Work capability assessments stopped.

Caged said:
Labour's spending didn't cause the recession, and no UK government can fix it either. The economy of the country will recover in line with the rest of the world. But keeping incomes low and leaving VAT at 20% isn't helping.
Click to expand...

It did nothing to prepare the country for it either, and certainly the financial institutions that contributed to the recession operated and took advantage of the lax regulatory environment put in place between 1997 and 2010.
 
mmj_uk said:
Probably because GP's are better educated and sympathetic towards ailments/illnesses, ATOS will employ mouth breathers with no conscience, on low wages and who can just about complete a check list.
Click to expand...

GPs were rubbish at it, they were untrained and had no time to actually assess people for fitness to work. As soon as one GP had some backbone and challenged a patient they'd just move on to another GP. As soon as you challenged someone you broke down any relationship you had with them, so it was a complete farce.
 
Stolly said:
It did nothing to prepare the country for it either, and certainly the financial institutions that contributed to the recession operated and took advantage of the lax regulatory environment put in place between 1997 and 2010.
Click to expand...

I don't think any country was truly prepared for it. If given the choice between running up a load of serviceable (at the time) debt and living the good life vs. continuous austerity when the result of a world economic collapse is equally crap then I'll pick the good times fuelled by debt.

At least the first option has money moving around and people spending.
 
Minstadave said:
GPs were rubbish at it, they were untrained and had no time to actually assess people for fitness to work. As soon as one GP had some backbone and challenged a patient they'd just move on to another GP. As soon as you challenged someone you broke down any relationship you had with them, so it was a complete farce.
Click to expand...

atos assessments are 5-10minutes and they aren't exactly trained either
 
drunkenmaster said:
There is this thing where, if you painfully push up spending way beyond what you have, at some point you have to do something to stop the spending. Having a go at the people trying to get spending back to something we can remotely afford while ignoring who did that absurd spending to start with is just ignorant.

Take me personally, lets say I can afford to spend £500 a month on whatever, but in fact I spend £2000 a month.... at some stage the credit card company gets a bit upset and asks me to pay it back and reduces my credit till I do. I can at this point not afford even £500 a month more because I have to actually pay money back and £500 was what I could afford. So now I pay £250 back and can afford to spend only £250.

So by overspending massively at some point you realistically have to reduce what you can actually have afforded to spend to have any chance of some financial health.

The problem is Labour's MASSIVE and disgusting overspend was on things like a 5billion ID scheme, that got scrapped, a 20billion NHS scheme, that got scrapped. When you invest £10billion in real infrastructure that both generates jobs and WORKS in the end to provide a benefit to society, then you have long term growth. For a decade Labour wasted money on projects that had no long term benefit, provided no long term jobs, and just wasted the money completely. They ran this country completely into the ground, and yet you are blaming Tories for attempting to fix this problem, not the people who generated the problem.

Labour got our finances in a disgustingly bad position and whoever was in charge had to both reduce spending and do this while having to put up with things like Atos contracts costing billions for stupid things that Labour left them with. Plans governments put in extend beyond the next election and the next PM. Many of the absurd increases in spending Labour implemented simply can't be undone until for instance contracts run out, much of the money spent can't be gotten back ever, like the money spent on the ID scheme with zero long term benefit.


Cuts in the NHS are happening because of the insane spending Labour enacted during their time in charge, if Labour were in charge they would have had to(and have said as much) do the majority of the spending cuts the Tories have done to date themselves.
Click to expand...

What about the £850billion (and counting) bailing out the banks and continual quantitative easing ever since? it's amazing how the Tory's have everyone convinced it's all Labour's fault.
 
mmj_uk said:
What about the £850billion (and counting) bailing out the banks and continual quantitative easing ever since? it's amazing how the Tory's have everyone convinced it's all Labour's fault.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And lets not forget, that this whole mess started in America when Lehman Brothers when bankrupt because of their deregulated toxic debt bubble which burst in 2008. This in turn caused our banks to fail in the UK, admittedly thanks in part to Labours deregulation of the banks here.
 
We had a far higher national debt post WW2 and not only did we manage to pay it off but we rebuilt our country AND introduced social services like the NHS.

The main difference back then was our government had balls and taxed the rich, whereas today you've got governments ignoring tax evasion and the whole of the pleb working class defending it like they're billionaires.
 
Sliver said:
Indeed. And lets not forget, that this whole mess started in America when Lehman Brothers when bankrupt because of their deregulated toxic debt bubble which burst in 2008. This in turn caused our banks to fail in the UK, admittedly thanks in part to Labours deregulation of the banks here.
Click to expand...

And Gordon Brown's obsession with preventing the natural ebb & flow of economics, forcing the Bank of England to keep interest rates low and inflation below 2% and encouraging us all to borrow more to keep cash flowing in the economy.
 
