If it's any consolation, plenty of people in the general public are pissed at the way doctors are treated too. Unfortunately we have a government that doesn't seem to give a shit about the general public either.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
If it's any consolation, plenty of people in the general public are pissed at the way doctors are treated too. Unfortunately we have a government that doesn't seem to give a shit about the general public either.
Nail. Head.
Having the media, including the BBC (having its charter status reviewed in December helps), in your pocket and barely questioning the governments' actions helps plenty as well.
Fernando Fernandez
Member
This so much. I'm really enjoying the brief break for Labour of them targeting Cameron though.
media has been ruthless on cameron's eu deal and the reaction to osborne's google tax deal has been so poor it has arguably killed his leadership ambitions.
Jezbollah
Member
Yep. Pretty much. Any kind of media bias is a very distant second to this.
Who in their right state of mind would put Emily Thornberry as their Shadow Secretary of State for Defence? Good lord.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
And who on earth would bring back the toxic Damien McBride as her press officer? That's two open goals at once.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
All bets are off when Diane Abbott is in the Shadow Cabinet
If you didn't realise that after all their attacks on the people on benefits. All the people that have died because their ESA or disability payment has been stopped or cut. All the people going to food banks because they can't afford to feed themselves and more. Then yeah....
The wording is weird or is it just me?
Not just you. Implies a deal has been made on Britain's exit from the EU. Brexit is an insanely stupid term, anyway.
CyclopsRock
Member
it's fairly difficult to ascribe deaths to government policies, partially because there's no counter factual (kinda like food banks actually) and partially because the people most likely to receive disability benefits are obviously also those most at risk of dying before old age. This is also the case with suicides, where people say "hey look, they tool his benefits away and then he killed himself", which obviously ignores all the other stuff going on in that person's life that lead them to that situation. Ultimately I think saying "look at all the dead people" is a pretty easy thing to throw out there because it chimes so easily with the "evil Tories" caricature but I think it's a lot harder to actually justify than say.
Reuters has seen the EU-UK accord, which sets the emergency brake on migrant benefits at seven years and is not extendable.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ndum-eu-summit-david-cameron-brexit-live.html
Cameron won everyone....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ndum-eu-summit-david-cameron-brexit-live.html
Cameron won everyone....
I know of people who have killed themselves over not being declared disabled enough to receive benefits. The Tories didn't give a shit about how ATOS destroyed many peoples lifes. They are accountable.
Looks like we'll be going to the polls in June then.
Yep. I will have to look into what the EU does for us before deciding.
I was very pro staying in the EU since I can remember, but I've shifted more towards the middle ground now. I will almost certainly vote to stay in as I believe we do have a net benefit from membership, but the whole thing needs massive reform else it will crumble. I can see why people would vote to leave and I would respect the outcome of the referendum either way.
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't really want to talk about specific people that you know who killed themselves for obvious reasons. But I think that Isabel Hardman put it very well on CoffeeHouse a few years back:
And she quotes guidance from The Samaritans:
This is almost exactly how I feel. Plus you can add in that I feel very similarly about it as I do about the Scottish referendum - that I think that we'll basically be fine with either option and that we're capable of doing well both within the EU and outside it, so any doom-and-gloom arguments on either side don't wash much with me. It's not that I don't care or that I think it doesn't matter, I just think that both options are plausible and I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about which we end up going for.
I still believe they are some what accountable. Yes of course suicide is more complex then one thing being blamed for it. But I see the way many have and are being treated as a tipping point. Having been on benefits and gone through 9 Atos medicals (having to appeal all but one). I know how much the treatment by them can effect you. Sorry I can't agree with you.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'm certainly not saying that their policies haven't had tragic results. It can have a huge impact on people's lives and causes of suicide aren't limited to "the private sector" (in the sense that anything that impacts your life can be a part of the cumulation of problems, and they can be caused by the government). I just don't think we should throw it out in discussion, unqualified, as though it's just an accepted thing that these policies are habitually killing people and no one gives a shit.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
Jeremy Hunt, 8 days ago:
Example rota released by NHS Employers today:
...but...but wait that has three consecutive weekends! Could it be that Jeremy Hunt is *gasp* a lying piece of shit?! :O :O :O
Example rota released by NHS Employers today:
...but...but wait that has three consecutive weekends! Could it be that Jeremy Hunt is *gasp* a lying piece of shit?! :O :O :O
It's Reyn Time!
Member
'I'm not saying their policies haven't directly killed people but stop saying their policies have directly killed people'.
