Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

campaign against welfare cuts and poverty

Yes, downwards or stable for the past 20 odd years. I'd love you to explain how I'm massaging figures.

Youve answered yourself there. How is it downward or stable when (a) its greater & (b) people are getting less?

Im sorry the facts dont give you the answers you want but they are the facts.

So you don't want to include pensions in this, why bring them up?

Shockingly I don't think it's right that pensions have dropped so much in real and relative terms, what do you propose as a solution to this?

Its not just pensions either. If everything was at peak levels, if people werent subject to devious sanctions, what percentage of gdp would we be at then?

Think about that, go work it out & then come back & tell me Im not right.

You ask what do I propose. Ive said earlier, on more than one occassion, I dont have the answers but what I do know is that when you peel back the lies, the fudges, the spin & 60 years of manipulation that you find a system built for a world that doesnt even exist today & that the right solution is to actually start thinking of an alternative thats better.

Is that really such a bad thing?

I dont like to think that cutting benefits, for everyone, by quite large margins, over periods where cost of living has risen, in a system that does cost more is really the acceptable solution that many on this thread seem to think it is.

Perhaps if people let go of sacred cows, quit repeating out dated mantras & started actually thinking for themselves, acknowledged problems & started looking for solutions we might become a forward thinking country again.
 
Youve answered yourself there. How is it downward or stable when (a) its greater & (b) people are getting less?

Im sorry the facts dont give you the answers you want but they are the facts.



Its not just pensions either. If everything was at peak levels, if people werent subject to devious sanctions, what percentage of gdp would we be at then?

Think about that, go work it out & then come back & tell me Im not right.

You ask what do I propose. Ive said earlier, on more than one occassion, I dont have the answers but what I do know is that when you peel back the lies, the fudges, the spin & 60 years of manipulation that you find a system built for a world that doesnt even exist today & that the right solution is to actually start thinking of an alternative thats better.

Is that really such a bad thing?

I dont like to think that cutting benefits, for everyone, by quite large margins, over periods where cost of living has risen, in a system that does cost more is really the acceptable solution that many on this thread seem to think it is.

Perhaps if people let go of sacred cows, quit repeating out dated mantras & started actually thinking for themselves, acknowledged problems & started looking for solutions we might become a forward thinking country again.

So you'll ignore my first point again - how does rising real terms spending provide any evidence of unsustainability, since it does not reference GDP at all?.

Yes, downwards - look at the GDP graph I posted and tell me that we don't spend less on welfare as % gdp than we did 20 years ago, that the 00s didn't average less than the 80s, (or 70s or 60s for that matter, but spending was rising during that time).
If people are getting less, how has spending increased? Or are you simply talking about pensions again?

I don't think that JSA sanctions will make that much of a difference tbh, even though there are hundreds of thousands each year, it'll be probably a few hundred millions of pounds in a budget of tens of billions..

The bit in bold really confuses me - I don't think anyone on this thread thinks benefits should be cut by large margins for anyone, let alone everyone, but you've suggested it should be talking about welfare being a poverty trap and claiming we are reaching the limits of spending and it's unsustainable.
 
The bit in bold really confuses me - I don't think anyone on this thread thinks benefits should be cut by large margins for anyone, let alone everyone, but you've suggested it should be talking about welfare being a poverty trap and claiming we are reaching the limits of spending and it's unsustainable.

Now read my very first post again. I contend that it is exactly what people are advocating, even though I doubt a single one is aware of it.

Imagine we actually had this discussion decades ago. Those pensioners, on 15% of average wage would have settled the discussion today because they are living proof of the real cuts made so we can pretend the systems not as broken as it really is.

The weird thing is though, if we had this discussion decades ago I probably would have posted what youve posted in this thread. I learned I was wrong though.

Did you do the research I suggested above?

I really recomend it. The results are startling & the lies around our welfare system are huge.
 
A bit confused by this thread. Is it a campaign against poverty or a campaign against welfare cuts? Long term the positions are direct opposites. As a welfare recipient I cant say Im thrilled by current legislation but to combat poverty one has to look at the causes of poverty rather than relying on the temporary bandaid of a bankrupt welfare system.

Yes I dont like the effects of these (& other) cuts, however Id rather campaign against poverty than for short term fixes that will merely create more poverty in the future.

Its about bigger pictures.

Whats needed is solutions to the Lib/Lab/Con created/supported failed poverty trap, rather than perpetuating it.
Its time to think new.

