The Labour Government

Manc in London said:
What makes you think she is targeting vulnerable people? That's such a strong statement to make. You honestly think that? Is it because think she hates people with a disability or wants to see them suffer?
Click to expand...


www.theguardian.com

Labour will be tougher than Tories on benefits, vows Rachel Reeves

New shadow work and pensions minister says party will cut welfare bill and force long-term unemployed to take up work offers or lose support
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com


Another one that has been itching to do it.
 
Just goes to show how much pressure the Chancellor comes under. In recent time, Sunak had it with COVID, now it’s Reeves trying to deliver a plan that is so difficult to resource. Pressure is huge, and even the smallest external problem can lead to a form of breakdown.

I know there can only be a few, but anybody making capital, or gloating over seeing those images today, are the real problem with this country.

We no longer control our economy, we have no resilience as it’s been sold off to extremely rich entities that are only here to give themselves more power, and more money.
 
Don Karleone said:
www.theguardian.com

Labour will be tougher than Tories on benefits, vows Rachel Reeves

New shadow work and pensions minister says party will cut welfare bill and force long-term unemployed to take up work offers or lose support
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com


Another one that has been itching to do it.
Click to expand...
When Tories are in power they are known as "Social Security Scroungers" according to their leader but then millionaires getting the winter fuel allowance are now vulnerable and people are up in arms about it.

It is just pathetic point scoring from people who need someone to blame.
 
Manc in London said:
Okay, I will address the issue of empathy....I have volunteered at various points in my life. Including, giving up my time to working for or with MIND, a disability organisation and a member of a learning difficulties partnership board. I have a fairly good understanding of issues faced by people with disabilities and mental health issues, as well as there parents, carers and dependents. I thought I would clear that up first. Not so long ago, mum died after being housebound for a couple of years or so, receiving bugger all support or any financial help. That caused her a lot of turmoil. Did I find that acceptable? No. Do I still need to tell you if I have empathy or not?

Like I said, I don't know much about the recent proposed changes to PIP eligibility issues as I have been very busy and had a lot of personal stuff to deal with.

As i said earlier, what choice was Reeves making? It's not just "save xx by reducing PIP". Such decisions are not made in isolation. The planned savings will have to come from elsewhere. Someone has to pay. Personally, I would rather they target the most wealthy but no party in power in this country is doing that any time soon. Now I am not wealthy but I would pay more tax to improve public services and protect the most vulnerable. Is this further evidence that I have some empathy?

What makes you think she is targeting vulnerable people? That's such a strong statement to make. You honestly think that? Is it because think she hates people with a disability or wants to see them suffer?
Click to expand...

My wife works in similar areas so we are both strong on disabilities and social care in general. One of her jobs was getting disabled people into the work force. She would contact companies and promote the benefits to their company. The enlightening thing was that a lot were reticent but those who took the chance had nothing but positive praise.
I said a few years back that I would by law make large companies have to employ a certain number of disabled people within their workforce.

Govts have tough choices to make and I was a personal responsibility type but now I'm a top down as a starting point. If those avenues have been exhausted fair enough but imho they haven't.
 
Don Karleone said:
www.theguardian.com

Labour will be tougher than Tories on benefits, vows Rachel Reeves

New shadow work and pensions minister says party will cut welfare bill and force long-term unemployed to take up work offers or lose support
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com


Another one that has been itching to do it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But 'targeting the vulnerable' is still too strong a statement. Not quite the same as looking to reduce welfare spend. Like I said in another post, changing benefits is complex. I am struggling to think of a single government that I could say managed welfare changes effectively.

Like I said, I am no apologist for this Labour govt or Rachel Reeves, and decisions relating to savings are not made in isolation.
 
Manc in London said:
Okay, I will address the issue of empathy....I have volunteered at various points in my life. Including, giving up my time to working for or with MIND, a disability organisation and a member of a learning difficulties partnership board. I have a fairly good understanding of issues faced by people with disabilities and mental health issues, as well as there parents, carers and dependents. I thought I would clear that up first. Not so long ago, mum died after being housebound for a couple of years or so, receiving bugger all support or any financial help. That caused her a lot of turmoil. Did I find that acceptable? No. Do I still need to tell you if I have empathy or not?

Like I said, I don't know much about the recent proposed changes to PIP eligibility issues as I have been very busy and had a lot of personal stuff to deal with.

