DWP back their sanctions with make believe

[obiter dictum]

FOI Request just been sent through WhatDoTheyKnow

[Conniff]

I feel a FOI request is in order

 

 

Then do it and not just bleat about it.

[obiter dictum]

I refer to my previous response

[tfp]

Good lad / lass!

[Conniff]

I still don't see any alternatives to anything being proposed by anyone. That makes this whole thread a complete waste of time.

[tfp]

I still don't see any alternatives to anything being proposed by anyone. That makes this whole thread a complete waste of time.

 

Alternatives to what? Not lying. Okay, then don't lie.

 

You seem to be deliberately missing the point.

[obiter dictum]

The point is that the Government axed Connections to save 200 million a year.

Connections have a proven record for many years of getting school leavers into accredited work experience

 

They handed that over to "Approved "contractors such as A4E and Igneus

 

Now i will find out how much these private contractors are being paid and is that budget above 200 million

 

Are these approved contractor value for the tax payer, or like G4S, a drain on the public purse with commercial contracts for Camerons corporate chums and political donors

 

Can people not see the link between record unemployment in the 18-25 age and the axing of Connections since 2012??

[citizenB]

I have to agree with connif. There are lots of moan, grumbles, whinges about how "wrong" everything is, how "terrible" this government is.

 

But no one has come up with any workable suggestions - dumping the Tories, wont actually solve the problem !

 

Do you honestly believe that Labour wouldn't have done something similar if they had the purse strings ?

 

Did no one notice the way Gordon Brown chucked money at people just before he beggared Labour's chances ?

 

That money was simply wasted because no long term plans were in place for the projects that were supposed to be funded ?

 

No end of employment created (not real jobs) in local government and other government sponsored projects, again not sustainable and they would have lost those jobs whether GB or the coalition were the ones pulling the firing pin.

 

How much better that it wasn't Labour that did it!

 

Sadly the problems faced by any government in power in the UK face no end of problems with too many groups with their hands out. You can only do so much with the money coming in.

 

I hear that some people think that the "wealthy" should not receive the child benefits -

1: who decides that level of wealth

2: If you do this, then those who should receive it would need to be means tested. Imagine the grumbles if that were to happen.

 

 

IMHO, Family allowance (as that is what I remember it being called) should be for the first child only. If anyone wants more children after that, then they should be able to finance that.

 

I do not see why there should be working tax credits and funding for childcare, unless both parents (or one parent) is working and isn't paid a respectable salary. Again, who decides what a respectable salary is ?

 

It has been suggested that Mothers who want to stay at home and look after their children until they are of school age, should be paid. Erm, why ? Is that the reason someone has a child nowadays, for an income ? - Although at the same time, if tax credits and child care fees ARE going to continue being paid, perhaps they should be paid to the Mother to stay at home rather than having a stranger look after the youngsters.

 

Why shouldn't David Cameron have had the benefits for his disabled child ? Unless of course you are going to means test them - can you imagine the grumbling that would create ?

 

Did anyone moan about David Blunkett receiving allowances for his blindness ?

[tfp]

Missing the point yet again.

[sadone]

Yeah, sadly they are, but it does show me one thing and that is how many people on here are swallowing the Tory propaganda.

[citizenB]

Missing the point yet again.

 

Yeah, sadly they are, but it does show me one thing and that is how many people on here are swallowing the Tory propaganda.

 

Ok, so tell me where I am

 

A - Missing the point and

B - swallowing Tory propaganda ?

[sadone]

By what you wrote in your last post.

 

But anyway, this thread is now in the discussion thread and thats my cue to leave it well alone.

 

Have fun......

[citizenB]

By what you wrote in your last post.

 

But anyway, this thread is now in the discussion thread and thats my cue to leave it well alone.

 

Have fun......

 

And this is exactly what has been pointed out by others - you don't like what is being said or say that it is wrong, yet fail to point out how my point of view is wrong ?

 

It is actually very immature to shut down a discussion with the attitude you have taken and why is it a cue for you to back out now that the thread has been moved to a different forum ?

[estellyn]

I agree that this government is awful, but I also agree that labour would have been almost as bad.

 

As to changes that could be made, I have some ideas, but the problem is that many will disagree.

 

1) voting should be mandatory, if you want to abstain, you should have to physically complete a ballot card and spoil it with 'I abstain'.

2) first past the post is a stupid system. I hate ukip, but it isn't fair that they got something like 22% of votes and only one mp. in a democracy the elected representatives should be representative of the views of the people.

3) get rid of the whip system - an mp should be voting to represent their voters, and not the views of the party.

4) in order to be an mp, a person should first have done 1000 hours of community service in the constituency they represent. this service should be with the poor and needy of their community.

5) in order to be a minister, a person must have done 300 hours service in an appropriate field - for instance work and pensions candidate might be on the frontlines dealing with benefits.

6) lobbying is banned

 

That'll do for starters

[obiter dictum]

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

 

 

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

 

 

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go

[antone]

Few points. First off, regarding the Work Programme: I do not see why the onus is on those of us opposed to handing £5 billion in public money to private sector companies to do nothing of any appreciable value to justify ourselves. I mean, consider the history of the WP. It replaced the Labour government's "Flexible New Deal", which the Tories correctly identified as a dismal failure. So what did they do? Well, they handed even larger sums of money to the same private companies to do fundamentally the same nothing. I mean, that's not just bad policy, it's pretty much the definition of "boondoggle".

 

Second, saying "Labour would have been worse" is probably true but entirely irrelevant. The fact that we live in an avaricious society that has forgotten the very reason why we introduced benefit payments for the sick, elderly, and victims of a cyclical economy is beyond dispute, IMO, and it is this fact (and not the party politics of whichever bunch of Oxbridge marketing gurus happen to be driving the clown car at the moment) that is at the heart of the problem.

 

Consider the following, very obvious fact: unemployment follows economic cycles. The best way, the only way, to deal with unemployment is to make sure that the unemployed don't starve and let them find jobs when things improve. The alternative is the absurd theory that unemployment is caused by the unemployed themselves. This theory holds, roughly speaking, that our generous welfare systems encourages laziness, and that the amount of laziness in the general population exactly tracks the cycles of the economy - as the economy improves, all those lazy unemployed people suddenly become less lazy and go and get jobs. The mental effort required to believe nonsense like this is astounding, given that it contadicts economic theory, common sense and observable reality. But people do believe it.

 

Now if we truly wanted to cut the welfare budget because it was necessary, we'd attack the only two line items in that budget which could actually make any difference: pensions and housing benefits paid to priavte landlords. The last couple of governments have regarded these things as pretty much untouchable, and with good reason. Pensioners will happily vote to impose austerity on others, but they don't, as we say in Scotland, like it up them. And private landlords are generally quite pally with the Tories and their ideologically indistinguishable colleages in the Labour Party, and they, not the claimants, are the primary beneficiaries of this particular form of government largesse.

 

So here we are, with a government apparently prepared to fabricate evidence in order to defend the indefensible. Why is that? Why do successive governments pull such stunts? The answer is obvious - they know perfectly well there will be no consequences. So cheerlead for the destruction of the social support network all you want, that's your right as a citizen of something resembling a democracy. But please, please, be honest: you don't support this vandalism because it's an unfortunate necessary, you support it because you want to.

[Conniff]

By what you wrote in your last post.

 

But anyway, this thread is now in the discussion thread and thats my cue to leave it well alone.

 

Have fun......

 

 

I hate people that just walk away when they get called because they have nothing to respond with.

[sadone]

Look sweetie, for your information I'm a chronic pelvic pain sufferer and the last thing I'm gonna want to do is spend hours trying to change your ignorance of the world around and end up arguing with the likes of you.

 

As I've said before go and use Google. All the info's there, but I'm not going to spoon feed it to you. Also read Antones post. It says it all.

 

Okay?

