The Budget - will it make any difference ?

growstuff

Ah, but Dickens there are those even on GN who think such people such pull themselves up by the bootstraps. It's their own fault they feel as they do, doncha know! Maybe their forebears from 100 years ago didn't instil the right spirit.

Absolutely correct growstuff. The people you describe are the engine of our 40-year move towards what they like to call "small government".

They come from the opinion that only the rich are superior enough to have money. Those with an income they can live on and some savings must have got these on the basis of their superior breeding otherwise, they would be as inferior as those who could not/did not/ or on whom tragedy struck. They see themselves as superior enough to tell the poor and dispossessed how and why they failed and why they should have been more like them.

The only thing that is really small about this government and its voters are the consciences of each one of them.

The electorate were bribed by the Brexit promises No they weren't. A bare half of the electorate voted for Brexit, the other slightly less than half voted to stay in the EU, and then there is the portion of the electorate who didn't vote at all.

There had always been a substantial minority in this country opposed to the EU from the time of our entry in 1973 and this figure grew, which is why there was a successful lobbying of Cameron to ask for a referendum. Some people may have been swayed by the promises, but the core Brexit vote were there before the promises were made.

I am and have always been a Remainer, but I think the supercilious view of those who voted for Brexit as stupid people swayed by ludicrous promises, does not do them the justice of having views, that may disagree with remainers but are just as firmly held and thought through, and not grounded in greed and bribery.

I might add DD was undecided how to vote in the referendum. It was the ludicrous promises made by the Brexit camp that finally decided her to vote - Remain!

The only friend of mine who voted for leave. because she believed the EU to be too beaurocratic, now bitterly regrets it.

She can see that there has been a huge explosion of beaurocray because of brexit.

She is not very political but was persuaded to vote leave by her bridge partners who were avid readers of the Telegraph and the Daily Mail.

DaisyAnne

growstuff

Ah, but Dickens there are those even on GN who think such people such pull themselves up by the bootstraps. It's their own fault they feel as they do, doncha know! Maybe their forebears from 100 years ago didn't instil the right spirit.

Absolutely correct growstuff. The people you describe are the engine of our 40-year move towards what they like to call "small government".

They come from the opinion that only the rich are superior enough to have money. Those with an income they can live on and some savings must have got these on the basis of their superior breeding otherwise, they would be as inferior as those who could not/did not/ or on whom tragedy struck. They see themselves as superior enough to tell the poor and dispossessed how and why they failed and why they should have been more like them.

The only thing that is really small about this government and its voters are the consciences of each one of them.

Ooh! You do love stereotypes, don't you?

I'm concerned about self-awareness bypass.

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202203/medium-208549-britons-view-of-importance-of-eu-2006--2016.jpg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202203/medium-546953-public-interest-in-the-eu.jpg

There had always been a substantial minority in this country opposed to the EU from the time of our entry in 1973 and this figure grew, which is why there was a successful lobbying of Cameron to ask for a referendum. Some people may have been swayed by the promises, but the core Brexit vote were there before the promises were made

I would strongly disagree with your analysis, MOnica. Polling for the decade prior to the referendum shows that around 10%, or fewer, thought that the EU was 'important'. Before that, there was an increase in people thinking the EU was 'important' to Britain around the time of the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty, though we have no way of knowing whether they thought the EU was a Good Thing or a Bad Thing.

I don't think that a fairly consistent 10% over 10 years tells us that anti EU feeling was 'growing.

If you can show me polling that says differently I'll be more inclined to go along with you.

Cameron called the referendum because he was worried about UKIP taking tory voters. It was party, not country, that he was worried about.

A bare half of the electorate voted for Brexit, the other slightly less than half voted to stay in the EU, and then there is the portion of the electorate who didn't vote at all.

Slightly odd reckoning there. About 37% (nowhere near half the electorate) voted out, 35% voted remain and 26% didn't vote.

*M0nica^ Those that voted for Brexit did so because to a lesser or greater degree they believed the lies. All the vox pops and the various talk programmes on the radio and political programmes on tv during the period between the referendum and leaving the EU support this. Obviously I am referring to Brexit voters in this respect.

My point was, not so much an attack on those who voted Brexit, rather than a comment that the govt assumed that because they got away with it once, they could do so again.

Polling now suggests that they won't. At least not for the moment. Voters are fickle and who knows what bribes the Tories will come up with between now and the next GE,

I’m quite fed up of being told that we mustn’t criticise the leave voters and that they had thought through the implications of a leave vote and so they are just as entitled to their view as us.

