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?

The government target for getting people off DLA/PIP involves cutting benefits to over 19% of claimants that, by the DWP's own fraud figures, they accept are genuinely disabled and in genuine need.

This is the crux of the matter.

Ergo, people who support the Government in this do NOT care about the welfare of genuinely disabled people, for all they claim to.

FanjofortheMammaries - or they do care, but care about other issues more, and believe the Conservative party are better able to deal with those than the Labour party.

Scariff, I can't sit fully upright for more than about 30 mins at a time, and standing for more than 5 mins is a challenge, but I've managed to paint part of this house.

I needed other people to make the trip to the shed to collect the paint. And I did about 3 hours' work a week, with the brushes wrapped in bags to stop them drying. And I had to lie down and rest frequently, and sat on the floor to do the lower part of the wall. And I had to rely on freezer meals because I couldn't also cook on those days (I already didn't wash up or clean the house). And I needed recovery days after each working day.

But at the end of the process there's a wall been painted, and someone looking from the outside wouldn't know what it took to do it.

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'emploi.

The government target for getting people off DLA/PIP involves cutting benefits to over 19% of claimants that, by the DWP's own fraud figures, they accept are genuinely disabled and in genuine need.

This.

I thought we were one of the least badly hit!

Greece, Iceland, Spain, much of Europe in fact was hit harder.

Pandora - we are one of the G8 - compare how we did to those countries, the USA tanked from their sub-prime mess, but we were the worse hit of the others. If our economy had been properly managed, we should have been in the "ouch, but we can weather this, that's what our rainy day fund is for!" group not the "fuuuckkkkk!!!!!" group. (Those might not be quite the terms the Economist uses...)

Ah so what you're saying dinosaurs, is that Labour should have reinstituted some of the controls that were removed by the Conservatives in the first place?

That and untangled our finances from the US as we are/were more closely intertwined with the US than other European countries.

This is big scale, international politics that dates back to the eighties. It has sod all to do with spending too much money on benefits or whatever.

I suspect that those people who know most about this will be those who have strong partisan views because they have personal experience of the system on one side or the other which makes it hard for others to find accurate, complete information to form their own views.

From my own experience I have a relative who lives in constant pain and claims, quite rightly, the benefits to which he is entitled. Another relative has helped a friend with a degenerative illness who needs full time care and which will ultimately end his life, with his appeal after being judged fit to work.

At the same time though I know of 3 people who are manipulating the system to try to get more than even they think they are entitled to, one of whom has bragged publicly that he manipulated an interview/assessment by soiling himself.

It is a complete fuck-up that those in need are so disadvantaged by the government's attempts to thwart the greedy

Er, no, it's not just what state we were in when the recession hit, it's what we did from there on.

Iceland was devastatingly hit by the bank crashes and yet is now recovering. It did NOT adopt policies of austerity.

'Recessions can hurt, but austerity kills', Guardian, 15 May 2014
Poorer public health, in other words, is not an inevitable consequence of economic downturns, it amounts to a political choice – by the government of the country concerned or, in the case of the southern part of the eurozone, by the EU, European Central Bank and IMF troika.

Stuckler seizes on Iceland as an example of "an alternative. It suffered the worst banking crisis in history; all three of its biggest banks failed, its total debt jumped to 800% of GDP – far worse than what any European country faces today, relative to the size of its economy. And under pressure from public protests, its president put how to deal with the crisis to a vote. Some 93% of the population voted against paying for the bankers' recklessness with large cuts to their health and social-protection systems."

And what happened? Under Iceland's universal healthcare system, "no one lost access to care. In fact more money went into the system. We saw no rise in suicides or depressive disorders – and we looked very hard. People consumed more locally sourced fish, so diets have improved. And by 2011, Iceland, which was previously ranked the happiest society in the world, was top of that list again."

What also bugs Stuckler – an economist as well as a public-health expert – is that neither Iceland nor any other country that "protected its people when they needed it most" did so at the cost of economic recovery. "It didn't break them to invest in programmes to help people get back to work," he says, "or to save people from homelessness. Iceland now is booming; unemployment fell back to below 5% and GDP growth is above 4% – far exceeding any of other European countries that suffered major recessions."

Why are people blaming Labour for the GLOBAL economic crash?

who's doing that?

Some countries weathered the crisis reasonably well, on account of rather tight banking regulation. Canada comes to mind, where no bank was bailed out. Keep in mind that Canada's economy is hugely exposed to the American one.

So, for 15 years Labour had a chance to regulate the City better, and they did f-all. They had a chance to address the housing issue, and they did f-all. What did they do? They spent and spent on wars (is that liberal?) and endless welfare and ran deficits in the good times. In good times. That really doesn't put you in a good situation when a recession comes.

I don't vote Tory either. But there is this Tory/Labour false dichotomy here. Both have had a chance, and both have done terribly.

I just find it all so boring.

My parents have a severely disabled son and vote tory. I suppose they have their reasons although I'm not interested enough to ask.

