Iain Duncan Smith resigns from Cabinet

[Bob Arctor]

I expect a withdrawal of your totally unnecessary statement by return.

 

He used to get DLA. That has since changed to PIP. He has gone from one rate to another. He does also get a personal budget and that has also just gone through more periods of assessment.

 

Call it whatever you will. DLA/PIP/Mobility/Personal Budget/Attendance. Its "benefit".

 

The point still remains. He used to get x amount. It has now been reduced to y amount because his circumstances have changed.

 

What he needed before he needs no longer.

 

He is certainly not the only one in that position and I repeat again for the umpteenth time! SOME PEOPLE DESERVE A CUT.

 

Cry-babies and rent a protestors can bang on all they want. Money is not infinite. Just because a review and a proposal was put forward does not automatically give them some right to start gobbing off and making absolutely ludicrous insults about the Government or quite frankly anyone in the outside world who (god forbid) might actually support it.

 

Say what you like but, Its was NOT a blanket attack on the disabled. It was NOT some inhumane scheme from the so called nasty party. It was a suggestion to try and sort out the mess that is the welfare state.

 

Its was a good proposal which I will concede has been badly put forward but ultimately mauled by the media to suit their agenda.

 

It like anything to do with welfare, the NHS or the Civil Service in general. Too many think its some protected bubble which just cannot possibly ever ever be touched. Nonsense.

 

MPs in the house today (from both sides) should have been ashamed of themselves. The world is blowing itself up due to terrorists and they spent the day name calling, squabbling, showing off and backstabbing just because an IDEA was suggested which was even slightly controversial.

 

All that hot air about defective budget, cat calls for Osborne's head on a plate and the budget still got through the vote.

 

1 minster throws bucket of slurry to try to enhance their career and the more moronic in the house treat it as if the whole right side of the house is ready to fall of a cliff.

 

I say it again, the Tories could offer everyone a million pounds and a free 5 bedroomed house and the left would still criticise and lay on this "nasty party" tag.

 

You are dissembling now, saying that PIP and social care budgets are the same thing, when they are not. Social Care services are no more a benefit than NHS treatment is. This is a thread specifically about proposed cuts to PIP; you posted about a relative who you claimed had his PIP reduced because he became more disabled - this doesn't happen because this is not how PIP works. It doesn't go up because you need to make more journeys and it doesn't come down because you need to make fewer journeys. It's paid at flat rates based on how disabled you are.

 

You posted a spurious example to justify a blanket reduction in eligibility to PIP for anyone who needs an aid to use the toilet or get dressed, so you're not getting an apology from me, you've been dishonest through the whole thread.

[Mister M]

We are all in it together but doesn't change the fact that some will still be better off than others, workers and employers will pull us out of the mess, the unemployed won't, so we should look after the people that will get us out of the mess, not the people that make the mess worse than it needs to be.

 

I think this little excerpt from Newsnight with the Education Secretary Nicky Morgan and Evan Davies discussing the recent budget shows that we are not all in this together:

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2016/03/ambushed-tory-minister-faces-death-by-graph-when-asked-about-the-impact-of-tory-policies-on-newsnight/

Edited March 23, 2016 by Mister M

[sgtkate]

 

It like anything to do with welfare, the NHS or the Civil Service in general. Too many think its some protected bubble which just cannot possibly ever ever be touched. Nonsense.

 

 

You are right, you are talking about pensions there. Another benefit that costs us £6b more per year thanks to the triple lock guarantees.

[ECCOnoob]

You are dissembling now, saying that PIP and social care budgets are the same thing, when they are not. Social Care services are no more a benefit than NHS treatment is. This is a thread specifically about proposed cuts to PIP; you posted about a relative who you claimed had his PIP reduced because he became more disabled - this doesn't happen because this is not how PIP works. It doesn't go up because you need to make more journeys and it doesn't come down because you need to make fewer journeys. It's paid at flat rates based on how disabled you are.

 

You posted a spurious example to justify a blanket reduction in eligibility to PIP for anyone who needs an aid to use the toilet or get dressed, so you're not getting an apology from me, you've been dishonest through the whole thread.

 

What would you call a reduction in someone's mobility rate component of (what was formerly DLA) and is now PIP.

 

I know full well what the difference is between the two types of funding. I could not give a flying mallard what you define to be a "benefit"

 

A cut is a cut and no matter how much silly semantics you want to keep bringing up, my POINT does not change.

 

How many more times do I need to say it.

 

SOME disabled people deserve their benefit cuts. SOME disabled people do not require what they once did.

 

When a service user has a multitude of benefits/monies/grants/dough whatever you want to call it, and those get reviewed and cut its the same thing.

 

PIP replaced DLA which included mobility and living costs elements. Not all of a person's personal budget covers those living costs. Not all aspects of a PIP is there to fund elements of social care personal budgets. Its all interchangeable.

 

Maybe I need to take lessons from the Great Wise One. Or perhaps, maybe I cant be bothered.

 

If you want to point score then yes, maybe my terminology and reference was wrong. Dishonest? I don't think so.

 

Time for our correspondence to close I think.

Edited March 23, 2016 by ECCOnoob

[Bob Arctor]

 

Time for our correspondence to close I think.

 

Yeah, because you realise you've been rumbled. Better luck next time.

[Jonny5]

Yeah, because you realise you've been rumbled. Better luck next time.

EccoNoob first alluded to his situation many years ago. I doubt that he did that just to cover himself should this thread ever come up.

[sutty27]

So it creates more debt then

 

Yep and debt is what allows people to buy houses, expand businesses which employ people and produce the stuff people want to buy with more debt.

Without debt the economy would crash, tax receipts would fall and there would be even less money for the disabled.

 

---------- Post added 23-03-2016 at 21:39 ----------

 

No it doesn't, it just re-sells credit, wrapped up in such complexity that no-one knows how risky it is. The financial industry is able to supply credit without securitization isn't it?

 

No it takes illiquid assets and makes them more liquid which enables them to sell more debt, debt needs to be backed by assets. or are you proposing they just print money without any assets to back it.

Edited March 23, 2016 by sutty27

[I1L2T3]

Yep and debt is what allows people to buy houses, expand businesses which employ people and produce the stuff people want to buy with more debt.

Without debt the economy would crash, tax receipts would fall and there would be even less money for the disabled.

 

Without securitization there would be less money for the disabled? Are you seriously arguing this? You can't be that daft can you?

 

---------- Post added 23-03-2016 at 22:18 ----------

 

 

No it takes illiquid assets and makes them more liquid which enables them to sell more debt, debt needs to be backed by assets. or are you proposing they just print money without any assets to back it.[/QUOTE]

 

Hurrah!! I think you are starting to understand what went wrong in 2008. Well done.

[Anna B]

Could not be further from it.

 

I agree with the tory (now cancelled) policy. I always have done.

 

I am trying to show a real life working example of why SOME people should have their monies reviewed and if necessary cut.

 

Now I may be wrong about this, but I have met disabled people (not working) who have a PA (personal assistant - I don't know if that's their real title or one they've given themselves,) but they help their clients by driving them places and helping them to get out and do things. They also help in other ways. Isn't that what the PIP money is intended for? I don't think it's only linked to working.

[sutty27]

Without securitization there would be less money for the disabled? Are you seriously arguing this? You can't be that daft can you?

 

Without securitization there would be less growth in the economy, with less growth come less tax, and less tax means less for everyone that relies on it to survive.