The remainers knew what was going to happen if we left; we told the leavers again and again, and they said it was Project Fear. And now all the things that we said would happen, are actually happening. So if we knew the implications, and the leavers didn’t work it out for themselves, what does that say about them?

Either they were incapable of understanding what a leave vote meant for the country, or they didn’t care. Neither option is particularly admirable. So I can’t say I’m particularly optimistic about the way the vote will go at the next GE.

I don’t really think most of the electorate are that interested in politics, or in Brexit. They will vote according to their personal financial status and their perception of which party they can trust to ‘look after’ their interests. If there was an election today Boris would lose his seat and we’d have a hung parliament. Maybe that’s what we need at the moment, a coalition, putting the country first.

I'm fed up of it too and I have started to feel less tolerant of these people that voted to leave who don't even live in the UK. There is a whatthefuckery about it all

I am sick of being made to feel obliged to be understanding of those who voted to leave the EU. Having been at the receiving end on GN of "you lost, get over it" and ",suck it up" and unbelievably reading posts saying that they would vote the same way again in a heartbeat, despite all the expert opinion....nope. I don't forgive you, still don't understand why, given the information readily available you still cannot see what a mess, what a complete disaster you have foisted on the rest of us.

If any Leave voters can explain this graph, without accepting it is Brexit driven, I think they would have something to shout about. I do not want the "small economy" that the New Right has been working towards for 40 years. I did not vote for it. I imagine some who did vote Conservative did not know this was what they were voting for as the Tory PR is Putinesk. I think this government should be honest and say just what their prejudices will mean to the rest of us instead of constant lying.

(Advanced economies are countries like ours).

Back to the budget:

There is a growing and numbing realisation of just how bad Sunak's budget really was. Worse, he’s even now saying that there is nothing he can do about poverty.
...
These were, then, the three realities that Sunak had to face. They are that neoliberal globalisation is dead; that exploitative capitalism is driving inflation, and that the result is that many millions face crushing poverty. He failed to spot any of those realities.

These quotes are from a long article by Richard Murphy entitled economic and political consequences of Rishi Sunak’s failure. It makes very interesting reading.

GillT57

I have heard similar reports JaneJudge, the steps, lack of easy access, no parking etc. The cynical in me concludes that if you are able to actually get to the interview/assessment, then you lose points simply by getting there. A point; isn't there a legal requirement for all public buildings to have fair access for all? How are the DWP able then to hold assessments in buildings which are not legally accessible?

Nothing cynical about it - that’s exactly what it’s designed for. If you are called in to one of the assessment centres, you will be questioned about how you got there, how long it took, etc. You are also monitored from the moment you enter the premises - how you handle steps, walk, sit and your general demeanour is all up for grabs as part of the assessor’s ‘informal observations’ - claimants are pretty much unaware of this until the findings appear on the assessment report. You’re right about the legal requirement for fair access, but in practice it doesn’t work that way - I’m a wheelchair user and most of the high street shops here are inaccessible, either because of narrow doorways or entrance steps - the status quo is preserved because there is no political will to enforce regulations. I’ve had first hand experience of wheelchair users being called to assessments on upper floors of buildings with no lifts and there are rarely, if ever, suitable toilet facilities.

Dickens

Doodledog

That’s disgraceful - your poor friend! I don’t know how people can carry out assessments like that and then sleep at night.

It is widely reported that claimants with mental health problems who have talked about suicide are routinely asked why they have not yet killed themselves. And some who have attempted it in the past, are asked why they 'failed'.

Of course one could argue that the assessors are simply trying to assess whether or not you genuinely are suicidal, or simply saying it to gain sympathy and points.

And these assessors are 'trained' people from a medical environment, I believe. But they are not necessarily experienced in the disabilities or illnesses of the conditions the claimants are dealing with. There was an instance that came to light where an assessor was making judgements on a highly complex case involving both physical disability and mental illness. The claimant failed (and won on appeal). The assessor's field of expertise? She had been a chiropodist.

Then there have been those who were seriously ill - some waiting for surgery - found fit for work who not long after died.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the whole system is designed to fail as many claimants as possible. And I would like to know how much this actually saves. So many claimants appeal the decision which is then reversed... it must cost more than it saves.

No one with mental health problems should be asked why they haven't successfully done away with themselves. Anyone who understands mental health will more than likely know when someone is embellishing their condition without asking such an intrusive quesion.

The PIP system was introduced to replace DLA, because the perception (or downright lie perpetrated by the coalition government, with the help of the media, depending on your point of view) was that DLA was too easy to claim and open to fraud, and was therefore costing the country far more than was warranted.

