doctrine". He observed that "only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change". When that crisis occurs, the actions taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. Some people stockpile canned goods and water in preparation for major disasters; Friedmanites stockpile free-market ideas. And once a crisis has struck, the University of Chicago professor was convinced that it was crucial to act swiftly, to impose rapid and irreversible change before the crisis-racked society slipped back into the "tyranny of the status quo". A variation on Machiavelli's advice that "injuries" should be inflicted "all at once", this is one of Friedman's most lasting legacies.

The bank crash was a lovely disaster - chuck in a bit of handwaving rhetoric to work the panic up to just the right pitch.

And here we are now, the 6th richest nation as someone said upthread, earnestly parroting that we simply can't afford disabled people.

Osborne's "austerity" is idealogical. Privatisation and removing the welfare state are an idea he and his chums had lying around, waiting for an opportunity to impose.

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 15/03/2016 14:15
cleaty · 15/03/2016 14:17

I know some conservatives hark back to before DLA or PIP was available. But there was more direct social care then. A day centre near us used to offer free lunches and bath people who needed it. Now they run only in the afternoon for a few hours, and no longer do baths or food because of lack of funding.

Similarly in my City there used to be lots of mental health day centres. They provided food, activities and workers who could help with things such as personal paperwork. Now they have been closed.

This is why benefit cuts cut so deeply, because others services have already been cut.

damibasiamille · 15/03/2016 14:20

It seems I was wrong in saying the UK is the 6th richest country in the world: someone on radio news programme has just said it's the 5th richest!

PausingFlatly · 15/03/2016 14:21

(For clarity, by "disabled people" I mean "people whose disabilities/illness mean they are unable to earn their living, or who need additional services in order to go about their lives".

Rather than me when I was just short-sighted, say. It's legally defined as a disability but has no major impact on my life.)

cleaty · 15/03/2016 14:27

Yes I have a disability which has rarely caused me major issues until I got older. When I was young, very few people even knew I had it, although my partner did as I have to do physio every day.

PausingFlatly · 15/03/2016 14:32

The point being that cutting services to disabled people is not intended to be the solution to the bank crash.

It's the other way round.

The bank crash provided the opportunity to make cuts already desired for idealogically reasons.

The Freud report outlining much of this came out before the bank crash (although I'm not sure it was planned to go quite this far).

A PP asked whether Labour would reverse the cuts. NuLabour, nope. They commissioned the Freud report, started the attack on the disabled, and have links with the private insurance companies slavering for the dismantling of National Insurance.

Corbyn Labour? Who knows.

Worcswoman · 15/03/2016 14:57

Well said, Pausing. It's not as clear cut as Tory good, Labour bad or vice versa. IMHO so much of the social support network has been eroded that some reform is needed and sweeping statements from politicians are not the answer. If the electorate continues a tribal rhetoric rather than focusing on policies and holding our government to account then frankly we'll get more of the same. But yes, Corbyn? I'm as hopeful as a teenager. Sadly I'm also as cynical as an old tart.