Monday 14th March 2016

Post by **refitman** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 7:05 am

Morning all.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 8:09 am

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ing-amount" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Global temperatures in February smashed previous monthly records by an unprecedented amount, according to Nasa data, sparking warnings of a climate emergency.

The likes of Trump would be a disaster as a world leader considering the types of challenges we're facing right now. Where did all the grown ups go? Election results in Germany aren't very encouraging either.

Morning all!

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 8:22 am

Morning.

: Osbornes Pile.jpg (58.05 KiB) Viewed 7927 times

Kevin MaguireVerified account
‏@Kevin_Maguire
Osborne's unfair divide to rule. Me in @DailyMirror with @MartinRowson 'toon http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ge ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 8:28 am

PoliticsHome ‏@politicshome 17m17 minutes ago
Expats to launch legal challenge over EU vote exclusion: http://polho.me/22cXlpe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 8:40 am

Why I am quitting teaching after more than 12 years in the profession
Teachers are monitored, scrutinised and graded as though working a 55-hour week for 32 hours’ pay is a special privilege
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tea ... 29221.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... It was that January that Sir Michael Willshaw, the chief inspector, made his infamous comment that “if anyone says to you that ‘staff morale is at an all-time low’ then you know you’re doing something right.” Four years on, as he prepares to stand down, we can only congratulate Sir Michael on having so completely met his own success criteria...

Wilshaw sounds as though he and Hunt would get on like a school / hospital on fire.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 8:52 am

Morning.
Well,do I feel stupid?
Changed all our clocks/watches on Saturday night.Only discovered today,coming home with the dogs,that the clocks changed in Canada/US at the wknd.Not here.The children were going into school.I thought it was 9.30!
The small print on my calender is very small.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 8:58 am

Liz McInnes ‏@LizMcInnesMP 2m2 minutes ago
Liz McInnes Retweeted Simon farrow
You did. I thought exactly the same. How on earth will this work?

Simon farrow
‏@Charliemouse8
Did I really wake up to the news of Cameron launching a scheme for people on benefits to save money, surely I didn’t hear this correctly?

Just shows how little they understand or care about how so many people eke out their money ...

They've obviously not got the same weekly information coming in that they had in Laws' time re the daily price of milk, bread and beer in London and Sheffield.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 9:04 am

Morning.

Help to save is a limited form of the Savings Gateway scheme that was set to go but abandoned as soon as the Coalition got in.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 9:11 am

Revealed: the secret report into Labour's 2015 defeat
The report - published in full for the first time - encouraged Harriet Harman to lead Labour in abstaining on the Welfare Bill.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... 015-defeat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

: Methodology.jpg (38.63 KiB) Viewed 7869 times

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 9:14 am

HindleA wrote:Morning.

Help to save is a limited form of the Savings Gateway scheme that was set to go but abandoned as soon as the Coalition got in.

That might make it seem a bit more acceptable in its intent ... but have they not realised how much worse off people are now as a result of various cuts and under Universal Credit? It sounds from what you say as if it is a scheme conceived of in a very different time and context for low income people.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 9:21 am

A cynically nabbed idea in the context of purposefully removing income under the guise of UC for most.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 9:23 am

Darren McCaffrey ‏@DMcCaffreySKY 3m3 minutes ago
Labour's @OwenSmith_MP on government's 'Help to Save' scheme “This is like stealing someone’s car and offering them a lift to the bus stop."

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 9:25 am

HindleA wrote:A cynically nabbed idea in the context of purposefully removing income under the guise of UC for most.

But it's also helping to plant / develop the notion that people on benefits have money to spare ... that the system is still generous (not that it ever was) ... and that's the real evil showing through this announcement.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 9:35 am

But deliberately targetedbased on different criteria.More attempt at dividing within for maximum perceived political traction,I would say,and more evil for that,given deliberately targeted cuts elsewhere.

Edited to correct a glaring error CA was included in the original.Which of course is not means tested/nor an out of work benefit.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 9:39 am

Ian DuntVerified account
‏@IanDunt
Most important piece I'll publish this week: An immigration detention centre guard admits his anguish at his job http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... -detention" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 9:40 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
HindleA wrote:Morning.

Help to save is a limited form of the Savings Gateway scheme that was set to go but abandoned as soon as the Coalition got in.
That might make it seem a bit more acceptable in its intent ... but have they not realised how much worse off people are now as a result of various cuts and under Universal Credit? It sounds from what you say as if it is a scheme conceived of in a very different time and context for low income people.

