To not understand how people can justify it

[ijustdontunderstand]

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?

What exactly is "hype" and "bollocks", Confucious? Not being goady, am genuinely interested. As a left-leaning liberal with a disabled DH, his/our experience plus those of people in his support groups accord with a lot of stuff I see posted or written about.

I just think a lot of people don't know. My dad votes conservative and am pretty sure he doesn't know anyone who's disabled, and all these benefit programs are really making everyone on benefits look like scum. I get the system is abused and things should be reviewed but am very confused as to why DLA is being cut and nothing else ??? Like child benefit for example, I do think it should stay but if it's a choice between that and people who genuinely can't work surely disability/carers allowance should come first?

Disability benefits are not SO abused though. DLA had a less than 1% fraud rate according to the DWP themselves. So how is there a justification from trying to cut 19% of claimants?

There is more fraud and fiddling (and choices made - many sick and disabled people can't decide to work more or less hours) by "honest hardworking folks" who get tax credits than there is by disability claimants, yet there was an outcry about that. And people completely forget that these drastic cuts to weed out the less than 1% of claimants who are on the fiddle have a huge impact on the genuinely sick or disabled.

Isn't it funny how "Labour fuck up everything" and now we're on the brink of another financial crisis because the Tories are in power, this time it's just that!

The system isn't "so abused" by sick and disabled people either. Who was it that put thousands and thousands on the sick to get the unemployment figures down? Oh, yes that would have been the good old Tories.

Whenever there is an election, you have to vote for the party that best suits your views overall.
I always read all the manifestos. I look on those websites that compare what each party is saying about all major issues. I go to local hustings. I start watching question time. I read articles.

Then I make up my mind as to which party I'm going to vote for in that election. I've never found a party (or a candidate) that I agree with everything they say on every different issue - and I've been voting for well over 30 years.
I should imagine there's a lot of people who felt the conservatives were the best party overall, without necessarily liking what they try to push through in every circumstance, but, at the moment we don't have referendums on ever issue, we elect a party and accept that they will do some things we agree with, some things we won't, but overall feel they will be better than any of the other parites.

I voted Tory. For many reasons.

Es balls was my local Mp and was shit, he didn't give a shit unless he could use it to have a dog at the Tories. I couldn't bring myself to give labour my vote because I would have had to give to him. Andrea Jenkins is a great local Mp. I have met her several times since. Voting Tory was the only way that we would get Ed out.

I will not vote for a party that wheels Tony Blair out every election as some Demi fucking Demi God. This time they waited til quite late then wheeled him out making a huge deal out of how he endorsed Ed Milliband. Until they kick him from the party and he actually answers for what he did, I won't vote for them.

I also think Labour would be doing very similar to disabled people. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. Their policies were shit , they had no answers and no explanations. I believe Ed milliband would have formed a collection with Nicola Sturgeon, he looked like an idiot saying he definitely wouldn't.

None of the other parties were a viable choice.

I don't like what the Tories are doing, but then I didn't like loads of labour policies or the way they threw the country in the toilet.

Gordon brown didn't cause the reason. But I am shocked that people still insist he could have seen it coming. In January of the year recession hit us, we were in the US and dh (no financial expert) was watching the news. He predicted the financial crisis. So either Gordon Brown and his ministers are idiots or liars or both.

I don't agree with the cuts at all (especially when benefits to well off pensioners go untouched and even enhanced ).

But there is not a snowball's chance in hell I would be voting for Corbyn.

Voted Lib dem last time (me and about 6 others it seems).

Oh and also Ed Molliband response about an EU referendum showed how much contempt he held for the public.

He wouldn't have one because he didn't think it was the right thing to leave. essentially 'fuck you it's up to me and I say no.'

Not really democratic Is it?

Molliband??? Don't know where that came from

I once heard it described as the Tories are financially responsible, socially irresponsible, and Labour are financially irresponsible, socially responsible.

I would love a party that could be both financially AND socially responsible. Is that genuinely possible? Can you make 2 and 2 equal 5?

To be honest there isn't really a political party in the UK right now that appeals to me.

Because I trust them with the country; education, healthcare, fiscal policy, foreign policy... there is more to choosing with whom to trust the country than disability benefits.

Corbyn is a joke, as was Eddy. I've no doubt you'll moan about Tories being posh boys from public school and top universities but who the actual fuck wants someone leading their country who didn't get the best possible education purely on principle?

If checking people can't work as oppose to claiming benefits because they don't want to work is a bad thing then please tell me an alternative.

I'm fairly sick of the people who jump on the Tory-hating bandwagon but fail to realise that they didn't steal power; they were voted in. Labour all but destroyed the economy (amongst other things) and if it weren't for their legacy, there might be more money to go around. As it is, there isn't.

If you were the chancellor, where would you be saving money? Be specific. No "well, I wouldn't give the richest people tax breaks" or "not people on £x who can't..." I'd love to hear your ideas.

That's not to say that if you vote Labour or Lib Dem you're a bad person you sanctimonious arse

I've voted conservative every single time. Always have, always will. Does not mean that I agree with every policy ( I disagree with a fair few) but the thought of Labour running the economy and spending yet more money that we haven't got feels me with utter dread.

I have always voted Tory
I grew up on a rough council estate with a lazy arse mother who abused the benefits system. The labour candidates use to knock on the door and give her a lift to the local school ( which was only 500 yards away) to vote for them.
This is the reason I will never vote labour, I feel they encouraged her lifestyle choice

• fills not feels

I agree BackForGood, no party is an exact fit for the majority of people I would think. You vote for the party who broadly represents what you feel; it's rarely an exact fit and you (the voter) has to make a compromise as to what's the most important to you.

I don't agree with cuts to disabled people but I have had concerns about how they are delivered. DLA or PIP now I think? is quite demotivating in some senses. A close family member of mine was awarded a very high rate for mh issues, more than she could ever hope to earn working as she has no qualifications. The unaccustomed amount of money resulted in splurging on many things, mainly internet, tv packages and seriously unhealthy food (think first name basis with all local take aways). The result has been an approximate seven stone weight gain, on top of an already pretty unhealthy weight and some very serious health implications. I may get flamed for this, but it is not that I feel there should be less provision but some consideration on how this is delivered as is this case extra money multiplied the self destructive behaviour, added physical health problems and further isolation. I don't know what the answer is but the system certainly didn't work there.

At the election I really struggled to find a party where I agreed with the bulk of their policies. For every party there were numerous manifesto promises I really disagreed with so I ended up going for the best of s bad bunch and went lib dem (clearly alone in that one!)

DH voted Tory because he thought they'd make a better job of running the economy. Ie labour had run up a huge credit card debt and it needed reducing. I don't think disability benefits came to mind at all. I assume many people were the same.

I think that the perception is that some benefits are not going where they should. We might not agree on what those cases are. There is general agreement that some benefits should be paid where clearly people can't work or where their disability is such that they need extra care. However it is the marginal cases that people argue about, the disagreement is around those cases, it is not fraud but instances where some welfare is paid and it is really a case of "working the system" , some tend to surround the dla. Sadly the abuse of the system has affected public perception. I belive the welfare state is vital but needs to cut its spending

Hack some MH medications can cause weight gain.

Pedestriana, did your friend appeal the decision? It's worth appealing as the success rate is quite good, especially if she turns up to the tribunal. She has to ask for Mandatory Reconsideration first.

If checking people can't work as oppose to claiming benefits because they don't want to work is a bad thing then please tell me an alternative.

There, in a nutshell, is the complete lack of understanding about the disabled benefits claim process under the Tories.

If the process of claiming were simply a matter of someone "checking" that the claimant genuinely has a disability and awarding them the appropriate benefit, do you really think there would be such an outcry?

People who have terminal, degenerative and life-limiting illnesses and conditions, who were previously awarded Lifetime or Indefinite awards are being asked to prove, repeatedly, they are "still" disabled. People with these conditions are, despite medical evidence from specialists and consultants, having their benefits cut or stopped on the say-so of occupational therapists and the like, contracted to ATOS and their replacement. Some of the most disabled and most in need - those who can't dress themselves, those with serious mobility issues - are having their PIP points halved. That's not "hype" or "bullshit" or sanctimonious left-wing spin or however else you want to dismiss it to salve your conscience - this is disabled people's reality. This is the reality of the process of claiming a disabled-related benefit. It's insulting, dehumanising, stressful, time-consuming, wasteful and inefficient - and that's before we even get to the point of how many DWP decisions are overturned at tribunal.

Twowrongs I know her medication was a factor but she openly told me about eating take away every night some weeks. I refuse to believe that will not have made an impact. This is not judgement it's genuine upset at seeing how ill this made someone I care about.

Corbyn is a joke, as was Eddy. I've no doubt you'll moan about Tories being posh boys from public school and top universities but who the actual fuck wants someone leading their country who didn't get the best possible education purely on principle?
I think the education at the schools Corbyn and Milliband attended was very good indeed, and I'm not sure that the education provided at Eton, while it may have had the edge in certain subjects or while it may even produce a greater number of A*s or whatever, really equips politicians for running a country any better. I'm not goading at all, I have a son in independent school - it just struck me as a slightly debatable comment. I would probably argue that exposure to a wider social class, coupled with a decent education, is perhaps better for politics.
Actually, I think my point is probably that there is a ceiling to how well educated you need to be for politics, and that ceiling can easily be achieved in the state sector. After that, I suspect it's irrelevant.

Sorry, bit of a side issue anyway in terms of the OP.

As a person with quite a serious disability, and a person who works. I really despise this 'woe are the poor disabled people' line being trotted out. It's quite frankly patronising. Many people, can, should and do work with quite disabling conditions.

The failing of pip is that it is not assessed to a standard. I should be able to go to any part of the uk and get the same outcome but I fear I wouldn't.

A close family member of mine was awarded a very high rate for mh issues, more than she could ever hope to earn working as she has no qualifications.

Higher rate care component DLA for MH issues is just over £400 per month. That's less than £3.00/hr net based on full-time weekly hours.