|
|
|
|
|
| Benefits Attendance Allowance & Disability Living Allowance - Proposed Government Reform
Posted: 8/6/2009 7:23:25 AM | i know theres a few disabled fishes and those that do caring for a living or look after disabled childen.
i had a phone call last night from a disabled friend in distress and upset, i asked whats wrong? she then started to tell what the government are trying to do with the benefits attendance allowence and disability living allowence. basically instead of the people receiving the money, social services will get it instead!! some might think thats a good idea untill you think of what a disabled person has to go though in the way they cannot wait around while the social services book them appointments to take them shopping in 3 months time! what happens if they have an accident at home or couldnt get to the toilet in time? again wait for the social services to come round in 3 months?
they get carers allowence so they can get the care they need, when they need it.
wonder why labour have lost the backing of the people
 | |
|
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/6/2009 7:38:10 AM |
The lack of protest is caused at least in part by ministers deliberately choosing ambiguous terms for their plans. The green paper refers only to cutting ‘disability benefits, for example Attendance Allowance’. Some organisations with predominantly younger members clearly believe that because DLA isn’t specifically named, that therefore it isn’t in the firing line.
I have just read the green paper from the government as I see it.. Is that they are concentrating on Attendance Allowance.. This group of people normally have a lot of help from SS.. with this at the moment is funded by the government.. and it will be means tested, rather than the benefit being taken off you completely..
DLA comes in two parts, care and mobility..
At the moment if you wanted to buy a car with you mobility (high) then the benefit will be taken from you in exchange for a car...
The care component is separate and is daily and nightly care, which falls on the carer..
(Children will not be included in the axing of the benefit if it does happen)
HTH.. and puts your mind to rest.. | |
|
| |
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/6/2009 7:44:27 AM | I can see this from 2 points of view. When I managed a project where tenants got DLA, all they did was drink it and they were all heavy drinkers to start with, it was a project for people with long term alcohol dependencies. It was helping them drink themselves to death. I can also see that it could be looked at as if it were their choice, which it was, but the money is meant for care and these people were neglecting their care because of the extra money they got, to which they were entitled.
I have a relative who gets attendance allowance and is housebound and at the moment my mum manages everything for her, she can feed, clothe and look after herself, what she can't do is get out. My mum doesn't have power of attorney but she has something called third party, I think which means she can make withdrawals and get food and other bits and pieces my gran needs. My gran had a heart attack in May and she was offered meals on wheels which she turned down. She is very independent and didn't want social work staff being in her home, that was her choice.
As it stands I think from the looks of this, social services will now deal with my gran which will be the last thing she wants.
I do understand from the point of view that some people are getting paid DLA and other benefits and aren't able to manage them to get care in, but on the flip side, you will get people who are perfectly happy not to have involvement with social work and are having this forced on them.
As for attendance allowance being means tested, my gran is also in the situation where because she gets a small works pension, she currently pays full rent and council tax.
Attendance allowance is the first benefit she has claimed in her entire life.
A welfare rights officer did a benefits check and based on my grans income and her outgoings, she was just above the poverty line. She isn't living in poverty but that AA makes a great deal of difference to her. As for DLA, I think it will be affected if this goes through, the paper I believe refers to "disability benefits" not just AA.
| |
|
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/6/2009 7:52:27 AM | the problem with dla and your correct storm about the componants, its what on the govenrments hit list next? im sure as most of the people in the country are aware, if gormless stood outside no 10 and said todays thursday, how many would check the date, as hes not exactly down as mr trustworthy of the year winner, be it slander or not but if he turned up at my door wanting to read my meter i wouldnt leave him out of my site for a second!!
pauline is correct, most disabled and elderly people want to live as independant as possible and lets face it the s.s are under run and under pressure at the moment with looking after children rather then organising shopping runs and dressing people every day. but there will be always be people who squander there money on drugs or drink rather then give it to there carer. but maybe they ought to be investigated as to get dla you need a certain level of care to the rate you recieve, if they arent being cared for, they dont need the cash.
the old phrase springs to mind if it aint broke, dont meddle with it!!
| |
|
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/6/2009 8:01:07 AM | I cant say I have heard anything about this, and as some folk need 24 hour care what are they going to do then, move someone from the social services in permanently.
the old phrase springs to mind if it aint broke, dont meddle with it!!
