Incapacity benefit reshuffle, does it basically underline the differences between occupation & the Tories?

labour promised to look after taxpayers money and tackle the problem pay for in 2005 & basically did nil.

"Labour to tackle hidden army on incapacity benefit"

"But the big blot on Labour's copybook remains the unobserved army of unemployed people on incapacity benefit, something the rule is only now getting serious something like tackling"…

Whilst the new government act.

"Millions face incapacity benefit cuts as welfare reforms speed up"…
CROW... i agree with you.Get rid of the foreigners,they are taking all our job,black,brown,green white any race tell them to be in motion home.They live here a few years,bog-off back home and claim benefits back home where on earth they are from.They are taking us for mugs,and sending all our money abroad.
I own never been racist before,but slowly in a minute,i think i am becoming one,Britain is Britain,not little India or little Poland.
No it highlights one entertainment allows and encourages us to be ripped of and the other doesn't . And about bloody time to if your valid you have nothing to agitation if not quack in your boots the reckoning is coming rapid. No more freebies just going out to work to earn your living just resembling the rest of us by the sweat of your brow instead of ours.
No. They are dictum much the same thing, and both missing the point.…

The answers so far suggest that they would transport on someone who has nothing worthwhile on his CV for 3 years. Like hell they would contained by the real world!

The best thing New Labour did be New Deal, but that was only half-heartedly taken on by the IPD and the business community, much to their shame. My County Council's response to a subsidy to help yourself to on a long-term unemployed person be to put him on a temporary contract as soon as they could, and then arrange his dismissal for someone better suiting their corporate profile. Young and female preferably.

New Labour then give up on this and went back to scrounger-bashing Daily Mail style, which is far more appealing to the stony popular electorate - the true spirit and mindset of English football. Pronouncements made by John Hutton or James Purnell were little different from anything coming from Iain Duncan Smith or, for that event, Norman Tebbit.

They aren't going to save any money, unless they truly plan to make the unemployable destitute.
Labour had already replaced Incapacity Benefit next to Employment Support Allowance, which meant that a great deal of claims be denied, or the claimants placed in the "Work Related Activity Group" and expected to look for work.

I can't quite see how the Coalition can cut this down any further. Those claiming Employment Support Allowance are already those who enjoy been deemed, by both their own GP and a DWP doctor, to own Limited Capability for Work.

The amount they are paid can't go down any lower as it would not be satisfactory to live on.
No. It merely highlights the "good cop/bad cop" role undertake by Tories and New Labour in the ongoing class war. It is a situation of degree not of intent.

In any case it will be the poorest and most adjectives who will pay for the economic incompetence and greed of the rich while the very well off will breathe a sigh of relieve.…

But in any baggage, in the words of a writer in th Financial Times, neither shindig prepared the British electorate for the intensity of the "bloodbath" of public spending cuts - the FT's wording, not mine.

And still no one is asking when or whether the trillions contained by money and unlimited credit given to the banks and the financial sector will be ever repaid.
Where 'all' this benefit deficit nightmare began be years ago when the government of the day contracted too be 'far to generous' with the payouts - they 'thinking' they could control the monies spent out - thats where its adjectives gone wrong and over the years they have 'added' more and more categories general public can claim - too the point now where benefit supported claims are 'ridiculous' and cover everything from heart defect down to sore toe-nails. If these payouts had not been so bountiful in the 1st place people would not have the incentive to use their 'scamming tactics' to get payouts - as always these government are 10 paces behind the sincerity of their actions.!!

When people claiming benefits of 'any sort' and within a 'lot' of cases can and do have a better lifestyle than working people - who are funding this 'farce' - when those claiming can disappear into the system without being found out for their existence time as is happening now - that consequently 'proves' the benefit system is totally wrong.

Governments over the years have used this 'none interference promise' with the benefit system too receive themselves elected and have been doing this for the final 60yrs (records) and still do it now - up until this coalition government - they next seeing 'bankruptcy' staring them in the face enjoy (at last) realised that 'they' have to do something to sort the benefit mess out.

These scroungers are all going to be getting a 'knock on their door' for re-assessment - and in the region of time too - they've all had a exceptionally long run with there scamming claims.

If a folks making 'genuine claims' they've nothing to fear - but the scammers will be sorted out.!!

In the behind schedule 1940's when Bevan said (records) ....from the cradle to the grave - he supposed there were 'honest general public out there' - how wrong and stupid he was thinking that.
As I've posted elsewhere ...

1): The Financial Crisis has positively nothing to do with the Budget deficit although there's seem to be a general implication to that effect. The Financial Crisis be about the illiquidity of only private and not public debt.

2): All world economy generally have a budget deficit..

In this context nearby is no true "structural" deficit owing to

-the inter-relatedness of global financial market.. i.e. the value of government spending is devalued across the World
-the reality that we're not a Euro-zone country and can export quite happily.
- the amount within question is minuscule. (5%) i.e a healthy deficit is almost 5 to 6%. The UK deficit is 10%. The difference is peanuts.

3): The cuts shall foreseeably have absolutely no discernible positive effect on the cutback.

The only effect of a minor reduction contained by government debt is a minor improvement contained by the UK government's creditworthiness.. i.e. The ability to borrow marginally more.. and absolutely nought else.

4): The cuts in fact shall with the sole purpose result in aggravated poverty, long term severance, illiteracy, social degeneracy malaise and breakdown.. exactly like what happened the ultimate time the Tories were in power.

5): And if the deficit must indeed be reduced .. here are far easier and more sensible ways of doing it ..e.g scrapping Trident.. Land reforms.. (taking come to rest of aristos... compulsory land registration.. limiting agricultural subsidies for people growing nothing) .. Thats lb20 bill or so right here..

There is absolutely no need for drastic cuts surrounded by actual fact... This is sheerly ideological and the Tories hate everyone except the prosperous and themselves .... Anyone who thinks otherwise must be illiterate or deluded...

Its impressively unlikely that the UK economy will survive even one Tory Parliament.... Source(s): Financial Lawyer..

Related Questions: