If they are reliant on benefits net for their income they are unlikely to be Tory voters anyway, though I accept the teething problems need to be improved. Of course UC will also be of great benefit to those who work more than 16 hours a week and will no longer lose all their benefits doing so
Although Corbyn supporters will find it hard to credit there are Conservative voters with something of a social conscience who will be upset at seeing their fellow citizens mistreated by a Conservative created bureaucratic system.
Other Conservative voters might see it as a worrying sign of a lack of competence.
People don't need to be directly affected to give a damn.
It's a peculiarly Westminster view that voters only care about themselves. I'm old(ish), but want to see help for the young. I'm relatively wealthy, but want our poor, sick and disabled to be cared for...and so on. I don't care who they vote for - that's their business.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.
It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome. 🎁 If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.
I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
The US constitution does not 'stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs'. It explicitly allows for the Constitution to grow, by the procedure of the Constitutional amendment, which has occurred 27 times to date. However, to elevate a law to be part of the Constitution, it imposes a higher hurdle than 50%+1.
This does not seem unreasonable to me, and far saner than the alternative approach of the more than 3,000 pages of the EU constitution Lisbon Treaty placing everything from Aardvarks to Zebras under constitutional law.
It’s much too hard to change the US Constitution. It defies the democratic will of the majority in too many ways. The preponderance of Senators from small rural states, the slightly absurd Electoral College, the Constitution is not a hallowed document, it is not even fit for purpose.
If they are reliant on benefits net for their income they are unlikely to be Tory voters anyway, though I accept the teething problems need to be improved. Of course UC will also be of great benefit to those who work more than 16 hours a week and will no longer lose all their benefits doing so
Modern Conservatism: pull up the ladder, Jack, I’m OK
No, modern conservatism reversing the outrageous system left by Brown where if you try and get on and work more than 16 hours a week you will lose all your benefits
Two wrongs don’t make one right.
It is not a wrong, the goal of UC is the right one, it is just the teething problems need sorting out and much of that is due to lack of enough support and drive from the Treasury for the reforms not the reforms themselves
And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.
It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome. 🎁 If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.
I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
Taking a more simple view, US way of life has become far too liberal, hence nearly 100% of people are on drugs, nearly 100% of under thirties have venereal disease. It needs conservatism to turn the country around.
If they are reliant on benefits net for their income they are unlikely to be Tory voters anyway, though I accept the teething problems need to be improved. Of course UC will also be of great benefit to those who work more than 16 hours a week and will no longer lose all their benefits doing so
Although Corbyn supporters will find it hard to credit there are Conservative voters with something of a social conscience who will be upset at seeing their fellow citizens mistreated by a Conservative created bureaucratic system.
Other Conservative voters might see it as a worrying sign of a lack of competence.
People don't need to be directly affected to give a damn.
It's a peculiarly Westminster view that voters only care about themselves. I'm old(ish), but want to see help for the young. I'm relatively wealthy, but want our poor, sick and disabled to be cared for...and so on. I don't care who they vote for - that's their business.
All fine in theory but in reality the young vote Labour for free tution fees, the old vote Tory as they want to preserve their expensive properties, some of the middle aged who voted Tory in 2015 because of the inheritance tax cut switched to Labour in 2017 because of the dementia tax proposal etc. Most people vote for the party they think will best preserve their interests eg a public sector worker will tend to vote Labour, an older private sector worker will tend to vote Tory, those who vote purely out of what they think of as the needs of the country as a whole rather than themselves are a minority
If they are reliant on benefits net for their income they are unlikely to be Tory voters anyway, though I accept the teething problems need to be improved. Of course UC will also be of great benefit to those who work more than 16 hours a week and will no longer lose all their benefits doing so
Although Corbyn supporters will find it hard to credit there are Conservative voters with something of a social conscience who will be upset at seeing their fellow citizens mistreated by a Conservative created bureaucratic system.
Other Conservative voters might see it as a worrying sign of a lack of competence.
People don't need to be directly affected to give a damn.
It's a peculiarly Westminster view that voters only care about themselves. I'm old(ish), but want to see help for the young. I'm relatively wealthy, but want our poor, sick and disabled to be cared for...and so on. I don't care who they vote for - that's their business.
All fine in theory but in reality the young vote Labour for free tution fees, the old vote Tory as they want to preserve their expensive properties, some of the middle aged who voted Tory in 2015 because of the inheritance tax cut switched to Labour in 2017 because of the dementia tax proposal etc. Most people vote for the party they think will best preserve their interests eg a public sector worker will tend to vote Labour, an older private sector worker will tend to vote Tory, those who vote purely out of what they think of as the needs of the country as a whole rather than themselves are a minority
seems logical but might benefit from being expressed with less certainty
That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.
