To Think the Tories Are STILL At War With The Disabled?

[JoffreyBaratheon]

As parent of a disabled child, this is what I'm preoccupied with, during a General Election...

Under Cameron and Osborne, and iDS - it was clear the tories were engaging in an all out war on the disabled. Cuts to benefits, and services and of course, the loathed and disgusting PIP replacing DLA...

But what has strong and stable (well, weak an unstable) Theresa May done to reverse the damage? Nothing, so far as I can see.

My son had DLA for life and by some miracle, managed to get PIP but will now have to re-apply in five years. If the tories have the cure for autism and it is going to be made available in 5 years - fair enough. But something tells me - they haven't. We were put through months of hell for that.

Other disabled people and their carers have far worse stories.

Now I might be stupid but I can't see what May has done to address the callous culture of PIP. She is still attacking the disabled. Or am I missing something and AIBU?

I think this should be enough to lose them the election. The fact they have attacked disabled people to the extent they have. Am I the only one not to be hoodwinked by this 'I'm only a vicar's daughter' BS? What she has done to the disabled is the least 'christian' thing I can think of and I want her held to account for it. Anyone else?

How would you deal with DLA and PIP then? Who would get it?

24 I disagree that you are kind and thoughtful as you seem jealous of disabled people who have a mobility car.
Do you not get that without a car they would probably be housebound?

Why anyone would begrudge a car to someone who is disabled is beyond me.

I think that 24hourtrainer would like to go back to the days when disabled people were given little blue cars that barely went over 30mph. You do realise that the scheme isn't handing over Lamborghinis for nothing don't you? And if you are a Conservative and believe in the free market, I don't understand why you don't agree with disabled people being able to top up the scheme using their own earnings in order to buy a better car

I'm saying that people on this thread who are living off the state use the word 'entitled' a lot, and that seems to be how they feel.

Yeah. God forbid disabled people should feel entitled to something they are, erm, entitled to

I doubt most tories have a problem with people being able to top up funding to get a better car - how did changing this save the government any money? Seems crazy and unnecessary.

I also agree, plenty of people are entitled to various things from the state, i do wonder where the compassion has gone.

This thread is heartbreaking.

I'm a privately educated teacher who owned my own home and was very comfortable. Until my ex husband became abusive and I had to flee with DS. I was homeless and penniless and left in 100k of debt that exH had taken out in my name.

After years of struggling, I was socially housed and began to build my life back up then suddenly became chronically ill. I'm now bedridden and cannot do anything for myself, cook, bathe, dress.

I've got another thread on here about my desperation. We are not entitled to any benefits and I scored zero on my Pip assessment, despite scoring 72 with the CAB. We are living on £300 a week and it's now a case of feeding DS and going without ourselves.

The system is screwed. Absolutely screwed. The lies on my report are bordering on fraudulent.

If you came to my house, I have a large TV, couple of game consoles, an expensive kitchenaid, mobile phones, two cars. The stuff was either gifted to us second hand or I paid for when I was earning a teacher salary. The cars were on finance for 5 years each and are paid off. Phones are contracted because I wasn't expecting to become disabled. TV is the only thing I was able to rescue from my previous marriage.

I'll have to sell my car. The other stuff, if we are desperate as it's starting to become I'll have to think about selling too which DS will be devastated about but there we go, I shouldn't be allowed these things if I am now disabled and not working. I should have to sell the things I worked very hard for to buy, because it's my fault I got ill and the systems that are in place to help people like me are deeply flawed.

I'll save you the effort -

I don't think any of the motobility cars that don't have a top up, would be suitable for ds. He and the equipment needed for him don't fit into a standard car.

Sillysausage123

I really, really don't care about your opinion.

I'm not jealous of mobility cars. Do I need to highlight relevant parts of my posts for you to understand my position?

cowgirlsareforever

I don't understand why you don't agree with disabled people being able to top up the scheme using their own earnings in order to buy a better car

If they have the money to do this, they shouldn't be receiving so much from the state. Not when others have less than a car. Ask someone sleeping rough what they think about someone else being housebound. It's the 'I'm alright in my state-subsidised car, Jack' feeling on these threads that's quite frustrating.

AwaywiththePixies27

I think the biggest shift I've seen in society as I've aged is the movement away from people understanding their civic duty and responsibilities to only knowing their rights and exactly what they're entitled to.

I frequently have to tell children that with rights (or entitlements) come responsibilities. I think that many of them could help a few posters on this thread.

Excellent post InTheBenefitTrap

We also couldn't manage with a standard car Spikeyball We are a one car family. We have two tall dc. DP is very tall and being an amputee he finds it impossible to get in and out of small cars. This is our first Motability car. It isn't flashy but it is so much more practical for DP.

Do you realise how expensive it is to be be disabled 24? PIP helps but it goes nowhere near the real cost.

CowGilrs

Yes. Very well.

I spent nearly £1,000 last month on some AAC equipment. On one hand the difference it will make is worth every penny but on the other, we seemed to get very little of any substance for the money. I think it's vital equipment that every child should get if their parents don't have the means to provide it themselves or every person if they're unable to fund it themselves. FWIW, I'm not a hypocrite and think that because we could afford to pay for this we did and were happy to, leaving money for others who would gain more from it. That's why I thought so badly of Cameron claiming DLA. Hypocrisy is a trait I'll never understand. It's for weak people.

Just because I haven't given personal details and talk objectively, doesn't mean I don't have any personal experience.

Mobility Pip isn't just for cars either. It's for wheelchairs too. I'm bedridden and wheelchair services can only provide a self propelled which I can't push because my condition has a huge impact on my arms. We've been told we have to self fund a wheelchair which I can't do as we have no money whatsoever. Pip would cover the monthly payments on electric wheelchair hire. As is stands, I'm facing a lifetime of being bound to my bed.

As much as I have complete sympathy for the homeless, I'm not sure why the situations are being compared as they are worlds apart.

It's not very nice being homeless. It's not very nice being on your back in a bed for months either, sinking deeper and deeper into misery and despair as the bills mount up and the bailiffs knock and the house gets into disrepair and your child starts to suffer.

How would you sort out who gets PIP/DLA? Who is too well off to get it?

See also the disaster area that is the supposed special needs reforms. Over £1.5 billion to achieve a system that is certainly operating worse than the previous one, largely because the Tories closed their eyes to the fact that the principal problem with the previous system was that councils were regularly breaking the law and there was very little by way of effective sanctions to prevent that.

Add to that the fact that many experienced council staff left because they didn't want to have to deal with the new system plus the serious effects of cuts in council budgets and we have a system that is a total mess. It is harder to get an EHCP than it was to get a statement, and LA officials are so badly trained that they have no idea what the law is - or else they very deliberately lie about their legal duties in order to save money that is badly needed for the support of disabled children. Those facts are regularly reported to the Department for Education, which regularly closes its eyes to them because it has to maintain the fiction that the system is working.

What they could have done was to put in place a system in which there was a realistic sanction or disincentive to councils for breaking the law and failing to comply with their legal duties. But that would have meant taxpayers having to pay out to ensure that disabled children fully reach their potential, and the Tories couldn't have that, could they?

We have also spent many thousands buying equipment which we cannot access easily via the NHS. I think what you have to appreciate 24 is that the dynamics of every family living with a disability is different. It alters due to factors such as who in the family is disabled and the extent to which they are prevented from contributing to the family's financial position. It is a complex and nuanced picture. We do our absolute best to bring up happy, healthy children. We both work very hard and very long hours and we pay tax. I have no doubts about claiming PIP because it helps us with increased costs such as taxis, health equipment, periods of lost income. Other people's stories will be different but still as difficult. We are in such a ridiculously entranced polar position now. The Tories want to kill off disabled people. Disabled people are scroungers. Things may improve when we have a more sophisticated and less emotive conversation.

I certainly don't have the intellect to work out the figures Spikey. If I did, I'd have tried to be in government.

I do think that when the government is trying to get the country out of debt with a struggling (but improving economy) and a rocky road ahead, the state should be providing basics, not luxuries. Private transport is a luxury. Non-means tested support is a luxury for some and the money not given to the better off could support the worse off.

As I said, I don't claim anything directly and would be embarrassed to.

IntheBenefitTrap

I mentioned the two situations because there isn't an endless supply of money. Everyone wants it but not everyone can get it. Lets do a thought experiment on a small scale.

I give you £10,000. It's enough to give Bob a wheelchair and an adapted car or enough to house Peter who is living on the streets. Who would you give it to? Peter could die. The wheel chair will make Bob's life much better. The car would be the icing on the cake and let him go and see his friends and get around. You can split the money if you'd like. Maybe £7,000 to home Peter but in sheltered accommodation as opposed to his own place and the £3,000 could get a wheelchair but not the car.

