Bolitics The New Condem Government

[snowychap]

I have never said that it is all down to the Tories, merely that it was fairer under Labour imo...

And yet:

Ricardomeister on Apr 22, 2010 - 06:26 PM"]

One prime example is the disgraceful decision by the Tories to make every single person on Incapacity Benefit appear before some Government stooge who's remit is to cut down drastically on the number of people claiming this benefit.

[Guest Ricardomeister]

I have never said that it is all down to the Tories, merely that it was fairer under Labour imo...

And yet:

Ricardomeister on Apr 22, 2010 - 06:26 PM"]

One prime example is the disgraceful decision by the Tories to make every single person on Incapacity Benefit appear before some Government stooge who's remit is to cut down drastically on the number of people claiming this benefit.

Apologies as I had assumed that you could understand written English when clearly from what you have just quoted you do not. It does not say anywhere in your second quote that it is all down to the Tories, unless I have written it in invisible ink! Keep misquoting me all you like but I am finding it all rather laughable!

I repeat....why should everyone on Incapacity Benefit be re-assessed (3 years is the Tories timescale) when the government could save lots of time and money by asking specialists to send reports on claimants (indeed many of such reports will already be on file!) re suitability for this benefit? You may think it is fair that an unqualified person, who will not be impartial due to targets, will be the judge but I don't agree with that.

The fact that everyone is to be re-assessed intimates that everyone is potentially fraudulent when the physical symptoms of many serious conditions cannot be faked. The Tory boasting that they will be tougher than Labour is merely pandering to the prejudices of many Tory voters.

Also, the fact that the Tory/Lib Dems are launching this attack on the vulnerable rather than looking at tax fraud/evasion which costs fifteen times as much to the country shows that they are hardly a compassionate bunch, which is what Call Me Dave claimed they would be in government.

[Guest Ricardomeister]

Wow I see the bully boys are out in force tonight!

For the record I stated my opinion and this is backed up by my experience and the experiences of many other people that I know. The process is completely different under the Tories as everyone has to appear before an unqualified doctor...that was not the case under Labour. Nobody has said that Labour were anywhere near perfect but of course people here deliberately misunderstand what I have written in order to try and be the big bully, which I find rather sad and pathetic.

LeviRamsay as someone who cowardly insulted me over the fox hunting issue and did not have the decency to apologise then your opinion is not worth much on what you have just written. For your information Mr Snowychap sent me several abusive private messages after the fox hunting debate, including warning me off the forum and in the open forum was continually sarcastic, saying that fox hunting was the only issue that was important to me, whereas I never said that it was or even inferred that it was....merely that it was AN important issue to me.

Rather than you bully boys ganging up on me why not actually read my main points and answer them:

1) Is it fair for an unqualified doctor to judge someone's suitability to Incapacity Benefit when they are targetted on how many people they deem "fit" for work when they do not have the necessary knowledge, or would it be fairer and cheaper for a specialist to make that decision?

2) Is it fair to go after a group of mainly vulnerable people (as most claimants will be genuine) in preference to going after a group of people who are fiddling the country out of fifteen times that amount?

[Guest Ricardomeister]

And for those saying that your mate Mr Snowychap never misquotes, please see the first post on this page where Mr Snowychap does exactly that!!

[snowychap]

It does not say anywhere in your second quote that it is all down to the Tories

It says that it is a decision by the Tories.

It doesn't acknowledge that it was a pledge by Labour, too.

It doesn't acknowledge that it was the intention of the existing government (as at April 22nd).

It says that it is a decision by the Tories. The clear implication in that sentence was that this was something being suggested by the Tories and not anyone else.

Keep misquoting me all you like but I am finding it all rather laughable!

Not anywhere near as laughable as the idea that you believe that me quoting what you said verbatim is 'misquoting'. :?

I repeat....why should everyone on Incapacity Benefit be re-assessed (3 years is the Tories timescale) when the government could save lots of time and money by asking specialists to send reports on claimants (indeed many of such reports will already be on file!) re suitability for this benefit?

Where did you get this 3 years from? And that isn't me suggesting that you are wrong on that, it is just the first time I have heard any timescale and I'm interested where it has come from because it wasn't in their coalition document.

You ask 'why should....' as though I am advocating it. I'm not.

The party for which you were 'glad in the end' to choose to vote advocated it.

You may think it is fair that an unqualified person, who will not be impartial due to targets, will be the judge but I don't agree with that.