As you rightly point out, the system is designed to fail as many as possible, but the safety net is the appeal system and many people are successfully challenging decisions at tribunal. So much so, that the expense incurred has wiped out any savings the government could have hoped to make as a result of changing from DLA to PIP. It’s all so unnecessary and a fair and decent system of assessment would provide much better value for the tax payer. But the ideology doesn’t support that approach because the ultimate goal is to narrow the eligibility criteria so much that eventually almost no-one will qualify.

We’re already on the road to this - a consultation has just closed and the resulting green paper will undoubtedly outline more creative cuts to disability benefits, dressed up as ‘targeted support’. One alarming proposal is to merge PIP with Universal Credit. If the plans go ahead, PIP, currently a universal, un means-tested benefit designed to help with expenses incurred because of disability, will be effectively subject to the same means testing as Universal Credit and many thousands of disabled people who don’t qualify for UC will lose PIP support.

Your example of a chiropodist assessing complex mental health problems is typical of this dysfunctional system. My own assessment involved a recently qualified paramedic assessing a complex neurological birth defect - she asked me how long I had had the disability and despite knowing I was confined to a wheelchair, at one point she asked me to stand and show her how many steps I could take !! A friend had a run in with a physiotherapist who repeatedly asked him to wiggle the toes on what he had been told several times was an artificial foot !! I’d advise anyone undergoing these assessments to request a copy of the assessors’ report, because mine was an eye opener, especially the detailed physical ‘findings’ which included to what degree I could bend my knees, power of my grip and a myriad other things minutely detailed despite the fact that the assessor had never laid a finger on me, nor asked me to demonstrate any of the things detailed. I could go on and on, but I fear I’m derailing the thread - sorry.

Pammie1, this is all dreadful, so dreadful that perhaps we should start a new thread so that those who are unaware of this, or who need help to navigate the system, can learn?

Maizie yes I wrote it wrong, it should be that barely half of the electorate that voted, voted for brexit. Those who do not vote cannot be allocated to any group, since nobody knows how they felt about the EU.

Dickens I totally corroborate what you have said about PIP assesments. It was no better for Disability Benefits before PIP was introduced..

I have a friend who was senior lawyer in the Benefits Appeal System and she was totally disgusted by the assessment system before PIP - and with PIP it got much worse. She told me of appellants having to walk up stairs and along corridors to the appeal location and she said you could hear their coughing and heavy breathing from the time they reached the building. They would reach the Appeal office in a state of collapse and gasping for breath and it would be 10 minutes or more before they had recovered enough fore the appeal to even begin - yet the client's assessment would state that this person had no respiratory problems.

In the transfer from DL to PIP I visited a client with MS. She had had it for years and been on full benefit, but the day she was called in for a PIP assessment she was told that all answers had to deal with how she was on the the day of assessment. Unfortunately, it was a 'good' day. MS is a disease where people have good and bad days. As the result of the assessment all her benefits were immediately stopped, causing her and her daughter real problems because she could not pay fuel bills, rent, Council tax. Thankfully we approached her MP and he got the whole problem dealt with in a matter of days. But this should not be necessary.

I used to accompany clients to appeals. I had a client who had a heart pace maker and severe arthritis. Even his GP would not believe his tale of frequent falls. We got the Appeal Hearing, the doctor on the panel just said to my client. 'Although you have a heart pacemaker, your heart does still miss a beat every so often, my client agreed, the doctor then went on to say 'With your arthritis, if that happens when you are standing up, you lose your balance and fall over. My client agreed. The appeal was granted and he got his disability award. We were in and out of the Appeal in minutes.

At one point the government tried to stop the appeal system because so many who went to appeal got the refusal overturned. The Appeal panels themselves caused an uproar and this measure was never put through.

It would be so much cheaper if the govt just accepted the individual's medical records as evidence rather than fork out for unknowledgeable staff and expensive tribunals.

You are missing the point Dinah

The agenda of this government is "hostile environment" - not just for hapless refugees but also for anyone who has the temerity to use their disability as a reason for trying to claim benefits.

They have to be treated harshly "pour encourager les autres"

Exactly varian. I have personal knowledge of some who have died within weeks of being refused a benefit claim without even chance to appeal.
The system is designed to deter.

Reported from Treasury select committee. Angela Eagle to Sunak you made the political choice to put 1.3 million people including half a million children into absolute poverty
Sunak I’m comfortable with the choices I have made
Says it all.