britain under the tories
This morning on the streets of Liverpool Keith and I saw a homeless lady harassed by five Merseyside police officers. I stopped to see if the lady was going to be ok. I took a photo which I put out on twitter
Keith and I stopped to talk to a homeless couple sitting not far where the police officers stood. Their names were Robbie and Bev. Both looked exhausted and stressed. We asked if they wanted something to eat and bought some food for them.
In Robbie case he was in pain and on pregablin. He served in Bosnia and was shot three times twice in the leg that he had surgery on and now in constant pain. He told us about his mental health issues living with PTSD
He is on ESA now and he was staying in Speak House Liverpool but he was robbed of his £750 back pay he won from his appeal and threatened with being stabbed. He didn't feel safe there and didn't want Bev attacked. He said it was safer out on the street.
I hugged him. He was grateful keith and I stopped to talk to him and gave them something to eat.
I got emotional at this point. No matter how many times I see homeless people on the street especially disabled homeless people it hurts like the first time.
We came away from Robbie and Bev in tears and angry. Angry and upset that in 21st century UK homeless is imploding.
Hang your heads in shame Tory Government. Hang your heads in shame!
from Paula peters
Posted by jeffrey davies on 09 September 2017
reply | edit & publish | delete
may hell
This is a bit sinister. While all eyes are on Brexit, Theresa May is trying to pull off a massive power grab in parliament. She wants to rig the committees of MPs that scrutinise new laws. We’ve got just a few days to stop her.
On Tuesday she will try to rush through the rule change. If she wins, she can pack influential committees with MPs who agree with her. It's an attempt to bypass parliament - and democracy - to make it much easier for her to get her way.
Thankfully, Theresa May's been spotted just in time. This morning, newspapers started exploding with the story. [3] What’s needed now, urgently, is the voices of us, the voters. If thousand of us can grow a massive petition in the next 24 hours, it’ll prove that we expect MPs to stand up for proper democratic process, and block this dodgy rule change.
If you agree Theresa May shouldn't be allowed to change the rules so she can force laws through, please sign the emergency petition right now:
SIGN THE PETITION
This proposed rule change was snuck out yesterday, while MPs were distracted debating Brexit. It would overturn the established rule that the government only gets a majority on committees if they have the most MPs in parliament. [4] If Theresa May gets away with it, it makes parliament less powerful. Every single MP, whatever their party, would have less power to hold her government to account.
It’s always tempting for politicians to try to bend the rules when they’re not getting their own way. And this isn’t the first time that 38 Degrees members have had to stand up to them to protect our democracy. Like when we stopped Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt bringing in a new "hospital closure clause", after the courts ruled he couldn't shut Lewisham hospital. [5] Our democracy needs us again today.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 09 September 2017
jeffs posts
labour shows their blue streak
The Labour party has been heavily criticised for again failing to defend disabled people from attacks on their rights, after its peers refused to vote against “discriminatory” cuts to the government’s new disability benefit.
The House of Lords voted on Monday on a motion to “annul” new government regulations that will make it far harder for people with experience of severe mental distress to secure mobility support through personal independence payment (PIP).
The motion was proposed by the Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Bakewell, and was supported by three crossbench disabled peers, Baroness [Jane] Campbell, Lord [Colin] Low and Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson.
But because Labour peers abstained, the government won the vote by 164 to 75.
Instead, Baroness Sherlock, Labour’s shadow work and pensions spokeswoman, proposed a weaker “motion of regret”, which was passed by 162 to 154 votes but left the regulations unaffected, although it did call on the government to review the impact of the changes within two years.
Despite Labour politicians celebrating the vote as a victory, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) told Disability News Service (DNS) yesterday (Wednesday) that it would ignore the Lords motion and would not carry out such a review.
Two days after the Lords debate, Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary Debbie Abrahams attacked the government for refusing to allow a meaningful vote in the Commons on the new regulations, even though Labour’s peers had abstained on just such a vote only 48 hours earlier.
The government has scheduled a debate for 19 April, Abrahams said, but by then it will be too late to revoke the regulations, even if MPs vote against them.
Marie Rimmer, the newly-appointed shadow minister for disabled people, attended yesterday’s emergency Commons debate, which had been secured by Abrahams, but did not speak, although it is not yet clear why.