I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
I think it's a terrible view as does Clarence Thomas otherwise he'd view restrictions on weapons using smokeless powder (another thing not mentioned by the constitution) to be perfectly legitimate.
Sorry, I am not sure I understand that. I did disagree with your post earlier that we will see Conservative activism in the new Court. What we will see is the opposite. The Court will restrict the scope of activism at the Federal level. This may irritate Trump from time to time but it is likely to infuriate a Democratic Congress and the next Democratic President.
Shelby County vs Holder was the most astounding act of Judicial Activism in the last decade.
The Conservative Justices united to flatly and plainly disregard a simply and specifically worded part of the constitution as the saught to strike down a law specifically permitted by the Constitution that they did not like. They don't even hide it in their decision. They just ignore the constitution.
Your touchingly naive faith that the newly composed court will see less of that kind of thing is quaint.
This, as usual, is a very good piece by David and I would agree with a lot of what he says. Where I have a problem is seeing the Democrats electing someone vaguely moderate enough to make a credible candidate. All the names being mentioned so far are falling over themselves to be more radical and anti-Trump. Warren would get pulverised on the campaign trail about her claims to be part-Native Indian, Booker and Harris have seemed like idiots in the SC nomination process and moderate voices are being drowned out.
Also, one thing to look out for in the California Senate race. I have seen a lot of comments posted where Republicans say they will vote for De Leon to punish Feinstein for her handling of the Blasey Ford allegations. She is consistently below 50% with a large percentage undecided. If CA Republicans choose to punish her, that might be enough to tip the balance to De Leon.
Booker and Harris seemed to be making excellent cases that Kavanaugh's nomination was corrupt but all that got lost in the decades old he said/she said sex assault allegations.
I thought Booker and Harris - especially the latter - were excellent in the hearings. I didn’t think much of Harris before, but she has definitely gone up in my estimation.
The most memorable thing people seems to be taken away from those hearings about Booker is his "I am Spartacus" moment. Not exactly a great look.
If they are reliant on benefits net for their income they are unlikely to be Tory voters anyway, though I accept the teething problems need to be improved. Of course UC will also be of great benefit to those who work more than 16 hours a week and will no longer lose all their benefits doing so
Modern Conservatism: pull up the ladder, Jack, I’m OK
No, modern conservatism reversing the outrageous system left by Brown where if you try and get on and work more than 16 hours a week you will lose all your benefits
Two wrongs don’t make one right.
It is not a wrong, the goal of UC is the right one, it is just the teething problems need sorting out and much of that is due to lack of enough support and drive from the Treasury for the reforms not the reforms themselves
At best a considerable degree of bad planning and failure to think through. Partly at least a consequence of the Thatcher years when the brightest and best were discouraged from entering public service.
If they are reliant on benefits net for their income they are unlikely to be Tory voters anyway, though I accept the teething problems need to be improved. Of course UC will also be of great benefit to those who work more than 16 hours a week and will no longer lose all their benefits doing so
Although Corbyn supporters will find it hard to credit there are Conservative voters with something of a social conscience who will be upset at seeing their fellow citizens mistreated by a Conservative created bureaucratic system.
Other Conservative voters might see it as a worrying sign of a lack of competence.
People don't need to be directly affected to give a damn.
It's a peculiarly Westminster view that voters only care about themselves. I'm old(ish), but want to see help for the young. I'm relatively wealthy, but want our poor, sick and disabled to be cared for...and so on. I don't care who they vote for - that's their business.
All fine in theory but in reality the young vote Labour for free tution fees, the old vote Tory as they want to preserve their expensive properties, some of the middle aged who voted Tory in 2015 because of the inheritance tax cut switched to Labour in 2017 because of the dementia tax proposal etc. Most people vote for the party they think will best preserve their interests eg a public sector worker will tend to vote Labour, an older private sector worker will tend to vote Tory, those who vote purely out of what they think of as the needs of the country as a whole rather than themselves are a minority
We saw a switch at the last election, with more middle-class people voting Labour because they're altruistic and in favour of taxes and the EU, and more working-class people voting Tory because they fall easily into the trap of nationalism.
If they are reliant on benefits net for their income they are unlikely to be Tory voters anyway, though I accept the teething problems need to be improved. Of course UC will also be of great benefit to those who work more than 16 hours a week and will no longer lose all their benefits doing so
Although Corbyn supporters will find it hard to credit there are Conservative voters with something of a social conscience who will be upset at seeing their fellow citizens mistreated by a Conservative created bureaucratic system.
Other Conservative voters might see it as a worrying sign of a lack of competence.
People don't need to be directly affected to give a damn.