What do you mean by 'unqualified'?

Where have I said that I am 'happy' with the assessment phase? I'd have thought that you could have gleaned from the example I gave you that I think the assessment phase has serious failings.

I have just had to point out to you over and over and over again that the reassessment is both a Tory (now coalition) and Labour plan. They both have and had the same plan. Labour and Tory. Both of them. The same plan.

[kidlewis]

well it's quite clear, if people have an illness that means they can't work in the job they currently have/had, or the jobs they are qualified to work in and can't then fair enough.

if not then they can 'man up' and get on with it.

now I don't condone people avoiding tax through havens elsewhere, however at least they work (or have worked to get there if they don't now).

What people gripe over is the clear examples of apathetic unwashed that are in various towns and cities up and down the country, spending their money in the pub and on fags. I walk to work through coventry city centre every day, it is full of them.

It appears there is this social acceptance in some communities that it's 'just what you do', obviously you get intelligent aspirational people that brake the mould and actually achieve something, and those people should be given the money, not the apathetic social groups around them holding them back.

Obviously the majority of benefit claimants are genuine people who aspire to work and better their life and quality of living for their families, but it's clear some don't and would rather live in that way because it's less responsibility, less effort and less hassle.

[Guest Ricardomeister]

well it's quite clear, if people have an illness that means they can't work in the job they currently have/had, or the jobs they are qualified to work in and can't then fair enough.

if not then they can 'man up' and get on with it.

now I don't condone people avoiding tax through havens elsewhere, however at least they work (or have worked to get there if they don't now).

What people gripe over is the clear examples of apathetic unwashed that are in various towns and cities up and down the country, spending their money in the pub and on fags. I walk to work through coventry city centre every day, it is full of them.

It appears there is this social acceptance in some communities that it's 'just what you do', obviously you get intelligent aspirational people that brake the mould and actually achieve something, and those people should be given the money, not the apathetic social groups around them holding them back.

Obviously the majority of benefit claimants are genuine people who aspire to work and better their life and quality of living for their families, but it's clear some don't and would rather live in that way because it's less responsibility, less effort and less hassle.

Wow, a constructive post without the need to act the bully boy...well done that man!

[snowychap]

And for those saying that your mate Mr Snowychap never misquotes, please see the first post on this page where Mr Snowychap does exactly that!!

:?

That post is as follows:

I have never said that it is all down to the Tories, merely that it was fairer under Labour imo...

And yet:

Ricardomeister on Apr 22, 2010 - 06:26 PM"]

One prime example is the disgraceful decision by the Tories to make every single person on Incapacity Benefit appear before some Government stooge who's remit is to cut down drastically on the number of people claiming this benefit.

Both quotes are exactly what you wrote.

The first link is here and the second is as per the link in the post.

If I quote you then I'll quote what you say; if I am generally referring to what you say as in my comment 'Just because you keep on repeating this nonsense about it all being down to the Tories, doesn't make it true' then I'm referring to the gist of the content of your posts.

[Guest Ricardomeister]

And for those saying that your mate Mr Snowychap never misquotes, please see the first post on this page where Mr Snowychap does exactly that!!

:?

That post is as follows:

I have never said that it is all down to the Tories, merely that it was fairer under Labour imo...

And yet:

Ricardomeister on Apr 22, 2010 - 06:26 PM"]

One prime example is the disgraceful decision by the Tories to make every single person on Incapacity Benefit appear before some Government stooge who's remit is to cut down drastically on the number of people claiming this benefit.

Both quotes are exactly what you wrote.

The first link is here and the second is as per the link in the post.

If I quote you then I'll quote what you say; if I am generally referring to what you say as in my comment 'Just because you keep on repeating this nonsense about it all being down to the Tories, doesn't make it true' then I'm referring to the gist of the content of your posts.

You said that I had said that it is all down to the Tories and then quoted something which did not say anywhere that it is all down to the Tories. That is misquoting me. You will not find anywhere that I said it was all down to the Tories as I simply did not say that. This just highlights the problem with this forum where some people deliberately misunderstand what others have written in order to have a go at someone...and then of course you get the cowardly keyboard bullies jumping in as it makes them feel like big men.

I guess Mr Snowychap we will have to agree to disagree as at least you have tried to be constructive...unlike Tony and LeviRamsey who just like to throw inane insults as that type of bully likes to do.

