More nonsense from the tory toffs

[estellyn]

The only people who would be affected by this are people whose cause of their physical issues is the fact that they are obese. so it only applies to ESA, DLA and PIP.

 

They can't mandate anyone have surgery, or take medications, so that only leaves diet and lifestyle changes which are only 5% effective long term - about as effective as the work program.

 

It costs more money to eat healthily, something benefit claimants are not able to do.

 

It costs money to run programs for the claimants to follow.

 

How do you monitor compliance? In attending a program? In actually losing weight? If the latter, then how much is deemed acceptable and who makes that judgement? And imagine the pressure - if you don't lose x amount of lbs in x weeks then we sanction you? Or if it's only in attendance, then you're actually sanctioning people in a similar way to the work program - miss an appt and your benefit stops.

 

Who pays for the comprehensive testing to look for possible causes of obesity? And what causes would be exempt? Or would no causes be exempt? Just another excuse for sanctioning those that fail to attend mandated appts.

 

I don't know any obese person with health issues because of it, who wouldn't sell their soul to lose weight. If it were that easy, there wouldn't be lots of obesity in this country. The truth is that none of the current programs are particularly effective for long term sustainable weight loss. Obesity science is still a new area with developments happening constantly. Obesity is a complex issue, and unless the government is planning on on doing comprehensive testing, both genetic, and on the myriad endocrine pathways that have been discovered then this is simply another sanction opportunity and not a scheme to really help people.

 

There are plenty of people with other treatable/preventable issues claiming benefit that are not being targeted, but they don't raise the ire of the DM set.

[estellyn]

depression and anxiety will be next mark my words

 

I expect so.

[estellyn]

You only need to look at what has happened in Kansas to see how 'trickle down' doesn't work.

[estellyn]

Just for the record I didn't say I thought it did.

I have just told the labour party that before I vote for them they need to be a socialist party

 

I know, I wasn't saying you did. I was pointing out that if they had any sense they'd look at places like Kansas and realise that their economic ideology is flawed.

[estellyn]

All that has to happen to create a fairer society is for ANYONE who becomes an MP spends THREE months on basic unemployment money with NO OTHER FUNDS OR SAVINGS.... that way the government would soon realise that the 'life of Riley (whoever he was)' is not what is portrayed by the media.

 

By no other funds or savings it means that anyone who DOES give them a handout ends up having to live the same way for the next three months.

 

Interesting idea, but I would just have a requirement of 1000 hours of community service with the poor of the ward each candidate chooses to run in. Would solve a huge host of problems

[estellyn]

The only problem with the idea of Community Services is that they would all simply state that by being an MP they ARE providing a vital service to the community in general.

 

It is the levelling of the 'financial playing field' for a short period of time which would bring a large dose of reality to the political parties.

 

This three month period would be compulsory for each time the MP is re-elected...not just a basic one-off ... to remind them of what their constituents are going through.

 

They would have to do the 'paper trail' that everyone goes through (including delay after delay for no apparent reason) before the system becomes what it should be.

 

No the idea of having to do community service of some sort to the intended constituency prior to being eligible for a seat, is to ensure that anyone intending to represent that constituency has a good understanding of the worst issues facing the constituents. I've had enough of career politicians being 'parachuted' in to run for constituencies they have no detailed knowledge about. I'm also fed up of people who have led cushy lives and public and private schooling representing large numbers of people who they have no comprehension of the issues facing them.

 

We need to change 'politics' into governance, where instead of being a power game played mostly by the rich, it instead becomes a calling for those who truly want to represent their constituents (rather than lobbying groups, industry and others like themselves).

[estellyn]

the difficulty with some sort of "community service" is that the people who can afford to take 3 months off are the people who are rich already (the same people who are already over-represented in westminster)

 

well the idea wouldn't be that they take a few months off work, but they complete the service to the community part time over a year or two while resident - so that they build ties to the community that they will be representing.

[estellyn]

The problem is that without PR smaller parties have little chance without a high profile candidate or campaign in the particular ward - any secret multi-millionaires here willing to bankroll huge campaigns for each candidate?

 

For most people in this country, their vote means nothing - it's pretty useless.

[estellyn]

A stupid and rather patronising and paternalistic idea. In the US where similar food stamps have existed for some time now, these stamps are often sold for well below their market value. So $100 worth of food stamps could be sold for as little as $60 or even $50 for quick cash. A pre-payment card on paper should be more secure than printed stamps. However, considering the poor IT contracts successive governments have wasted money on, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Many hardened alcoholics and drug addicts will do almost anything to obtain cash to feed their habit. If you deny cash from one source, chances are they'll find it elsewhere.

 

 

Also, if introducing such a pre-pay card to curb alcohol, drug and gambling addictions, why not go the whole hog and introduce pre-pay cards nationwide in lieu of cash? This is precisely the thinking behind the likes of Titus Salt, the Lever Bros. and Cadbury family in creating their model villages, Saltaire, Port Sunlight and Bournville respectively. No alcohol was permitted so no pubs were built. In the case of Saltaire, workers were paid tokens to stop them spending their wages on booze and gambling in the next big town or village. Of course, these Victorian industrialists were acting on a religious moral code just as the odious Smith tries to convince us he's also doing. Except that these industrialists actually did give their workers a generally better standard of living. All Smith offers is a more punitive system and utter failure.

 

 

And surely this goes right against the grain of the Tories banging on about the 'nanny state'?

 

It's not about addictions, as those addicted are such a tiny proportion. It is about a moralistic crusade of judgement, where people getting 'government money' are not considered worthy enough to enjoy alcohol or nicotine. Soon other food products would be deemed off limits to those with the cards. Don't get me wrong, I'm very much anti smoking, but I don't believe that government should be allowed to dictate personal spending.

 

I'm so angry about this false moralism that is rampant in the Tories - which in reality is just an excuse to cut for the poorest and increase for the wealthy. sad when a guy who inherits his wealth and has never done a day of work in his life is considered 'worthier' than a guy of the same age, worked till now on minimum wage, who now finds himself unemployed.