The plan is for people who claim tax credits/Universal Credit to have a special savings account into which they deposit up to £50 a month.
If they do this for 2 years, they can "earn" a government bonus of £600. They can continue for another 2 years if they want to.

There are 3.5 Million people who will be eligible for this - but how they save on the sort of incomes they get isn't considered.

Osborne - "This government is determined to improve the life chances of the poorest in our society and our new Help To Save scheme will mean millions of low income savers across the country could now receive a Government bonus of up to £1,200 to help them build up their savings"
Cameron - "I want to give hardworking people extra support to fulfil their potential and to transform life chances across the country" And - "That's what these new measures will achieve - helping someone start a savings fund to get them through difficult times, giving people on low incomes a pay rise and making sure teenagers have the experience and networks to succeed"

(Quotes from thisismoney.co.uk)

So if you are so poor that you have to claim in-work benefits to get by, how do you get £50 a month "spare" to save?
If you somehow manage to put away £50 a month, for 2 years, and get the bonus, you've maybe got the price of a new boiler, say.
How does that "transform life chances"?

I think it is no coincidence that the execrable Adam Perkins and his sick ideas are being brought to the fore right now - this government has latched onto the expression "life chances" as if everybody gets these mythical chances and it's only not having the correct savings/attitude/genes that prevents people from making the most of these non-existent "life chances".

Life chances my arse.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 9:44 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Revealed: the secret report into Labour's 2015 defeat
The report - published in full for the first time - encouraged Harriet Harman to lead Labour in abstaining on the Welfare Bill.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... 015-defeat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Methodology.jpg

Well, that was a depressing read, wasn't it? The sheer enormity of peoples' misconceptions is hard to get my head around. So Scotland thinks Labour is just like the Tories, whilst England thinks they're just for the 'down and outs'? They can't be both, obviously. So playing to these misconceptions is as impossible as it is stupidly misguided as they clearly can't prove they're not like the Tories whilst being just like the Tories by being for wealthier people and not helping the most vulnerable.

Given Harriet Harman was attempting to channel this drivel I now understand why she did such an appalling job.

Clearly Labour needs to challenge the Tory/MSM bollocks on the economy, to expose the holes in Osbornomics and keep on doing so. There's no other way. As long as people think the Osborne way is the right way, they'll vote for the Tories. Labour needs to have the courage of its convictions. Ed Balls was right in 2010 and McDonnell, with a very similar message, is right now. It all comes back to the same question I've been asking for the last few years. Can Osborne really keep house prices propped up at artificially high levels indefinitely? Because if he can't, he's screwed and Labour really don't want to be agreeing with him when it all goes belly up.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 9:45 am

CCHQ Press Office ‏@CCHQPress 3m3 minutes ago
Today the PM is announcing the Help to Save scheme- it'll transform the life chances of millions across the country https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-a ... f-millions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 9:49 am

Willow904 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Revealed: the secret report into Labour's 2015 defeat
The report - published in full for the first time - encouraged Harriet Harman to lead Labour in abstaining on the Welfare Bill.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... 015-defeat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Methodology.jpg
Well, that was a depressing read, wasn't it? The sheer enormity of peoples' misconceptions is hard to get my head around. So Scotland thinks Labour is just like the Tories, whilst England thinks they're just for the 'down and outs'? They can't be both, obviously. So playing to these misconceptions is as impossible as it is stupidly misguided as they clearly can't prove they're not like the Tories whilst being just like the Tories by being for wealthier people and not helping the most vulnerable. Given Harriet Harman was attempting to channel this drivel I now understand why she did such an appalling job.

Clearly Labour needs to challenge the Tory/MSM bollocks on the economy, to expose the holes in Osbornomics and keep on doing so. There's no other way. As long as people think the Osborne way is the right way, they'll vote for the Tories. Labour needs to have the courage of its convictions. Ed Balls was right in 2010 and McDonnell, with a very similar message, is right now. It all comes back to the same question I've been asking for the last few years. Can Osborne really keep house prices propped up at artificially high levels indefinitely? Because if he can't, he's screwed and Labour really don't want to be agreeing with him when it all goes belly up.

Glad to see it's not just me that can take almost nothing of worth from that 'review'. The limited nature of the focus groups doesn't help IMO. They should have gone to other parts of the country - parts where Ukip got a relatively good showing, Wales, and talked to people outside that age range as well.

I've seen a tweet or two saying this shows the fallacy of policy making by focus group.

If Labour were to gear themselves to this selection of voters - they'd lose a heck of a lot of others.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 9:52 am

Willow904 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Revealed: the secret report into Labour's 2015 defeat
The report - published in full for the first time - encouraged Harriet Harman to lead Labour in abstaining on the Welfare Bill.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... 015-defeat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Methodology.jpg
Well, that was a depressing read, wasn't it? The sheer enormity of peoples' misconceptions is hard to get my head around. So Scotland thinks Labour is just like the Tories, whilst England thinks they're just for the 'down and outs'? They can't be both, obviously. So playing to these misconceptions is as impossible as it is stupidly misguided as they clearly can't prove they're not like the Tories whilst being just like the Tories by being for wealthier people and not helping the most vulnerable. Given Harriet Harman was attempting to channel this drivel I now understand why she did such an appalling job.

Clearly Labour needs to challenge the Tory/MSM bollocks on the economy, to expose the holes in Osbornomics and keep on doing so. There's no other way. As long as people think the Osborne way is the right way, they'll vote for the Tories. Labour needs to have the courage of its convictions. Ed Balls was right in 2010 and McDonnell, with a very similar message, is right now. It all comes back to the same question I've been asking for the last few years. Can Osborne really keep house prices propped up at artificially high levels indefinitely? Because if he can't, he's screwed and Labour really don't want to be agreeing with him when it all goes belly up.

10 groups of 7-8 people.

About as impressive as the Shampoo ads '78% Agree' statistics.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 10:01 am

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -calm-down" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Watson said: “This is the great irony of politics in that there are people in the party who are trying to change the rules in order to try and protect Jeremy’s position and they might just be precipitating a challenge to his leadership.

Watson's pretty spot on with his comments in this article. The boat is being rocked from both sides and I'm unimpressed by the the antics of both. The cynic in me, however, can't help but think that Watson is keen to head off a coup this summer because it would interfere with his own plans for a leadership bid. Still no light at the end of the tunnel, I fear....

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 10:06 am

Award letters for out-of-work benefits come with the statement "£X is the amount that the government says you need to live on".

Award letters for tax credits and UC do not come with this - they simply say what the award is, how it was calculated, what the deductions are.

This is sneaky - because now there is no "amount the government says you need to live on". Hardship payments are partially based on this minimum, and in some cases, sanctioned claimants can be awarded a percentage of that minimum.

People who are on wages so low that they need UC/HB/WTC and who "pass" the means-testing involved are poor. They're very poor.
How the feckity feck are they supposed to save £50 a month?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 10:25 am

ephemerid wrote:Award letters for out-of-work benefits come with the statement "£X is the amount that the government says you need to live on".

Award letters for tax credits and UC do not come with this - they simply say what the award is, how it was calculated, what the deductions are.

This is sneaky - because now there is no "amount the government says you need to live on". Hardship payments are partially based on this minimum, and in some cases, sanctioned claimants can be awarded a percentage of that minimum.

People who are on wages so low that they need UC/HB/WTC and who "pass" the means-testing involved are poor. They're very poor.
How the feckity feck are they supposed to save £50 a month?

Cancelling their sky TV subscription and laying off the booze and fags.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 10:32 am

If it is really true Harman decided the stance on the Welfare Bill on the back of that spun manipulated nonsense, it shows how disastrous her second stint as acting leader was.

Polls should be treated with caution, focus groups aren't even worth that much - they are incredibly easy to fix.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 10:34 am

ephemerid wrote: How the feckity feck are they supposed to save £50 a month?

It would hardly transform their life chances if they could.

I'm lost for words on this one. It's just for people on benefits? So if they had a spare £50/month, there'd be frothing right-wingers saying their benefits are obviously too much?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 10:39 am

Good-morning.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 10:40 am

The original

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... G_10010450" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 10:43 am

citizenJA wrote:Good-morning.

Hello. Thanks for the FT article access tip yesterday - I managed to get it as a result of your help.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 10:43 am

Good morfternoon.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 10:48 am

Willow904 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ing-amount
Global temperatures in February smashed previous monthly records by an unprecedented amount, according to Nasa data, sparking warnings of a climate emergency.

I hear John McDonnell talking 'common sense' in economic terms and then I come up against this.
Sometimes I'm very glad I don't have children, what will the world be like for my sister's grandchildren?
I think I'm the opposite of a watermelon, I'm red outside but green inside.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 10:49 am

Victoria Derbyshire (BBC) busting a gut to try to link, on a personal basis, Sadiq Khan with Babar Ahmad.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 10:51 am

gilsey wrote:
ephemerid wrote: How the feckity feck are they supposed to save £50 a month?
It would hardly transform their life chances if they could.