[kidlewis]

well it's quite clear, if people have an illness that means they can't work in the job they currently have/had, or the jobs they are qualified to work in and can't then fair enough.

if not then they can 'man up' and get on with it.

now I don't condone people avoiding tax through havens elsewhere, however at least they work (or have worked to get there if they don't now).

What people gripe over is the clear examples of apathetic unwashed that are in various towns and cities up and down the country, spending their money in the pub and on fags. I walk to work through coventry city centre every day, it is full of them.

It appears there is this social acceptance in some communities that it's 'just what you do', obviously you get intelligent aspirational people that brake the mould and actually achieve something, and those people should be given the money, not the apathetic social groups around them holding them back.

Obviously the majority of benefit claimants are genuine people who aspire to work and better their life and quality of living for their families, but it's clear some don't and would rather live in that way because it's less responsibility, less effort and less hassle.

Wow, a constructive post without the need to act the bully boy...well done that man!

how about this,

for ever person who achieves good gcse, A-levels and wants to go onto university who comes from a family who's only income is from the state, then their entire families benefits get halved and the child gets the other half.

state pays for tuition fees, benefits pays for accomodation and books etc, and **** it their food and drink allowance because if anyone in that family deserves to get pissed it's them.

Education (from personal experience as I went to school once) at certain ages can be seen as negative from other school children. The clever ones get bullied more often than not...the geeks, the kid that 'actually likes Latin'. they all get the stick,

but on the lower social levels (in term of class, or however we categorise humans in this country), it's even less accepted.

Unless your response to a teacher involves 'your mum' or 'dunno miss' then you regarded as being a nerd or certainly peer pressured into rebelling, I know at times I was.

We need to change how people view education, laugh at the kids who act like the idiotic kids I describe as above. the class needs to laugh at the kids who try to rebel against education.

My maths teacher had such a great response which actually (in the end) turned a few kids around in her class. If they were messing around or talking back to her and being disruptive she'd simply say

'do you want fries with that?'

the pupil more often than not would be confused by the random comment until she explained if they didn't start paying attention in class they'd be spending the rest of their life with 3 stars on their shirt asking people if they wanted fries with their burger.

which ended up with the class laughing at the kid in amusement, which resulted in the kid manning up and paying attention.

if only that could be achieved on a social level.

[thetrees]

1) Is it fair for an unqualified doctor to judge someone's suitability to Incapacity Benefit when they are targetted on how many people they deem "fit" for work when they do not have the necessary knowledge, or would it be fairer and cheaper for a specialist to make that decision?

2) Is it fair to go after a group of mainly vulnerable people (as most claimants will be genuine) in preference to going after a group of people who are fiddling the country out of fifteen times that amount?

1. Interesting that you highlight 'unqualified' doctors ( I thought that you needed to be qualified to bear the title 'Doctor') being 'targetted' as

2. The 'tax evasion' henchmen and women are 'targetted' on how many successful cases that they bring and are on handsome commissions for same.

You may also be interested to know that at least equal amounts of, if not more, tax evasion comes from the so-called working classes and their 'black economy'

But then you are probably not interested, as you have consistently shown little or no interest in anyone else's point of view.

[kidlewis]

1) Is it fair for an unqualified doctor to judge someone's suitability to Incapacity Benefit when they are targetted on how many people they deem "fit" for work when they do not have the necessary knowledge, or would it be fairer and cheaper for a specialist to make that decision?

2) Is it fair to go after a group of mainly vulnerable people (as most claimants will be genuine) in preference to going after a group of people who are fiddling the country out of fifteen times that amount?

1. Interesting that you highlight 'unqualified' doctors ( I thought that you needed to be qualified to bear the title 'Doctor') being 'targetted' as

2. The 'tax evasion' henchmen and women are 'targetted' on how many successful cases that they bring and are on handsome commissions for same.

You may also be interested to know that at least equal amounts of, if not more, tax evasion comes from the so-called working classes and their 'black economy'

But then you are probably not interested, as you have consistently shown little or no interest in anyone else's point of view.

good point about the black market. Just think of all those rich pikeys. How they can afford to tow their new caravan with a bloody 7 series i'll never know.

Drugs probably, or stealing things.

a few years ago some pikeys ripped out all the piping in some changing rooms (or toilets) in leamington, probably to sell for scrap.

filth.