This was your first post. In it you say that benefits cause poverty in the long term.

but now you are saying that you don't think benefits should be cut. In fact you seem to be saying we should be raising benefits - even though in your opinion from your first post, this has the effect of causing poverty.

Now I agree that welfare system doesn't address the causes of poverty, but from your posts I doubt you are a socialist revolutionary seeking to encourage us to overthrow capitalism to implement an economic system which creates a fairer distribution of resources ensuring that there is no poverty..

so all I get is a confused muddle.. you shy away saying you don't know what the answer is but even the things you say about the current situation are confused and incorrect.

You've still not explained why rising real terms spending shows unsustainability when it makes no reference to GDP.. I won't bother speaking to you again if you don't even attempt to explain this tbh.
 
Welfare reforms will make child poverty targets "unnachievable"
http://birminghamagainstthecuts.wor...forms-make-child-poverty-target-unachievable/

This is the first article I'm going to write from the report by Birmingham orgs into welfare reforms I linked on the last page.. I was planning to do a single article but there is so much there that I'm going to do a few, one on universal credit, one on disability benefits and one on homelessness/housing.. possibly one on young people as well.
 
AHEM...
Former DWP medical boss makes WCA pledge to protesters
A former Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) medical director has pledged to speak out about the government’s “fitness for work” test if he finds it is “not proper”, after he was ambushed by campaigners at a conference.
Professor Sir Mansel Aylward had been delivering a keynote speech on the controversial issue of the different “models” used by professionals to explain disability, to the International Forum on Disability Management in central London.
The biennial forum brings together delegates from across the world to discuss how to “manage” disability in the workplace, with those attending including employers, senior figures in the insurance industry, and government and union officials.
Sir Mansel is closely associated with the biopsychosocial (BPS) model, which campaigners say puts much of the blame for disability on the disabled person, rather than the social model explanation, which says disability is created by the barriers of attitude and environment disabled people face.
A small group of protesters delivered a copy of a letter written to the Guardian newspaper – signed by 420 disabled people, including many leading activists – to Sir Mansel, outside the hall where he had given his speech.
The letter claims the BPS model is “nothing short of a creation of the insurance industry”, and is being used to deny disabled people the support they need through the benefits system.
It also criticises the Royal Society of Medicine (RSM) for organising the conference and lending “an aura of legitimacy” to the “pseudo-scientific approach” of the BPS model.
The protesters told Sir Mansel that the much-criticised work capability assessment (WCA) – used to test eligibility for out-of-work disability benefits, and introduced in 2008 – was based on the BPS model and had been heavily influenced by the insurance industry.
Sir Mansel admitted that the assessment was developed from the “all work test” he introduced himself in 1997 while at the DWP.
He surprised protesters by claiming that he could not comment on the WCA because he did “not know enough about it”, but pledged to “make myself aware based on what you have told me”.
He added: “I think I am a man of integrity. If I think the WCA is not proper I will speak out against it.”
Sir Mansel said he sympathised with the protesters, and himself now found the BPS model “unsatisfactory” and believed it “no longer addresses the real needs of disabled people and the exclusion of disabled people from society”.
He said the “social” element of the BPS model had been “neglected” and that he had a personal “distaste” for the medical model, which focuses on people’s impairments as the cause of their disability.
Don't hold your breath waiting on him finding the tests 'not fit and proper' as he's one of those involved right from the very begining in the attack on us.
 
http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=58C41516-C2D1-1FF1-8CC71B74C8444FB3

This is a key architect of the whole welfare reform project and the ideology of workfare , he worked closely with John Locascio of UNUM(see above) and of course is or was Emeritus professor of the Centre for Psychosocial and Disability Research, sponsored by UNUM. He is a former CMO of the DWP and create the infamous 'all works test'. He was the key figure in the seminal BBC Panorama Doc, 'Britain on the Sick' and along with Simon Wessely(possible ex Living Marxism) and Peter White, a central figure of the biopsychosocial (BPS) model and school.

Google 'margaret williams' she has written extensively about Alyward and the BPS model,

there is no other more significant figure in the recent history of welfare/benefits...

btw, Wesseley uses a similar tactic to Alyward, feigning a lack of interest/disillusionment in his own work/ideas, while really carrying it all on...
 
Scunners me that Wessley is married to Clare Gerada, head of the RCGPs who is fighting NHS privatisation. They really must leave work and ethics outside their front door when they get home.
 
