Milliband Acknowledges there is such a thing as the Deserving Poor....

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Surprising to see that Labour finally agree with the other parties that their 'something for nothing' culture of the last 13 years has been a mistake. Even more surprising is Milliband's acknowledgement that some people are more deserving than others. He will say in his speech today '"Do we treat the person who contributes to their community the same as the person who doesn't? My answer is no. Our first duty should be to help the person who shows responsibility." Link

Some logic at last ... but will they actually act upon it or just chat?

Unless I've misunderstood, it sounds like another way to make disabled people and those that cannot work for genuine reasons be even more victimised.

what cheeseandgherkins said .

Cheese - are you suggesting that disabled people must necessarily be irresponsible and reluctant to contribute to communities?

I dont see it as an attack on disbaled people, but instead interpret it as those people who are happy to go rioting in London will be treated differently to the person who does his/her duty to be law abiding citizens. Punish the criminals and praise the law abiding .... nice and simple.

Besides which, it is really only talk anyway.

I don't think they are talking about disabled people, but about thugs and idle buggers. And there was a fair bit in there about the fat cats too, at least that's my interpretation.

However, if policies like that are going to come, then they need to make sure people with disabilities don't get caught in the crossfire! So, for example, the bit where they talk about people who are active in the community jumping housing waiting lists - needs to be very clear on what the policy is for someone who has a disability that prohibits them from being active in the community. etc etc

I thought deserving poor meant that those that needed help got help, and that those who choose not to contribute are treated differently.

A disabled person who needed financial assistance would come under those who should be helped surely?

OTheHugeRaveningWolef even the way you worded that question sounded wrong to me. Being unable to contribute does not make someone irresponsible or reluctant, pretty harsh assumption.

If there are "deserving poor", then logically there must also be an "undeserving poor". Regardless of how this is defined, this gives a pool of people who are being set up for victimisation.

Victim-blaming is usually associated with the Tories. This is a reminder at Labour does it too.

Precisely Meditrina. If it was David Cameron saying '"Do we treat the person who contributes to their community the same as the person who doesn't? My answer is no. Our first duty should be to help the person who shows responsibility" there would be howls of derision.

People that refuse to make themselves employable should be treated like the scum that they are.

My point wasn't that this is my assumption, Cheese - rather that Ed Milipede says 'we should treat people who are responsible and contributing more generously than those who aren't' or words to that effect, and you said 'so is this a way of attacking disabled people?'.

It seemed to me that if you're concluding that 'responsible and contributing' is meant to exclude disabled people, then you're assuming that disabled people aren't responsible or contributing - or at least assuming that this is what Milipede is implying. So I questioned it. It's certainly not my view.

The fact is though that there are people who are poor and need/deserve help, but there are also those who milk the system whilst contributing little or nothing in return and they ought to be looked at and sorted somehow. But that is a huge can of worms.....

Oh I understood both cheese and OTH ? both voicing the same fear about the underlying assumptions to Milliband's burble.

One persons lazy bugger is another persons severely mentally ill.

How do we tell the difference effectively?

If the ESA assesments are anything to go by then we can't. This will just lead to more vulnerable people without a secure roof over thir heads.

And yes, I'm pretty sure it will end up being another attack on the disabled.

Typically, various disability benefits are used as gateways to broader disability services/adjustments (eg I can get a railcard by showing my mobility DLA letter).

These benefits are being cut to save money.

Not by reducing the level of payout, but by reducing the number of people able to receive them, with lots of rhetoric about "targeting money where it's needed most."

The effect of this is that moderately disabled people will find themselves no longer designated disabled, and thus targeted by the sanctions aimed at 100% fit people.

I'm going to be in this bind next year, if the legislation to make contributory IB/ESA one-year-only is passed. I will then receive £0 IB/ESA ? so rather obviously I won't bother going through the hideously unpleasant, invasive and draining form-filling and medical and "capacity to work" interviews by nurses and unqualified JobCentre staff. I also hope not to need DLA much longer.

At this point I will drop off the radar as disabled, and some statistician in the DWP will be scratching her pointy little head as to why I don't just go out and get a Job. Lazy fucker that I am.

Sorry, should have added, "And lots more rhetoric about fraud."

(As we've rehearsed many times here, fraud levels aren't particularly high on sickness benefits ? but it's an excellent distraction from announcing you're cutting support for the most vulnerable people in the country.)

We should be very kind to the deserving poor.

Very kind.

And that's before we get onto what "contributing their community means".

I might think campaigning against privatisation of NHS services (say) is a rather large contribution to my community. Or for just treatment for asylum seekers.

Don't see Cameron or Milliband agreeing.

How could this ever become policy? What would the wording of the criteria be?

Nah - it's nonsense - just sound-biting/misreporting, whatever.

Imagine if something like this was brought in, what a lot of power it would give the the people working in housing offices to exercise their prejudices ahem, discretion.

People who choose not to work and have a bunch of children when they have no way to support them should be put to the back of the housing list and slapped with a cod.

I have been a life long Labour supporter, and after the disappointment of Blair and the Iraq war and Gordon Brown who is an academic but not capable of leading the party, I was glad to see Ed Milliband elected. However I am appalled at some of the things he has been saying e.g. agreeing that Margaret Thatcher got some things right "like the right to buy your council house" - he did not add that this policy would have been all right if the money had been ploughed back into building more social housing, so can only assume he agrees with Thatcher's policy.

He has also said that social housing will not be allocated on the basis of need but on the behaviour of the applicants. How exactly is he defining behaviour .............if he doesn't realise that behaviour is the product of experience then god help him. He talks of the people with jobs being at the front of the queue for social housing and the jobless at the back of the queue. So if you are one of the thousands of people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own in recent times, and can't get another one because there aren't any jobs available, they will be at the back of the queue.

So we are back to the deserving and the undeserving poor.

Disgusting stuff from a Labour leader. As far as I am concerned the Labour Party died in 1994 when John Smith died. He was the last real socialist. The Labour party will not win another election with Ed Milliband at the helm. They got the wrong brother I fear.