[thetrees]

Education (from personal experience as I went to school once) at certain ages can be seen as negative from other school children. The clever ones get bullied more often than not...the geeks, the kid that 'actually likes Latin'. they all get the stick,

Like our maligned other correspondent, I was privileged enough to attend one of the few grammar schools that survived the Labour 'final solution' of the 1970's.

To this day it was the most equal environment that I have existed in. We had kids who were children of millionaire stockbrokers, through to kids whose father 'worked on the line' to pay the council house rent.

Everyone got on pretty well, and treated their fellow pupils as equal, regardless of where they lived or where they went on holiday. The brilliant ones (geeks!?) were respected for their application and overall cleverness, and the dossers also had their place in the school society.

There were certainly no negatives in that school at that time.

[thetrees]

1) Is it fair for an unqualified doctor to judge someone's suitability to Incapacity Benefit when they are targetted on how many people they deem "fit" for work when they do not have the necessary knowledge, or would it be fairer and cheaper for a specialist to make that decision?

2) Is it fair to go after a group of mainly vulnerable people (as most claimants will be genuine) in preference to going after a group of people who are fiddling the country out of fifteen times that amount?

1. Interesting that you highlight 'unqualified' doctors ( I thought that you needed to be qualified to bear the title 'Doctor') being 'targetted' as

2. The 'tax evasion' henchmen and women are 'targetted' on how many successful cases that they bring and are on handsome commissions for same.

You may also be interested to know that at least equal amounts of, if not more, tax evasion comes from the so-called working classes and their 'black economy'

But then you are probably not interested, as you have consistently shown little or no interest in anyone else's point of view.

good point about the black market. Just think of all those rich pikeys. How they can afford to tow their new caravan with a bloody 7 series i'll never know.

Drugs probably, or stealing things.

a few years ago some pikeys ripped out all the piping in some changing rooms (or toilets) in leamington, probably to sell for scrap.

filth.

Not every builder/workman is a 'pikey' though, surely?

[Guest Ricardomeister]

1) Is it fair for an unqualified doctor to judge someone's suitability to Incapacity Benefit when they are targetted on how many people they deem "fit" for work when they do not have the necessary knowledge, or would it be fairer and cheaper for a specialist to make that decision?

2) Is it fair to go after a group of mainly vulnerable people (as most claimants will be genuine) in preference to going after a group of people who are fiddling the country out of fifteen times that amount?

1. Interesting that you highlight 'unqualified' doctors ( I thought that you needed to be qualified to bear the title 'Doctor') being 'targetted' as

2. The 'tax evasion' henchmen and women are 'targetted' on how many successful cases that they bring and are on handsome commissions for same.

You may also be interested to know that at least equal amounts of, if not more, tax evasion comes from the so-called working classes and their 'black economy'

But then you are probably not interested, as you have consistently shown little or no interest in anyone else's point of view.

Yawn yawn more inane insults.

re your point 1. So a doctor is knowledgeable enough to know every possible condition and how it affects different people? Absolute rubbish as otherwise why would you need any specialists (the clue is in the name!). These doctors will come across some conditions for the first time in their career in that medical assessment and yet you think they are qualified to pass judgement. To quote your Tory mate "Dear oh dear!"

re point 2 maybe they need more of these henchmen then rather than spending their energies on the weak and vulnerable. I could not care less where the tax evasion/fraud comes from but I want it dealt with and it should surely be more of a priority than going after every Incapacity Benefit claimant, the majority of whom have done nothing wrong yet who are being persecuted to satisfy the ignorance of Daily Fascist/Sun type readers.

[thetrees]

Yep, as I said, the EPC was an EU regulatory requirement and still is - and someone has to pay for it - but that's what you get when you sign up for these gigs. The HIPs however where stuff and nonsense dreamt up by labour, which no one asked for and no one wanted, and which cover the majority of the HIP associated costs, and correctly these are being scrapped.

You say stuff and nonsense but that is not true. If you purchase a house you still need that info typically for a mortgage approval. Now the Solicitors fees go back up to get this info - so how exactly is the winner here?

HIPS is yet another burden to the seller, but I would keep it.

Instead I would introduce a law where an agreement to purchase is binding and that both the purchaser and the seller are bound to pay 10% of the agreed price in the event that either wish to pull out.

I haven't sold many houses, but all bar one have had problems with buyers pulling out, ultimately costing me money and aggravation. The way things are set up in this country someone can 'commit' to buy, lead you down the garden path for 3 months and then pull out, with absolutely no financial penalty to them.

[snowychap]

The process is completely different under the Tories...

How do you know? They've only just produced their coalition document.

as everyone has to appear before an unqualified doctor...that was not the case under Labour.

What do you mean by 'unqualified'?

Those who have to attend assessments have been assessed by a 'healthcare professional ... fully trained to undertake disability assessments' as per the disability assessment page of Atos Healthcare - the company which has been providing the medical assessments for the DWP for quite a while. They certainly dealt with me when I had my face to face assessment with a retired GP (and not a mental health professional which would have been more appropriate).

...be the big bully

Nobody is bullying you. They are disagreeing with what you have written.

For your information Mr Snowychap sent me several abusive private messages after the fox hunting debate, including warning me off the forum

Having just reread the PMs we sent, we were equally uncomplimentary about each other, it appears.

As for 'warning you off the forum', you accused me of trying to get you not to post in the thread and I replied:

I'm not 'trying to frighten you off' the thread at all. I am suggesting that you ought to rein it in a fair bit, stop with the overly partisan mudslinging (which is only meant to wind up other people on this site) and actually try getting involved properly in the thread.

And I can post a screenshot of the PM if you wish.

[snowychap]

If I quote you then I'll quote what you say; if I am generally referring to what you say as in my comment 'Just because you keep on repeating this nonsense about it all being down to the Tories, doesn't make it true' then I'm referring to the gist of the content of your posts.

You said that I had said that it is all down to the Tories and then quoted something which did not say anywhere that it is all down to the Tories. That is misquoting me.

No it isn't misquoting you as I didn't 'quote' you saying that at all.

Perhaps you could say that I was putting words in your mouth but my argument goes as follows (as per a prior post):

It says that it is a decision by the Tories.

It doesn't acknowledge that it was a pledge by Labour, too.

It doesn't acknowledge that it was the intention of the existing government (as at April 22nd).

It says that it is a decision by the Tories. The clear implication in that sentence was that this was something being suggested by the Tories and not anyone else.

This reasoning and all of the other posts where you constantly go on about this reassessment happening under the Tories led me to generally refer to the gist of the content of your posts as the reassessment of IB claimants being all down to the Tories.

I'll leave it to others to judge whether or not the inferences I drew were reasonable.

[snowychap]

And, Ricardomeister, I have found one source where it says the timescale is three years for doing this reassessment and it was an article from the Independent from last October.

One quote from that article:

Yvette Cooper, the Work and Pensions Secretary, dismissed the proposals as a rehash of Labour plans without the money required to pay for them.

Hardly surprising that as they are David Freud's plans, after all.

[leviramsey]

LeviRamsay as someone who cowardly insulted me over the fox hunting issue and did not have the decency to apologise then your opinion is not worth much on what you have just written.

Cowardly insult?

For your information Mr Snowychap sent me several abusive private messages after the fox hunting debate, including warning me off the forum and in the open forum was continually sarcastic

Oh noes, sarcasm.

(I thought dry sarcastic wit* was an English trademark)

saying that fox hunting was the only issue that was important to me, whereas I never said that it was or even inferred that it was....merely that it was AN important issue to me.

Considering that in the bollitics threads that was about the only thing you posted about, one could be forgiven for thinking that you were a single-issue voter.

1) Is it fair for an unqualified doctor to judge someone's suitability to Incapacity Benefit when they are targetted on how many people they deem "fit" for work when they do not have the necessary knowledge, or would it be fairer and cheaper for a specialist to make that decision?

I don't even know enough about the particulars (nor does it particularly affect me) to know whether you've made an accurate representation there let alone answer it. I could answer with my knowledge of the USA's analogous program to suggest that specialists are not necessarily impartial (there's a cottage industry of doctors who specialize in diagnosing people as disabled, generally for a substantial fee).

2) Is it fair to go after a group of mainly vulnerable people (as most claimants will be genuine) in preference to going after a group of people who are fiddling the country out of fifteen times that amount?

They're the easier target (practically, not necessarily politically). The rich, by and large, have more ability to **** off for any number of tax havens (e.g. Belize), thus depriving the nation and the economy of the little in taxes that they pay (i.e. tightening up may well reduce the tax collected). Similar logic holds with respect to VAT increases, though as many necessities are zero-rated it's less strong than it might otherwise be.

*: snowy being at least half of which