UK - ESA/WCA - BBC World at One - ridiculous interview with minister
- Thread starter Bob
- Start date
I would like to point out that the Banks got millions in taxpayers money when they needed it.
It is socialism for those already wealthy. Too big and rich to be allowed to fail, the government has no hesitation in pouring taxpayers money into the city..
The Tory party are too stupid to realise you cannot reinvigorate an economy when the middle and lower classes have not got money to spend.
They also do not understand that incapacity affects all classes, not just those they have contempt for. They will be facing resistance from the professional and middle classes too, as these people also become disabled and will now face a drop in income..
It is socialism for those already wealthy. Too big and rich to be allowed to fail, the government has no hesitation in pouring taxpayers money into the city..
The Tory party are too stupid to realise you cannot reinvigorate an economy when the middle and lower classes have not got money to spend.
They also do not understand that incapacity affects all classes, not just those they have contempt for. They will be facing resistance from the professional and middle classes too, as these people also become disabled and will now face a drop in income..
The changes to ESA are actually being done to means test disability benefits.
It is just that the government does not want to admit this, so it keeps up the rhetoric about the benefits of "work" It knows that the people it throws off benefit will not be fit enough to find work
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/esa-time-limit-wr2011-ia-revised-apr2011.pdf
People may object to being placed in the WRAG due to the time limit. As a result, the number of appeals against being placed in the WRAG rather than the Support Group may increase. In line with the latest forecasts it is assumed that 50 per cent of those affected by time limiting will attempt to appeal their WRAG decision, and 20 per cent will be successful and moved to the Support Group. This increases administrative costs from processing these additional appeals and reduces overall numbers of people in the WRAG, and therefore benefit savings from this policy compared to earlier estimates. The scale of this change of behaviour is very difficult to estimate prior to the policy being brought in, so there is a risk that these estimates will change as more evidence becomes available.
It is just that the government does not want to admit this, so it keeps up the rhetoric about the benefits of "work" It knows that the people it throws off benefit will not be fit enough to find work
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/esa-time-limit-wr2011-ia-revised-apr2011.pdf
People may object to being placed in the WRAG due to the time limit. As a result, the number of appeals against being placed in the WRAG rather than the Support Group may increase. In line with the latest forecasts it is assumed that 50 per cent of those affected by time limiting will attempt to appeal their WRAG decision, and 20 per cent will be successful and moved to the Support Group. This increases administrative costs from processing these additional appeals and reduces overall numbers of people in the WRAG, and therefore benefit savings from this policy compared to earlier estimates. The scale of this change of behaviour is very difficult to estimate prior to the policy being brought in, so there is a risk that these estimates will change as more evidence becomes available.
Firestormm
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,055
- Location
- Cornwall England
You know it is a shame (though perhaps an understandable one in many ways), but their membership is I believe around 4,000. Considering the work they do and their presence this is perhaps surprising to some people (perhaps not to others).
I believe that especially with the advances in social media and the internet generally, so many people are able to access the work of charities generally; that they perhaps no longer (if ever they did) consider paying a membership to be worthwhile.
That coupled with the prevalence of ME charities in particular (why so many I always have to ask?) I do wonder if charities (traditional ones at least) are a dying breed (if not now extinct on a national level).
I don't really have any ill-feeling towards 'modern' charities who are operating under more of a business-guide-model - but I do really believe that those 'corporate positions' attracting salaries that to me at least seem more on a par with private corporations - should be enumerated based solely on agreed performance measures.
Always strikes me as rather unfair that this does not happen when for many of these organisations who employ e.g. fund-raisers they are able to employ them based totally on performance - in this case if the fund-raiser does not bring in their targets then they don't get paid (or paid as much). Same should happen for those attracting relatively HUGE salaries in my opinion - and the performance measures should be quantifiable.
The only ones who 'vote' on a salary arrangement are the Trustees from what I have understood - it should be the members! Sorry. I have a thing about what a subscription actually pays for - I think there is a lot to be said for improving transparency in the 'voluntary-sector'.
In Vitro Infidelium
Guest
- Messages
- 646
Agreed - unfortunately most Charities are not member organisations in the sense that 'subscribers' are empowered under their particular Charity's constitution. There are many failings under UK charity Law - the worrying thing though is that the UK probably has the most comprehensive, effective and accessible Charity monitoring system in the world.
Whatever arguments others may have with the MEA, there can be no doubt that it does operate with the general consensus of its members, who are at minimum empowered to elect trustees. I do wish other M.E/CFS orgs would adopt (re-adopt !) this model because (IMO) an empowered membership provides a far stronger advocacy base.
IVI
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
I got vaguely directed towards Action for ME when I was first ill, but knew nothing about them, and didn't have much interest. I was recently thinking that I should join MEA - I'm never going to really agree with the approach taken by any one organisation, but they do seem pretty good for a big one, and we should probably try to support what we have.