Rimmer had told DNS earlier that “responsibility for these Tory cuts lies exclusively with Theresa May’s government and her commitment to cut social security whilst cutting taxes for the richest.
“Baroness Sherlock clearly explained that the un-elected House of Lords does not possess the power to overturn secondary legislation which has been accepted by the House of Commons.”
Baroness Sherlock had actually told fellow peers on Monday that the Lords had overturned secondary legislation five times since 1945 and that such action should only be taken by peers in “exceptional circumstances”.
But Baroness Campbell said on Monday (pictured) that the motion was an “exceptional circumstance”, and added: “I do not care that they have been debated and voted on only five times within a hundred years or whatever.
“I will gladly support it now.”
Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) said today that it “deplores” Labour’s actions in the Lords, as Baroness Bakewell’s motion “might have succeeded” and was “certainly the last chance to prevent this measure coming into force”.
DPAC said that by submitting the less powerful “regret motion”, Labour “effectively did the Tories’ work for them” by “spiking” Baroness Bakewell’s motion and replacing it with one that only asked for a review of the cut after two years.
The DPAC statement said: “It would have been better if Labour had done nothing. To later discover that Labour presented this shabby climbdown as a victory just added insult to injury for disabled people who will lose out through this PIP cut.
“And predictably the DWP have refused to hold a review, bringing a fitting end to this whole shameful saga.
“Labour in the Lords seemingly have no interest and no intention of fighting for disabled people’s rights.”
Labour has been repeatedly criticised for failing to stand up for disabled people’s rights over the last year.
In December, Baroness Campbell attacked Labour’s “lazy indifference” to disability equality, after it abstained on a vote in the Lords that would have forced bars, shops and restaurants to ensure their premises obeyed laws on accessibility when renewing their alcohol licences.
In November, Abrahams’ office invited a disabled people’s organisation to speak at the launch of her disability equality roadshow, and then withdrew the invitation after discovering that it wanted to talk about independent living.
And questions have been raised over whether shadow chancellor John McDonnell ever wrote a letter he publicly promised to send to Labour-run councils to ask them to ring-fence government money they receive to compensate for the closure of the Independent Living Fund.
The new PIP cuts came into force earlier this month and were brought in to reverse two upper tribunal rulings.
The government’s decision to reverse the rulings means an estimated 164,000 claimants will not now be eligible for the mobility component of the benefit or will receive a lower level than they would have received.
And an estimated 1,500 PIP claimants who need support to take medication and monitor a health condition will now either not be eligible for the PIP daily living payment or will receive a lower level.
Baroness Campbell told fellow peers on Monday that the “impact of panic attacks and anxiety, not to mention schizophrenia, dementia and autism, on being able to ‘plan and follow a journey’ are equally fraught, if not more so, with profound obstacles than the effects of visual or physical impairments”.
She described how a young woman who lived near her had experienced a severe anxiety attack on a train, which had led to the train stopping and the emergency services being called.
She told peers: “This expensive scenario could have been avoided if her PIP had not been reduced from the high to standard rate award a couple of months ago, allowing her to continue paying for a travel companion or use taxis.
“Her life has now been severely restricted.”
She added: “It is a fundamental tenet of the Equality Act that there shall be no hierarchy of disability: we define a disabled person as someone with a ‘mental or physical impairment’.
“We in this House have welcomed the prime minister’s commitment to parity of esteem between mental and physical health.
“The amended regulations, sadly, completely depart from these vital principles.
“They state, in effect, that disabled people may be equal but, just like in Orwell’s Animal Farm, some disabled people have become more equal than others.”
Baroness Campbell said the cumulative effect of cuts to social care support, independent living entitlements and welfare benefits had “taken its toll on disabled people” and that it was becoming “increasingly tougher for them to participate in society as active citizens”.
She said: “These changed regulations represent another departure and fly in the face of the prime minister’s ambition to create ‘a society that works for everyone’.”
Lord Low said the new regulations were “a clear breach of faith with the disability community”.
He said mental health and other disability charities had supported the introduction of PIP in 2012 after the government assured them that people with mental health problems would not be able to score points only “under the criterion which used the words ‘psychological distress'”.
He said: “The regulations are in clear breach, if not of a manifesto commitment on this occasion, then certainly of pledges given to those with mental health problems in 2012.”
He added: “I believe these regulations are trying to move the goalposts by excluding people who experience psychological distress from eligibility for the higher number of points necessary for the higher rate of mobility component.
“In doing so, they effectively discriminate against people with mental health problems.”
The Liberal Democrat disabled peer Baroness [Celia] Thomas, who speaks for her party on work and pensions issues in the Lords, said: “The disorders likely to be affected, according to the DWP, range from schizophrenia and autism to bipolar affective disorder and cognitive disorder.
“So much for parity of esteem between physical and mental health.”
She said: “Is it not yet another tightening of the screw around the whole independent living project, which is assailed on every side?
“These regulations should be set aside to await proper consultation.”
But one disabled peer, the Conservative Lord Shinkwin, said he supported the government’s position.
He said: “I believe the taxpayer does not have a problem with someone needing assistance as a result of difficulties in navigating – for example, if they are blind.
“Taxpayers surely understand that conditions such as visual impairments and learning disabilities, where these are severe and enduring, are much less likely to fluctuate than, for example, psychological distress.
“Indeed, it makes sense that people who cannot navigate due to a visual or cognitive impairment are likely to have a higher level of need and therefore face higher costs.”
He then appeared to suggest that he could not support providing the extra mobility benefits for people with severe mental distress until his local council stopped handing him parking tickets.
He complained that Lambeth council had been fining him for parking on yellow lines because he could not find anywhere to park after returning home late from working in the Lords, and that it had refused to provide him and other disabled people with their own parking bays.
He said: “This is just one example of why we urgently need to join the dots on disability if more disabled people are, as we all want, to live independently and work.
“Until we join those dots, I cannot in all honesty justify expecting taxpayers to be even more generous in helping to meet the extra costs of living with a disability, when the state itself imposes such indefensible extra costs on disabled people.”
Lord [Chris] Holmes, who in January ended his terms as disability commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and another disabled Tory peer, also voted with the government against both motions, but did not speak in the debate.
The junior work and pensions minister Lord Henley insisted that the regulations were “not a policy change” and were just “bringing clarity” to the legislation.
He said: “It is inaccurate to describe this as a cut: it is merely the reassertion of the original policy intention.
“In PIP, we have ensured parity of treatment between mental and physical conditions.
“It achieves that by looking at the overall needs of an individual, not just what conditions they have.
“The whole point – if I can put it this way – of the PIP assessment is to distinguish between those differing levels of need. There is no discrimination in that.”
He repeated the government’s claim that there were more people with mental health conditions receiving the higher rates of both PIP components than the DLA equivalents, with 28 per cent of PIP recipients with a mental health condition receiving the enhanced rate mobility component, compared with 10 per cent of DLA recipients with a mental health condition who had received the higher rate DLA mobility component.
Posted by jeffrey davies [86.17.83.77] on 03 September 2017
reply | edit & publish | delete
benefits
·
Courtesy of Gail Ward
Lets see - who do benefits actually go to?
State Old Age Pension - 36%
Other pensioner benefits - 6%
OK, that accounts for 42% of welfare spending.
Child tax credit - 10%
Child benefit - 6%
Working tax credit - 4%
Housing benefit - 11%
Income support - 4%
Council tax benefit - 3%
Disability Living Allowance - 8%
All of these benefits are payable to people who are in work. So that's another 46% accounted for.
So what of the remaining 12% of the welfare budget?
Well, 2% goes on carers allowance (ie people who work hard caring for relatives and thus saving the NHS a significant amount of money) and 4% goes on employment support allowance (payable to people that even ATOS declare unfit for work)
Other welfare payments - 3%
Job seekers allowance - 3%
Unclaimed Benefit 16 million YR
So the "workshy" get no more than 6% of the welfare bill (incidentally, most of this 6% would love to have a job but are unable to get one).
The downfall of this country will be because of peoples inability to think. Their inability to critically analyse what they are being fed by the media. Their inability to question what is going on around them
Posted by jeffrey davies on 03 September 2017