Descriptors to qualify for mental illnesses are now so vague that they can be interpreted in any way you want. The people whose job it to assess people for those benefits have quotas for how many people they are required to get back into work.
This is why we have a situation where the evidence of doctors, therapists and psychiatrists who've known and been treating a patient over the course of months or years is being overridden by a failed secretary with a week's worth of training. People with very serious problems are being told they're fine by people with absolutely no appropriate medical or psychological training or qualifications and having their financial security pulled out from under them because they were able to make themselves a cup of tea that morning.
You sit there typing about how we shouldn't just assume that a suicide is because benefits were taken away from them and you have no idea of the gravity of what you're talking about.
Let's take somebody with a case of depression and take away their only source of income. Let's call them a liar, tell them they're fine and tell them to get back to work while disregarding the advice of actual qualified medical professionals. Put their home at risk, take away any services they may have used.
Is that person now more or less likely to kill themselves? Whose fault is that?
As for your suggestion that food bank usage is being misrepresented somehow, where are you even getting that? You think poor people losing more money wouldn't result in an increased reliance on charity? I really want to know how a Tory mind works here. Is it as simple as 'this looks bad for the Tories so therefore must not be true'?
Jeremy Hunt is a massive liar? News at 10 etc. I say I still can't believe the fucker veto'd a contract agreement with the BMA, but I'd be lying. Fuck him and the powers that told him to do it.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
Ah yes, if only instead of Corbyn one of the other three candidates, those political powerhouses, had been elected then none of this would be happening
Oh wait
Jezbollah
Member
Thats a fair shout too. A bad bunch in general. It was since Jarvis decided not to stand..
the other three candidates were hardly blair but would have had much better message discipline, been distracted less by internal disarray and disagreement and would have been able to focus on issues that actually matter to british voters like leadership and effective running of public services instead of corbyn's pet issues from the eighties. the tories deal over the eu is getting a roasting from the media but where is the labour party, what do we have to say. the other three would have stuff to say. this puts the tories under pressure, can they do the junior doctors when thy are being rinsed by labour for bad leadership in europe or should it be quietly put away. they need to make this choice as they realise losing their majority is a small possibility of things go very badly instead of an impossibility.
they would also have made it easier to then elect a leader who can plausibly form a labour government. moving from corbyn's labour to someone who can win in the key tory held seats you need to win a majority is a very long process, not to mention the huge reputational damage he's doing to the party that we now have to recover from.
CyclopsRock
Member
That's true, and you certainly won't find me defending that.
I don't think it's reasonable to say "we must keep paying people to stop them from killing themselves." Or, rather, that it's actually the loss of money that causes them to kill themselves. You asked if they're more or less likely to kill themselves - the answer is quite clearly "more". But is that the same as "this policy will lead to their death"?
It's obviously not their only income, either, since being registered as fit for work puts them into the same pot as a lot of other people who are unemployed but physically and mentally fit and they're entitled to all the same additional benefits that those people are. These people - on JSA/UC, council tax reduction, rental assistance etc - all survive, albeit in something of a literal and pretty financially limited way - so clearly it's not "the money" that's causing them to take their own life.
NB This is obviously not the case with people whose conditions require expensive care and treatment, but then to my knowledge they relied on something other than ESA in the first place.
Ultimately, if you look at the statistics of those who were previously receiving ESA and then were declared fit for work who actually did go on to get work, it seems clear to me that some form of reform was necessary and desirable (not just from a Treasury point of view but to actually help move people from a life of subsistence (because it's not like ESA allowed you to live a free and unfettered life) on to hopefully something better). To me, the problems were primarily in the implementation - the choice of ATOS and their mistakes, most notably - and the fact that the WCA is a norm-based system when it comes to funding which creates a de-facto target. However this "norm" based costing system that effects a targetted outcome was put in place by Labour when they appointed Atos to perform the WCA (which they also implemented). So again, I don't think it's totally reasonable to just throw out the charge that the Tories are evil bastards who don't care when the cripples and spastics die. The WCA had cross party support as a reform (though I dunno what Corby thinks), the problems are almost wholly implementation-based. Which the government is also responsible for, obviously, but that's more about competency.
FWIW I didn't vote Tory at the last election. The only time I've voted Tory was to back King Boris in the Mayoral elections. I regret nothing.
As for food banks, their numbers have increased massively, their usage rose beginning at the recession (not with the cuts) and it's seen an upward trend since then. Previously (ie pre-2010) job centres did not refer people to "private" food banks - now they do. The largest single reason given for receiving food from food banks is due to a delay or cross-over period between different benefits causing a delay in when someone receives their benefits - actually having a low income is the cause for just 1/5 (and obviously that's not limited to those on benefits). Furthermore, last year about 1.1m packages were given out to around 550,000 people - so on average the people that attended food banks went there twice. In a year. This clearly isn't the behaviour of people perennially food-poor; It's a short term solution to typically short term problems.
Wikipedia (sorry) mentions this:
"Food banks were rarely seen in the UK in the second half of the 20th century, but use started to grow in the 2000s, and have since dramatically expanded. The rise has been blamed on the 2008 recession as well as the austerity measures implemented afterwards. However, the OECD found that people answering yes to the question ‘Have there been times in the past 12 months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?’ decreased from 9.8% in 2007 to 8.1% in 2012,[37] leading some to say that the rise was due to both more awareness of food banks, and the government allowing Jobcentres to refer people to food banks when they were hungry (the previous Labour government had not allowed this)."
I don't want this to sound like some maddo libertarian rant or something, but I'd like to point out something else re: food banks - the government doesn't really "have" money. It can tax people and businesses and transactions, and it can borrow money, and the BOE can print it if it wants, but ultimately all those things are for, from and on behalf of the people. So when people posit that "more people going to food banks" is a result of austerity and that this is a Bad Thing, it suggests that what they want is for the government to give them more money so that they don't need to (or increase the minimum wage so that business pay them more and they don't need to - eitherway, it involves people getting more money). What food banks are, though, are a wholly "private" initiative that's based upon people with both the means and the desire to help doing just that - helping. People need food? People who have food give it to them. These are the same people who would be taxed just so the government could do the same thing. In fact, not only would they be taxed, but so would every cleaner and bin man up and down the country who pays any tax. Even the single mother who's left her drunk, violent husband and taken the kids and is living on a shelter who is going to the food bank would be contributing when she buys a bag of tampons and pays VAT on it!! How is this a better solution than basically cutting out the middle man and allowing citizens to help each other, allowing those who can to give more without demanding anything from those who, themselves, are struggling? Again - the government doesn't have its own money. The argument than the government are somehow being "let off the hook" by the good will of those donating to food banks is an argument that doesn't hold water because all the government's money comes from us in the first place, even if we don't have to pay it back for ten years or it comes in the form of inflation.
Lads, I have an idea for a name for this whole system of people helping each other, not needing the government to provide everything for everyone when the local community is willing to do it (whilst ensuring they don't let anyone fall through the cracks when the local community can't or won't help). I'll call it...
The Big Society.
Assuming I'm allowed to (politically restricted post, but don't think that applies to non-party events like this), I'm going to volunteer for the Stay in Europe campaign. First time I've actively volunteered politcally, so quite excited by it.
Their website seems to be crashing constantly however - I presume enthusiastic people on both sides of the fence are signing up this morning now we have a deal and a referendum date.
Their website seems to be crashing constantly however - I presume enthusiastic people on both sides of the fence are signing up this morning now we have a deal and a referendum date.
Coriolanus
Banned
You do realize that he's the symptom, yes? One such as him does not come into power unless those that came before fucked up so grotesquely that such a path is then seen as viable.
CyclopsRock
Member
Eh, I dunno about that. I mean he's a symptom of dissatisfaction, yes. But the discrepancy in numbers between those deciding who the leader of the Labour party is, and those deciding who wins a general election is so astoundingly high (2 orders of magnitude) that it's not difficult to imagine that the medicine that those choosing the leader believe is required is not the medicine that those voting in a general election think is required. I guess we'll see in 2020 if he hangs on, but it is possible that a party with a damaged reputation can have it reputation further damaged - or damaged in a new, exciting and different way - by someone. They're not mutually exclusive.
Coriolanus
Banned
Indeed, which is why efforts to lay the blame exclusively on him should be rebuffed, for they are an easy way to avoid the introspection needed to tackle the deeper problems the party faces.
Have you ever been in this situation? As you are wrong here.
If you want to appeal the decision of the medical you are deemed to not be actively looking for work. So you get a lower rate of JS/UC. So low that you can hardly afford anything. The appeal can take anything up to 8 months. If you win the appeal you get the money owed but that takes about another month.
So the loss of income is huge, this leads to people signing up for JSA/UC which then excludes them from applying for ESA for months/ a year. It is very much a system set up to get people sick or not off ESA.
It's Reyn Time!