In Vitro Infidelium
Guest
- Messages
- 646
Joining any group/party necessarily involves giving up a certain degree of autonomy where the group is acting in the name of members - the best one can go for is to seek to influence the group as best one can and support those aspects that take the group in the direction one believes is right. Groups have more power to influence political and social processes than do individuals, and structures like AfME and the MEA are maximised to exercise influence. It is usually the case that individual effort is more effective within an organisation that outside one so that on balance, even if one has to hold one's nose because the ambient odour isn't everything one would want, becoming part of an established advocacy effort is a far better option than trying to re-invent the wheel.
IVI
Lloyds and RBS were bailed out and are largely state owned. Barclays and HSBC received no direct aid; they were not bailed out.
Lloyds, and RBS in particular, were on the brink of collapse. I am not sure you are aware of just how desperate that would have been for every single man woman and child in the UK. Think 1930's depression, and you'd still have some way to go.
I believe that the Goverment will make a profit on these two banks. They were right to bail these banks out when they did. The fact that we got to this situation is laissez faire capitalism at it's worse. You can blame Maggie for that one if you like.
We were within twenty fours of the cash machines freezing up. I still don't believe the general public realise just how close we came. It was only the BoE injecting liquidity into the system that ''saved us''
Pouring tax payers money into the City ? In what way ? The City accounts for as much as 12% of GDP, more by some estimates. Perhaps you'd like those jobs to go to Wall Street ? Quantitative easing will inevitably lead to inflation in the long run, and a resultant fall in the living standards of all of us.
I do not like it anymore than you do, but what would you have done ?
I'm all for bank bashing, makes you feel better for a while, but the credit crunch originated in the states when a Labour Government was in power. Do you really think things would be better under a Labour Government ?
It's pretty hard to ''reinvigorate an economy'' when your national debt is close to 100% of GDP. What would you do ?
Spend more and lose your triple AAA rating making it costlier to borrow ? Spend less and hope ( as the coalition are )
the economy will improve ? There are signs that The ROI are managing just that but who else ?
Many of us are in a perilous financial situation, but then again that has been the case in the seventeen years that I have been ill, despite four general elections. When do you expect that to change ? Tell me who will bring about that change and i'll make my way to the polling booth in 2015 with a spring in my step.
Kind regards, Mark
Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
Hi folks. I think we should think carefully before getting stuck into a political debate. It could escalate and it could be unnecessarily divisive. And it probably wouldn't be therapeutic.
Obviously, I'm not telling people what to do... Just suggesting that we think about if it's necessary.
Having said that, I can't resist replying to one point in Mark's post...
It's not a binary option, Mark. That's just the spin that's been put on it by politicians and the media. The UK is the fourth largest economy (or is it the fifth now?) in the world, so the wealth of the country is absolutely enormous. If the wealth was tapped, in the short-term, to help the economy and the deficit, then that could potentially help to solve the problems.
I'm not saying that's the best thing to do. I'm just saying that it's not a binary option.
Obviously, I'm not telling people what to do... Just suggesting that we think about if it's necessary.
Having said that, I can't resist replying to one point in Mark's post...
It's not a binary option, Mark. That's just the spin that's been put on it by politicians and the media. The UK is the fourth largest economy (or is it the fifth now?) in the world, so the wealth of the country is absolutely enormous. If the wealth was tapped, in the short-term, to help the economy and the deficit, then that could potentially help to solve the problems.
I'm not saying that's the best thing to do. I'm just saying that it's not a binary option.
Hello Bob, sorry if I have strayed. It's Keynes versus Hayek i'm afraid.
What wealth Bob ? Gordon sold lots of our gold at rock bottom prices
Most of what we could privatise, has been privatised. We are printing money ......our childrens money, our grandchildrens wealth. We are tapping into our wealth - their wealth.I think austerity is necessary, but over what time scale. I would like the time scale to be expanded over a longer period of time. The present path is brutal.
Scrap trident, stop illegal wars, introduce the mansion tax, possibly a financial transaction tax ( must be universal, almost impossible to achieve )
Freeze the pay of doctors for several more years ( they have done very well in the last ten years ) give some of those savings to nurses, porters, cleaners.
Expand the allowance to 10K straight away.
More aggressive on large scale tax avoidance ( Note avoidance ! ) Evasion too
Why can't the finest minds tackle tax avoidance ? A well known comedian paying just 10K on earnings over a million, and then saying he paid what was owed. He's right of course, but where is the public backlash ? Was it Starbucks yesterday in the news, paying almost no corporation tax ? Sorry I didn't get all of that story.
Most of all, where is our compassion for each other ? Our pensioners are amongst the most poorly paid in Europe. Both France and Germany have more equitable provisions for the worst off in their society. Why do we all tolerate this ? Perhaps because we still have food on the table, the bills get largely paid, but most of all , although we care, we don't care enough.
Apologies for going off on one Bob. I won't post again on this thread
Kind regards,Mark
Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
What wealth Bob ? Gordon sold lots of our gold at rock bottom prices
I was talking about the nation's wealth, not the government's wealth. There is plenty of it. It's a question of distribution. Not everyone would want GDP and wealth more equally distributed, but it is a theoretical option.
I agree with some of the stuff that you have said, Mark, but I'm going to avoid getting sucked into a political discussion that I'll regret later.
Apologies for going off on one Bob. I won't post again on this thread
No problems, Mark. I was only making a suggestion. I don't mind if you post here.