Or in the Governments case, if it aint broke, meddle with it till it is.. | |
|
HenXX
|
Joined: 6/16/2009
Msg: 7 | |
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/6/2009 8:53:58 AM | | As a homecarer I did see the other side of the coin.We would be dealing with clients who needed personal care four times a day (and more but dnt get it) and a member of the family would be receiving attendance allowance,giving very little care in return for it to their relative,these are the ones who need to lose the money not the ones who genuinely are around to help them.In my eyes the family carers should be paid more as many really need to be and are, around 24 hours a day,stopping them from being able to work.Take from the ones who are fiddling the system and give more to those who are not.........easier said than done.As I recal,they had to prove that they were giving X amount of care? | |
|
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/6/2009 9:02:28 AM | The whole benefits system as I said earlier is a shambles, it allows some people to live very well and others not. I've also had incidents in my previous job where a young man was getting DLA but didn't know it, the payments were going directly to his gran, he had no idea he was getting DLA, he moved out the family home and she kept claiming it.
We sorted it out quite easily in the end but it was upsetting for him and made an already difficult relationship worse. As said above, to try and administer it so that people don't fiddle it must be a nightmare but to make blanket cuts through the whole service is totally wrong. | |
|
HenXX
|
Joined: 6/16/2009
Msg: 9 | |
| |
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/6/2009 9:29:26 AM | I think it will cost lives and heres why, imagine old doris, used to get help from a young mum whose shes befriended, she used to help her and make her a cuppa etc. Now the government wont let doris keep her allowence who she used to give to the girl, instead the s.s have got it but hardly ever comes round due to supply. The woman who visits doris is timed and has to make so many visits per day. Unfortunatly doris dont like the woman from the s.s and her old carer dont visit so much. 2 months on doris is dead, fell over and injured her hip, but had to lie there for a few days in her own filth, before she died doris wondered what she done wrong and why couldnt she have her old carer back, the one she picked.
wonder how many times we will be reading this in the future? | |
|
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/6/2009 2:58:21 PM | Does it all tie in with the personalisation agenda at the end of the day where people will have exactly what's being talked about here - ownership of their own care budget and the ability to choose how to spend it to provide a care package that suits them yet with more control over elements of it that have traditionally been open to abuse? Where they will be free to opt out of LA or NHS provided social care and take advantage of a more open and competetive market by including services provided by the independent sector in their choices. (Of course some already do this but largely that is funded from their own pocket, personalisation and individual budgets will open this up to all and make access to social care more equitable).
Changes are afoot, health and social care provision is undergoing huge transformation, the main aim of which is advertised as providing choice and abolishing inequalities, but we all know it's about saving money particularly in anticipation of huge budget cuts in health and social care provision in 2011/12.
Something has to be done to prepare for that, senior managers are busily making budget savings for 2010/11 already, shaving off the odd job here and there, tightening the belts and cutting back on services, knowing that next years savings are going to have to be much more significant.
The 7 years of lean for the public sector is upon us, sadly it's not just going to affect staff but the people who depend on governmental assistance too. Lots of things are going on to start economising and using public money more efficiently. This is perhaps one of those things.
Good news for the tax payer who has seen his/her money squandered for far too long but not such good news for those most vulnerable and voiceless members of society who I fear are going to have to be careful not to get totally shafted.
Sometimes there are knee jerk reactions to new proposals, but often there is a requirement that a service is improved with no financial or human resource to achieve that requirement - a requirement which is often going to improve things for the service user and save the tax payer money. In order to fund such initiatives, savings have to be made to provide the resource to achieve the objective, this shows as service cuts and withdrawal of support but in the long run things will be better. Change is never pleasant and less pleasant when you have no resources to achieve it with - borrowing from Peter to pay Paul and such is not pleasant for anyone. Look at the whole picture if possible, sometimes it makes more sense.
If they take this money away from a lot of people to pay for the homecare,many will be forced to put their elderly into care homes,surely a bigger financial burden on the government?
