Brown to continue with radical welfare reform, privatisations

[treelover]

According to online sources Brown will implement the recommendations in the Freud Review and continue the benefits cuts and harrassment that claimants face almost continually.


'Anyone expecting Gordon Brown to steer New Labour a little more to the left - once the arch-Thatcherite Tony Blair leaves No. 10 - will be sorely disappointed.

According to the Work and Pensions Secretary, John Hutton, the incumbent PM will go ahead with plans to put private companies and voluntary groups in charge of getting people off sickness benefits and back to work.

In a leaked copy of a speech to be given in Birmingham, Hutton will say: "I know there are some who hope the coming political transition will mean the Government goes cool on the prospect of further radical welfare reform to benefit the hardest to help. They will be disappointed.”

The Government is also pondering whether or not to allow private firms and the voluntary sector to run the ‘Pathways To Work’ scheme which offers incapacity benefit claimants help and advice on getting a job.

Not surprisingly, New Labour’s few remaining left-wing MPs aren’t happy. Nottingham South’s Alan Simpson says: “Simply shoveling public services into private pockets will not deliver any improvements to the public. Sooner or later, ministers will have to face the reality that they cannot run the welfare system like a car boot sale.”

http://www.kerching.tv/2007/06/gordo..._war_on_b.html

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

link don't work

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I wouldn't worry too much about what Hutton says, i've heard it widely predicted that him and Murphy will be replaced. That doesn't mean that aspects of welfare reform already in motion won't continue, of course.

 

[_angel_]

It's going to get worse under Brown, not better. I don't think Blair genuinely has a clue about a lot of 'his' so called policies.

Browns the one with the evangelical belief in Work At All Cost. Blair just went along with it to be popular and look 'tough'.

 

[Fruitloop]

Well knock me down with a feather, what an unsurprise.

 

[audiotech]

I'm alway's suspicious of "leaks"?

Why now and whose interest is it serving?

 

[The Black Hand]

Business as usual...

 

[Fullyplumped]

I've heard it widely predicted that him and Murphy will be replaced.

Oooh, where from?

 

[warren]

It's going to get worse under Brown, not better. I don't think Blair genuinely has a clue about a lot of 'his' so called policies.

Browns the one with the evangelical belief in Work At All Cost. Blair just went along with it to be popular and look 'tough'.

What do you mean by the term 'Work at all cost'?

 

[Fullyplumped]

What do you mean by the term 'Work at all cost'?

That's a bit extreme, but Gordon Brown wants to see the recommendations in the Freud Report implemented to achieve a working-age employment rate of 80% - it is currently 74.5%.

Read the Executive Summary and the Appendix 2, "Overview of selected countries’ welfare systems" to get a feel for how this might be achieved.

 

[The Black Hand]

That's a bit extreme, but Gordon Brown wants to see the recommendations in the Freud Report implemented to achieve a working-age employment rate of 80% - it is currently 74.5%.

Read the Executive Summary and the Appendix 2, "Overview of selected countries’ welfare systems" to get a feel for how this might be achieved.

FUllybullshitting for New Labour are you? That 80% target is higher than anywhere else in the world isn't it. Their proposals are pure capitalist oppression of the working class disabled and must be resisted and sabotaged...

 

[Fullyplumped]

FUllybullshitting for New Labour are you? That 80% target is higher than anywhere else in the world isn't it. Their proposals are pure capitalist oppression of the working class disabled and must be resisted and sabotaged...

Just read the Freud Report and conclude what you see fit. It is higher than any economy other than Iceland.

 

[The Black Hand]

Just read the Freud Report you fat freak and conclude what you see fit. It is higher than any economy other than Iceland.

If you want to read the city banker/wanker Freud report you do it. I certainly am not interested in their shite. It has nothing to do with the welfare of disabled people - except to make their lives harder. The only thing to do is resist and destroy

 

[warren]

FUllybullshitting for New Labour are you? That 80% target is higher than anywhere else in the world isn't it. Their proposals are pure capitalist oppression of the working class disabled and must be resisted and sabotaged...

I have not read the report yet. But how is helping getting the unemployed into work 'capitalist oppression'.

Why would anyone including disabled people would rather claim benefits than contribute to society?

There are campaigns all over the tube of people with down syndrome who would like to work but cannot get jobs because of discrimination.

 

[The Black Hand]

I have not read the report yet. But how is helping getting the unemployed into work 'capitalist oppression'.