It's a peculiarly Westminster view that voters only care about themselves. I'm old(ish), but want to see help for the young. I'm relatively wealthy, but want our poor, sick and disabled to be cared for...and so on. I don't care who they vote for - that's their business.
All fine in theory but in reality the young vote Labour for free tution fees, the old vote Tory as they want to preserve their expensive properties, some of the middle aged who voted Tory in 2015 because of the inheritance tax cut switched to Labour in 2017 because of the dementia tax proposal etc. Most people vote for the party they think will best preserve their interests eg a public sector worker will tend to vote Labour, an older private sector worker will tend to vote Tory, those who vote purely out of what they think of as the needs of the country as a whole rather than themselves are a minority
We saw a switch at the last election, with more middle-class people voting Labour because they're altruistic and in favour of taxes and the EU, and more working-class people voting Tory because they fall easily into the trap of nationalism.
Voting in favour of the EU is not altruistic if you are middle class.
I remember being warned that leaving the EU might lead to the break up of the United Kingdom. Now the Guardian headline seems to suggest remaining in the EU could cause the break up of the UK. Project Fear has turned the gun on itself.
I remember being warned that leaving the EU might lead to the break up of the United Kingdom. Now the Guardian headline seems to suggest remaining in the EU could cause the break up of the UK. Project Fear has turned the gun on itself.
And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.
It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome. 🎁 If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.
I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
The US constitution does not 'stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs'. It explicitly allows for the Constitution to grow, by the procedure of the Constitutional amendment, which has occurred 27 times to date. However, to elevate a law to be part of the Constitution, it imposes a higher hurdle than 50%+1.
This does not seem unreasonable to me, and far saner than the alternative approach of the more than 3,000 pages of the EU constitution Lisbon Treaty placing everything from Aardvarks to Zebras under constitutional law.
And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.
It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome. 🎁 If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.
I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
Taking a more simple view, US way of life has become far too liberal, hence nearly 100% of people are on drugs, nearly 100% of under thirties have venereal disease. It needs conservatism to turn the country around.
In other news, 77.6686% of statistics are made up on the spot
I remember being warned that leaving the EU might lead to the break up of the United Kingdom. Now the Guardian headline seems to suggest remaining in the EU could cause the break up of the UK. Project Fear has turned the gun on itself.
If they are reliant on benefits net for their income they are unlikely to be Tory voters anyway, though I accept the teething problems need to be improved. Of course UC will also be of great benefit to those who work more than 16 hours a week and will no longer lose all their benefits doing so
Modern Conservatism: pull up the ladder, Jack, I’m OK
No, modern conservatism reversing the outrageous system left by Brown where if you try and get on and work more than 16 hours a week you will lose all your benefits
Two wrongs don’t make one right.
It is not a wrong, the goal of UC is the right one, it is just the teething problems need sorting out and much of that is due to lack of enough support and drive from the Treasury for the reforms not the reforms themselves
Why can't the government migrate existing severely disabled childrens parents on legacy benefits onto universal credit.? Rather than make their already pressurised parents have to re-apply and have to wait weeks. Their severe disabilities means the facts will not have changed. Surely the government could migrate them over to U C and ask them to confirm it is correct These parents have enough stress without the government creating more , they need to show more compassion.
I remember being warned that leaving the EU might lead to the break up of the United Kingdom. Now the Guardian headline seems to suggest remaining in the EU could cause the break up of the UK. Project Fear has turned the gun on itself.
The headline might suggest it, but not the actual article. But the real story is that we voted 2 years ago and even basic questions like how the UK is going to look after we leave still haven't been resolved. I really like the UK and want it to continue in much its present form. It is only since Brexit I've wondered whether it might not.
I remember being warned that leaving the EU might lead to the break up of the United Kingdom. Now the Guardian headline seems to suggest remaining in the EU could cause the break up of the UK. Project Fear has turned the gun on itself.
It’s not saying that is it! It’s reporting that if Parliament agreed to a second Brexit vote then the SNP would want a second Indy Ref.
More likely that Leaving would bring a second Scottish Indy Ref and a “For’ vote.
The one thing the SNP absolutely positively definitely don’t want is a vote on the terms of the deal - that sets a precedent they REALLY want to avoid...
Modern Conservatism: pull up the ladder, Jack, I’m OK
No, modern conservatism reversing the outrageous system left by Brown where if you try and get on and work more than 16 hours a week you will lose all your benefits
Two wrongs don’t make one right.
It is not a wrong, the goal of UC is the right one, it is just the teething problems need sorting out and much of that is due to lack of enough support and drive from the Treasury for the reforms not the reforms themselves
Why can't the government migrate existing severely disabled childrens parents on legacy benefits onto universal credit.? Rather than make their already pressurised parents have to re-apply and have to wait weeks. Their severe disabilities means the facts will not have changed. Surely the government could migrate them over to U C and ask them to confirm it is correct These parents have enough stress without the government creating more , they need to show more compassion.
Have a look at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/06/former-watchdog-chief-labels-disabled-benefits-process-a-hostile-environment Andrew McDonald, who chaired Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, was diagnosed with Parkinson’s, a degenerative disorder of the central nervous system, in 2007. Three years later, he discovered he had prostate cancer and was subsequently told by doctors it was incurable. He is shortly to undergo brain surgery in attempts to mitigate some of the worst effects.
He retired in 2014 as the chief executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and qualified for PIP the following year, a decision which was reaffirmed at review in 2017. Each time, assessors awarded him 11 points, comfortably over the eight point threshold for lower-level PIP support, which amounted in his case to about £3,000 a year.
At his third review assessment in March, however, he was awarded two points – a decision which suggested his health was improving. “I was flabbergasted: I had two progressively degenerative conditions and my Parkinson’s had become worse since the turn of the year,” said McDonald. “It’s now described by my neurologist as ‘very severe’.”
when youre complaining about everything youre complaining about nothing
the problem foir politicians claiming everything is serious is simply people tune out. Voters get tired of wolf crying and activists cant moderate theiur claims
Do Senators have the same immunity as MP's do if speaking on the floor of the House?
Yes, in effect - article 1, section 6: They (members) shall in all cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
when youre complaining about everything youre complaining about nothing
the problem foir politicians claiming everything is serious is simply people tune out. Voters get tired of wolf crying and activists cant moderate theiur claims
when youre complaining about everything youre complaining about nothing
the problem foir politicians claiming everything is serious is simply people tune out. Voters get tired of wolf crying and activists cant moderate theiur claims
Indeed. Bit Corbyn-ish, almost.
I think Trump loves to play the controversy game as it stops his opponents concentrating on any single issue. If the Dems had more discipline they would give him a harder time.
Modern Conservatism: pull up the ladder, Jack, I’m OK
No, modern conservatism reversing the outrageous system left by Brown where if you try and get on and work more than 16 hours a week you will lose all your benefits
Two wrongs don’t make one right.
It is not a wrong, the goal of UC is the right one, it is just the teething problems need sorting out and much of that is due to lack of enough support and drive from the Treasury for the reforms not the reforms themselves
snip .
Have a look at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/06/former-watchdog-chief-labels-disabled-benefits-process-a-hostile-environment Andrew McDonald, who chaired Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, was diagnosed with Parkinson’s, a degenerative disorder of the central nervous system, in 2007. Three years later, he discovered he had prostate cancer and was subsequently told by doctors it was incurable. He is shortly to undergo brain surgery in attempts to mitigate some of the worst effects.
He retired in 2014 as the chief executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and qualified for PIP the following year, a decision which was reaffirmed at review in 2017. Each time, assessors awarded him 11 points, comfortably over the eight point threshold for lower-level PIP support, which amounted in his case to about £3,000 a year.
At his third review assessment in March, however, he was awarded two points – a decision which suggested his health was improving. “I was flabbergasted: I had two progressively degenerative conditions and my Parkinson’s had become worse since the turn of the year,” said McDonald. “It’s now described by my neurologist as ‘very severe’.”
Sounds like a typical example. Thousands of cases like it. The system of assessment, which is carried out by private sector companies and the DWP points system, are a complete and utter disgrace and a scandal.
He will probably appeal, have months of waiting and stress, and then have to face a tribunal, at which he will win.
God alone knows how much the tax payer is forking out for these endless tribunals and constant reassessments of people who have degenerative diseases.
I am myself far too well acquainted with all this crap, due to family situation.
Modern Conservatism: pull up the ladder, Jack, I’m OK
No, modern conservatism reversing the outrageous system left by Brown where if you try and get on and work more than 16 hours a week you will lose all your benefits
Two wrongs don’t make one right.
It is not a wrong, the goal of UC is the right one, it is just the teething problems need sorting out and much of that is due to lack of enough support and drive from the Treasury for the reforms not the reforms themselves
Why can't the government migrate existing severely disabled childrens parents on legacy benefits onto universal credit.? Rather than make their already pressurised parents have to re-apply and have to wait weeks. Their severe disabilities means the facts will not have changed. Surely the government could migrate them over to U C and ask them to confirm it is correct These parents have enough stress without the government creating more , they need to show more compassion.
On being told that we had a written report from a psychologist stating this and actually recommending my son had a stint as a voluntary in patient he famously replied - I don't agree and my view over rides his.
After tribunal he got his benefits reinstated - but there was yet another period of stress and he only got by because mum and dad were able to provide financial support.
We have done these (tribunals) 3 times now in addition to taking an education authority to tribunal for another son (another long story that fills me with anger even now).
I have no idea how some of these people can live with themselves
Modern Conservatism: pull up the ladder, Jack, I’m OK
No, modern conservatism reversing the outrageous system left by Brown where if you try and get on and work more than 16 hours a week you will lose all your benefits
Two wrongs don’t make one right.
snip .
Have a look at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/06/former-watchdog-chief-labels-disabled-benefits-process-a-hostile-environment Andrew McDonald, who chaired Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, was diagnosed with Parkinson’s, a degenerative disorder of the central nervous system, in 2007. Three years later, he discovered he had prostate cancer and was subsequently told by doctors it was incurable. He is shortly to undergo brain surgery in attempts to mitigate some of the worst effects.
He retired in 2014 as the chief executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and qualified for PIP the following year, a decision which was reaffirmed at review in 2017. Each time, assessors awarded him 11 points, comfortably over the eight point threshold for lower-level PIP support, which amounted in his case to about £3,000 a year.
At his third review assessment in March, however, he was awarded two points – a decision which suggested his health was improving. “I was flabbergasted: I had two progressively degenerative conditions and my Parkinson’s had become worse since the turn of the year,” said McDonald. “It’s now described by my neurologist as ‘very severe’.”
Sounds like a typical example. Thousands of cases like it. The system of assessment, which is carried out by private sector companies and the DWP points system, are a complete and utter disgrace and a scandal.
He will probably appeal, have months of waiting and stress, and then have to face a tribunal, at which he will win.
God alone knows how much the tax payer is forking out for these endless tribunals and constant reassessments of people who have degenerative diseases.
I am myself far too well acquainted with all this crap, due to family situation.
He has appealed apparently. Last April, but as yet hasn’t been given a date.
Thanks OKC much appreciated. I really find it hard to understand .
I have two severely disabled grandchildren it breaks my heart. I see how my daughter and son in law struggle. My wife and I give all the help we can. However they have to struggle with bureaucracy at ever turn.
Also the cuts in social services have had an effect on the help they receive. Their special needs school is excellent but the cuts are effecting them. My daughter now really struggles in the school holidays for care help and respite care.
The local children's hospice are brilliant . To be fair when my daughter rings the current people who run the tax credit element for severely disabled children DWP they are really good.
However she is really worried about the up coming migration to UC and having to re -apply. Really hope the government will migrate the information they already hold and ask her to confirm. Surely this seems sensible.
I hope some one in influence reads this blog and feeds back , how they could change their implementation of their migration changes.
Modern Conservatism: pull up the ladder, Jack, I’m OK
No, modern conservatism reversing the outrageous system left by Brown where if you try and get on and work more than 16 hours a week you will lose all your benefits
Two wrongs don’t make one right.
It is not a wrong, the goal of UC is the right one, it is just the teething problems need sorting out and much of that is due to lack of enough support and drive from the Treasury for the reforms not the reforms themselves
snip .
Have a look at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/06/former-watchdog-chief-labels-disab At his third review assessment in March, however, he was awarded two points – a decision which suggested his health was improving. “I was flabbergasted: I had two progressively degenerative conditions and my Parkinson’s had become worse since the turn of the year,” said McDonald. “It’s now described by my neurologist as ‘very severe’.”
Sounds like a typical example. Thousands of cases like it. The system of assessment, which is carried out by private sector companies and the DWP points system, are a complete and utter disgrace and a scandal.
He will probably appeal, have months of waiting and stress, and then have to face a tribunal, at which he will win.
God alone knows how much the tax payer is forking out for these endless tribunals and constant reassessments of people who have degenerative diseases.
I am myself far too well acquainted with all this crap, due to family situation.
I agree its appalling. But will it have a political impact?
The Tory message of benefits scroungers is very powerful, reinforced continuously in the newspapers, and perhaps many will see this as a reasonable price to pay for being 'tough'.
Well of course the report does not exonerate Kavanaugh - there is no way that the FBI can prove that an event 36 years ago did not happen. I'm fairly sure though that the report will say that despite not being able to exonerate Kavanaugh there is nowhere near enough (or any) evidence that could lead to his being charged.
So Warren is doubtless correct here, if deliberately misleading.
When I was a CAB Trustee, until 3 years ago, I got reports on the success rate our specialist advisors got at Appeals Tribunals. It was heart-breakingly high. People really shouldn’t be tormented like this.
If they are reliant on benefits net for their income they are unlikely to be Tory voters anyway, though I accept the teething problems need to be improved. Of course UC will also be of great benefit to those who work more than 16 hours a week and will no longer lose all their benefits doing so
Although Corbyn supporters will find it hard to credit there are Conservative voters with something of a social conscience who will be upset at seeing their fellow citizens mistreated by a Conservative created bureaucratic system.
