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?

Some of you may be interested in a programme i watched last night on BBC1 The Estate we"re In

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/telly_addicts/2593252-The-Estate-were-in-BBC1?watched=1&msgid=59901225#59901225

helena Thanks, I saw the tale end of that programme but didn't know what it was. I will watch it tonight.

Helena I watched that

Helena - I too watched, so very sad.

Disability benefit trebled under labour. They put people on it and then let them rot.

I am concerned about some of the changed but I also know people on disability with servere depression (which I also have) that need to be helped back into the workplace as it will benefit them long term.

Yes the numbers on disability benefit soared. But many of those people although they were not getting benefits, were getting services that have been cut.

Disability benefit has been at the same/similar rate for decades. I'm not sure where you have got the impression that it has trebled

God this really is the "make up any old shit" thread, isn't it?

Disability benefit didn't treble under Labour 1997-2010. Or even soar.

There was some rise in line with the population increase and in particular with the baby boomer bulge aging. So, exactly as expected.

There was also a trend towards providing services through direct money payments rather than as the service in kind - without necessarily increasing spending.

What's more, Pathways to Work and Access to Work existed then - national programmes for disabled people wanting support to return to work. Plus local support programmes and employers like Remploy (now closed by the Tories).

I know this because I looked into using some of these services. I didn't find them terribly useful because I don't need confidence, incentives or to learn how to write a CV, and they couldn't cure me. But their success rate was good because people only wanted to stay on the books if the service was actually doing something useful for them.

It's these "write a CV" type services which were made mandatory when ESA was introduced (also under Labour, btw). They now have a lower rate of getting disabled people into work than doing nothing at all.

What Labour supporters don't understand is that the Tories have to cut disability spending because otherwise how could they afford to cut the top rate of income tax and inheritance tax?

It's a time of austerity for the poor top earners.

Just so people know, there's huge scope for sleight of hand with figures for disability funding.

Eg, DLA has been replacing Attendance Allowance for over 60s. So one can say "the DLA figures have gone up". And keep quiet about the AA figures going down.

Responsibility for social care is being shifted from local councils to the NHS. But the amount the NHS is getting for this in no way matches what it's costing the councils (even after their recent slashing of essential care). So this is a back door cut in NHS funding - without it appearing so in the headlines.

As described above, there's a longterm trend for in-kind services to be replaced by direct money payments. So that can be presented as an "increase in disability benefits" while not actually being one.

Pausing, I salute your commitment to continuing to trying to correct misunderstandings and misapprehensions. I've had to give up for the moment. There's only so many times you can post facts, statistics, actual objective evidence and have it dismissed or ignored because it doesn't fit with someone's world view or countered with complete made-up bullshit.

People don't want to believe the actual figures because that would make them feel uncomfortable about some of their choices, it's as simple as that. I can understand that and even have some sympathy, but it doesn't make those stats and figures any less true or the impact of those choices on disabled people any less real.

Nail on head, Page.

I was brought up in a Conservative constituency and my parents have always voted Conservative. I also vote Conservative, but this does not mean to say that I agree with all of their policies. I do, however, feel that the country is safer in the hands of a Conservative government.

As an aside; I can't abide George Osborne or David Cameron, and wish the party had better leaders.

I agree with PPs that there is more to choosing a party than benefits and benefit cuts.

Labour would be a fecking disaster for this country.

I always wonder why people on an internet forum get cross when other people on an internet forum don't necessarily believe or are swayed by what they tell you.

Just because YOUVE researched it Page doesn't mean everyone else has to take it at face value.

Those that are poor, disabled and vulnerable aren't safe in their hands. Still you can live in hope it won't happen to you

I was looking for the link where a parliamentary committee (can't remember if it was Work & Pensions, or Public Accounts Committee) slammed the various work or work activity programmes for performing worse than doing nothing.

But I've found a report looking at the whole of the WRAG, which is actually more useful.

Fulfilling Potential? ESA and the fate of the Work-Related Activity Group, published by MIND and The Centre for Welfare Reform.

It's well referenced and evidenced.

p8
9. The overall impact of participation in the WRAG was demoralisation and increased distance from the labour market. Well over half of respondents said their health, financial circumstances, confidence about working, sense of purpose, and proximity to personal goals had all deteriorated as a result of being in the WRAG.

I'm not cross, bleary. I'm just tired and demoralised. Because this isn't just dry facts and stats (albeit with cited sources), it's my and my DH's life. We're living the reality of these cuts. As are other people on this thread.

If we tell of our experiences, we're dismissed as "anecdata" or being "emotional".
If we provide statistical, factual evidence that this is happening / that widespread public perception is based on inaccuracies, our research is dismissed out of hand.

Some people simply don't want to hear what we're saying, regardless of how we say it or what evidence we can provide to back it up. And that's pretty disrespectful, really, if consistent with this government's - and many of its supporters - attitude towards disabled people.

"Disability benefit trebled under labour. They put people on it and then let them rot."

No that would be the Tories who did that in the 80's

Labour would not be a disaster for the country, this current government are a disaster, the current give aways in this budget will need to be taken back in future years in order for the budget surplus to be met (oh and you do know if the fiscal budget is in surplus the population is in debt right?). Short termism designed to make Osborne look good and keep the party faithful happy is not good government. Oh and blaming the other side having been in power 6 years is another example of how crap this lot are.

The Government have chosen to hit the weakest in the country to give tax cuts to the wealthy, the increase in the 40% tax rate benefits the best off, not the middle and lower.

Failure to acknowledge that is a prime example of someone ignoring the situation because they benefit from it.

Failure to acknowledge that is a prime example of someone ignoring the situation because they benefit from it.

yes and I am sure it works the other way around

I don't benefit from any kind of disability payment, I'm a higher rate tax payer, but I can see how the cuts to disability are funding the tax cuts.

Kind of invalidates your argument doesn't it..

Just because people don't think it's right doesn't mean they are 'benefitting' from this. I'm not, it's just I have genuine concern and empathy for others who are affected. We're not all 'I'm alright Jack's and fuck everyone else'

I voted conservative because my local candidate is very good. The local labour candidate is a little bit chocolate fire guard and didn't actually put forward any sort of compelling proposal, and I got no documentation through from any of the other candidates.

Sorry if this offends anyone, but I do think people will put more weighting onto issues that affect them now over ones that don't. I don't believe that the genuinely disabled deserve to have their benefits cut, but even though yes any of us could end up disabled tomorrow, it won't necessarily be on people's radar to vote based on that alone, just in the same way that any childcare policies won't necessarily mean anything to the elderly or the child-free, and motoring related policies won't necessarily mean anything to this who don't drive. People not in receipt of any benefits, but earning a decent enoug wage that lets them comfortably get by month to month is unlikely to vote for higher taxes as they live month to month for example.

I don't think anyone agrees wholeheartedly with a party line, so maybe we could all do better to choose who we prefer locally. I'd say I was a pretty even split across the policies between Tory, Labour and LD, so having a good local person was the deciding vote.