I'm lost for words on this one. It's just for people on benefits? So if they had a spare £50/month, there'd be frothing right-wingers saying their benefits are obviously too much?

It must be based on the cash they're going to save from cancelling their Sky subscriptions and cutting out the fags, booze and nail bars, gilsey.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 10:55 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:If it is really true Harman decided the stance on the Welfare Bill on the back of that spun manipulated nonsense, it shows how disastrous her second stint as acting leader was.

Polls should be treated with caution, focus groups aren't even worth that much - they are incredibly easy to fix.

I find myself in a very difficult place with polls now. They generally show Labour well down ... and I don't want to ignore or underplay that - it's not good news. Then I keep seeing comparisons being made with the polls this time last year where Labour was doing considerably better being used to reinforce the message of how badly Labour under Corbyn is performing. But aren't those polls from last year the very ones that were found to be overstating Labour considerably due to poor sampling? So maybe that comparison is not reliable? It's a mess.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 10:58 am

PorFavor wrote:
citizenJA wrote:Good-morning.
Hello. Thanks for the FT article access tip yesterday - I managed to get it as a result of your help.

Good, you're welcome to any help I'm able to give.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 10:58 am

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Liz McInnes ‏@LizMcInnesMP 2m2 minutes ago
Liz McInnes Retweeted Simon farrow
You did. I thought exactly the same. How on earth will this work?

Simon farrow
‏@Charliemouse8
Did I really wake up to the news of Cameron launching a scheme for people on benefits to save money, surely I didn’t hear this correctly?
Just shows how little they understand or care about how so many people eke out their money ...

They've obviously not got the same weekly information coming in that they had in Laws' time re the daily price of milk, bread and beer in London and Sheffield.

I think you're forgetting that Cameron knows exactly what it is like to claim benefits, rebecca, as he did for his infant son. It also makes me think of the 'not a huge amount' in Rowson's cartoon (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ts-cartoon), still not open for comment. He may of course be referring to another of Osborne's utterances but I thought of his benefit reductions to the ill and disabled; it was just pin money to the Camerons and not the lifeline it is to others..

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 10:59 am

Regarding polls, VI is actually one of their more reliable findings (though it should be remembered even they are "snapshots in time" and nothing more)

Its other areas where they should be treated warily, I note even reputable pollsters like YouGov have not been above some distinctly "leading questions" recently.......

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 11:07 am

gilsey wrote:
ephemerid wrote: How the feckity feck are they supposed to save £50 a month?
It would hardly transform their life chances if they could.

I'm lost for words on this one. It's just for people on benefits? So if they had a spare £50/month, there'd be frothing right-wingers saying their benefits are obviously too much?

Hit it in one !

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 11:08 am

: Distribution of jobs in England and Wales.jpg (66.05 KiB) Viewed 7670 times

Centre for Cities ‏@CentreforCities 11m11 minutes ago
From last week: what the geography of jobs in England and Wales tells us about the economy http://bit.ly/1RRwsim" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 11:29 am

gilsey wrote:
Willow904 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ing-amount
Global temperatures in February smashed previous monthly records by an unprecedented amount, according to Nasa data, sparking warnings of a climate emergency.

I hear John McDonnell talking 'common sense' in economic terms and then I come up against this.
Sometimes I'm very glad I don't have children, what will the world be like for my sister's grandchildren?
I think I'm the opposite of a watermelon, I'm red outside but green inside.

Has McDonnell said something about the environment causing your disquiet? He may well have done, I don't know. I'd like to know if I've missed something.

The Labour party's current leader and the leader before him are likely willing implementation of necessary policies to save our environment. I understand the daunting magnitude the world faces over climate change. Modern nations have come together to collectively win (and lose) war(s). Collective action can work here too. I know the prognosis don't look good. I'll continue working to save our environment regardless.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 11:36 am

utopiandreams wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Liz McInnes ‏@LizMcInnesMP 2m2 minutes ago
Liz McInnes Retweeted Simon farrow
You did. I thought exactly the same. How on earth will this work?

Simon farrow
‏@Charliemouse8
Did I really wake up to the news of Cameron launching a scheme for people on benefits to save money, surely I didn’t hear this correctly?
Just shows how little they understand or care about how so many people eke out their money ...