Other Conservative voters might see it as a worrying sign of a lack of competence.
People don't need to be directly affected to give a damn.
It's a peculiarly Westminster view that voters only care about themselves. I'm old(ish), but want to see help for the young. I'm relatively wealthy, but want our poor, sick and disabled to be cared for...and so on. I don't care who they vote for - that's their business.
All fine in theory but in reality the young vote Labour for free tution fees, the old vote Tory as they want to preserve their expensive properties, some of the middle aged who voted Tory in 2015 because of the inheritance tax cut switched to Labour in 2017 because of the dementia tax proposal etc. Most people vote for the party they think will best preserve their interests eg a public sector worker will tend to vote Labour, an older private sector worker will tend to vote Tory, those who vote purely out of what they think of as the needs of the country as a whole rather than themselves are a minority
We saw a switch at the last election, with more middle-class people voting Labour because they're altruistic and in favour of taxes and the EU, and more working-class people voting Tory because they fall easily into the trap of nationalism.
More middle class people voted Labour because they did not want their inheritance threatened by the dementia tax and wanted to ensure Brexit did not damage their jobs, more working class people voted Tory as they wanted tighter control of immigration
I remember being warned that leaving the EU might lead to the break up of the United Kingdom. Now the Guardian headline seems to suggest remaining in the EU could cause the break up of the UK. Project Fear has turned the gun on itself.
It’s not saying that is it! It’s reporting that if Parliament agreed to a second Brexit vote then the SNP would want a second Indy Ref.
More likely that Leaving would bring a second Scottish Indy Ref and a “For’ vote.
It actually says if the UK again votes to leave in a second EU referendum and Scotland again votes Remain then the SNP want the right to call a second indyref too, which is fair enough I suppose.
Whether leaving the EU makes independence more likely depends on the type of Brexit, polling shows most Scots favour a Norway style Brexit or a Canada deal style Brexit, what they do not want is No Deal Brexit which may well increase the chances of them voting for independence. It is No Deal Brexit which makes a second EU referendum most likely.
However polling also shows voters across the UK do not support a No Deal Brexit either so Scotland is no different to England in that respect
I remember being warned that leaving the EU might lead to the break up of the United Kingdom. Now the Guardian headline seems to suggest remaining in the EU could cause the break up of the UK. Project Fear has turned the gun on itself.
Sadly no conference bounce for Mrs M, at least with Opinium. Tories static at 39%, but Labour up 3, also to 39%, LDs down 2 to 7%.
Couldn't you also say luckily no conference dip following the brexit acrimony?
I think labour are holding up where they are because of their brand and not because of Corbyn
And because, whatever you might think of the practicability or affordability of their solutions, they are the only party offering the younger generation a change in the balance of the economy.
Sadly no conference bounce for Mrs M, at least with Opinium. Tories static at 39%, but Labour up 3, also to 39%, LDs down 2 to 7%.
Couldn't you also say luckily no conference dip following the brexit acrimony?
I think labour are holding up where they are because of their brand and not because of Corbyn
And because, whatever you might think of the practicability or affordability of their solutions, they are the only party offering the younger generation a change in the balance of the economy.
If they are reliant on benefits net for their income they are unlikely to be Tory voters anyway, though I accept the teething problems need to be improved. Of course UC will also be of great benefit to those who work more than 16 hours a week and will no longer lose all their benefits doing so
Modern Conservatism: pull up the ladder, Jack, I’m OK
No, modern conservatism reversing the outrageous system left by Brown where if you try and get on and work more than 16 hours a week you will lose all your benefits
Two wrongs don’t make one right.
It is not a wrong, the goal of UC is the right one, it is just the teething problems need sorting out and much of that is due to lack of enough support and drive from the Treasury for the reforms not the reforms themselves
But how often do policies actually have the wrong goal?
Almost all political disagreement is about means, not ends.
Sadly no conference bounce for Mrs M, at least with Opinium. Tories static at 39%, but Labour up 3, also to 39%, LDs down 2 to 7%.
Couldn't you also say luckily no conference dip following the brexit acrimony?
I think labour are holding up where they are because of their brand and not because of Corbyn
And because, whatever you might think of the practicability or affordability of their solutions, they are the only party offering the younger generation a change in the balance of the economy.
Plus, the young are generally educated to a higher level, and there is a general trend of the educated voting left:
And I speak as someone who thinks Roe v Wade is an abomination.
You think it is an abomination that a woman has a right to safe medical treatment?
It's a view, I suppose ...
I think it's an abomination that the courts made the decision rather than the legislature.
Fair enough. It will definitely be an abomination if the court reverses it.
Have to agree with rcs1000 here. I am completely pro choice. But Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. The legal reality in the US is that the constitution has no bearing on this subject. Under the US Constitution powers remain with the states unless they are specifically granted to the Federal government - although it is a great pity that the USSC have failed to enforce this. However, the power to make laws in regards to abortion remains with the States.
It is not an exercise of a ‘right’ when an unelected judiciary decide that voters cannot instruct their representatives on a subject of this nature. That is less freedom, not more. It is a big mistake to commend judicial activism when you happen to agree with the outcome. 🎁 If Kavanaugh overturns Roe v Wade because it is bad law, he will justify his position. If he does so for religious or social reasons, he should not be on the bench at all.
That is exactly the view of Clarence Thomas, the last SC Justice to be appointed whilst facing allegations of sexual misconduct. His view is that the US Constitution is silent on abortion, as one might expect from a document from the 18th century and that there is therefore no basis for any of the Court’s jurisprudence on it, including Roe-v- Wade.
I think from a jurisprudential point of view that is almost unarguable but it shows one of the many flaws of the American system. If you rely on textual purists you stop the Constitution from growing to meet modern needs; at the same time you impose god like powers on the drafters of the Constitution which are not merited and you put undemocratic barriers in the way to changes in the law.
Taking a more simple view, US way of life has become far too liberal, hence nearly 100% of people are on drugs, nearly 100% of under thirties have venereal disease. It needs conservatism to turn the country around.
What is true is I get a wall of abuse, not once reasoned arguments I put proved wrong.
This one is straightforward, US and British society has become too liberal and permissive. Even where we have Conservatives elected, they have been too liberal.
You chose not to engage with this argument because all the stats are against you, in terms of crime, broken lives. When you put the number of illegal and prescribed drug users together, what is the percentage of population? Ditto number of children out of wedlock. Ditto number of under thirties with VD. High %s and rising. My argument is completely supported by statistical evidence.
Simple Example. What do you credit the knife crime in London, blame Khan as mayor, or it’s not enough stop and search, not enough bobbies on the beat? If you pan back to the broader picture as I suggest, drugs, children out of wedlock and stable families, liberal education and liberal law enforcement systems, you are seriously saying so much permissive liberalism is not at play into everything gone wrong in society today?
You need to be careful about simply dismissing people and their opinions as a joke, further down thread we have Nazis taking control of Germany, and Bolsheviks finding even easier to seize Russia. You need to treat people respectfully, and for the sake of influence of your own point of view, engage with it.
What is true is I get a wall of abuse, not once reasoned arguments I put proved wrong.
This one is straightforward, US and British society has become too liberal and permissive. Even where we have Conservatives elected, they have been too liberal.
You chose not to engage with this argument because all the stats are against you, in terms of crime, broken lives. When you put the number of illegal and prescribed drug users together, what is the percentage of population? Ditto number of children out of wedlock. Ditto number of under thirties with VD. High %s and rising. My argument is completely supported by statistical evidence.
Simple Example. What do you credit the knife crime in London, blame Khan as mayor, or it’s not enough stop and search, not enough bobbies on the beat? If you pan back to the broader picture as I suggest, drugs, children out of wedlock and stable families, liberal education and liberal law enforcement systems, you are seriously saying so much permissive liberalism is not at play into everything gone wrong in society today?
You need to be careful about simply dismissing people and their opinions as a joke, further down thread we have Nazis taking control of Germany, and Bolsheviks finding even easier to seize Russia. You need to treat people respectfully, and for the sake of influence of your own point of view, engage with it.
When you make a claim, you may be challenged on it and asked to prove it.
When you make reasoned arguments, people may agree with you. Or they may engage with you.
When you are interested in doing the second, let us know.
Comments
This does not seem unreasonable to me, and far saner than the alternative approach of the more than 3,000 pages of the
EU constitutionLisbon Treaty placing everything from Aardvarks to Zebras under constitutional law.It’s much too hard to change the US Constitution. It defies the democratic will of the majority in too many ways. The preponderance of Senators from small rural states, the slightly absurd Electoral College, the Constitution is not a hallowed document, it is not even fit for purpose.
We do still need to borrow to fund our spending.
Of course that problem will get even worse if Labour gets in.
Spend spend spend baby
But, yes it was a moronic statement :-)
The Conservative Justices united to flatly and plainly disregard a simply and specifically worded part of the constitution as the saught to strike down a law specifically permitted by the Constitution that they did not like. They don't even hide it in their decision. They just ignore the constitution.
Your touchingly naive faith that the newly composed court will see less of that kind of thing is quaint.
