Why are we sending money abroad when there are so many people in this country living in poverty and the government is cutting services to the disabled why don’t the government look after the people who put them in to government instead of spending on getting involved in other peoples wars

Morning Don,

The program of welfare reform and cuts is proceeding with alarming momentum. Many articles on this blog over the last few months have covered reasons why some of the proposals should not go ahead. I feel like I am entering the lions den, dont have the writing skills like others but I would like to take this opportunity to raise the issues surrounding family carers for your readers to discuss.

Carers seem to have been completely forgotten as benefits are changed around them ( plus proposals for change ) . Although the govt recently announced that those in receipt of Carers Allowance itself would not move to the new proposed Universal credit, no details have been forthcoming about any actual reform of said benefit.

The majority of carers do so with great Love for the person they care for but we should not take the service they provide this country for granted. Carers are not some optional extra to be added on as an afterthought. Our society would not function without the care currently provided by unpaid carers and the consistent refusal by Government,past and present, to improve carers lives has ripple effects throughout Social Services and the NHS. Precious few people receive the actual support they need and so many carers are just not receiving vital services and support.

For those that are not aware Carers Allowance is £53.90 for a minimum of 35 hours care provided per week . The restrictions surrounding it are many for example those in receipt of state pension cannot receive it, some students are unable to claim.

As the number of elderly increases and medicine breakthroughs continue, many people with illnesses will live longer…and the country will rely even more on the foundation that family carers provide. Carers are a group of people who provide a vital service, yet governments past and present have taken them for granted, have taken their Love for granted.

We cannot and must not allow that to continue. It is time that unpaid carers received the proper recognition and support that they deserve.

Why are we sending money abroad when there are so many people in this country living in poverty

Because people abroad are living in far, far worse poverty, and only a mad bigot would claim otherwise. NEXT?

“Because people abroad are living in far, far worse poverty, and only a mad bigot would claim otherwise. NEXT?”

Presumably, the government should therefore be regularly reducing Britain’s per capita GDP to the world average by giving the rest away as untied aid.

a) Welfare ‘reform’ singularly designed to deny disability and bring in workfare.
b) The coalition sneakily being as authoritarian as New Labour over civil liberties. http://gizmonaut.net/blog/uk/2011/03/terrorism_stop_search_plus_ca_change.html
c) Coverage of the growing scandal about f*ckers like McKinsey who pillage the public purse, and whose modus operandi is to charge the earth for destructive advice, usually to privatise.http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=525792&in_page_id=2

Why do right wingers post on left wing forums? No minds are ever changed either way. If they’re paid to do it then fair enough, their sense of self-loathing should be an adequate judgement upon them. If they really are those who personally benefit from the policies that have been inflicted on this country over the past thirty years, why are they wasting their time on the internet when they could be out enjoying their ill-gotten gains and sneering at poor people in person

I would like to write an article/have a discussion about the similarities between feminism and Stalinism. As introduced here:

http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/3080/

Nothing quite so effective as starting new wars in far away places to divert attention from domestic woes and the failings of government policy at home.

Figures from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) show youth unemployment is at its highest level since records began.

Lansley’s reforms of the health service has almost dropped out of the news despite the mounting opposition from the medical profession.

Recap: the editorial in the British Medical Journal on 21 January 2011:

“What do you call a government that embarks on the biggest upheaval of the NHS in its 63 year history, at breakneck speed, while simultaneously trying to make unprecedented financial savings? The politically correct answer has got to be: mad. . . ”
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d408.full

Btw compared with many posters here, I must count as a “right-winger”, especially since I regard Hitler and the Nazis as “left-wing”, on the basis of the recorded historic evidence. My problem is that I have a strong preference for honest and logical argument and evidence-based policy as well as an attachment to clear signs of political integrity. As with successive opinion polls, I believe most politicans rate about on par with estate agents for integrity. Wasn’t it the infamous TPA which produced the worrying estimate that a nation with an electorate of 44 millions is effectively governed by a political class of only about 29,000?

