GDPR Cookie Consent by SimpleServe Privacy Script A Report on the proposed changes to Disability Living Allowance - AAD Consumer Forum

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Report on the proposed changes to Disability Living Allowance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A Report on the proposed changes to Disability Living Allowance

    This report was entirely written, researched, funded, and supported by sick and disabled people,
    their friends and carers.

    Thousands more supported it through social media



    Attached Files
    Last edited by pompeyfaith; 9 January 2012, 02:43.

  • #2
    Re: A Report on the proposed changes to Disability Living Allowance

    This is straight from the horses mouth

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A Report on the proposed changes to Disability Living Allowance

      When one considers how and when this "consultation" was carried out, it becomes abundantly obvious that it was deliberately cocked-up to minimise effective opposition, which opposition was to be ignored anyway by the way the Bill was published two days before the end of the consultation period.

      The 'Welfare Reform' agenda seems to have been set by civil servants rather than by politicians, as there were similar proposals being mooted under the previous kakisticratic oligarchy. 'Baron' David Fraud Freud, formerly a merchant banker by occupation and now a merchant banker by argot for his reputation, made a name for himself by making wholly inaccurate allegations about people receiving Incapacity Benefit, allegations which pandered to the silly prejudices of the Daily Wail and its readers. Consequently, Gordon "Moron" Brown's kakistocracy started the process of replacing IB with 'Employment Support Allowance', with its stupid presumption that regardless of how severe a person's disabilities might be, there is still a useful job they can do even if it is only to lie on the floor to stop draughts from under a door.

      This is the second time in recent years that the antics of the civil service have become all too obvious - the previous case was that of the National ID Card. That nonsense started in the last year or two of John Major's 'government', when they convinced Michael Hecht Howard that it would reduce illegal immigration. As the work had not been completed by 1997, they had to try to convince Labour that:
      • There are bad headlines in the newspapers. Something Must Be Done.
      • Aha! Here is Something To Be Done!
      • This MUST Be Done.
      • There is no alternative.

      It is, of course, utter nonsense, but such is one way that unpopular policies can be foisted upon politicians. The other way, if Parliament is to be compelled to change the law, is to get it passed as a European Directive; that way, ministers can claim that they had no choice in the matter even though the truth was that they secretly supported the measure and used the EU Directive as an excuse.

      With the ID card and especially with 'welfare reform', there was no possibility of using the EU to force through the policy, so the publicity campaign needed to be longer, bloodier and more brutal than usual. The ID card, originally claimed to reduce illegal immigration became, at various times and to various ministers:
      • a way to reduce waste in the NHS
      • a way to stop nasty foreigners getting free treatment on the NHS
      • a way to streamline our passports in line with other nations
      • the only means to prevent illegal immigrants from getting welfare benefits (which they couldn't do, with or without the ID card, as illegal immigrants are not registered)
      • a means to improve Homeland Security and hence keep the Fatherland safe from foreign terrorists.

      In short, it was a 'solution' in desperate need of a problem.

      It has been much the same with 'welfare reform', which has been claimed will:
      • improve care standards
      • increase choice
      • 'empower' recipients
      • help care professionals to provide appropriate care
      • devolve care decisions to the local level
      • meet the needs of an aging population
      • reduce bureaucracy
      • save money

      Of course, it will do none of the above.

      The way to stop it is to make it apparent to the politicians that supporting the changes would be so unpopular that, no matter how badly Ed Millipede performed, Labour's landslide victory in 2015 would be quite certain.

      Don't talk about 'people with disabilities', but use people who have become disabled through industrial illness or military service, whom the new system would fail and effectively cast aside. Let Iain Duncan Cough and/or David Fraud explain why they have chosen to treat hard-working men or war heroes as little better than vermin.
      Last edited by CleverClogs (RIP); 10 January 2012, 07:53.

      Comment

      Working...
      X