The government's agenda is exactly the opposite, to reduce the number of people going into care and maintaining people in their own homes or in extra care housing as an alternative. To do that there has to be a fluid and competetive home care provision market which competes mercilessly with statutory services and drives costs down while simultaneously driving standards up. | |
|
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/6/2009 3:41:38 PM |
Good news for the tax payer who has seen his/her money squandered for far too long but not such good news for those most vulnerable and voiceless members of society who I fear are going to have to be careful not to get totally shafted.
Well my gran is 85 and pays tax on her pension and her savings. Too right she is going to get shafted. She's going to get her attendance allowance taken off her, the first benefit she has ever claimed in her entire life and forced to accept social work services that she doesn't want/
A disgrace, cutting public services because of this recession. This service won't be improved, social work services as badge said earlier are already stretched to the limit.
There is no fluid and competitive home care provision at the moment, services are fragmented as it is. As for standards, well the jury is out on that one. Forcing people into poverty is not a good decision no matter what way you look at it.
My gran pays taxes, even if she didn't she should be entitled to the best care, she gets that from my mum and she gets the princely sum of 47 quid a week in attendance allowance. I wonder if she will get the same care when social services step in.
Plus, my mum provides this care in her own time and doesn't get a penny for it, at no cost to the taxpayer. | |
|
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/6/2009 3:47:32 PM | | Because they are stretched to the limit there has to be reform - anyone would agree. If people complain that something isn't good enough then they should be glad that someone is listening and responding. Reform doesn't come about by throwing money into already mismanaged and poorly allocated budgets. It comes from redesign of systems and streamlining of processes and equipping of the workforce to provide first class services and agencies working together to provide real solutions and choice. Reform can't happen without change. Change is happening. Change is difficult and takes time. | |
|
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/6/2009 3:49:28 PM | The Social Services are incapable of looking after the vulnerable "Clients" they already have, so to say they can cope with caring for another 4.5 million, is like peeing on a volcano
There will be many deaths, predominately the elderly, there are too many deaths already due to the Social Services inadequate training and management
The training of people to make the replacement care will be basic, lacking in compassion and understanding, the people administering care will be employees of the Government, Government funding will be at the Governments decision only, leaving the whole system open to abuse by those that regulate and administer it
This will open they way to also removing DLA from the system, a green paper is used to gauge the public's opinion, if there is no opposition they will go ahead with further legislation
 | |
|
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/6/2009 3:51:56 PM | Prehaps im reading your reply wrong firecracka, but there is no way it will save money. Think about it new labour and save money? It just dont happen!
presently when a disabled person is eligable to claim carers allowence of £53.10 a week and they give it to the carer or the money goes directly to a named carer. To get that allowence they need care everyday and sometimes 24/7 all these for 53.10. So if the government get there way the money will go to the s.s etc. I presume the s.s will be paying the min wage so you do the sums.
Like the scenario i put up is that exceptable? When an elderly relative had an hip replacement i rang s.s to get help and meals on wheels in, 3 months after the op they got back to me ffs! Would you trust s.s to organise care for your life?
like i said, what happens if you dont like there carer? Im sure they will do a speedy replacement ...
what people who arent disabled thinks about is the mental health of the elderly and disabled, myself included, one day fitter then a | |
|
HenXX
|
Joined: 6/16/2009
Msg: 16 | |
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/6/2009 3:59:46 PM | Firecracka........what we end up with is a lot of people doing the talking who dont have a clue what its like being in the forefront of these problems! looks good on paper but theory? They need to get their arses out in the real world and see what its like.Dock their wages for a few months........im sure they will understand then!
I totally agree badge.......people forget the phsycological effect of physically disabled people,a bigger killer than the physical..They do have a brain! they do have feelings!!!! have known people who have went into full time care homes and have died within months,happens too often! Even to someone thick ,like myself,I realise that the system is three quarts in the right direction,just need to weed out the cons.These people have paid into a system that deserves to give them better.We dont need an overhaul,we need a closer inspection of what is going on.For a start,what would it cost for the government to put unemployed people( like myself) to do a few hours a week for these people,I for one would put a weeks worth of work in for my benefit money to help these people out. | |
|
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/6/2009 4:01:12 PM | No because the Govt want to save money by taking money off the most vulnerable and making cuts in public sector spending. No consultation, nothing. As I said, my gran worked all her days, never signed on, pays tax on her savings and her works pension, is just above the poverty line and gets 47 quid a week in attendance allowance.
That is now going to be means tested and if she does qualify will be paid directly to social services to provide services that she does not want.
Where are all these extra social care staff going to come from to do the job my mum is currently doing? Is that not going to cost the taxpayer money.
I've worked in places where I saw someone's social worker/carer every 6 months, lets not kids ourselves that services are not already stretched to the limit.
The Govt wants to save money by hitting the most vulnerable in the pocket. | |
|
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/6/2009 4:24:54 PM | Heres another situation.
at present, if i want to go swimming i can phone a taxi, pick up a mate or relative go to the pool, pay for them, buy them a pint or sandwich after, then return and pay out my own money.
now imagine that same situation if the government get there way? Ring the s.s and tell them i want to go swimming in an hour, erm sorry mr badge, you can go next month if the helps available! Ahh dont worry il sit at home and play with my tablets and bottle of vodka!
people just think about it from a disabled/elderly persons point of view! | |
|
HenXX
|
Joined: 6/16/2009
Msg: 19 | |
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/6/2009 4:55:02 PM | | phone up the social workers.........sorry......errrr just widdled my pants,can you send someone round before I get an infection? or Oh! my catheter bag is full to the brim,can you send someone round right now as I have arthritis as cant do it myself.....soooo sorry,got more pee than I normally have! ffs! | |
|
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/6/2009 10:54:54 PM |
My gran pays taxes, even if she didn't she should be entitled to the best care, she gets that from my mum and she gets the princely sum of 47 quid a week in attendance allowance. I wonder if she will get the same care when social services step in.
Plus, my mum provides this care in her own time and doesn't get a penny for it, at no cost to the taxpayer
Wrong - the cost to the taxpayer is £47 PLUS all the associated administration costs and that money is paid to enable care to be paid for, it should be paid to your mum who is attending to her care needs. That's why it is called Attendance Allowance. If mum doesn't want it and is yet still content to provide the care, perhaps gran might consider giving up her AA which is not being spent on the purpose for which it is paid?
**Edit on re-reading** You don't say if your gran is actually paying the AA to someone else for other care, if that is the case I apologise unreservedly for any offence I unintentionally caused - but as a principle your statement provided an example on which to begin my argument.**End Edit**
But that of course does show up the disgraceful amount of AA that is paid. £47 is just not enough (just over 8 hrs at National Minimum Wage) to purchase care on a daily basis.
Perhaps someone would like to find out how much money the Government pays out in AA and how much it costs to administer that benefit? In an ideal world that budget would move into Social Services to bolster their finances and improve the number of carers they would be able to afford. (I know, rose-tinted specs and all that.)
One of the provided links I looked at yesterday pointed out that when the welfare state was designed, the equivalent of 19 people in work were supporting 1 person in retirement. Now there are only 4 people of working age for every 1 who is retired. And families now are less able or less willing to look after their elderly - women working full-time now were once both the mothers of bigger families of future workers and the carers for elderly parents. (Of course, if they give up working even less people in work will be supporting the retired.)
With a reducing working population and a rising number of people in the retirement age-bracket and the improvements in medicine that enable people to live much longer than ever before the Government has to do something to rationalise its expenses.
An alternative to the proposals would almost certainly have to be a hefty hike in the amount of National Insurance those of us in work would have to pay. Someone has to make the call - and the MPs that the majority of people (who bothered to turn out) voted for are the people we have elected to make that decision - and it looks like the Conservatives would be supporting these same proposals.
I don't know if this Green Paper sets out the "right" way to do it or not, but the rationale for having had the consultation and considering changes to the care system provided through benefits and Social Services is surely prudent financial management. | |
|
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/7/2009 4:09:46 AM |
Wrong - the cost to the taxpayer is £47 PLUS all the associated administration costs and that money is paid to enable care to be paid for, it should be paid to your mum who is attending to her care needs. That's why it is called Attendance Allowance. If mum doesn't want it and is yet still content to provide the care, perhaps gran might consider giving up her AA which is not being spent on the purpose for which it is paid?