Some more coverage of the various party spring conferences would be nice.

There has never been a more important time to be writing about politics (well, not in the last 20 or 30 years, anyway) – and there is a vast amount to cover.

What I would like to see *less* of is Liberal Conspiracy vomiting up press releases without informed comment or critique, and pathetic point-scoring by taking quotations out of context – which appears to have dramatically increased since Sunny’s (hilarious) Damascene conversion to Labour…

I would like to write an article/have a discussion about the similarities between feminism and Stalinism…

Now, that’s nonsense.

For one thing, feminists hate airbrushing.

Judging by current media reports, healthcare journalists in Britain have only just discovered that average life expectancy in Britain is longer than in America – something which was already well-known to anyone even slightly familiar with published OECD data on healthcare for the relatively affluent OECD countries:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/36/45270718.pdf

What is really interesting about these life expectancy reports is that they don’t compare average life expectancy in Britain with that in Japan, Hong Kong and other west European countries. In fact, Britain is well down the list with America even lower:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

For any readers who wish to make the comparison, this OECD chart shows national spending on healthcare as a percentage of national GDP for OECD countries:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/4/38980557.PDF

It turns out that America spends more on healthcare as a percentage of its GDP than any other OECD country by far. But for the average citizen, the quality of healthcare in America is manifestly very, very mediocre by comparison. Evidently, big spending on healthcare doesn’t necessarily bring high standards of healthcare quality for the average citizen.

Curiously, Paul Burstow, the LidDem health minister, recently promised to resign if he thought he was “part of a project to bring in a US-style health service”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/10/liberal-democrats-nhs-paul-burstow

The prospect of the coalition government raising spending on healthcare in Britain to American levels is exceedingly remote. Whatever else, Paul Burstow won’t be needing to resign on that score.

@3 john b: “Because people abroad are living in far, far worse poverty, and only a mad bigot would claim otherwise. NEXT?”

I think that @1 raises something that requires more consideration than a blanket dismissal.

People who argue against foreign aid whilst supporting assistance for UK citizens have a sympathy gap in their souls. I have no idea how many of them exist but their words always make me shiver.

I am familiar with most of the aid versus trade arguments. I agree that there is more than one way to crack a nut. I have read blog posts (typically from the libertarian-ish right) that try to construct rational arguments against development aid; to their credit, most argue that humanitarian aid is essential. But the “no aid, full stop” demand is outside the debate on conquering global poverty or temporary misfortune. It is about not giving a shit about people beyond the UK.

A few days ago a libertarian blogger wrote about charities: “They must not, under any circumstance, take government money and they must not, under any circumstance, involve Africa. When I have the funds, I tend to give to small, independent charities, usually local ones – that may or may not involve cats.”

@1 also mentions getting involved in foreign conflicts. That’s a lot more complicated and foreign aid generates enough questions on its own. My interest is how/why people decide that charity ends at home.

Agree with @8, it’s about time we had a debate to determine what is meant by ‘left’ as it appears to have become a term to represent anything that isn’t c/Conservative.

Yeah. would like to talk about Housing. Check out these people in Wales http://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=659 doing retrofitting for poorer communities all over the place. This guy Nick Tune gave an excellent run through what they have been up to at the ecobuild conference http://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=1737

DLA “reforms” and specifically the fact that the forms aren’t and never have been geared towards people with mental health problems. (The same goes for ESA).

I remember when Labour brought it in. The coalition are doing the exact same thing as their predecessors.

You read about how so many people win at appeal, but a lot of people who are used to being defeated will give up at the first hurdle or won’t bother to apply at all. As I say this is neither party political nor to do with “the cuts”, it’s a cross-party consensus to be cunts essentially.

Transport policy may seem a bit boring but with the decision to order new bi-mode trains for the new Intercity Express Programme instead of coughing up for proper electrification we are facing yet more madness on our railways. The cost of catching the train, the astonishing complexity of ticketing and the still huge public subsidy our privatised service provides should be a scandal.

By the way, here’s a link: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article5717077.ece

@8 Bob B: “My problem is that I have a strong preference for honest and logical argument and evidence-based policy as well as an attachment to clear signs of political integrity.”

Try harder, Bob. Tony Blair could have uttered those words and believed that he was speaking the truth. I’m not accusing you of dishonesty but I suggest that those sentiments have been disgraced by politicians. Political honesty needs a new form of expression, until it again becomes corrupted.

“Wasn’t it the infamous TPA which produced the worrying estimate that a nation with an electorate of 44 millions is effectively governed by a political class of only about 29,000?”

Err, yes. The TPA added up the number MPs, MEPs, national assembly members, city/county/borough councillors and, to top up the numbers, they added parish councillors. Of this number, the vast majority are paid nominal allowances (expenses plus inconvenience compensation) and thus cannot be defined as professional politicians.

Most councillors (city to parish) have a job or a pension. Most would consider it an insult when anyone suggests that they do it for the money.

The number of professional politicians is the sum of MPs, MEPs and national assembly members, plus say 10% of city/county/borough councillors who are effectively paid a salary.

MPs through to national assembly members will have clerical support plus a political advisor. City/county/borough council groups will have a couple of policy advisors for the group, depending on authority and group size. Parish councils receive advice from impartial local government officers; I’ve never heard of one that employs a professional advisor.

So we are nowhere near 29,000 professional politicians and aides.

If we toss in parish councillors we might have 29,000 people in total, paid and unpaid, who have a formal role in government. But that ignores the contributions from groups who might regard themselves as apolitical but which drive civil management.

So another qualified, yes, Bob. There aren’t enough members of the political class (however you count them) and we need to widen participation. And perhaps we ought to think how to devolve “politics” so that it does not mean “party politics”.

I don’t think LibCon covers pomegranates adequately. I don’t know quite what to think about them! Can you get onto this please Don.

I mean, are pomegranates even feminist or what?!?

Persephone says no!

Hey guys! Could we do one on whether ‘Global Warmig’ is real or not? There is plenty milage there.

I’ll get my coat.

How about an article on electing a democratic editorial board for the blog?

@19: “Try harder, Bob. Tony Blair could have uttered those words and believed that he was speaking the truth. I’m not accusing you of dishonesty but I suggest that those sentiments have been disgraced by politicians.”

IMO Blair was capable of saying anything that he believed would be popular where and when he said it. In that famous keynote speech in Chicago in April 1999, he said:

“If we want a world ruled by law and by international co-operation then we have to support the UN as its central pillar.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june99/blair_doctrine4-23.html

The Iraq invasion in 2003 without UN sanction showed how committed he was about maintaining the Labour Party’s historic regard for the UNO.

Have you read that news report from June 2006 about Blair’s 22-page letter to Michael Foot in 1982? In the 22-page letter, the 29-year-old Mr Blair tells the then Labour leader Michael Foot how reading Marx had ‘irreversibly altered’ his outlook.

“He also praises Tony Benn, agreeing with the left-winger’s analysis that Labour’s right-wing was bankrupt.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5081798.stm

So much for Blair’s sincerity about New Labour and ditching Clause 4.

The more recent expenses scandal of the last Parliament finally put paid to any lingering doubts about the integrity and competence of MPs:

More than half of MPs guilty of over-claiming expenses
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7161198/More-than-half-of-MPs-guilty-of-over-claiming-expenses.html

That abuse became so widespread precisely because the rules for MPs’ expenses were far too vaguely drafted thereby creating ample opportunities for the unscrupulous to exploit the system – and recall that the principal function of MPs is law making.

Oh yeah, its just come to me. We got to take the lead from the Tunisians and Egyptians. We’ve got to drop left/right Islam/Non Islam etc and unite across borders. the time for local or national politics is over.

Here’s a good one for an open thread: Minnesota Republicans To Outlaw Poor People Having Money.