They've obviously not got the same weekly information coming in that they had in Laws' time re the daily price of milk, bread and beer in London and Sheffield.
I think you're forgetting that Cameron knows exactly what it is like to claim benefits, rebecca, as he did for his infant son. It also makes me think of the 'not a huge amount' in Rowson's cartoon (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ts-cartoon), still not open for comment. He may of course be referring to another of Osborne's utterances but I thought of his benefit reductions to the ill and disabled; it was just pin money to the Camerons and not the lifeline it is to others..

This.

I can't get my head around Dave Cameron and his Tory government. You're correct, of course. This man has no sense of decency - none. Cameron's government are entirely without honour. They take. They take and when they can, they take what they've taken away from others.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 11:38 am

ohsocynical wrote:
gilsey wrote:
ephemerid wrote: How the feckity feck are they supposed to save £50 a month?
It would hardly transform their life chances if they could.

I'm lost for words on this one. It's just for people on benefits? So if they had a spare £50/month, there'd be frothing right-wingers saying their benefits are obviously too much?
Hit it in one !

gilsey and ohso - yes, it is just for people on benefits......

But the benefits have to be the correct type of benefits.
Not any old benefits.
Only the ones hardworkingfamiliesdoingtherightthing claim.
Universal Credit and tax credits.

So it is, presumably, assumed that people on out-of-work benefits don't have enough dosh to save.
Which could possibly be true.
It is also assumed that people on in-work benefits like UC, where you keep 34 pence per £1 of earnings, do have enough dosh to save.
Which could also possibly be true.

If UC is ever rolled out nationwide, pretty much all claimants of both in-work and out-of-work benefits will be on it.
If a significant number of people save £50 a month, then obviously the payments are £50 a month too high.

Personally,I doubt that many people will be able to save that much.
There is another assumption here - that UC claimants will get as much as people currently on WTC/HB do now. They won't.
UC will ensure that working people will lose out, some by thousands annually.
There is even less scope to save on UC than there is on other benefits.

The DWP keeps on about how UC claimants will be better off - and all the fact-checkers keep on about how they won't.
In the middle of all this, Slimy Dave and Snorty Gidiot are pretending that they are giving £1,200 to poor people - as long as they are hardworkingfamiliesdoingtherightthingmakingthemostoftheirlifechances.

I repeat. Life chances my arse.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 11:42 am

HindleA wrote:The original

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... G_10010450" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've only skimmed the original savings plan thus far - I've not digested the whole thing - that being said, the program in the archives is very different in wording and practicality than what I've seen from current government.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 12:13 pm

citizenJA wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote: Just shows how little they understand or care about how so many people eke out their money ...

They've obviously not got the same weekly information coming in that they had in Laws' time re the daily price of milk, bread and beer in London and Sheffield.
I think you're forgetting that Cameron knows exactly what it is like to claim benefits, rebecca, as he did for his infant son. It also makes me think of the 'not a huge amount' in Rowson's cartoon (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ts-cartoon), still not open for comment. He may of course be referring to another of Osborne's utterances but I thought of his benefit reductions to the ill and disabled; it was just pin money to the Camerons and not the lifeline it is to others..
This.

I can't get my head around Dave Cameron and his Tory government. You're correct, of course. This man has no sense of decency - none. Cameron's government are entirely without honour. They take. They take and when they can, they take what they've taken away from others.

I have long believed that the Camerons claimed DLA for their son because the higher rates for someone as sick and disabled as Ivan are "passport" benefits to a lot of other stuff, like NHS care, community physiotherapy, incontinence aids, LA care packages, etc.

Things like incontinence pads are very expensive - specialist online retailers charge on average £15 for 28 large pads (that doesn't include the pants) and they would last for a week at best. You may be rationed if you use the ones supplied by a LA care package, but if you need more or different, it's an expensive business keeping clean and dry. Some people don't qualify at all.

What the Camerons got - the DLA, and with it the Motability car, the aids/appliances, NHS care, whatever, are all things that are now being denied to people who do not have their millions to cushion the cost.

People are losing their Motability vehicles under PIP at an alarming rate. 45% of those using a Motability car under DLA have lost their cars under PIP - 31,200 such claimants have been re-assessed under the new rules and 14,000 have lost their Motability vehicle.
The loss of the vehicle is one thing - but by failing to qualify for the higher rates of PIP, disabled people are also losing "passporting" to the other things that come with the higher awards and have to pay for them themselves or go without.