Why would anyone including disabled people would rather claim benefits than contribute to society?

There are campaigns all over the tube of people with down syndrome who would like to work but cannot get jobs because of discrimination.

They want to cut benefits and get people who are to ill to work, to work, on the pain of having benefits cut if they do not. That is what they are doing. Now.

Does that make it clear? it should.

 

[warren]

They want to cut benefits and get people who are to ill to work, to work, on the pain of having benefits cut if they do not. That is what they are doing. Now.

Does that make it clear? it should.

Hold on a sec. Firstly there are many people who claim IB who could work. I personally know of two people who have been signed off work for years with depression etc who could work and often do odd jobs while still claiming incapacity benefit.

Nearly anyone can go to the doctor and get signed off sick with depression. Why should the disabled or those who pay taxes be hampered by fraudulant claims.

IB should be given to those who really need it.

 

[The Black Hand]

Hold on a sec. Firstly there are many people who claim IB who could work. I personally know of two people who have been signed off work for years with depression etc who could work and often do odd jobs while still claiming incapacity benefit.

Nearly anyone can go to the doctor and get signed off sick with depression. Why should the disabled or those who pay taxes be hampered by fraudulant claims.

IB should be given to those who really need it.

Big deal - you know 2 out of 2.7 million. Yes, that's MILLION. That is not any evidence to have policy upon.

What you say about depression simply isn't true. btw you are being stupid if you think you can eliminate so called 'fraudulent claims' (statistically irrelevant). Any system there is will have them - have you noticed that crime has gone up and up and the number of laws gone up and up! There is a correlation you know. The law does not prevent crime - the police do not stop crime. Simple as.

 

[Fullyplumped]

If you want to read the city banker/wanker Freud report you do it. I certainly am not interested in their shite.

Just say no to all that fancy book-learnin'!

 

[The Black Hand]

Just say no to all that fancy book-learnin'!

You're talking to a doctor you know

 

[treelover]

God, your're a wanker F/Plumped, so matter of fact, this will mean even more harassment, benefit cuts for many many vulnerable people, many who simply can't work and are saying on bulletin boards, they will 'top themselves when these new rules come in', the benefits system is too harsh already. I often wonder what you wouldn't fucking defend, where your bottom line is. NL and fellow travellers like you are obsessed with punishing the poor, shame they don't approach the tax dodgers in the same way!

 

[Prince Rhyus]

FUllybullshitting for New Labour are you? That 80% target is higher than anywhere else in the world isn't it. Their proposals are pure capitalist oppression of the working class disabled and must be resisted and sabotaged...

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mphg/mphg.htm#Scene 3

WOMAN: "Oh there you go, bringing class into it again."

For me there are a couple of aspects I would like to bring up.
1) The bad press the wealthy are getting on tax avoidance is going to force Parliament's hand if a poll-tax style riot doesn't get there first.
2) I think paying tax should be seen as a civic duty and the wealthy who avoid paying taxes should be named and shamed for doing so.
3) Inequalities of wealth are not healthy for society. If people see the unfairness - which they will inevitably do, and as climate change makes things harder, they will want something done about it. Some will turn to crime. Others through the political process. The former will require more oppressive policing. The latter a change of policy. However, for that to happen, not dealing with the super-rich has to be seen to be a vote-loser.
4) I don't think it is wrong to target those who are claiming benefits fraudulently. If they are claiming something that they are not entitled to then I as a tax payer have a problem with that because such people are getting hold of money that could be better spent in other areas.
5) Better treatments for conditions such as depression (for which I've suffered from for over a decade) need to be made much more available. It's not fun to be depressed (Well obviously) and both the individual and society are losing out when people withdraw from it. By that I don't mean "get a job and pay taxes", it is the more simple things like meeting up with friends for a kickabout in the park or going along to a summer street festival.

 

[Fullyplumped]

God, your're a wanker F/Plumped, so matter of fact, this will mean even more harassment, benefit cuts for many many vulnerable people, many who simply can't work and are saying on bulletin boards, they will 'top themselves when these new rules come in', the benefits system is too harsh already. I often wonder what you wouldn't fucking defend, where your bottom line is. NL and fellow travellers like you are obsessed with punishing the poor, shame they don't approach the tax dodgers in the same way!

Bloomin' 'eck! All I said was read the book! I wonder how you'd react if I was to give an actual opinion!