**Edit on re-reading** You don't say if your gran is actually paying the AA to someone else for other care, if that is the case I apologise unreservedly for any offence I unintentionally caused - but as a principle your statement provided an example on which to begin my argument.**End Edit**
My statement was actually in response to someone who said that taxpayers money was being wasted. My comment was that my gran also pays taxes, she gets taxed on certain income she receives, that is why I made the comment that even if she didn't pay taxes, which she does, she should still be entitled to the best care. It is not just people in work who pay tax, my gran also does.
Not being spent on the purpose for which it is paid? My gran gets lower rate care because she is honest enough to admit that she doesn't need help during the night. The money allows my mum to get basic items for my gran such as shopping and since my gran has had a heart attack and now has a zimmer (which social services didn't provide previously), my mum is hoping to be able to get my gran back out, even if taxis need to be used . The money also helps with my mum getting shopping for my gran, who is I might add, very hard of hearing, therefore my mum does all the talking to other authorities on my grans behalf, dealing will bills, letters from the council. Everything.
The reason for my gran being housebound was because she had a couple of falls and lost her confidence. She had a fall 3 months ago which resulted in a heart attack, was in hospital for a month and had intensive physio to allow her to get back on her feet.
What my gran was offered from social services when she was in hospital was meals on wheels, which she would have paid out of her AA. So, if my mum is actually using the AA my gran gets to pay for meals for her what is the difference? The money my mum uses is my gran's attendance allowance and as I said earlier my mum is able to make withdrawals from my gran's bank account with my grans permission because my gran is housebound. What difference does it make if the money is paid into my grans bank account or my mums?
I know several people on DLA as I previously indicated who get paid their own DLA. It is the DWP who allows this system, not the people who are claiming the benefit. The claim for attendance allowance my gran made was done through a welfare rights advisor and my mum was totally honest about what my gran would need the AA for, in fact it was the social work dept who advised my gran to claim benefits in the first place and that it could be used for my mum assisting my gran to get shopping. Or getting her out and about which as I said, my mum is hoping to do soon. My gran is now mobile enough due to the physio to be able to get back out again. Obviously with assistance.
My gran doesn't need someone to wipe her bottom, she needs assistance with shopping, and other activities such as cleaning her house, hair washing. She's 85, she walks with the aid of a zimmer and can do certain personal care activities, others she needs my mum's help with. As for the AA being paid into my mum's account, this was not given to my gran as an option when she applied for it and it was social work who assisted with the application.
Why should elderly people who want their families to assist them to be independent for as long as possible, be forced to pay the money to social services to provide care?
Some people are abusing the DLA/AA system, my family, in my opinion, aren't one of them. This is the first benefit my gran has claimed in her entire life, she pays full rent, full council tax and she wouldn't have claimed AA unless she was advised to by the social work department welfare rights dept. They were quite happy to see the money be paid into my grans own bank account.
If my mum was going down the pub every night of the week and drinking my grans money I would agree totally that this benefit should be paid back, but as it actually assists my gran to live in her own home with more independence, I am not sure exactly how she is not spending the money for the purpose that it was given.
I wonder what the costs would be to the taxpayer if my mum actually didn't assist my gran with her care? I would imagine it would be much more than £47 per week.
Plus any associated administrative costs. My mum spends at least 15 hours a week assisting my gran, even when my gran was in hospital she spent hours of her own time, washing my grans clothes daily at the hospitals request, dealing with social services and OT depts, being at my grans house so that the OT could adapt my grans flat.
Getting shopping in for my gran getting home etc etc.
Plus, my mum has a full time job. I might also add, my mum is happy to do what she does and my gran is also happy because she is still living in her own home and has as much independence as she can have given her disabilities.
I'm really not sure how my gran is not using the AA for the purpose she was paid it for.
| |
|
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/7/2009 5:30:03 AM | The pot is dry and something has to be done to try and ensure that people still get the care that they need but reducing costs dramatically and this is the Governments solution. Is it going to work? Probably not and will mean that the friends and families of the disabled and elderly will have to help more with time and finances than they currently do and that isn't fair and often not realistic but is the harsh reality.