[obiter dictum]

The simple fact is British Politics is now dead to the public

 

"Spin" or "Lies" has now taken its toll with half the population believing such garbage. Be that Social Security or immigration Rhetoric

 

We have now gone the way of gleaming white teeth American spin doctors and lobbyists. The thing being is that the British electorate reject that style and rightly so, even if our elected representatives embrace it. Government controlled by Media, Money and Big Business

 

Look at America now since Lincolns famous address:

 

government of the People, by the People, for the People

 

His speech symolises the definition of democracy in any nation, how hollow those words have now become

 

 

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." JFK

[Guest]

..

 

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." JFK

 

 

'revolution! dont talk to me about revolution. the people that read the books go to the people that dont read the books, the poor people, and say ho ho its time for a change..so the people that dont read the books make the change, whilst the people that read the books sit around their big polished tables and eat and eat and drink...but what has happened to the poor people? they're dead! thats your revolution.'

[obiter dictum]

i READ BOOKS

 

And i have lost count the amount of demonstrations i have been on

 

And we are not dead and can force political change

 

I was at Trafalgar Square in 1990

 

Look at the Greenham Common Women as well

[Guest]

was just in metaphoric light re a popular film, cldnt resist the 'revolution' though it may still be relevant in some parts.

[obiter dictum]

English please

 

Not Bastardised American english

[Guest]

English please

 

Not Bastardised American english

 

there you go.

i dont read the books

[citizenB]

Few points. First off, regarding the Work Programme: I do not see why the onus is on those of us opposed to handing £5 billion in public money to private sector companies to do nothing of any appreciable value to justify ourselves. I mean, consider the history of the WP. It replaced the Labour government's "Flexible New Deal", which the Tories correctly identified as a dismal failure. So what did they do? Well, they handed even larger sums of money to the same private companies to do fundamentally the same nothing. I mean, that's not just bad policy, it's pretty much the definition of "boondoggle".

 

Second, saying "Labour would have been worse" is probably true but entirely irrelevant. The fact that we live in an avaricious society that has forgotten the very reason why we introduced benefit payments for the sick, elderly, and victims of a cyclical economy is beyond dispute, IMO, and it is this fact (and not the party politics of whichever bunch of Oxbridge marketing gurus happen to be driving the clown car at the moment) that is at the heart of the problem.

 

Consider the following, very obvious fact: unemployment follows economic cycles. The best way, the only way, to deal with unemployment is to make sure that the unemployed don't starve and let them find jobs when things improve. The alternative is the absurd theory that unemployment is caused by the unemployed themselves. This theory holds, roughly speaking, that our generous welfare systems encourages laziness, and that the amount of laziness in the general population exactly tracks the cycles of the economy - as the economy improves, all those lazy unemployed people suddenly become less lazy and go and get jobs. The mental effort required to believe nonsense like this is astounding, given that it contadicts economic theory, common sense and observable reality. But people do believe it.

 

Now if we truly wanted to cut the welfare budget because it was necessary, we'd attack the only two line items in that budget which could actually make any difference: pensions and housing benefits paid to priavte landlords. The last couple of governments have regarded these things as pretty much untouchable, and with good reason. Pensioners will happily vote to impose austerity on others, but they don't, as we say in Scotland, like it up them. And private landlords are generally quite pally with the Tories and their ideologically indistinguishable colleages in the Labour Party, and they, not the claimants, are the primary beneficiaries of this particular form of government largesse.

 

So here we are, with a government apparently prepared to fabricate evidence in order to defend the indefensible. Why is that? Why do successive governments pull such stunts? The answer is obvious - they know perfectly well there will be no consequences. So cheerlead for the destruction of the social support network all you want, that's your right as a citizen of something resembling a democracy. But please, please, be honest: you don't support this vandalism because it's an unfortunate necessary, you support it because you want to.

 

I understand the 2nd issue regarding giving housing benefits to Private Landlords.

 

However, I don't understand the reference to pensions and Pensioners ?

 

Most people approaching pensionable age today will have already experienced austerity - as well as incredibly high interest rates for their mortgages (not all of us benefited from having savings topped up by those same interest rates).

 

At the same time, they are having to sell their homes to pay for care when they are too old/infirm to help themselves ?