 

[nino_savatte]

Is it just me or does anyone else get worried when the word "reform" is mentioned? I think the word has become more of a euphemism for "privatisation" that owt else.

I never expected anything less from Brown.

 

[Genghis Cohen]

have you noticed that crime has gone up

No.

 

[Luther Blissett]

Single-mum friend had interview at Job Centre - she was asked if her 12 year old child would mind being left alone whilst she worked for a few hours a day to 'lift her out of severe poverty'.

When she asked about child-care for a 12 year old throughout the summer holidays, and other shorter holidays, she was told there was a place 1 hours bus journey away (that would be 4 hours travelling in total for her) in another town, other than that, there was no child care. This option would realistically mean she had around 3-4 hours a day free to work.

Another option would be a paidchildminder, which would cost the Govt. a little under 3 times more in weekly childcare benefit (around £150 a week) than the £58 a week she receives from IS for looking after her own child. Then there are the various benefits awarded to working single-parents which she'd qualify for, which although reduce the number of single parents on IS, would cost more than her remaining on IS - despite the severe poverty of surviving on less than £7k pa and not working.

Is this what the Govt. had in mind? A single-parent abandoning her child before it's ready to be left alone in the house for work, and if anything goes wrong at home, then the she would risk losing her child? Or perhaps, paying 3 times more to a child-carer so that she could work 2-3 hours a day? How does this make economic sense to the Govt.?

Wouldn't it make MORE sense to ensure that each family has a full entitlement to all school holidays (paid) so THEY can look after their children themselves, and still receive a wage, whilst companies can make use of the pool of student temps that becomes available every summer - only if that were implemented, would the playing field be levelled for all.

Try as I may, I can't see the point in implementing a failed US system of 'workfare' in the UK - it doesn't work for the US, and so it's no good trying to get lone parents out to work when there is no childcare available, and it doesn't make economic sense when you look at the whole picture.

Britain is one of the worst places to be for a child, we have high rate of poverty for families with children, and lone-parent families have to be everything to their children, and often don't have a good network of family to rely on for free childcare. Unless Britain becomes more child-friendly, then our birthrate will continue to fall, and children will continue to live in severe poverty - what is required here is not to take on board the failed US welfare strategies, but to develop daring, modern, and forward thinking strategies, so that families can both work, and remain in charge of their children's well being for the short-time period that children need their parents. This makes better economic and social sense that implementing failed US strategies for labour and welfare.

 

[poster342002]

Is it just me or does anyone else get worried when the word "reform" is mentioned? I think the word has become more of a euphemism for "privatisation" that owt else.

It's also become an orwellian euphemism for "cutback", "destruction" and "crackdown". Often found coupled to "far-reaching review".

 

[treelover]

Yes, but the Freud Review was completed in twelve weeks, yes, twelve weeks! for 'reforms' that will affect literally millions of peoples lives, both claimants and workers, all conducted by a rather dubious banker, Matthew Freud who has history, eg Channel Tunnel debacle, etc,

Often found coupled to "far-reaching review".

 

[nino_savatte]

It's also become an orwellian euphemism for "cutback", "destruction" and "crackdown". Often found coupled to "far-reaching review".

The word "debate" has also taken on similar connotations. The phrase "Let's have a debate..." for me, tends to imply that any "debate" is likely to be one-sided and any decision, on whatever outcome, will have already been made by Brown and his managers.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Yes, but the Freud Review was completed in twelve weeks, yes, twelve weeks! for 'reforms' that will affect literally millions of peoples lives, both claimants and workers, all conducted by a rather dubious banker, Matthew Freud who has history, eg Channel Tunnel debacle, etc,

The point that the Freud review does not meet the criteria introduced by the Government in December 2006, in terms of the Disability Equality Duty and the need to involve disabled people from the outset and throughout such policy reviews, has been made.

Whether this makes any real difference or not, I'm not so sure but it does illustrate what slippery bastards they are.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The point that the Freud review does not meet the criteria introduced by the Government in December 2006, in terms of the Disability Equality Duty and the need to involve disabled people from the outset and throughout such policy reviews, has been made.

Whether this makes any real difference or not, I'm not so sure but it does illustrate what slippery bastards they are.

It doesn't and won't make any difference.

I'll repeat again something I said on another thread a few weeks ago: WE (the disabled) DON'T MATTER.