So, people really are dying because of the Condems 'austerity'.

[truman]

I appreciate that it's a large payout, and his behaviour doesn't appear to have been all above board. But I'm not sure how it's related to them "getting the money". It's just another example of a politician lining their own nest.

 

My point is that they seem to be a bit errr..free and easy with other people's money...no matter how much you gave them they'd still find some way of wasting it and saying "It's not enough"..

[Oh Carol]

See my post #77 to see what happens when they do get the money..Porsches on the council anyone?

........"ex council chief executive gets £320k payoff"

 

.....not "JUST" the private sector ripping us off then?

[truman]

........"ex council chief executive gets £320k payoff"

 

.....not "JUST" the private sector ripping us off then?

 

The council were also paying for a Porsche Panamara for him as well...

[Mecky]

Safety nets have to be paid for and if Labour had been re-elected this country would be double bankrupt instead of single.

Far too many people shout about their rights but little about personal responsibility!

 

Oh dear, still trying to push that line?

[*_ash_*]

:hihi: Oh dear....I think you might have also have been duped by Cameron's forked tongue. When he said he was giving local authorities more control over their own spending what he actually meant was that he didn't want to seem like the nasty one who was going to have to choose between care homes and mental health provision, after he had slashed their budget, so he was leaving that in the hands of the local councils, many of them Labour, conveneniently, so it looked like they were the nasty party. It's genius really as so many people fall for it!

 

What are you talking about? I've no idea what Cameron's position is with this, I've never heard or read him say anything about it, so I can't have been 'duped'. If you look above I said it's 'the people' who seem to want more autonomy within regions. This HAS been in the news a lot especially since the Scottish Referendum. I notice it gets mentioned a lot on Question Time too.

 

I said:

 

Either way, the way things are going it looks to me like 'the people' are wanting more local control, and we'll get it. More control for councils to raise money and decide how it's spent. I wonder if Sheff CC has anticipated this and why they introduced the parking permits to raise money.

 

I haven't fallen for anything. I don't know what my position is on it yet. In theory it sounds alright, but I think it would just create another layer of bureaucracy, which doesn't sound alright.

 

Too true.

 

I love this trend towards 'giving control to XXX to run their own budget' then failing to provide them with enough money to run a pie shop let alone a social care service.

 

To be honest, it's never occurred to me that people couldn't see through this. It's just so obvious that it's a cost cutting exercise wrapped up as a benefit...

 

So do you prefer total power from one place? I'm sure you don't normally have this stance.

 

If thousands are 'slipping through' (in reality, they are being forced through), then I would question the efficiency of the policy.

In the reports I've read, untrained people are making work capability assessments, in spite of what their own GPs recommendations.

 

The OP quotes 2 unfortunate stories, but it does beg the question why did the direct family allow their siblings to 'starve to death' as it says, and why I agreed with Gobby's earlier post.

 

Given that GPs know their patients medical history better than the DWP, then shouldn't the GP's decision play more of a central role?

If as many people were dying as a consequence of some other Government policy or inaction - would Ministers still press on regardless? No I don't think so either.

 

I want doctors to get people well by doing their job, not doing the DWP's job. Do you want them to play more of a central role?

[Mecky]

Here's a piece from Del on the call to arms for helping the needy:

 

Philip Schofield went and spoiled his whole 24 hour fund raising effort when yet again while asking ordinary people for their spare money on a televised charity event, he and ITV then allowed David Cameron to have a prime spot on the same show, to spew his Tory propaganda and laughabley tell the country what caring people he and his wife Samantha are, by letting slip that Samantha does charity work at a homeless centre !!

 

In fact the last time Samantha was photographed helping to cook a meal at this homeless centre was coincidentally in 2010 during the general election campaign, and would you believe coincidentally just before the next general election Samantha is back down the homeless centre again !!

 

When you think of the misery and the huge increase in homelessness, and the hunger that has led to a never ending need for fioodbanks to feed children of WORKING parents and the endless charity events now on television , that are all a direct by product of David Cameron and his feed the rich policies !! That amazingly ITV then think it is a great idea to ask for even more of your money while giving the man that has caused the majority of all this suffering and the need for all this charity, a nice cosy primetime interview on the very same show, to help build up his own profile as a carer of the poor and down trodden, who have been under his Tory boot for nearly five years, while Philip just sits their nodding and smiling like a Cheshire cat.

 

David Cameron asking ordinary people to give money to help ordinary people, while he takes it all away from ordinary people, to give to very rich people !!

 

Sorry Philip but you would have done better getting an early night in. That interview made a mockery of the whole thing.

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2014 at 07:56 ----------

 

I'm looking forward to Osborne's fairytale later today when he becomes even more detached from reality

[chem1st]

We need a basic income to rid us of absolutle poverty for good, rid the system of bureaucracy, incentivise work (by using basic income to end the absurdity of the highest marginal deduction rates for the poorest), and free up workers to do more productive work.

 

No more sanctions, no more means tests. Guaranteed benefits for all. A basic income. If your idle and do not work to work, then you will be able to live, a very BASIC life.

 

Zero hours contracts then become a type of employment that reward work and enrich workers. Society and the economy become much more functional.

 

As it stands, somebody taking temporary work on a ZHC can lose all benefits, face a 7 day sanction and instead of working a shift of 8/10/12 hours, might find themselves sent home from work when he gets to the factory gate!

 

After having paid for travel to work!

 

When practically everyone is already on social security benefits, tax credits, a pensions, the public sector payroll or a publically funded private sector payroll. And with those not in receipt of public money directly, often claiming much more indirectly.

 

Then it seems stupid to have large buildings in every town & city with massive offices and large amounts of people employed to carry out various means tests to pay everyone a de facto basic income in some way or another.

 

We need a basic income NOW!

[Mecky]

Oops http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/new-sheffield-advice-service-for-food-bank-users-1-6985651

[Mister M]

Just read about a tragic case of a man who was killed:

 

Vince Hessey, of YMCA Wirral, told the inquiry [all-party inquiry into food poverty]:

 

One of our clients was sanctioned. He had no money for seventeen weeks. He was scavenging in a bin, the lorry came, picked him up and he was crushed to death.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/08/feeding-britain_n_6287300.html?utm_hp_ref=uk