What would you do?

Oh, and remember, if you don't give everyone exactly what they want when your money doesn't cover everything, they'll say that you're killing them, you hate them, you want them to die, you're only benefitting your friends or, the best attack on me so far today "[I] have no interest in conversing with you, much like i dont go deliberately snelling a shit in real life."*

Cowgirls

Yes, it's incredibly difficult. There's no one size fits all but at the same time, it's impossible to treat absolutely every one individually and fairly. The best you can do is set nationwide assessments, levels, bounds etc.

Of course, if it was me or my DH who needed the AAC then it's likely we wouldn't be so financially fortunate and then maybe would have needed state help.

If you're happy with claiming PiP then its up to you. I have no idea as to your financial situation and I don't think personal situations and details help. Talking generally is much more beneficial and, like you said, less emotive.

Ceto

the Tories couldn't have that, could they?

No, because they all want to kill the disabled, don't you know? [bored]

*I assume they meant smelling, but I don't think English is his/her first language.

The problem with folk like trainer is they think they're really, really clever. They're not. They haven't thought things through, and whilst i suspect you can quote Hitchens, (who was absolutely right about MT) I doubt you've read him. You see, you too make fundamental mistakes. Corbyn being an idiot for a start. He isn't, but you haven't actually done the research on that. As for your other crap, disabled people driving nice cars whilst children go without necessary drugs. What tosh. Do you think the money would be diverted? Disabled people driving cars enables them to work, to go to university, to not be imprisoned. Or is that what would make life easier for you, not having to experience other people's disabilities? Hidden away, out of sight, out of mind etc.
As for the fact that you have it all, good for you. I did too, but it was a long time ago and the insurance didn't pay out.
The reality is just because you have it all, others don't. The reality is, if someone can save on benefits for a holiday, or for a slightly nicer car, they too are going without to get that, even if they're earning. The reality is that if they didn't have the car but were still entitled to mobility allowance, they'd still have that money coming in. You see, the mobility scheme works by taking your mobility allowance for the three years that you lease the car. Further to this, there are some folk who for various reasons are unable to use public transport. I couldn't, even when I was still managing to work. I can't use a taxi service either. Perhaps dd and I should stay indoors, always.
We had a few days break last week, dd really needed it. Three days. She doesn't know it, but that's me on soup and toast for a week now, and I've delayed a couple of bills. That's how it works. Not just for me, but for so many other people and you have the fucking cheek to go on about how much you have and how we shouldn't have enough to have a halfway decent standard of living. Well, if it's any consolation, many of us don't.

Your Peter and Bob fantasy is just that. You may like it to work like that, but it doesn't. It won't. The government are not diverting funds saved anywhere else. Had you done your research you would know that there is far more in the unclaimed benefits pot than in the fraud pot, for example. The monies are just sitting there waiting to be claimed, Peter isn't getting them, Bob isn't getting them. It's a possibility that Paul is getting some. That's not removing them from Peter or Bob. It's a complete nonsense. For heaven's sake, either do the research properly or stop peddling complete bollocks.

I really believe that in the context of disabilities, a universal benefit really is the fairest system. We can all talk about David Cameron claiming DLA for his sadly deceased DS, but in reality it is cheaper and fairer that people like Cameron are able to do that, rather than the alternative of trying to means test it.

I think I'm reasonably clever and have the paperwork to back it up.

"I doubt you've read him". Ignoring the pretentious phrasing, not only have I read him, I've seen him and then had the book signed by him before reading it / him. What's your point? I suspect he'd think you sound like an arse too.

You see, you too make fundamental mistakes. Corbyn being an idiot for a start. He isn't, but you haven't actually done the research on that.

See the images. They came from the same research paper showing that TM kills disabled people.

24 Why did the Tories refuse the freedom of information requests as to how many people died after being found fit for work?
Answer is they know they are killing people but don't want people to know the true figures

Silly do you know on what basis did they deny the request?

You must have an idea of how much is too much trainer? You can't just spout things about those on good incomes being wrong to claim without saying what you think a good income is.

I think the govt said they didn't have any figures as they didn't collate that information but then they were forced to release the i formation they said they didn't have