Universial Credit

Did you see Heidi Allen - "It shows the government is prepared to listen."

Esther McVey

Announcing the DWP would not appeal on Friday, Ms McVey said: “Supporting people with mental health conditions is a top priority for this Government. We are committed to ensuring our welfare system is a strong safety net for those who need it.

“That is why we spend over £50bn a year supporting people with disabilities and health conditions – more than ever before. Disabled people and people with health conditions, including mental health conditions, deserve the very best support.”

They say it with such straight faces, I am surprised nobody has slapped them.

Saving money by discriminating against people with a mental illness.........You're right about them not walking the walk GG

They will also tell us that they are giving extra money to the DWP, even though they took it away in the first place.
I wonder if it will be backdated.

It's all been so wicked but they will decide they can convince us they are good people after all.

It took a high court ruling for them to make that u-turn, though.

Hope Laura Pidcock gets lots of evidence about PIP assessments.

Not UC but we have had the same results from those who simply do not care about people. Tory government will reconsider 1.6MILLION people's disability benefits after offering higher payments in huge U-turn

Great news as, although the Tories talk the talk on mental health issues they certainly did not walk the walk when it came to PIP.

kittysjones.wordpress.com/2018/01/28/call-for-evidence-laura-pidcock-secures-debate-on-pip-and-wants-to-hear-about-peoples-experiences/

For anyone who has had problems with PIP assessments, your information would be welcomed for this debate next Wednesday. If you know anyone who has had problems, pass this on, please.

Obviously there's still a long way to go in reducing poverty till everyone, or as near to everyone as it's feasible to get (nothing's perfect), has a decent standard of living. That, to me, is the goal, and giving everyone equal opportunities as far as possible to improve their lot. I think there will always be inequality of outcome.

not to say there aren't...

Good posts, primrose, but I don't think the capitalism we have now is only working for those at the top. Global poverty is being reduced as we speak so something, and I think it is global capitalism, is working for everyone.

That's not to say there are vast inequalities still but I'm not sure that it is the inequalities that are important here. What's important is that globally poverty is being reduced and has been being reduced for the last several decades. The argument is that making the rich poorer does not make the poor richer whereas increasing global wealth overall does make the poor richer.

The difference for an individual or a family between having a source of clean water, for example, and not having a source of clean water is massive. The difference for an individual between having fifty posh cars and having a hundred posh cars (or houses or yachts or whatever) is tiny by comparison.

"It is very difficult to compare income or consumption levels over long periods of time because the available goods and services tend to change significantly, to the extent where even completely new goods and services emerge. This point is so significant that it would not be incorrect to claim that every person in the world was extremely poor in the 19th century. Nathan Rothschild was surely the richest man in the world when he died in 1836. But the cause of his death was an infection—a condition that can now be treated with antibiotics sold for less than a couple of cents. Today, only the very poorest people in the world would die in the way that the richest man of the 19th century died. This example is a good indicator of how difficult it is to judge and compare levels of prosperity and poverty, especially for the distant past."

The authors agree with me.

It's strange how you dismiss academic studies for Oxfam when they don't fit in with your agenda.

It went off the point from the start of the thread.
You took it off the point I made by your criticism of the CEO of Oxfam.
What do you think a reasonable amount of pay should be?

I am not missing the point of the chart. I just do not see the point of the chart.
730 million in poverty in 2015 don't matter, don't they?
I think that in 1820 the majority of those in poverty wouldn't know about most of the rest because of lack of communications.
Which shows how stupid it is to compare poverty in 1820 with that in 2015.

I think you are missing the point of the chart Jen.
If you look at the rate of decrease, there has been massive reduction since the 1980s.
It's funny how you dismiss academic studies and organisations like the World Bank when they don't fit the solution you've already formed.
Surely a sustainable solution to global poverty has to be the ultimate goal. You just seem to want to punish those people you think are wealthy and are looking for validation of that.
But this has really strayed from the OP now, so I'm signing off.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/elderly-pensioners-isolation-malnourished-uk-mp-warning-withering-in-homes-a8171901.html

I suppose these pensioners should be grateful that they are living in these conditions in 2018, and not in 1820.