The amount of people needing care and for how long has increased dramatically and without the workforce numbers to pay for it and with more people and families struggling financially where does the money come from?
I see it as the Government through mismanagement of public spending has created this problem and the only solution is that the most vulnerable will suffer as the provision of care isn't going to be as readily available as before but change has to happen and is going to happen and I hope it works. | |
|
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/7/2009 5:59:47 AM |
The pot is dry and something has to be done to try and ensure that people still get the care that they need but reducing costs dramatically and this is the Governments solution. Is it going to work? Probably not and will mean that the friends and families of the disabled and elderly will have to help more with time and finances than they currently do and that isn't fair and often not realistic but is the harsh reality.
The amount of people needing care and for how long has increased dramatically and without the workforce numbers to pay for it and with more people and families struggling financially where does the money come from?
Well, if AA is no longer going to be paid directly to the people getting it but to social services, are the taxpayer going to fund more jobs in social services for them to take up the care that a lot of families are already providing?
Are the people who are going to take over my grans care do what my mum currently does for £47 a week for 15-20 hours of their time? Or spend additional time over and above doing things for nothing? Are we really to be expected to believe that social work, who are already over stretched and underfunded are going to take on thousands of new staff to deliver these services to people in need?
I'd be more inclined to agree with the pot being dry if I didn't know that the Govt spent trillions propping up the banks, have paid 50 billion into the economy to try and kick start it and that the proportion of money lying around in unclaimed benefits far outweighs the amount of benefit fraud in the UK each year.
Perhaps the pot wouldn't also be quite so dry if we didn't pay spend money paying for MP's them to refurbish their homes.
My local MP spent half a million in a few years and we paid for it. I'd rather see taxpayers money spent better on, elderly people being allowed to remain in their homes as long as they can, not someone who expects us to pay for the installation of their virgin media service.
I think that just shows what a state this country is currently in. We pay for people's homes to be refurbished when they can afford it and we take money off the most vulnerable in society because the Govt have messed up and put this country into a deep recession.
If the system is being abused by anyone, the DWP allows this to happen, by paying benefits into people's bank accounts and making no checks on how the money is spent, or indeed whose bank account the money is paid into. Such as the example I gave earlier about someone claiming DLA on behalf of their grandson, when he wasn't living with them or even speaking to them, in fact he didn't even know he was getting it.
I bet the money wasn't being spent on his care either. However there are people out there who need the money and don't abuse the system, so why should they suffer because of the way the system currently runs and the fact that the Govt is skint. | |
|
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/7/2009 7:24:58 AM | have just recieved a text saying over 8000 have signed the petition and there server is trying to keep up but demand is quite high, also the liberal democrats have said they will say no to the green paper and protest all the way, at the moment people are waiting replys from there mps, who i presum are either asking disco dave what the tories are doing, or asking gormless what the fecking hell are you doing. benefits and work will be naming and shaming the mps who are in favour of the green paper. just hope they realise this when theres over a million votes at stake!
i have heard as well the disability charitys who the government claim are in favour of there changes, guess what they didnt know anything about it never mind agree with it!! must be lovely working for the government spinning away and telling complete bollocks!
ive wrote to jaqui smith labour and karen lumley conservative for there view and hopefully get a response when ever! | |
|
| please can all those with disabled and elderly or carers of either, please read!!
Posted: 8/7/2009 10:31:51 AM |
I'd be more inclined to agree with the pot being dry if I didn't know that the Govt spent trillions propping up the banks, have paid 50 billion into the economy to try and kick start it and that the proportion of money lying around in unclaimed benefits far outweighs the amount of benefit fraud in the UK each year.
And where is that money coming from? The country is in massive debt, there has been a massive down turn and we are in the midst of a recession. Public spending cuts would of already happened if budgets had not already been agreed but as it is we are continuing spend money we haven't got and will do next year too so plans are having to be put in place now to avoid a complete collapse similar to Iceland's.
I hope that the action that Badge mentions above has some affect as I think everyone is going to suffer in the next couple of years but you shouldn't make the most vulnerable suffer first and should protect them as much as possible which by this bill doesn't appear to be the case. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