The hypocrisy of Cameron beggars belief - whilst I absolutely support the right of a multi-millionaire to claim a benefit which is aimed solely at recognising the extra costs of living with a disability, he is happy to see that right removed from everyone else.
DLA is/was a good benefit - it acknowledged the struggles disabled people have, and the levels/components were targeted pretty well considering how complex some peoples' needs can be. Making it a universal non means-tested benefit was correct and fair.

I do not agree with those who say he should not have claimed it for Ivan on the grounds he happens to be a rich man.
I vehemently agree with those who say that now he doesn't need it for Ivan any more he simply doesn't care.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 12:19 pm

1.We need to combat a political attack line within our narrative.Treasury have a look.
2.Here's one we made earlier.
3.Feed it through narrative and adapt as necessary.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 12:42 pm

Mrs Bone help to buy, or this. What should be the priority?
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/03 ... o-a-bedsit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 12:48 pm

ephemerid wrote:... I have long believed that the Camerons claimed DLA for their son because the higher rates for someone as sick and disabled as Ivan are "passport" benefits to a lot of other stuff, like NHS care, community physiotherapy, incontinence aids, LA care packages, etc.

Things like incontinence pads are very expensive - specialist online retailers charge on average £15 for 28 large pads (that doesn't include the pants) and they would last for a week at best. You may be rationed if you use the ones supplied by a LA care package, but if you need more or different, it's an expensive business keeping clean and dry. Some people don't qualify at all.

What the Camerons got - the DLA, and with it the Motability car, the aids/appliances, NHS care, whatever, are all things that are now being denied to people who do not have their millions to cushion the cost.

People are losing their Motability vehicles under PIP at an alarming rate. 45% of those using a Motability car under DLA have lost their cars under PIP - 31,200 such claimants have been re-assessed under the new rules and 14,000 have lost their Motability vehicle.
The loss of the vehicle is one thing - but by failing to qualify for the higher rates of PIP, disabled people are also losing "passporting" to the other things that come with the higher awards and have to pay for them themselves or go without.

The hypocrisy of Cameron beggars belief - whilst I absolutely support the right of a multi-millionaire to claim a benefit which is aimed solely at recognising the extra costs of living with a disability, he is happy to see that right removed from everyone else.
DLA is/was a good benefit - it acknowledged the struggles disabled people have, and the levels/components were targeted pretty well considering how complex some peoples' needs can be. Making it a universal non means-tested benefit was correct and fair.

I do not agree with those who say he should not have claimed it for Ivan on the grounds he happens to be a rich man.
I vehemently agree with those who say that now he doesn't need it for Ivan any more he simply doesn't care.

I shall challenge you on your first point, ephe, albeit bowing to your undoubted knowledge regarding adult benefits. I have previously mentioned that, being born disabled, our daughter was immediately assigned a social worker well before her DLA eligibility that only comes into force at two years of age and she was about ten before we claimed. Nevertheless she was granted all manner of additional NHS and educational support, LA care packages, etc. regardless of any DLA claim. Regular supplies of oversized nappies or incontinence pads were also prescribed by the doctors. Forgive me if I'm mistaken but aren't scrips free before sixteeen and even then we pre-paid at an annual discount.

I do however agree with your closing comments albeit I have criticised him for claiming when rich but I was throwing back his own words of 'exercising discretion' at the time, but yes, his lack of appreciation for others is my major gripe.

Edit: corrected on to of and changed cowing to bowing plus added a 'to'.

Okay, okay... and a couple of typos.

... and finally added ''LA care packages, etc. too, since mentioned by ephe.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 1:10 pm

As I've already said I do to some extent counter 'passport to further assistance' arguments for children although agree that when it came to my late wife's mid-thirties stroke less help was available for her until a year later, once we had claimed on her behalf.

That was initially a response to a post that has disappeared

Postscript: mind you during that first year all talk was of my wife's recovery. We had no idea how long that would prove to be, if you could call it a recovery.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 1:14 pm

Afternoon,
re:gvt incentive to save scheme.
I probably misheard this, but think news said people had to be receiving tax credits & save every month for 2 years before receiving a top-up from the gvt.
Hypothetically, doesn't this then create a disincentive / barrier to changing circumstances as the top-up date nears?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 1:18 pm

@tinybgoat

My thoughts too, tiny, or should I say those of IDS?

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Mon 14 Mar, 2016 1:22 pm

Afternoon.

Trolling starts at the top, I see:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The policy is rank enough, but that hashtag. Coming from him...