We might not have the problem depending on where we live.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/life-expectancy-uk-plumments-ons-data-hartlepool-torridge-amber-valley-barnsley-a8164171.html

What a silly chart,comparing population in 1820 with that in 2015.
The curve looks good seen from a distance.
So 90% of the world's population in 1820 were in poverty, and only 10% in 2015.

That means that 100 million were in poverty in 1820, and 730 million in 2015, according to that chart.
Is that supposed to make them feel any better?

Jen, there's no 'what about' anything at all in my post.

Oxfam are a highly political charity who believe they are qualified to tell world governments how to run their economies.

'At the moment we have an extreme form of capitalism that only works for those at the top. That is why we are calling for governments to manage our economies so that they work for everyone and not just the fortunate few'
(Oxfam twitter - 2 days ago)

They are not interested in the facts - poverty has been massively reduced - they seem to have a political agenda. Since when has it been OK for a charity to promote political ideologies?

They've turned poverty into a business and pay their executives accordingly in my opinion. Their accounts state that they paid executives
"pension allowance, accommodation and education benefits and payments for additional tax in countries with high tax rates"

They certainly have a view as to how things should 'work at the top'

Whataboutery of the first class.

Billionaires can end extreme poverty if they want to.
They don't. They'd rather hang onto their money.
What do they need it all for?

Annie, can you grow up, please, and take poverty seriously.

Trouble is Jen, the average worker in the UK is part of the global elite 1%. An income of £22,700 will put you there.
Plenty of people with homes will be there too - £550,000 of assets, which is the combined value of absolutely everything you own - from your house to your toothbrush.
So a rise in pensions for someone living in their own home in the South East is more wealth going to the global 1%, according to Oxfam's stats.

I have to agree MaizieD Sun 17-Dec-17 19:47:48 - what is the problem?

I can see the issue with the fact that people, in the run up to Christmas, were having to wait far too long to have their claims processed. I can also see the issue with the fact that this benefit was supposed to be 'fit' for today's working conditions and it very obviously isn't but I really cannot see what the problem is here.

Is it: Family saves carefully to have a really good Christmas. Surely that is their choice?

I think this is just another one of "those" threads. Perhaps we need a new "spiteful" category rather than see a thread which tries to find someone or a group the OP can feel superior to and throw in a rather weird comment about Corbyn and then calling it political.

Admittedly it is a chance to feel good by castigating twice. You can admonish the family for their perceived 'less than the OP' standards and lambast Corbyn at the same time. I guarantee this is not the last OP that will follow this formula.

We really should be used to it by now and not let it distract us into condemning people whose circumstances we only know about from the bias of TV programme wanting ratings.

This is just a bit more of the standard virtue waving (it is intrinsic in the OP that the writer would never behave like this ) and an attempt at Corbyn bashing. What's new?

While the richest have grown richer the poorest have also grown richer. The proportion of world population living in extreme poverty has fallen dramatically and still is falling. That is good news and I interpret it as "we are doing something right."

Oxfam pays its top dog an obscene salary while complaining about other rich people.

Soon be sorted , your hero wants a world government,

Not just about universal credit, but from the Oxfam report out this week.

"The wealth of billionaires had risen by 13% a year on average in the decade from 2006 to 2015, with the increase of $762bn (the equivalent of £550bn) in 2017 – enough to end extreme poverty seven times over. "

The only word I can find for it is obscene.

oxfamapps.org/davos/sign-up/?cid=scm_twitter&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

"Last year saw the biggest increase in billionaires in history, one more every two days. This huge increase could have ended global extreme poverty seven times over. 82% of all wealth created in the last year went to the top 1%, and nothing went to the bottom 50%.

Dangerous, poorly paid work for the many is supporting extreme wealth for the few. Women are in the worst work, and almost all the super-rich are men. Governments must create a more equal society by prioritizing ordinary workers and small-scale food producers instead of the rich and powerful."

Sick, Annie.

Shame on the female who used this mans death to praise Corbyn.

How long had this man been homeless, had he refused a home as many do because he missed his street companions, does he have family,

RIP Christopher