I've looked at the list of MPs who voted in favour of the cuts. I can see several who were part of the expenses scandal a couple of years ago.

The MPs who thought it vital to spend thousands of public money on their new carpets, swimming pools and gardens are the same ones who think that the sick and disabled should be able to manage just fine on a pittance.

YANBU

however in the defence of people who did vote conservative I don't think many would have realised exactly where the cuts were going to happen and how harsh they are

I know a few conservative voters who are shocked and angry at it

smallspiky - But it was absolutely explicit and obvious that this was what they were going to do.

I just get a bit fed up with people who live under a rock as far as politics is concerned, who are then astounded that a horrible party who made horrible pledges have started to enact those pledges, and that the reality is horrible.

Agree with chillipepper that Labour didn't exactly cover themselves in glory over the last 10 years either.

shovetheholly, I agree with every word of that.

I remember having a minor disagreement with a work colleague over the banking crisis back in 2008/2009. She said that we were all responsible because we were all spend spend spend. I said I didn't think I was. The only debt I have is my mortgage and I've stayed in a smaller house than I would have ideally liked so my mortgage is affordable.

It was never sustainable for people to be spending up to their limits on multiple credit cards but I don't think the (wo)man in the street was responsible for the global banking crash.

No doubt Labour could have managed things better. But I don't think the Tories are much better, the deficit isn't any smaller despite all their cuts and they are now targeting the wrong people. They're doing a few good things like bringing in the living wage but sadly more than balanced it out by the negatives.

The fact that so many people are having to hand back motability cars surely shows how much people are suffering?

I have bladder incontinence, can't cook but can use a microwave, and can't do housework. I can manage to take a bath about every 2 days when I have a better day. I am entitled to no help. I have a partner, so I can manage. And I work part time, as I can use a computer okay.

With Universal Credit there will be big cuts to anyone who gets tax credits.

But it was absolutely explicit and obvious that this was what they were going to do

I don't agree

and I speak as someone who definitely did not vote for them!! they are cunts

A very very tiny % of the population might decide who to vote for on policies around renewable energy, and many Conservative and Labour voters might well think the Green Party's stance on this issue is right, but don't care about renewable energy enough to overlook other issues they think the Conservatives or Labour have got right and Greens wrong. It's few people's priority. It's not a 'big political issue'.

If you are recieving disability benefit, it could well be you think this is the key issue over which you'll decide which party to vote for. If both main parties had exactly the same policy, then you might start looking at other issues (like energy policy!), but this is what's going to make your mind up.

At the last election, many in the Labour party mistook people being loud and vocal about some issues as a sign that those issues were the ones they would use to decide who to vote for. Labour had those issues better covered, so believed people would vote for them. The reality was that while many people don't like the way cuts are falling, they don't hate them enough to overlook 'more important' issues.

It really is a tiny % of the population who recieve disability benefit. Most vote Labour already. It won't swing votes. Hand on heart, it won't be the issues I make my mind up on. (And I haven't voted for the same party twice on the run in my couple of decades of voting, so I'm a proper 'swing voter' to be won)

You know when people say they don't consider disability benefits and services when voting, it just comes across as "fuck the disabled".

Tory 'til I die.

Labour cannot be trusted with otherpeople's taxpayers' money.

Scarriff

My babysitter' husband has never had a job. Bad back. Lifelong benefits. Drives a motorbike. His wife works part time as a dinner lady and cant take more hours as they would lose their council tax benefit. She does cash in hand jobs like cleaning and babysitting and her husband a bit of decorating Their 20 year old daughter has two little children and has been evicted by her parents from their four bedroomed home on advice. She now lives in a rather nice apartment a few streets away and her mother sees her every day. Obviously she isnt thinking of getting a job . Should the father have had his benefits removed a long time ago? You betcha. Otherwise they are all lovely honest people whom you could leave your handbag with in confidence.

This is your babysitter???!!

You wouldn't leave your handbag with them but you would leave your children. Nice.

She doesn't need to work extra hours legally because idiots like you are happy to fund her lifestyle by giving her cash in hand. This is not the fault of people who legitimately need disability benefits. This is the fault of people like you.

Cleaty - that might be what it feels like to you, but you could say that about any issue. There will be people better off under the Conservatives or LibDems than Labour. I'm sure by voting Labour you aren't trying to 'hurt' those people, just that you are prioritising what's best for you and your family.

Your post is exactly the OP's point, DinosaursRoar.

She's asking why you have decided that looking after the most vulnerable in society isn't something you are interested in.

And you've answered, IIUC, that you're not disabled (to the point of needing disability benefits) and your family aren't disabled, so why would you care?

The government target for getting people off DLA/PIP involves cutting benefits to over 19% of claimants that, by the DWP's own fraud figures, they accept are genuinely disabled and in genuine need.

Again, for those who keep banging on about fraudsters.

You have been royally suckered in by the Government and media.