My pre-race ramble's up here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/10/japan-pre-race-2018.html
Includes a proper tip and a long odds one for tiny stakes.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/06/snp-could-back-second-brexit-referendum-tied-to-independence-vote
This does not seem unreasonable to me, and far saner than the alternative approach of the more than 3,000 pages of the
EU constitutionLisbon Treaty placing everything from Aardvarks to Zebras under constitutional law.Are Aardvarks and Zebras under the same EU law?
https://twitter.com/edwardthardy/status/1048586173969575937?s=21
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1048592015603224576
More likely that Leaving would bring a second Scottish Indy Ref and a “For’ vote.
Rather than make their already pressurised parents have to re-apply and have to wait weeks.
Their severe disabilities means the facts will not have changed.
Surely the government could migrate them over to U C and ask them to confirm it is correct
These parents have enough stress without the government creating more , they need to show more compassion.
Andrew McDonald, who chaired Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, was diagnosed with Parkinson’s, a degenerative disorder of the central nervous system, in 2007. Three years later, he discovered he had prostate cancer and was subsequently told by doctors it was incurable. He is shortly to undergo brain surgery in attempts to mitigate some of the worst effects.
He retired in 2014 as the chief executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and qualified for PIP the following year, a decision which was reaffirmed at review in 2017. Each time, assessors awarded him 11 points, comfortably over the eight point threshold for lower-level PIP support, which amounted in his case to about £3,000 a year.
At his third review assessment in March, however, he was awarded two points – a decision which suggested his health was improving. “I was flabbergasted: I had two progressively degenerative conditions and my Parkinson’s had become worse since the turn of the year,” said McDonald. “It’s now described by my neurologist as ‘very severe’.”
the problem foir politicians claiming everything is serious is simply people tune out. Voters get tired of wolf crying and activists cant moderate theiur claims
They (members) shall in all cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section6
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause
https://www.ft.com/content/85e0e610-a07c-11e8-b196-da9d6c239ca8?list=intlhomepage
He will probably appeal, have months of waiting and stress, and then have to face a tribunal, at which he will win.
God alone knows how much the tax payer is forking out for these endless tribunals and constant reassessments of people who have degenerative diseases.
I am myself far too well acquainted with all this crap, due to family situation.
I really find it hard to understand .
I have two severely disabled grandchildren it breaks my heart.
I see how my daughter and son in law struggle.
My wife and I give all the help we can.
However they have to struggle with bureaucracy at ever turn.
Also the cuts in social services have had an effect on the help they receive.
Their special needs school is excellent but the cuts are effecting them.
My daughter now really struggles in the school holidays for care help and respite care.
The local children's hospice are brilliant .
To be fair when my daughter rings the current people who run the tax credit element for severely disabled children DWP they are really good.
However she is really worried about the up coming migration to UC and having to re -apply.
Really hope the government will migrate the information they already hold and ask her to confirm.
Surely this seems sensible.
I hope some one in influence reads this blog and feeds back , how they could change their implementation of their migration changes.
The Tory message of benefits scroungers is very powerful, reinforced continuously in the newspapers, and perhaps many will see this as a reasonable price to pay for being 'tough'.
So Warren is doubtless correct here, if deliberately misleading.
As for the other bit, depends on what it is.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1048597985251266562
Whether leaving the EU makes independence more likely depends on the type of Brexit, polling shows most Scots favour a Norway style Brexit or a Canada deal style Brexit, what they do not want is No Deal Brexit which may well increase the chances of them voting for independence. It is No Deal Brexit which makes a second EU referendum most likely.
However polling also shows voters across the UK do not support a No Deal Brexit either so Scotland is no different to England in that respect
I would also add I believe remainers hope that Starmer will delay or stop Brexit
. Why would Scotland want to join the EU if the rest of the Uk was not in the EU?
NEW THREAD
Almost all political disagreement is about means, not ends.
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-left-stopped-being-party-of-working.html
This one is straightforward, US and British society has become too liberal and permissive. Even where we have Conservatives elected, they have been too liberal.
You chose not to engage with this argument because all the stats are against you, in terms of crime, broken lives. When you put the number of illegal and prescribed drug users together, what is the percentage of population? Ditto number of children out of wedlock. Ditto number of under thirties with VD. High %s and rising. My argument is completely supported by statistical evidence.
Simple Example. What do you credit the knife crime in London, blame Khan as mayor, or it’s not enough stop and search, not enough bobbies on the beat? If you pan back to the broader picture as I suggest, drugs, children out of wedlock and stable families, liberal education and liberal law enforcement systems, you are seriously saying so much permissive liberalism is not at play into everything gone wrong in society today?
You need to be careful about simply dismissing people and their opinions as a joke, further down thread we have Nazis taking control of Germany, and Bolsheviks finding even easier to seize Russia. You need to treat people respectfully, and for the sake of influence of your own point of view, engage with it.
When you make reasoned arguments, people may agree with you. Or they may engage with you.
When you are interested in doing the second, let us know.