Deal with your issues, instead of using them as an excuse to sit around doing naff all. If a person with only 1 and half arms and 1 leg can swim in the disabled Olympics, then someone off with a 'bad back' can surely find some form of employment.

Too much pandering to the lazy folk IMO.
 
mmj_uk said:
We had a far higher national debt post WW2 and not only did we manage to pay it off but we rebuilt our country AND introduced social services like the NHS.

The main difference back then was our government had balls and taxed the rich, whereas today you've got governments ignoring tax evasion and the whole of the pleb working class defending it like they're billionaires.
Click to expand...
We also had far less globalisation so the highly taxed rich didn't have much choice but to pay. As soon as they began leaving the country for tax purposes in the 70s the exchequer was forced to reduce top rates to prevent an exodus of the highest tax contributors.

If you put the rates up to 50%+ you'll end up losing money.
 
MB101 said:
Deal with your issues, instead of using them as an excuse to sit around doing naff all. If a person with only 1 and half arms and 1 leg can swim in the disabled Olympics, then someone off with a 'bad back' can surely find some form of employment.

Too much pandering to the lazy folk IMO.
Click to expand...

Ahh. The intellectual joins the debate. Thanks for your wonderful insight into how our society should be run. Hopefully, you'll never have to rely on benefits due to an unforeseen illness.
 
mmj_uk said:
What about the £850billion (and counting) bailing out the banks and continual quantitative easing ever since? it's amazing how the Tory's have everyone convinced it's all Labour's fault.
Click to expand...


You link an article about the cost of bailing out RBS, do you have an idea of what would have happened if they had collapsed?

Even today, what, 6 years later, if RBS went under, other banks and financial institutions around the globe would collapse one after another like dominos.

Why? Because labors disgusting lack of regulation allowed the banks to get away with it.
 
MB101 said:
Deal with your issues, instead of using them as an excuse to sit around doing naff all. If a person with only 1 and half arms and 1 leg can swim in the disabled Olympics, then someone off with a 'bad back' can surely find some form of employment.

Too much pandering to the lazy folk IMO.
Click to expand...

Put yourself in the position of an employer. You have two people who apply for an office job, both are equally qualified on paper. One has one and a half arms and one leg. With around a £500 investment in their workstation they will be able to use a computer as well as the other applicant. You might need to make changes to your workplace to accommodate the wheelchair.

Which one do you employ?
 
Sliver said:
Ahh. The intellectual joins the debate. Thanks for your wonderful insight into how our society should be run. Hopefully, you'll never have to rely on benefits due to an unforeseen illness.
Click to expand...

You don't have to like my opinion. I don't give a toss.

The simple fact is, many claiming disability could work to some extent. Someone who can't leave the house because they're a little "special" could work from home filling in surveys etc. Not much money granted, and it would need topping up (no problem there), but at least they make an effort.

Someone claiming they can't do anything is a burden to society, and needs to reconsider their position in life.
 
kindai said:
You link an article about the cost of bailing out RBS, do you have an idea of what would have happened if they had collapsed?

Even today, what, 6 years later, if RBS went under, other banks and financial institutions around the globe would collapse one after another like dominos.

Why? Because labors disgusting lack of regulation allowed the banks to get away with it.
Click to expand...

Genuine question, why would Labour's deregulation policy (that I don't agree with) cause problems for other banks around the globe? Surely if our banks can affect banks in other countries then the reverse is possible regardless of how much regulation is or isn't in place?
 
Caged said:
Put yourself in the position of an employer. You have two people who apply for an office job, both are equally qualified on paper. One has one and a half arms and one leg. With around a £500 investment in their workstation they will be able to use a computer as well as the other applicant. You might need to make changes to your workplace to accommodate the wheelchair.

Which one do you employ?
Click to expand...

That's not my point. If someone so seriously disabled can make a go at life, then someone with a minor aliment can work. That is my point.

Not everyone claiming disability is at the stage where they can no longer function within the working world. Those that can still function should be pushed into work, so they can contribute, instead of being a leech.
 
MB101 said:
That's not my point. If someone so seriously disabled can make a go at life, then someone with a minor aliment can work. That is my point.

Not everyone claiming disability is at the stage where they can no longer function within the working world. Those that can still function should be pushed into work, so they can contribute, instead of being a leech.
Click to expand...

For your point to be valid though there need to be the jobs available for the people who want to do them. When the majority of part-time low paid jobs are manual - cleaning, supermarket shelf stacking etc. it's easy to see why "get a job" isn't an option for a huge number of disabled people. Even more so when their competition is an able bodied person that doesn't require anything in terms of investment from the employer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom