The state benefits system mega-thread.

[RichardCoulter]

We'll have to wait and see if May will be any better than Cameron with regards to the treatment of our most vulnerable in society.

[Jimmy-J]

I wonder which of the chronic illnesses are going to be classed as not being chronic enough?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by denphone

Oh what glorious generalising stereotyping....

Just parroting the Express.

---------- Post added at 14:31 ---------- Previous post was at 14:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J

I wonder which of the chronic illnesses are going to be classed as not being chronic enough?

It's a tricky one. Clearly previous governments of all flavours have shovelled people onto the sick to fudge the statistics. Look at the proportion of those on the sick here compared with Germany or France and it's clear that our numbers are ridiculous. That said it's also equally clear that baby has gone out with bath water in some cases.

[heero_yuy]

We should also bear in mind that the medical term "chronic" actually means long standing but not necessarilly severe. IIRC the term "acute" is use for severity.

For example a friend of mine has chronic eczema since childhood but holds down a full time job with only occasional absences.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

We'll have to wait and see if May will be any better than Cameron with regards to the treatment of our most vulnerable in society.

I think it depends on how much Iain Duncan Smith is involved.

IDS is a backbencher and not involved at all as things stand. But he has welcomed the move away from re-assessment of permanent disability and has said its a reform he wanted to make while in office. It is now fairly well understood that Osborne's hand weighed heavily at the DWP and IDS was often (unfairly, IMO) demonised for harsh policies that weren't actually his.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I fear that Osem won't be happy, he supports the repeated testing of everybody, even those with severe, lifelong and incurable learning difficulties!

Yes of course I do. I especially want my own son, who's in that category, to suffer that indignity because he hasn't got enough to deal with already.

You always were one to just make stuff up weren't you. Pathetic.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Chris

IDS is a backbencher and not involved at all as things stand. But he has welcomed the move away from re-assessment of permanent disability and has said its a reform he wanted to make while in office. It is now fairly well understood that Osborne's hand weighed heavily at the DWP and IDS was often (unfairly, IMO) demonised for harsh policies that weren't actually his.

Indeed as you say he was often the fall guy and sooner rather then later he quite clearly said l have had enough of this and resigned honourably from his office..

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Excellent news for both our most vulnerable in society and the taxpayer.

All these benefit cuts have caused untold misery to the sick & disabled, yet cost more in administration than what they save.

I fear that Osem won't be happy, he supports the repeated testing of everybody, even those with severe, lifelong and incurable learning difficulties!

Mod comment - Richard, if you are going accuse someone of something heinous, please provide links/evidence - otherwise, you're just being offensive.

And being offensive can lead to infractions being incurred.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I do not and have never advocated that people should be routinely sterilised simply because of illness or disability.

Don't you ever say this again, you piece of work.

Then it must have been your alter ego that made this post then.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

As it stands, anyone can have children regardless of their abilities and I don't think that this is a good thing.

At the moment we have children (in mind or in body) giving birth to children. Often, they expect others to pay for them whilst having scant regard to raising them properly through ignorance or otherwise.

Yet, those who wish to adopt have to (quite rightly) pass various checks before they are able to do so.

I don't think that it is a person's right to have children (it's a privilege) and, in the most extreme cases, would support mandatory sterilisation of some males and females.

Reproduction is a basic biological function.

You might as well say breathing is a privilege.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

Reproduction is a basic biological function.

You might as well say breathing is a privilege.

It's even more base than that.

The human body, as with all life, is nothing but a vehicle that is used by our DNA to replicate itself.

If a coke can was the perfect vehicle in which DNA could replicate itself it would be a viable species on this planet.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Chris

Reproduction is a basic biological function.

But not all animals get to reproduce: Take the African wild dog, they roam in groups but only the Alpha male and Alpha female get to breed, the rest of the pack help raise those pups in preference to their own possible offspring.

This happens in many species that form packs or troups. There are also examples in other species where only the privileged Alpha (strongest, cleverest etc) members get to breed despite all members being fertile.

It's what strengthens the breed and weeds out the weak and unhealthy.

This thread has taken a bit of a tangent..

There is no doubt osbourne had far more to do with the dwp then he was qualified too but his ideological belief was paramount to him and reality was that troublesome thing to be ignored. He and cameron were very close ideologically and over time I'm sure there will be leaks and declassifications that will show how much distance existed between those two and their cabinet colleagues. Good thing they are both gone imo and conservatism can get back to it's more traditional values then just the friendly facade and backstabbing of the cameron era.