And for those who think I’m joking, here is the link to the proposed legislation: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0171.1.html&session=ls87

I really hope they didn’t read about IDS going on about how cash can hurt the poor over here, and then leapt into action to stop it happening over there…

@20 earwicga: “I don’t think LibCon covers pomegranates adequately.”

My sisters (I gave up counting their multitude when I was six) consumed pomegranates seed by seed on cocktail sticks. Pomegranates in the 1970s were as exotic as bananas in the 1940s, but not as scarce.

I consume neither.

13. Charlieman – “People who argue against foreign aid whilst supporting assistance for UK citizens have a sympathy gap in their souls. I have no idea how many of them exist but their words always make me shiver.”

Well that is absurd. Aid for people in far off countries is a remnant of Empire. It is part of the patronising view that we should make the world a better place. As we become weaker, it is not going to work in the same way. There is perfectly good reasons to support giving aid to people at home and not overseas. If the chips are down and the balloon goes up, we can expect the people we give aid to at home to fight for Britain. It is part of the social contract. But we cannot expect people overseas we give aid to do so. Indeed it is more likely they will align themselves with our enemies. I have all the sympathy in the world for people in the Third World (whom, frankly, I often prefer to modern British people) but that does not change the fact they are not part of my community, even when not hostile to it, and oiks off British estates are.

Besides, the sensible answer is to give nothing to either group because it does not help them in the long run.

“But the “no aid, full stop” demand is outside the debate on conquering global poverty or temporary misfortune. It is about not giving a shit about people beyond the UK.”

I doubt there are any “no aid, full stop” people in the world. Humanitarian aid for disasters make sense. We ought to fund that. For short periods of time. But why should we give a sh!t about people outside the UK? They almost certainly do not give a sh!t about us. A historian I knew once drew a distinction between the world of equals that Homer knew where gifts were expected to be repaid, and the Eastern world with its hierarchies and Empires, where gifts were expressions of the overwhelming power of the giver and so were not remotely re-payable. A world that gave us Christianity and its views on charity. Yet I prefer the more equal society of Homer. So if they want to be our friends and have something to give, we should be their friends and give them something in return. But we should not appear God-like, dropping wealth on them from the sky, and flatter ourselves on our moral superiority.

On a more serious note and inspired by another thread, why not have a thread about the huge handouts given to farmers? Some of have read about Helstineline’s close to a million quid handout. If it is ‘correct’ to reduce ‘benefit dependency’ for the disabled could we investigate the vast amounts given to failed farmers?

@ Schmidt

Why do right wingers post on left wing forums? No minds are ever changed either way.

You see there are some minds that are capable of viewing issues in dimensions other than left and right or black and white and that ARE capable of change.

Of course if you don’t have that kind of mind, Schmidt, it’s very difficult to believe they exist.

Pagar @ 31

To be honest, though. Very few ‘Righties’ have such minds. Almost by definition, if you are a Right Winger, then you have a pretty closed mind. Which makes you wonder what they come to the likes of here though. Most of the Tories who come here have minds that are simply not able to comprehend that fact is slightly more important than mere opinion. This why the Right have made a complete pig’s ear of Global Warming. The more solid the consensus has become, the more pathetic the denialist crap becomes.

I have never seen a British Wing Nut admit he was wrong on this or any other issue, despite the fact that reality has clearly swamped them over and over.

When Wing Nuts are attempting to argue that people rummaging through rubbish tips ‘prove’ our welfare benefit system is too generous, then any hope of them being taken seriously has long since gone.

Cylux – heh, good call

Charlieman – your sisters must have been very healthy. It is a real shame that bananas weren’t still rare in the 70′s – especially when mixed with custard.

If you’re taking requests, I’d like to suggest that the image you use on all of your domestic/sexual violence posts (a conventionally attractive young female model in a negligee sat on the edge of a bed hugging a pillow) is horribly cliched and cringeworthy and could do with replacing..

I second the comment at #34.

thanks earwicga. it makes me shrink into myself with eurrrgh every single time i see it.