Member
Well no, you wouldn't say that, because that's a fantastically reductive way of putting it below even you. 'Will this policy cause mentally unwell people to become worse and put them at a much higher risk of suicide or mental breakdown?' is the question which would be asked by a policy maker who isn't a fucking psychopath.
Being told you are fit for work does not make you fit for work. That's like the whole point. To claim JSA you have to perform tasks, attend meetings and such which are literally impossible for some people wrongfully kicked off of ESA or face sanctions or cancellation of benefits entirely. The same leap in expectations is true of the WRA and Support groups of ESA.
As for it obviously not being their only income, housing benefit/council tax will not cover the price of even the most humble, appropriate rental in its entirety. The shortfall is expected to come from ESA or JSA. Those out of work benefits ARE their only actual income.
There are thousands and thousands of cases of people with terminal illness, life threatening conditions and what have you who've been found fit for work. The WCA is irreparably broken on every level and the fact you're handwaving it away like 'well it's not the case with REALLY disabled people' just shows your remarkable level of ignorance on the matter.
I wish I could say I was surprised that you haven't educated yourself since the last time you were handwaving away the damage your government's done to the disabled community, but nope, here we are again.
1) The statistics provided by the DWP include people placed into the WRAG, learning programs and mandatory courses. They are dishonest at best.
2) ATOS worked to the government's orders. While irredeemable cunts, it wasn't ATOS who decided to redefine what disability means by requiring more points on the WCA to qualify. That was all Tory. You'll note that ATOS employees cited further tightening of the descriptors as part of the reason for their company's early exit from their government contract. Just to reiterate ATOS Medical, a company which made the lives of tens of thousands of people objectively worse and are directly, unrepentantly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people, walked away from their contract with the Tories because it was going to make them look iworse.
You know that delay in crossing over between benefits you mentioned? That's a delightful Tory invention! It's called the Mandatory Reconsideration Period. What happens is you have someone claiming ESA and then wrongfully kicked off of it. You then tell them that instead of being paid ESA at the reduced rate while you wait for your appeal to be processed (which used to be the case) you are now locked out of ESA entirely for the duration of the Mandatory Reconsieration Period. This last anywhere up to 12 weeks where no matter your condition, your only option is to sign a legally binding contract with the government to declare yourself fit for work, claim JSA and fulfill all activities related to that or receive no benefit at all for up to three months. Only then are you allowed to appeal. That's right! That 12 weeks was just to be told you're allowed to appeal now, a process which takes up to a year where you receive a dramatically reduced rate of ESA.
Also, congratulations! You're now part of the 'successfully off of ESA and seeking work' statistic people live to throw around without context.
With that in mind, do you believe that the massive increase in food bank usage is due to the recession?
You resorted to Wikipedia for this? Ok, between 2007 and 2008 1.5% fewer people said they needed to use a food bank. What's your point? This was nearly a decade ago. Or are you pointing to the snark at the end of it, sourced to a telegraph blogger who neglects to mention that food banks simply weren't as needed under Labour or that policies like the MRP drove usage of those charities up.
This isn't about having more money. Of course everyone wants more, that's human nature, but that's not what this discussion is about. People just don't want what little they've got taken away unfairly. They don't want to be demonised by the government and their press. They don't want to have to rely on the charity of their actual neighbours.
And I have a name for preying on the mentally ill in order to shave a percentage off statistics here and there; evil.
Oh goody, the exact date the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies asked them NOT to hold it.
Why is that date bad?
dapperbandit
Banned
Go ahead. Though be aware there's already two threads on it, one with a poll.
I was thinking of posting it a month or so before the referendum. But if the other thread stays as the permanent news thread, I won't create a new one.
CyclopsRock
Member
Woof! I'll reply properly when I get home but that statistic was between 2007 - 2012 - not sure where you got 2008 from?
It'll dominate political debate in the UK for the next 123 days. So may as well make a Brexit OT now.
The respective parliaments will be in purdah before the referendum as they hold their own elections in May.
So will a ton of councils, but Purdah won't apply to this referendum like it normally does. In and Out campaigns are apolitical - all major parties have some members in favour of either. It's hard to see purdah for regional elections affecting the euro campaigning, or visa versa, because it's not a Tory versus Labour versus SNP thing.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
I mean
We could make the people with more money pay more tax instead of the examples you use
I dunno
Just a suggestion
I would not be able to create a fully fledged OT now/in the coming week due to time constraints and the amount of time in prepping the OT.
JonathanEx
Member
I've heard of one local council preparing to announce their preference for Out. Which considering that it has a lot of farms, which benefit from EU subsidies, is an interesting one.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked