What?
Question Time & This Week
- Thread starter Liam147
- Start date
Na, mate. The average subsidy for each factory job is £25,000 a year, as confirmed by Maria Millar herself. That's the top end cost as confirmed by the government. However, these factories actually make money as well. It will be much lower.
“Despite significant investment in those businesses, the cost of each employment place remains some £25,000 per year [at Remploy], compared with an average Access to Work award of just under £3,000.”
Maria Miller MP, House of Commons, 7 March 2012
Maria Miller MP, House of Commons, 7 March 2012
I am not doing so, but then neither am i defending a status quo nor Labour's record whilst in office.
I also struggle with the blind faith some people on here have in Labour, a party it would seem beset with as much hypocrisy as the Tories albeit in different form.
I have encountered visually impaired people who either volunteer or have paid work within the NHS, alongside people with no disabilities to speak of. This is the sort of fulfilling and diverse environment we should be offering. Barring that consider the era we are in, the coalition is to promote teleworking
Furthermore the Disability Discrimination Act should be a tool with real consequences, not a piece of paper for politicians to wave around.
It all boils down the the ambition one has for the many thousands of disabled people in this country who could be more active.
Yes. But, looking after and supporting the disabled costs more money than the average able bodied person. It's an undeniable fact. Something the Tories struggle with is looking at things from a human perspective, how the policies actually affect the individual; all they see is cost and savings.
Furthermore, the proper cuts to the disabled haven't even kicked in yet mate. Wait to see the shit storm come mid next year when PIP takes over from DLA. Basics like cars, travel allowance, etc, which allows those worst off with a gateway to integrate with society will be taken away. Over a quarter of a million of those people having their Motability car allowance ripped away.
Now how does cutting important payments such as that deal with helping the ambition one has for the many thousands of disabled people in this country who could be more active.
Being too skint to do things like have a day out in the park, a trip to the leisure centre, or even basics like shopping, will not help them integrate with society. It will make them recluses, increasing despression, helplessness. It's ridiculous logic.
You know for a face that London's disable will lose their freedom pass? Their blue badges?
Has not the DLA risen during the coalition's tenure?
Has not the DLA risen during the coalition's tenure?
You know there's a massive world that exists outside your London bubble right? That's an unbelievable comment
Hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people live in the shires with little or no support from anyone. That extra money gave them the ability to go into town and do their necessities. MORE IMPORTANTLY FOR SOME TO TRAVEL TO WORK.
And no, DLA will be replaced by PIP with the aim of saving around 20%. That means no matter how many people are actually deserving of the benefit, which could raise year on year, the actual money rationed to them will be set to an arbitary bar. Do some research.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Briefing PIP RCPsych 17 Feb 2012.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/pa...efit-cuts-will-damage-motability-car-undustry
One part from that note from that Royal College of Psychiatrists briefing sums up my feelings
1. The objective of a 20% saving in the DLA budget. The purpose of DLA and PIP is to provide a payment for the additional costs that a person faces from their disability. The eligibility for PIP should be based on a person’s needs not on the need to cut welfare budgets. The integrity of an objective assessment is compromised if decisions are thought to be influenced by a savings target. Rather than creating a transparent and consistent system, claimants might believe their case has been assessed against available budget, rather than the decision being based on the support they need for independent living.
1. The objective of a 20% saving in the DLA budget. The purpose of DLA and PIP is to provide a payment for the additional costs that a person faces from their disability. The eligibility for PIP should be based on a person’s needs not on the need to cut welfare budgets. The integrity of an objective assessment is compromised if decisions are thought to be influenced by a savings target. Rather than creating a transparent and consistent system, claimants might believe their case has been assessed against available budget, rather than the decision being based on the support they need for independent living.
Of course there is a world outside of London although it is i imagine the largest demand of transport subsidies for the disabled [free buses, tubes, overground, river travel e.t.c.].You know there's a world exists outside your London bubble right? That's an unbelievable comment
And no, DLA will be replaced by PIP with the aim of saving around 20%. That means no matter how many people are actually deserving of a benefit, which could raise, the actual money rationed to them will be set to an arbitary bar. Do some research.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Briefing PIP RCPsych 17 Feb 2012.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/pa...efit-cuts-will-damage-motability-car-undustry
*shrugs* My DLA has risen markedly and i am not expecting a cut in the near future. I must say however, that i did receive a rather daft offer through the post only the other day concerning assistance in purchasing a car, a waste IMO. It may not be means tested but the individual can do their part.
And why do you think this is? By any chance is it because the capital city has the best travel infrastructure in the country, with boundless investment, compared to say the northern cities?
That article you linked said it was loosing 68 million a year from the factories
So I just used, incorrectly obviously, 68m/1000.
25 Grand a year per person is still seems quite high as it should make money of the products
We could save money by scrapping the coastguard services too, it'll create a "sense of ambition" for those who can't swim very well.
This is the problem with your argument in this thread. The govt does nothing to achieve your point in bold.
In fact every time you hear Tories talking about flexible working and empowering employers, decreasing employment rights or making it easier to dismiss people with no reason given or right to independent adjudication. What that means in the usual Tory code is that the labour market gets less inclusive because there is no accountability for employers.
Will this policy eventually benefit some disabled people by forcing them off benefits and into work, probably yes?
It has also throw doubt into the futures of hundreds of thousands of disabled people and will financially punish some of our most disadvantaged. My guess is it will fail to produce any meaningful change in benefit culture.
So as not to get sidetracked from the topic at hand, the relevance of this to cuts in transport subsidies is...? Ami i to take from your answer here that an obvious target for cuts in the transport subsidy is being left untouched?
And do not local authorities have a responsibility in the provision of services?
Clearly the set aim of the workplace being more flexible and those detached from it having the confidence to enter into it, is a piss take opportunity.
Which if i was coming at this from a position of defending Tory policies might be fair enough, however with my intent being to question the adherence to Labour's status quo and their return to power as the answer, i am not so sure that it is.
If Remploy factories were but one minor part of a wider strategy that could be seen to be working, i might treat the story differently.
Put yourself in the shoes of someone who's middle class for a change.
I've been in the Question Time audience. A few weeks before the show you're asked to submit a question that may be put to the panel. Twenty mins before it actually starts the names of around six are shouted out, mine was one of them. Taken to one side you're told that when Dimbleby asks, you coherently as possible blurt out that question. You then shit yourself for the entire show, waiting for the moment. Dimbleby the bastard didn't even get round to mine. I'd recommend going though, tea, biscuits, the stench of middle class and in my opinion a masterclass by Dimbo in how to conduct a debate.
what was your question, MrMojo?
And who was on the panel if you can remember?
Billy Bragg, Andy Burnham, female journalist with blonde hair whose name I can't remember, Jane something. The other panelist I can't remember.
I asked something along the lines of, is advising the public to reduce credit card debt a good idea when what the economy needs is a good old splurge down the shops. I fired it off with little thought, neverl thinking it would be chosen. I consider myself as fairly composed, but let me tell you, when the call came my head suddenly got very warm.
it's a good and interesting question that probably would have got the same boring bullshit non-answers.
Probably, it was a pretty subdued panel, a bit too friendly.
They do a quick rehearsal before the show, using audience members as the panelists, the ignorance was amazing but in some ways it was as entertaining as the actual panel.
Speaking from experience, I don't know whether it's killing people, but it's an enormous waste of taxpayers money. They're fecking useless, aren't cost effective and are typical of the privatisation of public services. They don't provide the service the old system used to. Clueless.
And their workers have been given arbitrary targets for approvals/disqualifications. Hardly inspires confidence that they're seeking to help those who need it.
To be fair it did need changed. There were many people on DLA who shouldn't have been, and who those making decisions couldn't remove the benefit from, even when it was clear they shouldn't have been on it, but giving a private company a feckload of money in the hope that it sorts it all out doesn't seem to be a sensible way to do it.
I may shut up though, before I get myself in trouble
Redcafe quote of the year. Let the campaign begin....
People consistently fail to realise that a lot of the things government do are actually quite difficult compared to some of the simple things done in private industry like flogging stuff, making widgets etc.
As I say, I've seen it first-hand. The system has more flaws now than ever, isn't as time effective or as accurate. And probably costs as much, if not more than the public sector workers who used to do the work did anyway. I don't see the point.
wouldn't surprise me. The BBC gets accused of being very left wing and probably over-compensates.
Whenever I flicked over to the BBC during the US presidential elections it seemed that the guest was a right winger, I just got sick of it and turned on CNN.. at least they called states at a reasonable time
Whenever I flicked over to the BBC during the US presidential elections it seemed that the guest was a right winger, I just got sick of it and turned on CNN.. at least they called states at a reasonable time
The BBC's US election coverage was incredible. They'd even drudged up some British Republican's, which considering the Dems are two shades right of the Tories, essentially made them Neo-Nazi's by our standards.
But then "left wing media bias" is a catchphrase of the right in all countries now as an obfuscating technique whenever a terrible right wing policy gets attention. It's also a good way into bullying the media into being more sympathetic.
It's not even remotely true of course. Our "right-wing" newspapers consistently outsell the left & neutral ones and in the US the polling for the last election showed a clear bias to the right.
But then "left wing media bias" is a catchphrase of the right in all countries now as an obfuscating technique whenever a terrible right wing policy gets attention. It's also a good way into bullying the media into being more sympathetic.
It's not even remotely true of course. Our "right-wing" newspapers consistently outsell the left & neutral ones and in the US the polling for the last election showed a clear bias to the right.
That coverage from BBC was.....special. The assortment of legit retards they had on there, was in fairness, pretty commendable.
That description of QT guests is incredibly ridiculous. He probably thought it through more than the producers who are just looking for some mildly intelligent/entertaining celebs to add to the politicians.
Regarding some of those right wing journos. The BBC and QT are not chasing ratings, i think it would be fair to say that there are more shock jocks or commentators of that ilk with populist or some right leaning views.
As a counter-balance to this the audiences are more often that not Labour leaning to a degree than is proportionate.
I realised Blair was going to win his first election because of Question Time. The audience had stopped being angry and shouting at Tory speakers, instead they were sat back and laughing at them.
We need Jerry Springer style security at QT, except instead of standing between fighting guests they should be sent into the audience to give them a slap.
How proud of himself did that guy just look when he got out his "Rebekah Brooks' high hose" line? Must be insufferable in real life.
How proud of himself did that guy just look when he got out his "Rebekah Brooks' high hose" line? Must be insufferable in real life.
Charlotte Church an undeniable improvement on Deborah Meaden.
Trust Labour's Bryant to drag down a serious discussion on greenfield sites and housing.
Trust Labour's Bryant to drag down a serious discussion on greenfield sites and housing.
I thought Charlotte Church came across extremely well.
Was pleasantly surprised by Charlotte Church,thought she came across very well , and for me outshined the politicians on the Leveson question.Forgotton who the tory repesentive was, but he was just that, forgettable.
That bitter old woman to Church. Wow.
That old woman must have been planted there. She was hilarious.Church came across OK but clearly didn't have much to say aside from Leveson, but I imagine that was the only reason she was on, so that's fine.
The Tory wasn't great, Chris Bryant was very good. Labour should get him on the show all the time because he's articulate and not extreme. I liked Jenkins as well in the corner. Decent panel in general.