Disability and Universal Credit download from CAB.
This briefing looks at four particular financial changes for disabled children, adults and their families, and considers how they will interact with the broader universal credit changes. Whilst three of the changes are cuts and one is an increase, not all the people affected by the specific losses and gains will lose or gain overall in the way that might be expected. This briefing will unpick some of that complexity.
Actual downoad pdf link

Just going to make a cuppa and have a read of this.
 
Guardian Letters
Our support for disabled people
Sunday 16 September 2012 21.00 BST
The letter (13 September) from John McArdle and Dr Stephen Carty of the Black Triangle Campaign attacked Unum's reputation. At Unum we are proud of the work we do to protect the income of and provide support to people with long-term illnesses or injuries that prevent them from working. The financial protection we offer continues until they either recover and are able to return to work, or until they reach retirement. We also offer rehabilitation support to those returning to work after a long-term illness. Unum is committed to improving the understanding of the factors that influence health, illness, recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration. That's why we took part in the International Forum on Disability Management at Imperial College London. We work hard to protect the incomes of more than 1.9 million people in the UK. We are proud to have paid out more than £5m a week in benefits to our customers last year.
Marco Forato
Chief marketing officer, Unum UK
 
Telegraph is reporting lowest support for benefits amongst the public for thirty years,(British Social Attitudes Survey) not surprised given the systematic campaign waged by the gov't and a supine media

On my local fora, someone who has lost everything in a house fire is being got at for not 'having insurance,'buying an Ipod, etc' the State has done its work well..

btw, that's a fantastic letter by the BTC, etc in the Guardian..
 
The thing is its self-reinforcing(is that the right term?) Govts and media create moral panic, then they 'open the debate' and its a very selective one, for instance on phone ins, most people are not bothered either way, but there are a number of people who are obsessed by 'benefit scroungers' 'fraudsters' etc, they are ones who get on the airways. You also have the constant fraud stories, local individual cases(leaked by the increasingly sinister DWP) and hyped up into national scandals in the media, then the cry goes out again, something should be done!, and it continues, in the U.S the demand is to stop food stamps, ffs...

btw, there are still large numbers of social policy courses, academics, researchers, in the UK, what are they teaching, have they been co-opted now?
 
Benefits - inflation link probably going to be axed although the Telegraph article on this story is playing down the possibility which is interesting though makes me think something worse is going to happen..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...too-complex-to-break-link-with-inflation.html

There were reports last night that benefits could be frozen to save billions of pounds in public spending.

The BBC reported that ministers are considering breaking the link between benefits levels and inflation, saving billions of pounds a year.

However sources close to Mr Iain Duncan Smith said no meetings had taken place to discuss such a radical change of policy.

They also warned that it would be extremely complex to try to freeze some of the scores of different unemployed, sickness and housing benefits and increase others.
 
A response to Professor Aylward's statement to Black Triangle and DPAC
outside the IFDM2012 conference, on 11th September 2012.

An excellent paper posted to BTs website. Sat down with a cuppa to read this and was almost applauding at the end

Page three has a good take on Atos involvement.

Atos, too, endorse concept of ‘secondary gains’ when assessing illness
This idea of the 'sick role' is mirrored in an Atos publication of 2004. [6] If any doubt remains about the way in which Atos regards those who are subjected to its formulaic tick box assessment process then this publication will dispel them. A side panel of the document authored by Dr Christopher Bass is entitled familiarly “Symptoms that defy explanation” and includes a helpful list of conditions that fall within this category, including
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Fibromyalgia
Chronic back pain
Repetitive Strain Injury
Non-cardiac chest pain

Dr Bass then proceeds to make much of this concept of 'secondary gains' that presumably accrue from claims to these particular types of ‘common’ illnesses, describing them thus:

"Work absence as a reward for years of struggle; turning a socially unacceptable disability into a more acceptable 'organic' disability caused by injury or disease beyond their control.
They can blame their failures on the illness; elicit care, sympathy and concern from family and friends; avoid work or even sex; and there are financial rewards associated with disability".

I don't think I've ever seen this defamatory notion expressed quite so blatantly towards the members of the sick and disabled community. But then again, this is Atos, who have proven themselves to be Teflon against all legitimate complaints that have been made against them.
I can’t help but wonder how many of these sufferers from ‘unexplained illnesses’ have spent their final months in desperate circumstances after being denied their benefits by Atos.
 
Back
Top Bottom