As i said earlier, what choice was Reeves making? It's not just "save xx by reducing PIP". Such decisions are not made in isolation. The planned savings will have to come from elsewhere. Someone has to pay. Personally, I would rather they target the most wealthy but no party in power in this country is doing that any time soon. Now I am not wealthy but I would pay more tax to improve public services and protect the most vulnerable. Is this further evidence that I have some empathy?

What makes you think she is targeting vulnerable people? That's such a strong statement to make. You honestly think that? Is it because think she hates people with a disability or wants to see them suffer?
Click to expand...
Isn't it obvious that she is targeting vulnerable people? 250,000 pushed into poverty, their own numbers. I've seen estimates of potentially 800,000 pushed into poverty if the bill had got through.

Their own figures and they were going to do it, so she knew exactly what she was doing.

Why make the poorest and most vulnerable pay for increased defense spending? Let those with something to lose financially fucking pay for it.

You know the wealthy who have every tax loophole going for them but the loopholes never get shut. Can't upset the richest can we? I know people taking the piss, gaming the system, registering their companies abroad, avoiding huge tax bills in the country that their business is active in.
 
Last edited:
hilts said:
I would by law make large companies have to employ a certain number of disabled people within their workforce.
Click to expand...
I'm no historian but I believe this was a thing that actually happened after WW2. You can imagine the numbers of men with missing limbs, mental health problems etc.
 
The manner in which Welfare is administered is unfair to those who are not in receipt of it but have to pay for it and see abuse at every turn, and unfair to those genuinely in need of it but see their provision under threat due to the ballooning costs brought about by that same abuse.
The system has been abused for many years but it seems to have gone off the scale post covid, surely this is where to start to look for savings.
A good example attached. Details published today in response to an MP's question.
In truth it was the Tories who allowed the Motability scheme to get out of hand but it remains unresolved and is a stain on the system.


Screenshot 2025-07-03 at 00.08.36.png
 
Hertzblue said:
The manner in which Welfare is administered is unfair to those who are not in receipt of it but have to pay for it and see abuse at every turn, and unfair to those genuinely in need of it but see their provision under threat due to the ballooning costs brought about by that same abuse.
The system has been abused for many years but it seems to have gone off the scale post covid, surely this is where to start to look for savings.
A good example attached. Details published today in response to an MP's question.
In truth it was the Tories who allowed the Motability scheme to get out of hand but it remains unresolved and is a stain on the system.


View attachment 161865
Click to expand...
Guido Fawkes is a site that lies more than every single media outlet put together. I wouldn't trust them to tell me the weather.
 
Damocles said:
Guido Fawkes is a site that lies more than every single media outlet put together. I wouldn't trust them to tell me the weather.
Click to expand...
I checked before I posted.
There is a link on the article that takes you to the source which is the Parliament site and a response to a written question from Labour MP Shaun Davies.
You couldn’t make it up!
 
jimharri said:
Have people over there noticed any improvement in their everyday life in the last year? Serious question, not wumming.
Click to expand...
Also not wumming, no, none at all.
That said, it isn't worse either, which I had fully expected it to be, in that I'd expected tax rises that would materially impact me, and so far, we haven't had any.
 
Corky said:
When Tories are in power they are known as "Social Security Scroungers" according to their leader but then millionaires getting the winter fuel allowance are now vulnerable and people are up in arms about it.

It is just pathetic point scoring from people who need someone to blame.
Click to expand...
no one is up in arms about rich people not receiving WFA.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I agree with all of that. But I also think we as a nation have become arrogant and up ourselves. Far too many people think, with respect to jobs, “I’m not doing THAT”. And of course pay is a big factor in that, and is intimately linked to how many people (too many) prefer to stay at home and not work. I wonder how many would change their tune if offered more money? Someone not working due to “my mental health” might not feel so inclined if they were going to be paid more.
Click to expand...

Certainly agree that they should be better paid jobs and that might attract people but even in that hypothetical situation whether it would attract people suited to the roles will be an issue too.

I've said before I think we need to properly understand what's going on with mental health in order to address the issue. An entire generation doesn't get out of bed one morning and find itself biologically less resilient or able, so we need to understand the external factors driving these changes. As importantly as addressing the issues for those adults we need to know what's happening to take preventative action in children and future generations. I suspect we won't like some of the answers but we can't keep going the way we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top